Let them back. They might provide some useful intelligence.

I think we should first get the names of those who want to come back and then give those details to their militant commanders and let them deal with their desertion, killing several birds with one stone;
they won't be coming back,
tax payers don't pay for their surveillance,
reduced threat to public safety,
they get dealt with outside of the UK,
will discourage others from doing the same,

Reap what you sow.

Now that is a plan :notworthy :lol1:

He would just shoot them, wouldn't he :wonder:

And what's wrong with that? Most people, I think, would call that Karma.

It's a good plan, except we don't /do recognize them as a state
Do/don't commune with terrorists.

?????

On the upside, they would each have 72 virgins waiting for them heaven.

Not a chance!

Not just for these lot but as a general commentary on society there are far too many people around who are incapable of accepting responsibility and dealing with the consequences of their own actions.

You made your choice,now suck it up and stop crying like pussies!!

And some of it might even be true...:brickwall

How about the medieval "witch" test
But with a twist. What do jihadist like to do to other vulnerable westerners!

What goes around comes around.And its come around and bit the fu*kers on the ar*e so leave them where they got dropped off,and dont let them back.And if there familys over here are moaning about it throw them out as well ;)

Yes.

Then at least we'd know where they are.

If we don't allow them back in we know where their not, Here!......

Yes and No.

Yes, because they obviously went out there on the pretence that they are fighting a noble cause (you know little man fighting against the dictator thingy...) but actually found out the realities are not as black and white as they previously thought.

No, because they might not be entirely truthful with their intentions or a couple of bad eggs might get in and cause some harm to innocent folk.

I've given this quite a bit of thought and have reasoned that it would be right to let them back in. It shows us as compassionate and open and might just soften the hearts of the jihadis.

Yeah right, best of luck with that one ;)

yeah, appeasement has a great record...

The Good Friday Agreement?

I'm not suggesting we do a Neville Chamberlain, I support action against IS (in fact I don't think there's an alternative), but young jihadis who've found themselves out of their depth might just appreciate our warm embrace. They might, just might, want to stop with their Salafist poppycock.

If they went there to fight Assad and his henchmen (who were the bad guys) then surely they were acting in our interests. As at one point Cameron considered military intervention himself. However I still wouldn't allow them back as they were warned about going there in the first place. As they refused to follow that simple command then they've forfeited their rights to live and enjoy the freedom and protection of the state.

Very few went to Syria to fight Assad in opposition to his politics, they went there as Sunni fighting Shia. The pro-democracy movement survived less than a strawberry season. Nonetheless, if one of these youngsters realised they'd made an error, we ought to take the moral high-ground and let them come home. Monitor and counsel them and maybe we de-radicalise them in the process. If we exclude them indefinitely, they'll certainly hate the west for the remainder of their lives.

How convenient for them. Perhaps we should exercise a similar permission for serious criminals who confess to having 'made an error'. Just give them a good talking to then set them free so they don't hate the system. That'll work.

Which law has been broken?

They would be an intelligence gold mine

I believe that being part of a terrorist group responsible for massacres and beheadings would be a start. Or does your moral high ground extend to assuming that those returning would not have been involved in any way in any of these atrocities? A bit naive don't you think?

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

Of course, but requesting repatriation, having been a member of a terrorist group, might be construed as guilt by association. And if it doesn't then your earlier suggestion of monitoring, counseling and de-radicalising them would fall flat too. Following your logic we will have no alternative but to allow them to take their places in society again as if nothing has happened. No harm done then.

What law allows us to refuse repatriation?

Yeah, bit of good ol' water-boarding, job jobbed.