It’s violent fantasy porn. She is a permissable target on which to let it out. It’s almost a therapy thread :)
Maybe you want an ISIS bride yourself, that’s why you want her back in the UK.
It’s violent fantasy porn. She is a permissable target on which to let it out. It’s almost a therapy thread :)
Make up that spare room fella. Couple of teddies would be nice.
Put a lock on the cutlery drawer though;-)
She was 17/18 whilst she was strapping up suicide vests.
This is when she was 19 with the Sky Reporter-
Maybe you want an ISIS bride yourself, that’s why you want her back in the UK.
So the choice is either butcher her or shack up with her. You reckon there maybe some middle ground we are skipping over?
Ah so now it’s violently dismember her or marry her :)
Someone has turned the hysteria level up to eleven.
In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person.
It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK.
I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore.
Firstly, she would have to formally admit associating with and assisting a proscribed terrorist organisation. On that basis (and this really is a finger in the air job) I would say (on the basis of her serving two thirds of her sentence) somewhere in the order of 25-30 years, would severely punish her, take her youth from her, serve as a deterrent to others, but still give her the opportunity to contribute positively to society and live a significant proportion of her life beyond being released.
Unicef defines a child associated with an armed group (formerly called a child soldier) as "any person under 18 years of age who is or who has been recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to… fighters, cooks, porters, messengers, spies or for sexual purposes."
By December 2017 ISIS had basically collapsed. Begum was still under 18 at that point. Considering the limited time that she could have spent in ISIS controlled territory over the age of 18 it is difficult to see her being guilty of any crime in a court.
Unicef defines a child associated with an armed group (formerly called a child soldier) as "any person under 18 years of age who is or who has been recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to… fighters, cooks, porters, messengers, spies or for sexual purposes."
By December 2017 ISIS had basically collapsed. Begum was still under 18 at that point. Considering the limited time that she could have spent in ISIS controlled territory over the age of 18 it is difficult to see her being guilty of any crime in a court.
Never said butcher her;-) I get why you would not want her anywhere near you or your loved ones. Just put her near someone else's. Gotcha.
Not sure if a UNICEF definition will override the operation of English statute, otherwise any 17 year old could join a terrorist organisation carte blanche.Unicef defines a child associated with an armed group (formerly called a child soldier) as "any person under 18 years of age who is or who has been recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to… fighters, cooks, porters, messengers, spies or for sexual purposes."
By December 2017 ISIS had basically collapsed. Begum was still under 18 at that point. Considering the limited time that she could have spent in ISIS controlled territory over the age of 18 it is difficult to see her being guilty of any crime in a court.
You need to man up and give your fanny a wipe.It’s terrifying to see so many willing to bend in anyway shape or form to defend this woman.
Firstly, she would have to formally admit associating with and assisting a proscribed terrorist organisation. On that basis (and this really is a finger in the air job) I would say (on the basis of her serving two thirds of her sentence) somewhere in the order of 25-30 years, would severely punish her, take her youth from her, serve as a deterrent to others, but still give her the opportunity to contribute positively to society and live a significant proportion of her life beyond being released.
You need to man up and give your fanny a wipe.
It’s hysterical defending this person.
It might be, I didn’t look it up. Assumed it would be life. Like I suggested, she’d have to plea to an offence with sufficient sentencing powers. Treason might fit the bill, although that might prove to be complicated if they’ve revoked her citizenship. There’s plenty of common law offences out there; I’m sure some silk who’s (even) smarter than me can conjure something up!I might be mistaken but isn't the maximum sentence 10 years for that? I think they'd be better off being tried for high treason (maximum life imprisonment) although whether the evidence stands up in court is a different matter.
Personally, I'd rather we just direct foreign aid to the Kurds to trial her there first before the UK get into any legal battles about her citizenship.
Not sure if a UNICEF definition will override the operation of English statute, otherwise any 17 year old could join a terrorist organisation carte blanche.
She has admitted it on camera to be fair.
No one is defending her. Just not inclined to join in the ‘a hundred ways I would personally like to murder her’ athon.
It’s possible that I am being too nuanced but not wishing to murder her doesn’t automatically equate to a proposal of marriage.