Looks like ISIS terrorist Shamima Begun is being allowed back after all, after court of appeal ruling in her favour

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53427197




And once in the country it will be impossible to remove her...!

"If the government wants to avoid the enormous embarrassment of sending a jet to pick her up, it has a matter of weeks to convince the Supreme Court to review the case.

"That is by no means an automatic process. Ministers will have to show to the Supreme Court that there is a fundamental point of law that needs to be argued over because the Court of Appeal has got it totally wrong."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53427197

Bollocks to her!


Let her go back to her home country Bangladesh!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Bollocks to her!

Let her go back to her home country Bangladesh!!!

So you say. The law has other plans.

The Law is an Ass , Who said that?

The law for death penalty for treason, should be reinstated...

Then let them come back... if they dare...!!!

But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be trying it on then...!?




Let them face trial in Syria or Iraq... Which is where they committed their barbaric crimes!

nicko wrote:  The Law is an Ass , Who said that?

Most think it is from Oliver Twist:

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”

--Mr. Bumble, quote by Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist
www.goodreads.com

In fact, Dickens copied a predecessor.  The phrase, 'the law is an ass' is from a play published by the English dramatist George Chapman in 1654 – The Parricide, or, Revenge for Honour:

"Ere he shall lose an eye for such a trifle... For doing deeds of nature! I'm ashamed. The law is such an ass."

Tommy Monk wrote:The law for death penalty for treason, should be reinstated...

I agree with that...for Donald Trump.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Bollocks to her!

Let her go back to her home country Bangladesh!!!

So you say.  The law has other plans.  

One has to wonder about the state of mind of the people who sat on the court of appeal and made this decision.

"The Court of Appeal has now ruled that "the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal".

Lord Justice Flaux - sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Singh - said: "Fairness and justice must, on the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns, so that the leave to enter appeals should be allow

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So you say.  The law has other plans.  

One has to wonder about the state of mind of the people who sat on the court of appeal and made this decision.

"The Court of Appeal has now ruled that "the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal".

Lord Justice Flaux - sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Singh - said: "Fairness and justice must, on the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns, so that the leave to enter appeals should be allow

Was there a written opinion? That would be the obvious place to go to get the "state of mind" of the jurists.

It's my opinion Quill.....and given the fact they think bending over backwards to accommodate one potentially dangerous young woman is more important than the national security of the UK and it's citizens.....I think it's a valid one.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So you say.  The law has other plans.  

One has to wonder about the state of mind of the people who sat on the court of appeal and made this decision.

"The Court of Appeal has now ruled that "the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal".

Lord Justice Flaux - sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Singh - said: "Fairness and justice must, on the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns, so that the leave to enter appeals should be allow

Yes... It is a barmy decision... hopefully will be overturned...!

Syl wrote:It's my opinion Quill.....and given the fact they think bending over backwards to accommodate one potentially dangerous young woman is more important than the national security of the UK and it's citizens.....I think it's a valid one.

It's really not for the benefit of one person. In the abstract—using the factual situation of one individual—the court is speaking for all people in the UK. They are announcing how they will adjudicate a law, or any set of facts, should it come up again. It’s called stare decisis, or precedent.

I daresay, if you were on the other side, you would be screaming for your legitimate rights…and rightly so.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:It's my opinion Quill.....and given the fact they think bending over backwards to accommodate one potentially dangerous young woman  is more important than the national security of the UK and it's citizens.....I think it's a valid one.

It's really not for the benefit of one person.  In the abstract—using the factual situation of one individual—the court is speaking for all people in the UK.  They are announcing how they will adjudicate a law, or any set of facts, should it come up again.  It’s called stare decisis, or precedent.

I daresay, if you were on the other side, you would be screaming for your legitimate rights…and rightly so.

Never having been part of a murderous group who preaches and practices death and destruction onto innocent people.....I don't really have the mindset to answer that question....thankfully.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's really not for the benefit of one person.  In the abstract—using the factual situation of one individual—the court is speaking for all people in the UK.  They are announcing how they will adjudicate a law, or any set of facts, should it come up again.  It’s called stare decisis, or precedent.

I daresay, if you were on the other side, you would be screaming for your legitimate rights…and rightly so.

Never having been part of a murderous group who preaches and practices  death and destruction onto innocent people.....I don't really have the mindset to answer that question....thankfully.

Oh?  How about the Falkland Islands?  I've spoken to some Argentines who have a different opinion.  They claim that the ARA General Belgrano needn't have been sunk with a total loss of 325 crew.  Some will say it was justified; others will say it was just murderous British colonialism asserting itself.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Never having been part of a murderous group who preaches and practices  death and destruction onto innocent people.....I don't really have the mindset to answer that question....thankfully.

Oh?  How about the Falkland Islands?  I've spoken to some Argentines who have a different opinion.  They claim that the ARA General Belgrano needn't have been sunk with a total loss of 325 crew.  Some will say it was justified; others will say it was just murderous British colonialism asserting itself.

