Tower Hamlets Muslim girl removed from parents for terrorist supporting behaviour

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-judges-removes-east-london-teenager-extremist-parents-1516549




A 'victim' or another one willingly conspiring...!?


If a 'victim' then where are the prosecutions of the instigators and terrorist supporters???


If willing conspirer... then where are the prosecutions of both her and the other instigators and terrorist supporters...!?

She's a teenager. She should be out with friends, shopping, going to the cinema, having fun.....

How sad.

Didn't answer the question though Eddie...

The whole lot have been arrested.

The teenager, her parents and other siblings were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 on suspicion of possessing information likely to be useful to those who wanted to commit terrorist acts. The judge also approved the family passports being transferred to the Metropolitan Police.

They should all be prosecuted.

Yes rags... that Is my point... although it appears that none have been prosecuted yet... and the terrorist girl Is escaping prosecution entirely by being misrepresented as a 'victim' of Islamic terrorism rather than a supporter/perpetrator of it...!!!



Isn't this now setting a precedent for countless others to be able to avoid prosecution by being able to claim that it wasn't really them but they were the 'victims' of 'radicalisation...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes rags... that Is my point... although it appears that none have been prosecuted yet... and the terrorist girl Is escaping prosecution entirely by being misrepresented as a 'victim' of Islamic terrorism rather than a supporter/perpetrator of it...!!!



Isn't this now setting a precedent for countless others to be able to avoid prosecution by being able to claim that it wasn't really them but they were the 'victims' of 'radicalisation...!!!???

Isn't that a matter to be decided in a trial?

I'm just asking your personal opinion -- would it be better if she were innocent, but locked up, or guilty but allowed to go free?

Her involvement, aspirations and guilt are already evident...


But excused because she has been deemed as the 'victim'... And although the blane has also been laid on The parents... where is their prosecution?

Sorry and you said you argue off facts?
What crime has she committed?
You decideding maturity?

Tommy Monk wrote:Her involvement, aspirations and guilt are already evident...


But excused because she has been deemed as the 'victim'... And although the blane has also been laid on The parents... where is their prosecution?

You're a lot closer to this than I am -- what, does the UK routinely arrest people for serious crimes like this and then turn them loose? Just take them for a little ride in the police car? Is it possible that they're in the system and will be dealt with soon?

OK, what would you say if the girl came out this way after being abducted and brainwashed by a cult since infancy?

Oh, and you didn't really answer my first question I'll rephrase -- is it better for an innocent person go to prison, or for a guilty person to be set free, in your view?

This is why I proved to Tommy negativity has no reason.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh, and you didn't really answer my first question I'll rephrase -- is it better for an innocent person go to prison, or for a guilty person to be set free, in your view?

Sorry mate poor methodology, because it could then be argued, would it be better to let someone go free based on legitimate evidence they will commit harm to others based on their hate, and not actions?
Preventive action has its merits when backed up with evidence

When we start to allow terrorists to be excused as victims of 'radicalisation' then we are in serious trouble.

Okay Tommy were all Hitler Youth as you claim guilty?

Cuchulain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh, and you didn't really answer my first question I'll rephrase -- is it better for an innocent person go to prison, or for a guilty person to be set free, in your view?

Sorry mate poor methodology, because it could then be argued, would it be better to let someone go free based on legitimate evidence they will commit harm to others based on their hate, and not actions?
Preventive action has its merits when backed up with evidence

That's not really the issue I'm trying to get at here -- I want to know if he thinks it's worse for the innocent to be imprisoned (just to be on the safe side) or for the guilty to be set free (say, due to lack of conclusive evidence).

Tommy Monk wrote:When we start to allow terrorists to be excused as victims of 'radicalisation' then we are in serious trouble.

As an adult we expect people to be able to overcome much of how they were raised -- but how about a 16-year-old?

By the way, I jusr dealt Tommy a kobayashi maru.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Sorry mate poor methodology, because it could then be argued, would it be better to let someone go free based on legitimate evidence they will commit harm to others based on their hate, and not actions?
Preventive action has its merits when backed up with evidence

That's not really the issue I'm trying to get at here -- I want to know if he thinks it's worse for the innocent to be imprisoned (just to be on the safe side) or for the guilty to be set free (say, due to lack of conclusive evidence).

