Good.

The phrase "her right to appeal" irks me. She should have lost all of her rights the day she voluntarily and willingly left tbh.

It’s a great precedent to set...anyone with a dual nationality should have nothing to worry about unless you turn against our country..:shrug:

Me too,I still think she will get back here.Her family asked her to come home several times and she said no,so why does it matter so much now?

Cressida Dick was interviewed on ITV news earlier, it is not a crime currently to travel to Syria to take up arms, so all that would have happened is that she would have been met at the port, questioned and more than likely released and tons of money spent monitoring her for the rest of her life.

[ISIS bride Shamima Begum can lose
British citizenship 'because she is dual national' ]

https://news.sky.com/story/is-bride-...moved-11642230

I think so too, this probably wont stand up legally and she will get back

I don't think most people with dual nationality would have much to worry about

Under the 1981 British Nationality Act, a person can be deprived of their citizenship if the home secretary is satisfied that it would be "conducive to the public good" and they would not become stateless as a result.

it's been available to use since 1981 and I havent heard a case of it being misused yet, so no dangerous precedent is being set

That's what democracy is.

If the government was pandering to the minority, that'd be something else.

Cressida Dick will have anyone practising International law to ****ing give up.

She could be charged under the Counter Terrorism & Security Act, she could even be charged under the Treason Act if she has pledged pledged allegiance to Islamic State.

Cressida, don't give legal advice and I won't say how the police should proceed.

Can you please tell me why we should allow Terrorists to come and live a normal life in the country? they have attempted to kill us and this women has said the Manchester bombing was right just a few days back

Thank god. I think she's dangerous and should not be allowed back.

"Should have"

"You don't think"


Democracy is the government conforming to every whim of majority rule? I don't think it is. I mean, I know that it isn't and I sincerely hope that doesn't change any time soon.

She is apparently exploring the option of Dutch citizenship through her husband, so Nicky can welcome her

As I have never said that they should, and have in fact explicitly said otherwise, no. I have said that Britain's criminals are Britain's responsibility. I have literally never said anything about what sort of life or what the circumstances should be for them in the country. And frankly, I think I've pointed this out enough times now for me to declare it "no longer my problem" if people are too thick or blinkered to understand that I'm talking about taking responsibility for and dealing with our own citizens rather than making them someone else's problem, and not providing a cushy home for a terrorist sympathiser.

This was always going to be the outcome, TS. The whole story was used as a ploy to assure the British public that they're 'doing something about ISIS.'

No, and don't pretend you don't understand what I said.

The government is there to represent the views of the majority.

And not because a member of a proscribed terrorist group intended to return to the UK?

The only people doing anything about IS right now is the Kurds.

"We're doing something about ISIS!"

"What are you doing about ISIS?"

"Leaving them to their own devices in the Middle East far away from your children and granny!"

"Yaaaay! What else?"

"Oh. Nothing. B... but they're really far away yaaaay!"


But I can't really fault their logic because it seems to be working, the GBP are like "Yas problem solved". :facepalm:

As much as my gut reaction is to say **** her...I agree with this. A lot of the people (not on here necessarily but its being talked about everywhere..) who cry 'send them back' when, for example a immigrant rapes someone here...yet its not our problem when its a british criminal?

I am of the opinion that she should be let back, her child has done no wrong and is likely to be killed out there and that doesn't sit right with me. However, I don't mean let her back to live her life, I mean let her back, and she can live her life in prison, in solitary..so she cannot radicalise anyone else.

Though I guess thats wishful thinking, as the sentence would likely be like 10 years anyway, and she wouldn't be in solitary because 'human rights'. My ideal outcome..anyway.

I do think the issue of a soft sentence would come up and I do understand why people have an issue with that and are worried about it, but really I think that's an entirely separate discussion in itself as it applies in all sorts of scenarios (rape cases being a prime example, where some of the sentencing is absolutely abysmal even when there's a guilty verdict).

If it's a worry it's a broad-scale worry, not one that should be focussed on one specific case.

Oh yeah definitely agree the 'justice system' needs a total overhaul, many sentences are ridiculous.

This.

She joined a terrorist group that wants to destroy this country so she should stay there.