No doubt there were also many Germans in the 40's who thought the Brits over reacted there too.

I bet you are good on the dance floor, your sidestep is quite amazing.

And his 'twist'...!

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's really not for the benefit of one person.  In the abstract—using the factual situation of one individual—the court is speaking for all people in the UK.  They are announcing how they will adjudicate a law, or any set of facts, should it come up again.  It’s called stare decisis, or precedent.

I daresay, if you were on the other side, you would be screaming for your legitimate rights…and rightly so.

Never having been part of a murderous group who preaches and practices  death and destruction onto innocent people.....I don't really have the mindset to answer that question....thankfully.

Oh?  How about the Falkland Islands?  I've spoken to some Argentines who have a different opinion.  They claim that the ARA General Belgrano needn't have been sunk with a total loss of 325 crew.  Some will say it was justified; others will say it was just murderous British colonialism asserting itself.

It was an enemy battleship in battle ready condition....
part of warfare is reducing the enemy's assets

belgrano was a fair kill...

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Oh? How about the Falkland Islands? I've spoken to some Argentines who have a different opinion. They claim that the ARA General Belgrano needn't have been sunk with a total loss of 325 crew. Some will say it was justified; others will say it was just murderous British colonialism asserting itself.

No doubt there were also many Germans in the 40's who thought the Brits over reacted there too.

I bet you are good on the dance floor, your sidestep is quite amazing.

It was not in German waters. And no one cares about the 1940's...the Falkland war was in 1982. Colonialism has its own unique history. There's a difference between geopolitical disputes between equal powers, and picking on a little guy.

I was best at Texas Swing. Probably better than anyone else in Tucson bars and dance floors, in my day.

Victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Oh?  How about the Falkland Islands?  I've spoken to some Argentines who have a different opinion.  They claim that the ARA General Belgrano needn't have been sunk with a total loss of 325 crew.  Some will say it was justified; others will say it was just murderous British colonialism asserting itself.

It was an enemy battleship in battle ready condition....
part of warfare is reducing the enemy's assets

belgrano was a fair kill...

What were the British doing there?  Advancing the cause of colonialism?

like it or like it not, the Falklands are British territory AND the people living there have expressed a desire for it to remain so....

Argentina therefore invaded British territory, (an act of war)

the losses they suffered were a consequence of THEIR act of war.

they should be grateful that we didnt invoke the full perogative in war to reduce their assets and bomb their port cities at least.

Victorismyhero wrote:like it or like it not, the Falklands are British territory AND the people living there have expressed a desire for it to remain so....

Argentina therefore invaded British territory, (an act of war)

the losses they suffered were a consequence of THEIR act of war.

they should be grateful that we didnt invoke the full perogative in war to reduce their assets and bomb their port cities at least.

Argentines would disagree. But the case is only an example, primarily for the idea that Brits can indeed be seen as "a murderous group who preaches and practices death and destruction".

To argue the validity/veracity of a mere example is a non sequitur. It exists. Argentines still feel that way, just as the Irish still feel that the whole of Éire is their island.

at least we have something to show for it....unlike the USA

Victorismyhero wrote:at least we have something to show for it....unlike the USA

Possessions are a double-edged sword. As soon as it started costing them something, the British started divesting in a hurry. On a cost-benefit basis, colonialism was a loser. Now, with Pakistanis flooding east London, and burdening the NHS all over, the loss is beginning to be measured in resentment.

Where is the something to show for that?

make your mind up quill...either we profited mightily from our coloial "rape and pillage" or on a cost/benefit basis colonialism was a loss......you cant have it both ways......

nice to see that you agree immigration is net burden on the nation.....we will make a R/W er of you yet......

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:

It was an enemy battleship in battle ready condition....
part of warfare is reducing the enemy's assets

belgrano was a fair kill...

What were the British doing there?  Advancing the cause of colonialism?

So if California was invaded by Imperial Japan during ww2. You would question why Americans, who were Latino's,Irish, English, Swedish, German, African American, Indigenous American Indians (who I might add, conquered and displaced many other indigenous tribes before and during American western expansion), etc. Then defend their state?

Would your parents have defended their state against such oppression? Even though they had lived their all their lives?

You would allow the Japanese to take said lands?

Do you know the population of the Falkland islands?

Or do they not have the right to self determination Quill?

Must be hell walking around with huge chips on both shoulders and such a massive bias dangling there all the time.

Vintage wrote:Must be hell walking around with huge chips on both shoulders and such a massive bias dangling there all the time.

Yeah really.

phil wrote:So if California was invaded by Imperial Japan during ww2. You would question why Americans, who were Latino's,Irish, English, Swedish, German, African American, Indigenous American Indians (who I might add, conquered and displaced many other indigenous tribes before and during American western expansion), etc. Then defend their state?

We are all Americans. America has been called the melting pot, in every case except blacks. The fact that blacks haven't melted in is on the south, primarily, and on it's overflow secondarily.

phil wrote:Would your parents have defended their state against such oppression? Even though they had lived their all their lives?

