Sam-AVFC Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 20 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: At the risk of sounding like a Daily Heil reader I'd leave her where she is until she rots personally, there was not a modicum of remorse about her when she was interviewed some time back in the camp she's being held in. I completely understand the strong feelings in this case, but the problem is due process doesn't really work if you pick and choose who to apply it to! It just means our courts will now deal with the case of a British citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Chindie said: 300 pages of redactions or a single blank page? Place yer bets. I'm not so sure. The committee was meant to be free to vote on their own leader. Yet Lewis has had the whip withdrawn, after decades in the Conservative party, for having the nerve to challenge Failing Grayling. I'm hoping he's angry enough to not pull any punches. At this point, I'm not sure it matters. the government lie, and nobody cares. The report could prove that Cummings was hand selected by Putin and that Boris is a useful idiot, and 40% of the country would probably still vote Tory. Edited July 16, 2020 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 54 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Let her face justice here then. Removing her citizenship because we don't like what she did is just absurd. Where does that end? I think it goes a bit beyond simply breaking a law, she’s 100% a risk to the safety of any person living in the UK potentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 35 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said: I completely understand the strong feelings in this case, but the problem is due process doesn't really work if you pick and choose who to apply it to! It just means our courts will now deal with the case of a British citizen. At what cost though? The legal proceedings alone will take up time and money, let alone the inevitable protection of her. Sorry but I feel she forfeited those rights when she decided that killing innocent people was a great thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 Just now, bannedfromHandV said: At what cost though? The legal proceedings alone will take up time and money, let alone the inevitable protection of her. Sorry but I feel she forfeited those rights when she decided that killing innocent people was a great thing. Money is money. The idea of human rights being scrapped is a far greater cost imo. Sorry, we're just not going to agree here. The whole point of the law is it is supposed to be applied equally. Terrorists get done on terrorism charges, murderers get charged for murder. It's a slippery slope from saying certain crimes don't deserve due process and people being locked up simply for being accused of particularly bad crimes, which incidentally already happens with terrorism charges. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted July 16, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 16, 2020 34 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Sorry but I feel she forfeited those rights when she decided that killing innocent people was a great thing. You may feel that, but the reality is that she didn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 Just now, NurembergVillan said: You may feel that, but the reality is that she didn't. Didn't what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 29 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said: Money is money. The idea of human rights being scrapped is a far greater cost imo. Sorry, we're just not going to agree here. The whole point of the law is it is supposed to be applied equally. Terrorists get done on terrorism charges, murderers get charged for murder. It's a slippery slope from saying certain crimes don't deserve due process and people being locked up simply for being accused of particularly bad crimes, which incidentally already happens with terrorism charges. When your cause is to eradicate a section of humanity I feel you should lose any human rights. But yes, I don't think we'll agree on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 16, 2020 Author Moderator Share Posted July 16, 2020 33 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: At what cost though? The legal proceedings alone will take up time and money, let alone the inevitable protection of her. Sorry but I feel she forfeited those rights when she decided that killing innocent people was a great thing. The cost thing - it's true, yet there's also a cost of leaving her abroad - whether in Bangladesh or Iraq or Syria or wherever. All these murderous bell ends need to be monitored and surveilled and so on. It's cheaper and easier to do it when you know where they are in the UK. And maybe the UK might be more capable of that than Bangladesh would be? Leading to us all being less unsafe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 16, 2020 Author Moderator Share Posted July 16, 2020 1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said: Didn't what? forfeit her human rights. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted July 16, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said: Money is money. The idea of human rights being scrapped is a far greater cost imo. Sorry, we're just not going to agree here. The whole point of the law is it is supposed to be applied equally. Terrorists get done on terrorism charges, murderers get charged for murder. It's a slippery slope from saying certain crimes don't deserve due process and people being locked up simply for being accused of particularly bad crimes, which incidentally already happens with terrorism charges. Correct me if I am barking up the wrong tree but does not treason fall into a more complex area of the law (I assume she could be charged with treason?) I am sure I read something along those lines years ago and if so is the treatment of the perpetrator handled different than the normal procedures of law? Edited July 16, 2020 by Follyfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted July 16, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 16, 2020 33 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Didn't what? Forfeit her human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 6 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: Correct me if I am barking up the wrong tree but does not treason fall into a more complex area of the law (I assume she could be charged with treason?) I am sure I read something along those lines years ago and if so is the treatment of the perpetrator handled different than the normal procedures of law? Possibly, but it still requires her to be tried under British law to follow any procedures we have. Like I mentioned, detention of citizens accused of terrorism charges is very different so it wouldn't surprise me if treason is similar. A quick Google does tell me the last person to be tried for treason in the UK was in 1946, so I would imagine it's a bit of a grey area until it runs through the courts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) The first case of convicted treason for nearly 100 years, will be a (then) 15 year old girl groomed by adults? I feel like the nation has collectively lost its minds when it comes to this case. If she was a white girl in the same situation, groomed to go to some extreme Christian collective, the 'Bring her home' campaign would be deafening. Edited July 16, 2020 by StefanAVFC 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted July 16, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 16, 2020 48 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: When your cause is to eradicate a section of humanity I feel you should lose any human rights. So if you join the army? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 16, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted July 16, 2020 What bad news it being covered up as the nation shits itself over a young woman again? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 48 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Forfeit her human rights. Ah okay, thought you meant she hadn’t decided it was okay to kill innocent folk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 33 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: So if you join the army? They are two different things in my opinion, perhaps others will share a different view. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 40 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: The first case of convicted treason for nearly 100 years, will be a (then) 15 year old girl groomed by adults? I feel like the nation has collectively lost its minds when it comes to this case. If she was a white girl in the same situation, groomed to go to some extreme Christian collective, the 'Bring her home' campaign would be deafening. People were arguing that the 12 yr old kid was conscious enough to know what he was doing in sending the offensive messages to Zaha over the weekend. Id say the majority of 15 year olds have a reasonable grasp on what they do, at least in this context anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted July 16, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 16, 2020 18 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: They are two different things in my opinion, perhaps others will share a different view. They are two very different things, but they're not different in the one way you'd mentioned as key - they're different in method and in principles and in thought and application, but their purpose is to remove enemies and protect a community - she'd argue she was doing the same. I don't think you can consider that; "when your cause is to eradicate a section of humanity I feel you should lose any human rights." without acknowledging that in reality you mean "When I don't agree with your cause to eradicate a section of humanity I feel you should lose any human rights." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts