Yes. I do mean judicial attention rather than forum musings.Which is exactly why this thread was bumped.
Yes. I do mean judicial attention rather than forum musings.Which is exactly why this thread was bumped.
It wasn't Enoch who did it?Which is exactly why this thread was bumped.
Yes. I do mean judicial attention rather than forum musings.
I find it rather strange given that she has ben living in the al-Roj detention centre for a number of years and by all accounts it is a hell hole that whenever she appears for an interview she is always well groomed. When one looks at the other woman and children living there they are poorly dressed. What special treatment is she getting, by whom and who is paying for it and why?
More likely Musk does to allow social media narratives like this to develop.I find it rather strange given that she has ben living in the al-Roj detention centre for a number of years and by all accounts it is a hell hole that whenever she appears for an interview she is always well groomed. When one looks at the other woman and children living there they are poorly dressed. What special treatment is she getting, by whom and who is paying for it and why?
The problem we’ve got is that a lot of returning people (some actual fighters) have basically failed to face justice on technicalities. There was no specific law about joining IS or going there until 2019, so it meant that a case had to be made on other terrorism grounds, based on facts that it is often simply not practical to properly gather evidence about their crimes. So given a lot of these people are effectively free on a technicality, I can kind of understand the government using another technicality to punish one of them when it’s available to them. Ultimately, she should face justice in the UK, but in reality, if she came to the UK, the authorities likely wouldn’t be in any position to be able to do a proper investigation about something that happened in a terrorist run pseudo-state that no longer exists.Yep. Politics ahead of the law and morality.
The Supreme Court backed the UK's government decision and declared it to be lawful.
I hope that the ECHR draws attention to the matter once more because it does not feel that a groomed 15 year old has received the right treatment here, IMO.
And the Germans voted for it.Nazi Germany was a sovereign country.
Yes, which is why the situation is so clear to so many. She was effectively tried and convicted for a baying gallery with no gatherable evidence. Bad enough in any circumstances, but for a British citizen of such a young age...appalling.The problem we’ve got is that a lot of returning people (some actual fighters) have basically failed to face justice on technicalities. There was no specific law about joining IS or going there until 2019, so it meant that a case had to be made on other terrorism grounds, based on facts that it is often simply not practical to properly gather evidence about their crimes. So given a lot of these people are effectively free on a technicality, I can kind of understand the government using another technicality to punish one of them when it’s available to them. Ultimately, she should face justice in the UK, but in reality, if she came to the UK, the authorities likely wouldn’t be in any position to be able to do a proper investigation about something that happened in a terrorist run pseudo-state that no longer exists.
I think you value democracy and it's results highly where as I am more sceptical about the results it can produce.And the Germans voted for it.
It’s very easy to impose 2025 sensibilities on 1930s beliefs, but what’s that got to do with the price of butter?
ABSOLUTELY.I think you value democracy and it's results highly where as I am more sceptical about the results it can produce.
Yes, the Germans may have voted the Nazis in but sometimes the masses don't understand what they are letting themselves in for. As Winston Churchill once said, 'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter.'
I'd much rather the UK be subject to the rules of the ECHR that protect individual freedoms than leave things in the hands of Farage or some other rightwing nut job.
So, you want other democracies to save you from yourself?I think you value democracy and it's results highly where as I am more sceptical about the results it can produce.
Yes, the Germans may have voted the Nazis in but sometimes the masses don't understand what they are letting themselves in for. As Winston Churchill once said, 'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter.'
I'd much rather the UK be subject to the rules of the ECHR that protect individual freedoms than leave things in the hands of Farage or some other rightwing nut job.
And how do we appoint these members of the ECHR?I think you value democracy and it's results highly where as I am more sceptical about the results it can produce.
Yes, the Germans may have voted the Nazis in but sometimes the masses don't understand what they are letting themselves in for. As Winston Churchill once said, 'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter.'
I'd much rather the UK be subject to the rules of the ECHR that protect individual freedoms than leave things in the hands of Farage or some other rightwing nut job.
in the way that was agreed between the member states when the ECHR was set upAnd how do we appoint these members of the ECHR?
Yes. He knew he was being antisemitic.Do you think Farage knew what he was doing when he threw antisemitic comments about when he was fifteen?
They also removed the right to trial by a jury and appointed teams of judges to decide which laws to enforce and who was guilty of what. Worked out well that did.And the Germans voted for it.
It’s very easy to impose 2025 sensibilities on 1930s beliefs, but what’s that got to do with the price of butter?
Well, it’s at that point where people need to exercise their democratic right of protest and seek ouster.They also removed the right to trial by a jury and appointed teams of judges to decide which laws to enforce and who was guilty of what. Worked out well that did.
Yes, i'm not the one against the democratic method.in the way that was agreed between the member states when the ECHR was set up
You know, democracy
Yep I totally agree democracy might well not be perfect as Dopey Donald proves but it's still the best we've come up with.Well, it’s at that point where people need to exercise their democratic right of protest and seek ouster.
Again, though, on the ground, at the time, there was no 90 years of history to reflect on or point to.
Democracy is better than the supposition that some small group of (Educated? Powerful? Moneyed? All three?) people should decide what’s best for the majority, no?
Or, maybe we should just go back to 1214 and bin the idea that people have rights?