Are you crazy? My father was chief Flight Surgeon on an aircraft carrier in Adm. Kinkaid's 7th Fleet. His ship participated in the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.

However, with the Falklands, the situations are reversed. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands as the Malvinas. They may be right. Britain isn't even in the same hemisphere.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:Would your parents have defended their state against such oppression? Even though they had lived their all their lives?

Are you crazy?  My father was chief Flight Surgeon on an aircraft carrier in Adm. Kinkaid's 7th Fleet.  His ship participated in the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.

However, with the Falklands, the situations are reversed.  Argentina claims the Falkland Islands as the Malvinas.  They may be right.  Britain isn't even in the same hemisphere.

Dodged thew question

If California was invaded, should your parents have resisted?

Yes or no?

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:So if California was invaded by Imperial Japan during ww2. You would question why Americans, who were Latino's,Irish, English, Swedish, German, African American, Indigenous American Indians (who I might add, conquered and displaced many other indigenous tribes before and during American western expansion), etc. Then defend their state?

We are all Americans.  America has been called the melting pot, in every case except blacks.  The fact that blacks haven't melted in is on the south, primarily, and on it's overflow secondarily.

Black history is a major part of American history

The problem is when you try and separate them

The problems lies within yourself Quill

As when are you going to start treating black people like Americans and human beings. Not by the colour of their skin?

Didgee wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you crazy?  My father was chief Flight Surgeon on an aircraft carrier in Adm. Kinkaid's 7th Fleet.  His ship participated in the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.

However, with the Falklands, the situations are reversed.  Argentina claims the Falkland Islands as the Malvinas.  They may be right.  Britain isn't even in the same hemisphere.

Dodged thew question

If California was invaded, should your parents have resisted?

Yes or no?

Also dodged the question on self determination

Serbia claims Bosnia and Kosovo belong to Serbia

By your reasoning, was Serbia right to fight a war against each minority people?

And deny the people of Bosnia and Kosovo self determination?

Yes or no?

Didgee wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:So if California was invaded by Imperial Japan during ww2. You would question why Americans, who were Latino's,Irish, English, Swedish, German, African American, Indigenous American Indians (who I might add, conquered and displaced many other indigenous tribes before and during American western expansion), etc. Then defend their state?

We are all Americans.  America has been called the melting pot, in every case except blacks.  The fact that blacks haven't melted in is on the south, primarily, and on it's overflow secondarily.

Black history is a major part of American history

The problem is when you try and separate them

The problems lies within yourself Quill

As when are you going to start treating black people like Americans and human beings. Not by the colour of their skin?

As to your last question, I often find Quill sees colour far more than others. He would be in a queue at the bank, actually longing to be served by the black cashier...just so he could prove to her how much he loves black people.

I’m serious.

I'd like an answer to that.
Should a people having lived in a place for generations, irrelevant to the geographical proximity to a larger and more aggressive regime, be allowed to determine their own governance or not. No one should be forced to comply. Quill has spoken about California, leaving the union, presumably that could happen if the majority wanted it so why can't he give others the same self determination?

Vintage wrote:I'd like an answer to that.
Should a people having lived in a place for generations, irrelevant to the geographical proximity to a larger and more aggressive regime, be allowed to determine their own governance or not. No one should be forced to comply. Quill has spoken about California, leaving the union, presumably that could happen if the majority wanted it so why can't he give others the same self determination?

Most legal experts in America agree that no state has the right to secede -- the Civil War pretty much settled that

Ben Reilly wrote:

Vintage wrote:I'd like an answer to that.
Should a people having lived in a place for generations, irrelevant to the geographical proximity to a larger and more aggressive regime, be allowed to determine their own governance or not. No one should be forced to comply. Quill has spoken about California, leaving the union, presumably that could happen if the majority wanted it so why can't he give others the same self determination?

Most legal experts in America agree that no state has the right to secede -- the Civil War pretty much settled that

As Francois Fanon said, Rights come at the end of a gun barrel. Granted, he was a revolutionary, but at least he leaves you with a valid point: rights are what you make them!

In times of great upheaval, the standards change. We live in times where new norms are being created, and new institutional lines drawn. Five years ago a presidential candidate could not regale his audience with how great it is to grab a woman’s genitals, or kill 140,000 Americans, or underwrite a policy of putting bounties on the backs of American soldiers. Now, such things barely raise an eyebrow.

The last civil war is nothing like the next one. Or maybe there won’t be one. Maybe we’ll just be so numb that the majority of us will shrug and say, yeah, sure, go ahead…. I’m betting on the latter…Quebec can get it; Scotland can at least get to the point where they call the question.

Trump Crack'd the Mirror. In his wake, anything is now possible. In particular, his unique art is division, and division is what we are talking about if the west coast is to divorce the rest of the territory. Trump has caused us to rethink many of our fundamental principles: what is equality before the law, is the president a dictator, do we need NATO, should the plague prevent us from going back to school...why not secession?