This **** needs taken out .

Bet she turns up in a dingy in the English Channel.

Just wondering, has Jeremy been asked if he would like her back. Can just see him, John McDonnel, Dianne Abbot, Emily Thornberry and the rest hanging out the bunting.

I'll take her out.
I wonder if she fancies an Indian.

Flatcap wrote: I'll take her out.
I wonder if she fancies an Indian.

Shouldn't be too expensive, she likes to go Dutch.

Flatcap wrote: I'll take her out.
I wonder if she fancies an Indian.

Word is she loves a "Head in the Bhindi Bhaji " as a main course .

If her mum is Bangladeshi, she's automatically a citizen of Bangladesh, until she's 21 at which point it would expire, if she doesn't follow it up, according to a few immigration lawyers?

I struggle to believe Javid has done this without having a quick check of the legal advice!

pie wrote: I struggle to believe Javid has done this without having a quick check of the legal advice!

Really? Seems to me it's the way this government does things. Look at complete humiliating shambles Brexit has become.

pie wrote: If her mum is Bangladeshi, she's automatically a citizen of Bangladesh, until she's 21 at which point it would expire, if she doesn't follow it up, according to a few immigration lawyers?

I struggle to believe Javid has done this without having a quick check of the legal advice!

Saw something from the secret barrister on twitter and he said however distasteful we may think it is she absolutely must be allowed back to face charges.

If she is such a great threat then surely we want her over here, in prison and being deradicalised rather than somewhere that we aren't able to keep an eye on her ?

As the secret barrister said "for the rule of law to mean anything, it has to apply to all of us. Including those who would do us the most harm"

All Javid is trying to do is get some tough guy points, whilst dumping a problem created over here on another country and pretending that stripping a 17yr old of her citizenship somehow makes her disappear.

Dancingbear wrote:

pie wrote: If her mum is Bangladeshi, she's automatically a citizen of Bangladesh, until she's 21 at which point it would expire, if she doesn't follow it up, according to a few immigration lawyers?

I struggle to believe Javid has done this without having a quick check of the legal advice!

Saw something from the secret barrister on twitter and he said however distasteful we may think it is she absolutely must be allowed back to face charges.

All well and good but I wouldn't trust May to lock her up for 24 hours never mind the 24 years she needs to make an example of her so the rest of them won't even think about coming back.

She should just be told exactly what she's going to get from the minute she steps back on the turf and then asked the question are you still sure you want to come back ? I hear Bangladesh is very nice at this time of the year.

Unfortunately what she'll probably get is a nice flat/house, shed loads of taxpayers cash and still whinge about how nasty us Brits are. Then she'll try and sue the government for having the audacity to withdraw her passport (legal aid of course)

Waltero wrote: Unfortunately what she'll probably get is a nice flat/house, shed loads of taxpayers cash and still whinge about how nasty us Brits are. Then she'll try and sue the government for having the audacity to withdraw her passport (legal aid of course)

She is a Brit, she was born in this country.

All this does is normalise the government removing citizenship of those they deem a threat, how they then decide who is a threat will be up to them.

Just think if they quietly got that bloke who took out Jihadi John with his drone back in action all of this could have been avoided.

She's a Brit my arse. She stopped being a brit the minute she decided to go to Syria and join the Muslim extremists.

DeckchairBlue wrote: If she is such a great threat then surely we want her over here, in prison and being deradicalised rather than somewhere that we aren't able to keep an eye on her ?

As the secret barrister said "for the rule of law to mean anything, it has to apply to all of us. Including those who would do us the most harm"

All Javid is trying to do is get some tough guy points, whilst dumping a problem created over here on another country and pretending that stripping a 17yr old of her citizenship somehow makes her disappear.

All well and good if there was solid proof that being in prison deradicalizes these individuals.

Also, if we’re needing to keep an eye on all our threats we’re going to have to round up a good number of people and fetch them over to here to sit them in prison.

pie wrote:

DeckchairBlue wrote: If she is such a great threat then surely we want her over here, in prison and being deradicalised rather than somewhere that we aren't able to keep an eye on her ?

As the secret barrister said "for the rule of law to mean anything, it has to apply to all of us. Including those who would do us the most harm"

All Javid is trying to do is get some tough guy points, whilst dumping a problem created over here on another country and pretending that stripping a 17yr old of her citizenship somehow makes her disappear.

All well and good if there was solid proof that being in prison deradicalizes these individuals.

Also, if we’re needing to keep an eye on all our threats we’re going to have to round up a good number of people and fetch them over to here to sit them in prison.

Admittedly preventing radicalisation in the first place is the way forward.

