Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 12:10 pm
Still really can't wrap my head around why her crimes won't be treated like any other under age offender ie the principle of rehabilitation applies. Her life ended the moment she made an awful, awful decision at 15 (which is the sort of age you'd consider someone vulnerable to grooming).
Am listening to the BBC series on her and she's not exactly easy to sympathise with mind.
I'm glad that I've not kept up chapter and verse with this, because its both grim on one level and sad that a young girl got to where she now is in life. I'm guessing that she's not considered a young offender because some of the offences occurred when she was no longer a young offender. Right now her only "friends" tend to be a mixture of people very much involved in human rights issues and of supporters that tend to be radical in their views. This last group are largely self interested in their own political aims and aspirations for their religion. That might seem a bit of a far fetched statement but I came very close to employing one such individual a matter of weeks ago. Lets just say I was made aware of his views by others (not government/state related) and it became clear that he was very well known to the authorities for his views.
There's no self interest in this for me. She is a UK citizen and should be treated as such with the rights awarded to her and everyone of us by the state.
Taking away her rights is the thin end of the wedge. It can now be applied to any one of us. Look at the 30s and the rise of the nazis. Subverting the law to deny individuals their legal protections was a key plank in their dictatorship. Nazism didn't start with the concentration camps. That's where it ends!
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 1:36 pm
This one stinks and you can't dismiss it with the one piece of information you've been fed.
What was the direction of travel when the Canadian asset got involved?
I'm not dismissing it completely. But I'm not assigning any specific importance to it yet either.
There were lots of people making a few quid in the border region, assisting people across the border who wished to join ISIS. The Canadian asset was simply one of those. Therefore, when he became involved, the direction of travel was from Turkey to Syria.
Hmm. So he supplied their personal details to the Canadian embassy, who said nothing to the Turkish or UK authorities, just in case they wished to resettle there at a later date. Aye right.
Are Canada so desperate for people they are happy to take in known terrorist sympathisers?
Who knowns what amount of information is shared amongst intelligence agencies? IIRC, it is suggested that he may have photocopied their passports just prior to the border crossing. It's not even clear if he submitted these photos to the Canadian authorities before the crossing was made or, if he did, there would have been sufficient time for anyone to review and react. And that's even if any of the agencies would have wanted to intervene.
Any who knows whether Canada would have granted him residency. But many of those operating in that region were doing so, not because they were terrorist sympathisers, but because they were just trying to make a living however they could.
Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 12:10 pm
Still really can't wrap my head around why her crimes won't be treated like any other under age offender ie the principle of rehabilitation applies. Her life ended the moment she made an awful, awful decision at 15 (which is the sort of age you'd consider someone vulnerable to grooming).
Am listening to the BBC series on her and she's not exactly easy to sympathise with mind.
I'm glad that I've not kept up chapter and verse with this, because its both grim on one level and sad that a young girl got to where she now is in life. I'm guessing that she's not considered a young offender because some of the offences occurred when she was no longer a young offender. Right now her only "friends" tend to be a mixture of people very much involved in human rights issues and of supporters that tend to be radical in their views. This last group are largely self interested in their own political aims and aspirations for their religion. That might seem a bit of a far fetched statement but I came very close to employing one such individual a matter of weeks ago. Lets just say I was made aware of his views by others (not government/state related) and it became clear that he was very well known to the authorities for his views.
There's no self interest in this for me. She is a UK citizen and should be treated as such with the rights awarded to her and everyone of us by the state.
Taking away her rights is the thin end of the wedge. It can now be applied to any one of us. Look at the 30s and the rise of the nazis. Subverting the law to deny individuals their legal protections was a key plank in their dictatorship. Nazism didn't start with the concentration camps. That's where it ends!
At the end of the day she’s a British citizen and legally she should be afforded the same rights as any one of us, in much the same way that someone accused of murder in this country is afforded a trial by jury, as distasteful as some might find it.
The issue here is that this decision was taken by a distinctly non-impartial politician, Savid Javid, a man you wouldn’t leave in charge of a kettle, rather than by a judge, or panel of judges. As Maxy and Dunelm has already noted, this has set a precedent, and it’s not a good one. She’s now officially stateless; I always thought that it was illegal under international law to do this, because she holds no other passport, and now she’s stateless she can’t apply for a passport to any other nation. It’s Catch 22. I hear she has relatives in Canada - let’s see how they react if she approaches them.
Not fair as this lady could give the security services vital information. The Supreme Court will find in her favour and grant an end to her ordeal. She is more or less a well known face and could easily do the circuits of news channels and go in celeb tv to make a living like big brother. Far worse people I’d like to see booted out the uk like Tommy Robinson
Yanzi Gravy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:12 amThe Supreme Court will find in her favour and grant an end to her ordeal.
What legal basis are you asserting this on?
Many of the other high court cases where the judiciary are on the side of the common man, the law is cast aside for common sense. The just stop the oils cases for example is a classic example. Ok the protesters smash the glass which was like bull it proof and bespoke for the bank but the protesters go and bought the centre punch ( some people would not know the meaning these days) and knew how to use it to criminal damage the thick glass. The law judges saw this differently . The judges discharged the case. The McDonald’s two case similarly cost the m Donald’s Two nothing despite losing the trial but cost thre Hamburger giant as Michael Mansfield is a top exert lawyer. Michael fights of those without a voice.
Yanzi Gravy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:12 amThe Supreme Court will find in her favour and grant an end to her ordeal.
What legal basis are you asserting this on?
Many of the other high court cases where the judiciary are on the side of the common man, the law is cast aside for common sense. The just stop the oils cases for example is a classic example. Ok the protesters smash the glass which was like bull it proof and bespoke for the bank but the protesters go and bought the centre punch ( some people would not know the meaning these days) and knew how to use it to criminal damage the thick glass. The law judges saw this differently . The judges discharged the case. The McDonald’s two case similarly cost the m Donald’s Two nothing despite losing the trial but cost thre Hamburger giant as Michael Mansfield is a top exert lawyer. Michael fights of those without a voice.
You haven’t stated a legal basis, also…..
The ER protestors were found not guilty in a crown court jury trial not the Supreme Court
The McLibel case was a civil case ruled on in the high court not the Supreme Court and they ruled against the respondents
It’s a tuff#1 one but, on balance, I’m going to go with the unanimous court of appeal board of judges over your legal knowledge.