Fair point

I don't want innocent imprisoned or guilty allowed free... or terrorists to be allowed to claim to be 'victims' of some non existent 'radicalisation' virus...



In this case, the girls activities and involvement are clearly evident...


That is evidence of guilt.

Copout answer

Straight answer to a loaded question...



How about if I asked you if you preferred to hit your wife with a big stick or a bat...!?

I would have to not agree that hitting a wife is normal.
Thus a very idiotic comnparrison,
You just made a point on methodology on whether to hit women based off the punishment.
That is why you always get called out for lookining very stupid

Imprisoning innocent and allowing guilty to be free is not normal either... so why should I be asked to choose either as a prefered option!?



That is the whole point of a loaded question!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Imprisoning innocent and allowing guilty to be free is not normal either... so why should I be asked to choose either as a prefered option!?



That is the whole point of a loaded question!!!

I'm not saying either one is good -- I'm asking you which you think is worse, and just out of curiosity, by the way.

This girl is too young to be expected to have overcome being raised by such horrible people. She may as well have been abducted into a crazy cult and brainwashed -- that's nearly exactly what she did go through.

If you, Tommy, were raised from infancy to hate a certain group of people and to plot ways to kill them, you would most likely end up a terrorist without intervention. Do you think you'd deserve a chance to change?

So is beating your wife with a big stick or a bat worse...!?

A bat is probably going to be heavier and inflict more damage than any stick, so I'd say the bat is worse, or whichever's the heaviest. See -- the best of two bad choices. Your turn

By the way, the choices I presented to you have a lot more differences than do a bat vs. a stick used as a weapon.

Tommy Monk wrote:When we start to allow terrorists to be excused as victims of 'radicalisation' then we are in serious trouble.

LOL
Tommy that is the excuse we use to cover your opinions too
you're a victim of 'radicalization' by Right wing Racists

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes rags... that Is my point... although it appears that none have been prosecuted yet... and the terrorist girl Is escaping prosecution entirely by being misrepresented as a 'victim' of Islamic terrorism rather than a supporter/perpetrator of it...!!!



Isn't this now setting a precedent for countless others to be able to avoid prosecution by being able to claim that it wasn't really them but they were the 'victims' of 'radicalisation...!!!???

You know how it is these days Tommy. Nobody is responsible for what they do, they're always "victims", and it's always someone else's fault, except that the person whose fault it is is a "victim" as well - probably a "victim" of the Government.

I just can't help myself... I'm a victim here!!!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes rags... that Is my point... although it appears that none have been prosecuted yet... and the terrorist girl Is escaping prosecution entirely by being misrepresented as a 'victim' of Islamic terrorism rather than a supporter/perpetrator of it...!!!



Isn't this now setting a precedent for countless others to be able to avoid prosecution by being able to claim that it wasn't really them but they were the 'victims' of 'radicalisation...!!!???

You know how it is these days Tommy. Nobody is responsible for what they do, they're always "victims", and it's always someone else's fault, except that the person whose fault it is is a "victim" as well - probably a "victim" of the Government.

So you are claiming that people cannot influence children and that there is no such thing as indoctrination?
Please prove your evidence that this is not the case?

I'll gladly make you a victim if thats what you want Tommy, it'll be my pleasure

This girl was obviously taught to think like a terrorist by her parents. That's obviously a horrible thing to do to a child. Nobody would talk about throwing her in prison if she'd been abused in any other way than this.

Ben_Reilly wrote:This girl was obviously taught to think like a terrorist by her parents. That's obviously a horrible thing to do to a child. Nobody would talk about throwing her in prison if she'd been abused in any other way than this.

She won't have been removed from the parents to be put in prison. She was removed to be safeguarded. She has been brainwashed by her parents. Can that be undone?
Is any of the parents behaviour criminal? Can they be prosecuted?

Are the parents being prosecuted for terrorism and/or inciting violence etc?


Was this girl really a willing supporter...!?

Nems wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:This girl was obviously taught to think like a terrorist by her parents. That's obviously a horrible thing to do to a child. Nobody would talk about throwing her in prison if she'd been abused in any other way than this.