She was born here and radicalised here so I just think we should accept the problem and deal with it, obviously we can't bring all threats here and deal with them because the Russians and Saudis wouldn't agree to it, but as far as is practical we should deal with the mess we have created.

I had a change of heart on this i think they should bring her home on the condition they cut her head off and stuff it in one of the families bins .
A proper message to anyone associated with jihadi's thinking of wanting to come back to our shores .

DeckchairBlue wrote: If she is such a great threat then surely we want her over here, in prison and being deradicalised rather than somewhere that we aren't able to keep an eye on her ?

As the secret barrister said "for the rule of law to mean anything, it has to apply to all of us. Including those who would do us the most harm"

All Javid is trying to do is get some tough guy points, whilst dumping a problem created over here on another country and pretending that stripping a 17yr old of her citizenship somehow makes her disappear.

One of the worst places for radicalisation is our prisons Deckchair which kind of drives a big hole through your idea!

I don’t think Javid is trying to score points at all, he’s taking the common sense approach which the majority of the population seem to agree with.

They'll have no bother getting into Canada!

franksidebottom wrote:

DeckchairBlue wrote: If she is such a great threat then surely we want her over here, in prison and being deradicalised rather than somewhere that we aren't able to keep an eye on her ?

As the secret barrister said "for the rule of law to mean anything, it has to apply to all of us. Including those who would do us the most harm"

All Javid is trying to do is get some tough guy points, whilst dumping a problem created over here on another country and pretending that stripping a 17yr old of her citizenship somehow makes her disappear.

One of the worst places for radicalisation is our prisons Deckchair which kind of drives a big hole through your idea!

I don’t think Javid is trying to score points at all, he’s taking the common sense approach which the majority of the population seem to agree with.

Shouldn't we be doing something about that then. If not prison then I'm certain there are de-radicalisation centres/programmes she could be put on.

Hes trying to score points for the party to take advantage of turmoil in Labour and distract the public from the arse up that is Brexit.

If our citizens are being radicalised on our own shores then we should be doing something about the causes and rectifying the result rather than stripping a girl of her citizenship and acting like it's someone else's problem.

DeckchairBlue wrote:

franksidebottom wrote:

DeckchairBlue wrote: If she is such a great threat then surely we want her over here, in prison and being deradicalised rather than somewhere that we aren't able to keep an eye on her ?

As the secret barrister said "for the rule of law to mean anything, it has to apply to all of us. Including those who would do us the most harm"

All Javid is trying to do is get some tough guy points, whilst dumping a problem created over here on another country and pretending that stripping a 17yr old of her citizenship somehow makes her disappear.

One of the worst places for radicalisation is our prisons Deckchair which kind of drives a big hole through your idea!

I don’t think Javid is trying to score points at all, he’s taking the common sense approach which the majority of the population seem to agree with.

Shouldn't we be doing something about that then. If not prison then I'm certain there are de-radicalisation centres/programmes she could be put on.

Hes trying to score points for the party to take advantage of turmoil in Labour and distract the public from the arse up that is Brexit.

If our citizens are being radicalised on our own shores then we should be doing something about the causes and rectifying the result rather than stripping a girl of her citizenship and acting like it's someone else's problem.

Reading your posts im pretty sure you would me more than comfortable having this murdering barbaric supporting scum as a neighbour wouldn't you .
Me i think a Syria camp is way too close for comfort to my kids and grandkids and if her. "family " are so desperate to be reunited with her and their new offspring they do flights in the opposite direction one way would be my choice btw .

Surely living next door would be the safest place ?

Why would you encourage more people to travel to Syria when you have such a big problem with those who have already done so ?

DeckchairBlue wrote: Surely living next door would be the safest place ?

Why would you encourage more people to travel to Syria when you have such a big problem with those who have already done so ?

So you would me more than happy ?

Alan wrote:

DeckchairBlue wrote: Surely living next door would be the safest place ?

Why would you encourage more people to travel to Syria when you have such a big problem with those who have already done so ?

So you would me more than happy ?

Wouldn't really bother me no.

Cant really see Lincoln being a target for anything like that, unless they take a real disliking the annual sausage festival or Christmas market.

As a nation we are strategic allies with the regimes which created and fund ISIS, so it's a bit late to be taking any moral high ground.

DeckchairBlue wrote:

Alan wrote:

DeckchairBlue wrote: Surely living next door would be the safest place ?

Why would you encourage more people to travel to Syria when you have such a big problem with those who have already done so ?

So you would me more than happy ?

Wouldn't really bother me no.

