(10-03-19, 07:34 PM)dazza link Wrote: :lol You're an idiot.
Go to agree with that, VNA would have preferred that instead of there being a British Empire another country had managed it. Maybe Germany, France, Portugal , Spain, Russia, or even the Arab muslims had continued up through Spain all the way to Britain.
You keep posting this: I have asked many times on this forum, who are the real terrorists?
You know the correct answer, you just won't admit it. We keep trying to help you come to terms with the fact that you are in denial about the true answer but you need some professional help.
Quote:No dignified self governing state should abandon responsibility for its own citizens in this way, trying to dump them on to poorer countries with failed security arrangements. Javid's behaviour is a recipe for refugee chaos and is moral cowardice of the worst sort.
Not my words, but the words of the former Director of Public Prosecutions
(10-03-19, 08:15 PM)mtread link Wrote: No dignified self governing state should abandon responsibility for its own citizens in this way, trying to dump them on to poorer countries with failed security arrangements. Javid's behaviour is a recipe for refugee chaos and is moral cowardice of the worst sort.
Not my words, but the words of the former Director of Public Prosecutions
So, without any of the playground stuff, explain to me (please) two things.
A home secretarys prime responsibility is to keep people here safe, is it not? Would not letting a jihadi bride waltz back into the country compromise that?
Secondly, when I posted my "xenophobic rant" ,about jodies murder, turns out (surprise surprise) the suspect was exactly who I thought it would be(racist that I am huh) A Croatian, somebody who has witnessed terrible things in his home country, and brought that with him here. And a young girl is dead. You are so against capital punishment in case an innocent man (albeit one who has been tried by a jury) gets put to death, but seem to have no such reservations about risking innocents here by allowing in anybody and everybody. Im not looking for anything, other than your justification and reasons. Just a straight answer dude, thats all
OK in simple terms with just a few facts
1. No it wouldn't. She would be likely to be prosecuted for joining a prescribed organisation, and even if not would be constantly monitored. It's the ones you don't know about who are the risk.
2. It's immaterial where the killer came from. He will be too young to have witnessed the Yugoslav wars, and anyway most of the atrocities were in Bosnia, against Muslims. Anyway there is no correlation between capital punishment and the right to life of victims. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Quote:A home secretarys prime responsibility is to keep people here safe, is it not? Would not letting a jihadi bride waltz back into the country compromise that?
I agree with mtread.
So a question for you Ogri. Who do you think is, or should be, legally responsible for people like Shamima Begum?
Quote:Herself. She turned her back on this country, so as far as I see it, she made herself stateless.
That's not answering the question Ogri.
I'll try again;
Who do you think is, or should be, legally responsible for people like Shamima Begum? Or if you like, what country should take responsibility for her.
Quote:Herself. She turned her back on this country, so as far as I see it, she made herself stateless.
That's not answering the question Ogri.
I'll try again;
Who do you think is, or should be, legally responsible for people like Shamima Begum? Or if you like, what country should take responsibility for her.
Ogri is correct - legally everyone is responsible for their own actions, but it's yet again a personal "interpretation" of the "legally responsible" wording which you love to peck at like a Budgie.
In your interpretation the responsibility in the case of the alleged child is Mr Javid........ FFS!! In the case of the Police it is not their legal responsibility to be allowed anything....
So why don't you try again with defining in simple terms your "interpretation" of "legally responsible" - then have the courtesy to allow others to express their "interpretation" without ripping answers to pieces with petty and/or useless responses without offering solutions.
Those are my principles...if you don't like them I have others.
No he isn't correct. Yes everyone is responsible for their own actions, but they're not responsible for their own citizenship, legally. How come you don't get it?
The baby was a separate person, and innocent of any actions. The UK owes a legal duty to protect its citizens abroad.
All those are facts of law. 'Interpret' that they are not if you like.
Quote:Ogri is correct - legally everyone is responsible for their own actions, but it's yet again a personal "interpretation" of the "legally responsible" wording which you love to peck at like a Budgie.
No he is not. Of which country, for example, and bearing in mind that in law it is not legal to make a person stateless, is Shamima Begum a citizen of?
There is in reality only one answer.
It's not a matter of whether you like it or not, it's a simple point of law.
Quote:A home secretarys prime responsibility is to keep people here safe, is it not? Would not letting a jihadi bride waltz back into the country compromise that?
I agree with mtread.
So a question for you Ogri. Who do you think is, or should be, legally responsible for people like Shamima Begum?
The Tower Of London! And i don't mean Hamlets.
More people are born because of alcohol than will ever die from it.
(10-03-19, 09:35 PM)mtread link Wrote: OK in simple terms with just a few facts
1. No it wouldn't. She would be likely to be prosecuted for joining a prescribed organisation, and even if not would be constantly monitored. It's the ones you don't know about who are the risk.
2. It's immaterial where the killer came from. He will be too young to have witnessed the Yugoslav wars, and anyway most of the atrocities were in Bosnia, against Muslims. Anyway there is no correlation between capital punishment and the right to life of victims. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Another one to add to the ever growing bill then, already 6,000 on the "watch" list, constantly being monitored, no doubt not working and being paid by the state for being a burden. Likely cost of these burdens with no useful contribution to make to society apart from bitterness and harm is likely to be hundreds of millions a year. The politics of a madhouse.
Quote: Another one to add to the ever growing bill then, already 6,000 on the "watch" list, constantly being monitored, no doubt not working and being paid by the state for being a burden. Likely cost of these burdens with no useful contribution to make to society apart from bitterness and harm is likely to be hundreds of millions a year. The politics of a madhouse.
Yes unfortunately true, but it helps keep us safe. Most of which are British born nationals, and many are on the extreme right. Terrorists are terrorists, whatever their motivation.
