Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK

To me there seems to be a problem with this idea. The idea that to treat someone fairly a country has to introduce new law after the event which would be in itself, unfair.

If the Justice System cannot introduce evidence suitable to punish the defendant with the crimes she is supposedly to have committed under the beliefs of the mob then that would be the Justice Systems problem.

It seems to me that she is being accused of crimes without name, assumed crimes. Crimes which the mob are unhappy she will not be charged with until some supposed Acts of Parliament can introduce after the event.

Hmm. Isn't this the sort of thing that happens in a country that is not the UK.

Joining a terrorist organisation - tick. Now, whatever else you want to accuse her of then name it and supply proof. I'm all for her facing justice but it has to be...well..justice.

This is not an idea, it's a fact.

Also, I think in an ideal scenario, she should stand trial in Syria.
 
This is not an idea, it's a fact.

Also, I think in an ideal scenario, she should stand trial in Syria.
So is it that you feel the Syrian Justice System would be fairer or the the evidence exists in Syria or both?
 
So is it that you feel the Syrian Justice System would be fairer or the the evidence exists in Syria or both?

I think it's more to do with the fact that the crime was committed on Syrian territory.
 
I think it's more to do with the fact that the crime was committed on Syrian territory.
But you did mention Shamima being treated fairly so are you saying that Syrian Justice will be fairer?
 
Would life be any easier for her back in Britain?
I don't know if it is a question of being easier. In any case I'm seeking a bit of clarity on why one will be fairer than another.

At the same time will she be the only one to face trial and does Syria have the infrastructure to deal with all of the former family and fighters?
 
I don't know if it is a question of being easier. In any case I'm seeking a bit of clarity on why one will be fairer than another.

At the same time will she be the only one to face trial and does Syria have the infrastructure to deal with all of the former family and fighters?

There’s no justice in Syria. Assad is a monster whose idea of ‘justice’ will be revenge over the coming months and years. The SDF who are currently holding her have a better reputation in the West but are not recognized, are a battle-hardened militia with more battles ahead of them, and probably don’t have the capability or the desire to conduct proper trials for the thousands of ISIS captives currently in their hands.
 
I don't know if it is a question of being easier. In any case I'm seeking a bit of clarity on why one will be fairer than another.

At the same time will she be the only one to face trial and does Syria have the infrastructure to deal with all of the former family and fighters?

Syria doesn't want them.

But you did mention Shamima being treated fairly so are you saying that Syrian Justice will be fairer?

It is fair to stand trial in the country where the crime was committed.
 
There’s no justice in Syria. Assad is a monster whose idea of ‘justice’ will be revenge over the coming months and years. The SDF who are currently holding her have a better reputation in the West but are not recognized, are a battle-hardened militia with more battles ahead of them, and probably don’t have the capability or the desire to conduct proper trials for the thousands of ISIS captives currently in their hands.
Kind of a strong indication that Shamima would be treated more fairly if not in Britain then certainly in the West.
 
It is fair to stand trial in the country where the crime was committed.

Would you hold the same position if Singapore for instance want to hang a British national for smuggling, say, 10 pounds of cocaine? Or Saudi Arabia doing the same with a blasphemer?
 
Syria doesn't want them.



It is fair to stand trial in the country where the crime was committed.
Your answers seem contradictory then to your supposed fact. I can't see any proposed 'fairness' in being tried in Syria and particularly with reference to @2cents post above.
 
Kind of a strong indication that Shamima would be treated more fairly if not in Britain then certainly in the West.

I’d say that’s a certainty.
 
I’d say that’s a certainty.
Well I'm just glad that with your approval I won't be accused of stretching there. :)
 
Well I'm just glad that with your approval I won't be accused of stretching there. :)
Nice.

You can still accuse people of saying she shouldn't face British justice, and when you're challenged to provide the post where this happened, you can just stop responding. ;)
 
Nice.

You can still accuse people of saying she shouldn't face British justice, and when you're challenged to provide the post where this happened, you can just stop responding. ;)
I tend to respond to when I'm quoted unless they become confusing or a waste of time but I'll answer you this once to be polite. :)
 
I believe it was this one which I suggested wasn't a great idea or some such.
Why do you think 90% of those returning from Syria weren't prosecuted? Don't you think at least some of them would be responsible for crimes committed?
 
Why do you think 90% of those returning from Syria weren't prosecuted? Don't you think at least some of them would be responsible for crimes committed?
Why do you think Shamima will be fairly treated if she is tried in Syria or in Britain if 90% of those returning weren't prosecuted?
 
Would you hold the same position if Singapore for instance want to hang a British national for smuggling, say, 10 pounds of cocaine? Or Saudi Arabia doing the same with a blasphemer?

Yes in the first and no in the second.
 
Why do you think Shamima will be fairly treated if she is tried in Syria or in Britain if 90% of those returning weren't prosecuted?

Because there's a high probability that she will walk free and never answer for her actions. Because it is hard to evidence someone's activities abroad and because there's no adequate legislation.

Now, can you answer my question?
 
Because there's a high probability that she will walk free and never answer for her actions. Because it is hard to evidence someone's activities abroad and because there's no adequate legislation.

Now, can you answer my question?
Well so long as you can't see any inequality in your answer by all means.

I think the Home Office had procedures in place with a foreword especially from the Minister to deal with returnees which we can not be sure is being operated.
 
Last edited:
I tend to respond to when I'm quoted unless they become confusing or a waste of time but I'll answer you this once to be polite. :)
But still not to the post asking you to back up the assumption you made. Nice one! :lol:
 
But still not to the post asking you to back up the assumption you made. Nice one! :lol:
I've no idea what you are on about. Perhaps you've misunderstood something. :)
 
I've no idea what you are on about. Perhaps you've misunderstood something. :)
Convenient, that. Think back to when you abruptly and inexplicably stopped responding to me. When I asked you to clarify your assumption and you decided, after realizing your mistake, that that was the time to end the conversation. :)
 
Convenient, that. Think back to when you abruptly and inexplicably stopped responding to me. When I asked you to clarify your assumption and you decided, after realizing your mistake, that that was the time to end the conversation. :)
Yeah, after you'd called me a prick there couldn't be another reason why I ignored you? Sweet. I think you've misunderstood definitely. :lol:

I've never used the Ignore feature but I'm thinking there might be a use for it. Perhaps we could just ignore each other eh? And stop taking the thread off topic?
 
Yeah, after you'd called me a prick there couldn't be another reason why I ignored you? Sweet. I think you've misunderstood definitely. :lol:

I've never used the Ignore feature but I'm thinking there might be a use for it. Perhaps we could just ignore each other eh? And stop taking the thread off topic?
Yup! You continued to reply well after that so don't try to pretend your convenient decision to end the conversation there had anything to do with that. And still you haven't found the post? Shocking.

Hilarious! You make yet another snidey comment about our exchange and now you want to forget it? :lol: Are you in control of what you're writing?
 
@Mozza has his points, if you can't at least acknowledge them while you make your refutal then it doesn't bode well for the objectivity of your own argument.

Most of which have been dogshit quality by the way, other than the few members who qualify their points with actual historical knowledge.