Cant really see Lincoln being a target for anything like that, unless they take a real disliking the annual sausage festival or Christmas market.

As a nation we are strategic allies with the regimes which created and fund ISIS, so it's a bit late to be taking any moral high ground.

Can't see the great border city being a target either but refuse it to become a lauching pad to attack the innocent our bigger cities either .

Imagine your offspring getting killed at a pop concert in London by your next door Neighbours family who had recently been allowed back from Syria ?

Hope you can see where im are coming from some deem it racist i deem it looking after our own .

Alan wrote:

DeckchairBlue wrote:

Alan wrote:

DeckchairBlue wrote: Surely living next door would be the safest place ?

Why would you encourage more people to travel to Syria when you have such a big problem with those who have already done so ?

So you would me more than happy ?

Wouldn't really bother me no.

Cant really see Lincoln being a target for anything like that, unless they take a real disliking the annual sausage festival or Christmas market.

As a nation we are strategic allies with the regimes which created and fund ISIS, so it's a bit late to be taking any moral high ground.

Can't see the great border city being a target either but refuse it to become a lauching pad to attack the innocent our bigger cities either .

Imagine your offspring getting killed at a pop concert in London by your next door Neighbours family who had recently been allowed back from Syria ?

Hope you can see where im are coming from some deem it racist i deem it looking after our own .

I know what you mean. I'm not advocating allowing anyone back to just return to life like nothing has happened.

Managed return, prison and de-radicalisation, child services providing protection for her child. I simply feel it is easier to manage that threat here than in Syria.

"Wouldn't really bother me no.

Cant really see Lincoln being a target for anything like that"


Says a lot about you as that is a selfish attitude.

"Cant really see Lincoln being a target for anything like that"

I bet the good folks of Warrington didn't reckon on the IRA targeting them, not exactly predictable them thar terrorists.
Kids and parents going to a music gig, another unpleasant event at a soft target.
The point is, who knows where these nutters will turn up? Keep 'em out!

If she is allowed back in, she is very likely to need protection, guess the taxpayer will get the bill for that plus many other bills that will no doubt crop up. These lawyers that are currently working on her case will no doubt be getting paid via legal aid, I'd be amazed if they aren't. Nah, she can stop where she is, I really don't care one jot what happens to her or her progeny, bearing in mind she has apparently lost two other babies, who is stupid enough to get up the duff while living in a refugee camp FFS? Queue the messageboard snowflakes shooting me down in flames!

I don't think anybody would have any problems with Sincil Bank getting flattened preferably with the Cowley Bros in it!

The tweet ID given is invalid

nobbyblue wrote: I don't think anybody would have any problems with Sincil Bank getting flattened preferably with the Cowley Bros in it!

As long as it doesn’t affect Strawberry terrace behind the ground where my relations live.

DeckchairBlue wrote: If she is such a great threat then surely we want her over here, in prison and being deradicalised rather than somewhere that we aren't able to keep an eye on her ?

As the secret barrister said "for the rule of law to mean anything, it has to apply to all of us. Including those who would do us the most harm"

All Javid is trying to do is get some tough guy points, whilst dumping a problem created over here on another country and pretending that stripping a 17yr old of her citizenship somehow makes her disappear.

If she came back there is no guarantee that she will be convicted of anything, at least that is what legal commentators in the media have said. So she might never see a prison but be free to carry on living freely in the UK at the taxpayers' expense.

Would the 'Secret Barrister' want her for a neighbour? I doubt it. No doubt the 'Secret Barrister' lives in a nice house well away from such problems. Some other poor soul will have to put up with having someone who has signed up to a death cult living next door.

She isn't 17 she's 19 and therefore an adult.

DeckchairBlue wrote:

Alan wrote:

DeckchairBlue wrote: Surely living next door would be the safest place ?

Why would you encourage more people to travel to Syria when you have such a big problem with those who have already done so ?

So you would me more than happy ?

Wouldn't really bother me no.

Cant really see Lincoln being a target for anything like that, unless they take a real disliking the annual sausage festival or Christmas market.

As a nation we are strategic allies with the regimes which created and fund ISIS, so it's a bit late to be taking any moral high ground.

You really think that Lincoln could not be a target?

Look at France and Germany where provincial towns and cities have been targeted; Carcassonne, Strasbourg, Reutlingen and Ansbach to name but a few.

Normally, I would agree that she should be brought back to face UK justice and prove we are not barbaric like they are.

Then, on the other hand I think we should send a message that we are going to put the safety of UK citizens first.

Jihadi Jack wants to come home because he is missing pasties and his mam, so we could be opening the floodgates for god knows how many.