She won't have been removed from the parents to be put in prison. She was removed to be safeguarded.  She has been brainwashed by her parents. Can that be undone?
Is any of the parents behaviour criminal? Can they be prosecuted?

There is such a thing called deradicalization programs

She's 16, not 6. If a 16-year old commits a crime, they don't get away with it on the grounds that they must have been brainwashed do they?

Raggamuffin wrote:She's 16, not 6. If a 16-year old commits a crime, they don't get away with it on the grounds that they must have been brainwashed do they?

So you are claiming that people cannot influence children and that there is no such thing as indoctrination?
Please prove your evidence that this is not the case?

Excuses...


What age is criminal responsibility dodge???

Tommy Monk wrote:Excuses...


What age is criminal responsibility dodge???

What excuses?

So you are claiming that people cannot influence children and that there is no such thing as indoctrination?
Please prove your evidence that this is not the case?

What age does a person become adult Tommy?

What age does a persons brain fully develope Tommy?

If a child has been introduced to nothing but hateful views formed around an ideology, are they to blame if they know nothing better?

Also Tommy what crime has she committed?

Lets also see what the judge said:



Mr Justice Hayden said: "I can see no way in which her psychological, emotional and intellectual integrity can be protected by her remaining in this household. The farrago of sophisticated dishonesty of the parents makes this entirely unsustainable." He said that the girl has suffered psychological and emotional harm similar to that seen in sex abuse cases, as a result of her radicalisation. "The violation contemplated here is not of the body but it is of the mind. It is every bit as insidious - and I do not say that lightly - as it involves harm of a similar magnitude."

The judge described the girl as typical of a number of "intelligent young girls - highly motivated academically" who had were encouraged to believe in a romanticised version of life as a jihadi bride. "In each of those cases these young women have boundless opportunities, comfortable homes, and carers who undoubtedly love them, but they have been captured and seduced by a belief that travelling to Syria to become jihadi brides is somehow romantic and honourable both to them and their families."

It was bound to happen. As soon as it was decided that supporting ISIS would be a crime, the people who do so will be "victims" instead of criminals. I don't know why they bother making these laws.

No news on the parents or the other siblings then? I suppose they're "victims" as well.

Raggamuffin wrote:It was bound to happen. As soon as it was decided that supporting ISIS would be a crime, the people who do so will be "victims" instead of criminals. I don't know why they bother making these laws.

No news on the parents or the other siblings then? I suppose they're "victims" as well.

Again:
Are claiming that people cannot influence children and that there is no such thing as indoctrination?
Please prove your evidence that this is not the case?

You could say the same about children being influenced by the left wrog bias in schools by teachers dodge.



But you didn't answer the questions, just more waffle and excuses...

Tommy Monk wrote:You could say the same about children being influenced by the left wrog bias in schools by teachers dodge.



But you didn't answer the questions, just more waffle and excuses...

Really, so what extreme left wing ideology are you talking about here Tommy?

You have no answered a single question posed to you as per usual

So again

So you are claiming that people cannot influence children and that there is no such thing as indoctrination?
Please prove your evidence that this is not the case?

What age does a person become adult Tommy?

What age does a persons brain fully develope Tommy?

If a child has been introduced to nothing but hateful views formed around an ideology, are they to blame if they know nothing better?

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:


She won't have been removed from the parents to be put in prison. She was removed to be safeguarded.  She has been brainwashed by her parents. Can that be undone?
Is any of the parents behaviour criminal? Can they be prosecuted?

There is such a thing called deradicalization programs

Don't you mean brainwashing programmes?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


There is such a thing called deradicalization programs

Don't you mean brainwashing programmes?

No, unbrainwashing would be better, as have you attended any then by that view point?

I wonder if they arrested that other guy - the one whose daughter ran off to join ISIS, and then photos emerged of him at a flag-burning protest. He claimed he was a victim too and that he was "tricked" into going.

They should ban all these pro-Islam protests.

I have never tried to claim that people can't be influenced by others... in fact I have argued that kids are the subject of left wing bias and the pc agenda by teachers in schools on many occasions.


But this is different to criminal activity and especially supporting terrorism and beheadings etc... the girl was 16 and had her own mind to know right from wrong but chose to support terrorism.