Home Menu

Site Navigation


Notices

Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics.

Register to reply Log in to reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 13-10-2016, 03:32 PM #1
jaxie's Avatar
jaxie jaxie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 7,038

Favourites:
CBB14: Gary
CBB 13: Ollie Locke
jaxie jaxie is offline
Senior Member
jaxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 7,038

Favourites:
CBB14: Gary
CBB 13: Ollie Locke
Default Should the state decide

I've noticed that people are being jailed and stopped from joining Is. There was another story in the press today. While I totally understand this in the case of minors it seems rather an interference from the state in an adult's choice. Would it not be better to let people go but that they forfeit right to UK passport/citizenship if they do? As in you can go but you can never come back. Isn't jailing them simply building more resentment?
__________________
In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this.
Terry Pratchett

“I am thrilled to be alive at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.”
― Richard Dawkins
jaxie is offline  
Old 13-10-2016, 04:30 PM #2
user104658 user104658 is offline
-
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 36,685
user104658 user104658 is offline
-
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 36,685
Default

My only concern is the precedent that it sets... As in, what are they actually being jailed for? Considering joining a criminal organisation? Before they actually join or do anything? I don't understand what the crime is. I mean in theory I understand the desire to prevent the crime in the first place but... It's a bit "Minority Report", isn't it? Convicting people of a crime that they "might" commit.
user104658 is offline  
Old 13-10-2016, 04:37 PM #3
bots's Avatar
bots bots is offline
self-oscillating
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 52,570

Favourites:
BB2023: Noky
BB19: Sian


bots bots is offline
self-oscillating
bots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 52,570

Favourites:
BB2023: Noky
BB19: Sian


Default

personally, i would rather let them go and face their fate over in Syria. If they just go there with no paper trail the chances are they would not be arrested. If however there has been communication with known terrorists then they are fair game to be arrested.
bots is offline  
Old 13-10-2016, 04:39 PM #4
user104658 user104658 is offline
-
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 36,685
user104658 user104658 is offline
-
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 36,685
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bitontheslide View Post
personally, i would rather let them go and face their fate over in Syria. If they just go there with no paper trail the chances are they would not be arrested. If however there has been communication with known terrorists then they are fair game to be arrested.
Only if that communication directly involves discussing or planning criminal activity, surely.
user104658 is offline  
Old 13-10-2016, 04:44 PM #5
bots's Avatar
bots bots is offline
self-oscillating
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 52,570

Favourites:
BB2023: Noky
BB19: Sian


bots bots is offline
self-oscillating
bots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 52,570

Favourites:
BB2023: Noky
BB19: Sian


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier View Post
Only if that communication directly involves discussing or planning criminal activity, surely.
i think its an offence to have any association with a terrorist organisation
bots is offline  
Old 13-10-2016, 05:02 PM #6
kirklancaster's Avatar
kirklancaster kirklancaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 13,378


kirklancaster kirklancaster is offline
Senior Member
kirklancaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 13,378


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier View Post
My only concern is the precedent that it sets... As in, what are they actually being jailed for? Considering joining a criminal organisation? Before they actually join or do anything? I don't understand what the crime is. I mean in theory I understand the desire to prevent the crime in the first place but... It's a bit "Minority Report", isn't it? Convicting people of a crime that they "might" commit.
ISIS, ISIL, IS - whatever - are, by much publicized word and deed, the sworn enemies of the Democratic West.

Their well publicized goal is to obliterate us and replace us with their own extreme form of Islam, and they have PROVED that there is no lengths of depravity, cruelty, immorality, and inhumane barbaric, bloody slaughter that they will not go to in order to secure their goal.

In my opinion therefore, ANY British domiciled person who elects to join ISIS, are - by their own volition - espousing the same anti-Western ideologies as above, and should be treated by this Government as not only traitors and enemies of the UK and its citizens, but also lethal ones to boot.

They should not be imprisoned, because why should the UK Taxpayer have to fork out for this scum to live in luxury and safety in comparison to our military - who are sacrificing 'home' comforts away from their families, whilst risking their lives fighting the very terrorists in question - on top of having to FUND the cost of such fighting?

No, they should be allowed to board the first plane to Syria after - as Jaxie says - their UK citizenship has been rescinded and their UK passports seized and destroyed, and they should go straight onto our Security and Intelligence Services 'Persona Non Grata' lists and NEVER be allowed to set foot in the UK again.

No one, BUT no one, joins any organisation unless their own personal desires, inclinations, and ideology dovetail into that organisations ideology.

Anyone desiring to join 'Paedophiles Are Secretly Us' need not have ever touched a child improperly YET, but he is not joining because he likes the title.

There is NOTHING faintly 'Minority Report' about this T.S. - sorry.
__________________
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts". Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003)
.................................................. ..
Press The Spoiler Button to See All My Songs


Last edited by kirklancaster; 13-10-2016 at 05:21 PM.
kirklancaster is offline  
Old 13-10-2016, 06:31 PM #7
Northern Monkey Northern Monkey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 13,269

Favourites (more):
CBB21: Ann Widdecombe
BB18: Tom


Northern Monkey Northern Monkey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 13,269

Favourites (more):
CBB21: Ann Widdecombe
BB18: Tom


Default

Well i mean there would have to be proof that they were intending to join.I think as long as there is real proof then it must be something like coluding with the enemy or treason or something.
Northern Monkey is offline  
Register to reply Log in to reply

Bookmark/share this topic

Tags
decide, state


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

"Big Brother and UK Television Forum. Est. 2001"

 

© 2023
no new posts