Then we will be at the mercy of all the ''human rights'' brigade who will turn them all into victims, when the real victims are the one who have had their heads lopped off by these scum who are guided by laws from the 7th century.

They made their beds, let them rot in them.

Marketing opportunity for Laffy. Open a Greggs franchise in Raqqa. Kill two birds with one stone

Bluedazblue wrote:

DeckchairBlue wrote: If she is such a great threat then surely we want her over here, in prison and being deradicalised rather than somewhere that we aren't able to keep an eye on her ?

As the secret barrister said "for the rule of law to mean anything, it has to apply to all of us. Including those who would do us the most harm"

All Javid is trying to do is get some tough guy points, whilst dumping a problem created over here on another country and pretending that stripping a 17yr old of her citizenship somehow makes her disappear.

If she came back there is no guarantee that she will be convicted of anything, at least that is what legal commentators in the media have said. So she might never see a prison but be free to carry on living freely in the UK at the taxpayers' expense.

Would the 'Secret Barrister' want her for a neighbour? I doubt it. No doubt the 'Secret Barrister' lives in a nice house well away from such problems. Some other poor soul will have to put up with having someone who has signed up to a death cult living next door.

She isn't 17 she's 19 and therefore an adult.

It's also possible that she could come back realising she made a massive mistake as an impressionable 15 year old. Accept the consequences of that decision and go on to be a contributing member if our society, why is there the assumption that she would want to "live freely at the taxpayers expense" rather than get a job and raise her child ?

But obviously she will need support to deradicalise and for the PTSD she more than likely has.

Her biological father lives in Bangladesh so where's the problem about them taking her in

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: Normally, I would agree that she should be brought back to face UK justice and prove we are not barbaric like they are.

Then, on the other hand I think we should send a message that we are going to put the safety of UK citizens first.

Jihadi Jack wants to come home because he is missing pasties and his mam, so we could be opening the floodgates for god knows how many.

Then we will be at the mercy of all the ''human rights'' brigade who will turn them all into victims, when the real victims are the one who have had their heads lopped off by these scum who are guided by laws from the 7th century.

They made their beds, let them rot in them.

Hundreds have already been repatriated. Hers is just the high profile case the government has chosen to use as a political football and a distraction from Brexit.

DeckchairBlue wrote:

Bluedazblue wrote:

DeckchairBlue wrote: If she is such a great threat then surely we want her over here, in prison and being deradicalised rather than somewhere that we aren't able to keep an eye on her ?

As the secret barrister said "for the rule of law to mean anything, it has to apply to all of us. Including those who would do us the most harm"

All Javid is trying to do is get some tough guy points, whilst dumping a problem created over here on another country and pretending that stripping a 17yr old of her citizenship somehow makes her disappear.

If she came back there is no guarantee that she will be convicted of anything, at least that is what legal commentators in the media have said. So she might never see a prison but be free to carry on living freely in the UK at the taxpayers' expense.

Would the 'Secret Barrister' want her for a neighbour? I doubt it. No doubt the 'Secret Barrister' lives in a nice house well away from such problems. Some other poor soul will have to put up with having someone who has signed up to a death cult living next door.

She isn't 17 she's 19 and therefore an adult.

It's also possible that she could come back realising she made a massive mistake as an impressionable 15 year old. Accept the consequences of that decision and go on to be a contributing member if our society, why is there the assumption that she would want to "live freely at the taxpayers expense" rather than get a job and raise her child ?

But obviously she will need support to deradicalise and for the PTSD she more than likely has.

I sometimes think that whatever is reasonable then you will oppose it DB.

You say that she 'might' have changed her ways, you have a young family yourself and she may 'not' have changed her ways and blow up yours or someone else's family.

Too much of a risk to take her back, some views on here that might seem radical now but if we did take her back and she did something drastic then taking her out while we had the chance would have been the best thing.

It’s fine saying it wouldn’t bother you if she moved in next door Deckchair because your pretty much safe in the knowledge it will never happen. If however it became reality I’d bet my last pound you’d have an altogether different view. It’s quite a bizarre view to have to be honest, putting yourself and your family at risk by having an impressionable young person with blatant radical views living so close to you, I want her and her type as far away from me on this planet as possible.

There’s absolutely no guarantee if she was ‘welcomed’ back that she would in fact face any charges, various reports have suggested only 10% of returning ISIS fighters have faced prosecution in the UK, a very worrying statistic. She obviously got an extremely low opinion of the UK and the western world given her decision to travel to Syria in the first place, perhaps even bordering on hatred for us, why the hell should we accept her back, undoubtedly at great expense to the taxpayer?

There’s a comment above saying if we let her and this other pillock who says he’s missing his mum, pasties and doctor who back into the country it could open the floodgates, well it’s a bit late for that, the floodgates were opened a long time ago. Reports 18 months ago suggest over 400 had already returned to the UK, god knows what the figure is now, and only 10% are actually being prosecuted. A threat to national security if there ever has been.

Waltero wrote: Her biological father lives in Bangladesh so where's the problem about them taking her in

To be fair Walt if you were the president of Bangladesh you’d be telling her to Fock right off. I know I would. Shoot the lot of them would be too good for them.

Silverbluefox wrote:

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: Normally, I would agree that she should be brought back to face UK justice and prove we are not barbaric like they are.

Then, on the other hand I think we should send a message that we are going to put the safety of UK citizens first.

Jihadi Jack wants to come home because he is missing pasties and his mam, so we could be opening the floodgates for god knows how many.

Then we will be at the mercy of all the ''human rights'' brigade who will turn them all into victims, when the real victims are the one who have had their heads lopped off by these scum who are guided by laws from the 7th century.

They made their beds, let them rot in them.

Hundreds have already been repatriated. Hers is just the high profile case the government has chosen to use as a political football and a distraction from Brexit.

This is a point that keeps being missed. I don't think she deserves the opportunity to come back to this country (partly because she seems to be wanting to come home for the wrong reasons), but what about the other hundreds of similar cases where they have been allowed back?

What happened to them, why were they let back in and why is this lass so different? It seems so obvious that this is being used to distract the public in another Brexit winding the clock down exercise, and that is absolutely scandalous.

sirjimmyglass wrote:
This is a point that keeps being missed. I don't think she deserves the opportunity to come back to this country (partly because she seems to be wanting to come home for the wrong reasons), but what about the other hundreds of similar cases where they have been allowed back?

What happened to them, why were they let back in and why is this lass so different? It seems so obvious that this is being used to distract the public in another Brexit winding the clock down exercise, and that is absolutely scandalous.

This thread is excruciating enough without descending into ridiculous Brexit conspiracy theories.

Her case is different because, whether willingly or not, she was a high profile propaganda tool for IS. She has exacerbated that situation considerably with her unrepentant attitude since resurfacing.

Maybe she has been badly advised, but to essentially say so publicly that she has no regrets and that terrorist acts against UK citizens were justified, but please be sympathetic to me, was highly provocative.

Not to mention giving the kid a terrorist name despite it being born after her initial interviews had gone down like a lead balloon.

Of course the government should keep her out or at least make it as difficult as possible for her to return.

But there have been 400 odd other British citizens who have gone to fight with IS, who have been allowed to return to the UK. Why haven't they been debated over and over again in parliament?

It's not so much a Brexit conspiracy as it is believing that the Government know exactly what they're doing here.

But none of the other 400 have been stupid enough to pop up on telly and say they don't regret a thing and can we pay for everything now ta?

She is as thick as, I don't think we've lost a doctor or an astronaut here, and stupid can be as dangerous as evil

Check out the front cover of Private Eye-says it all about this media loving princess

DeckchairBlue wrote:

Bluedazblue wrote:

DeckchairBlue wrote: If she is such a great threat then surely we want her over here, in prison and being deradicalised rather than somewhere that we aren't able to keep an eye on her ?

As the secret barrister said "for the rule of law to mean anything, it has to apply to all of us. Including those who would do us the most harm"

All Javid is trying to do is get some tough guy points, whilst dumping a problem created over here on another country and pretending that stripping a 17yr old of her citizenship somehow makes her disappear.

If she came back there is no guarantee that she will be convicted of anything, at least that is what legal commentators in the media have said. So she might never see a prison but be free to carry on living freely in the UK at the taxpayers' expense.

Would the 'Secret Barrister' want her for a neighbour? I doubt it. No doubt the 'Secret Barrister' lives in a nice house well away from such problems. Some other poor soul will have to put up with having someone who has signed up to a death cult living next door.

She isn't 17 she's 19 and therefore an adult.

It's also possible that she could come back realising she made a massive mistake as an impressionable 15 year old. Accept the consequences of that decision and go on to be a contributing member if our society, why is there the assumption that she would want to "live freely at the taxpayers expense" rather than get a job and raise her child ?

But obviously she will need support to deradicalise and for the PTSD she more than likely has.

I'm sure with that with 'Jihadi bride and ISIS member' on her C.V, employers will be lining up to give her a job.

Maybe you could suggest some suitable professions?