Should have been done years ago. Same as criminals wanting to live here. Should be denied.

My brother in law was refused entry into Canada for being arrested in the UK. no charges but because he was with a drunk and disorderly person he was taken to. Completely sober and baffled at how he was scooped up. A wasted flight but it's Canada's policy and no one questions it.

Lets wait for the protests now,

Glad this thread popped up as when I read the BBC there was a clear bias towards wanting her to return:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56209007

Clearly the government does not want her, and the Supreme court agrees

But they go onto quote two "opinions" from Liberal lawyers and charity directors who, obviously don't like the decision. How is this relevant to the facts? Opinions and arseholes etc.


However...in sakes of balance, there is no opinion from any lawyers or charities that agree with the government. Again BBC setting the tone. It's one thing to have a journalist do a opinion piece/analysis. It's another thing to only quote statements from only the liberal campaigners. They have no place in this article; The only relevant persons to quote are Begum's legal spokesperson, the government's spokesperson and the court's decision. Nothing else.

Unless the publisher wants to push an agenda....



EDIT: It appears the article has now been edited and now the liberal opinions have been moved out of the main report and into the 'analysis' section.

I really should remember to screen grab stuff like this :rolleyes:

**just my opinion** I don’t care how many babies she’s had / lost she can rot in hell for all I care. I can’t even stand her face never mind her actions. So happy she won’t be coming back here. 👍

You're clearly not alone in doing so, but a lot of people seem to be assuming that the SC have said she can never come back, when this is very far from the case. All they they were deciding on last week was whether or not she could come back while she was fighting the original decision to strip her of her nationality. They've said nothing (at least not at this point) about whether that original decision was legally valid or not.

Human rights, now, are not superior to the national safety of the public. Extremely strong precedent.

Next step to remove UK public purse support for non UK nationals. That will kill off opportunistic wokery lawyers

That would contravene geneva convention for asylum cases i suspect

There will be less than half of one percent who are genuine asylum seekers. Rest are economic migrant's. Vast majority are coming, lets say all from friendly countries, eg Europe. Let them make an application from Europe for asylum. All but a handful would be rejected with no evidence

Intersting , i personaly know a handful that havnt

whats the chances !

You work for a wokery law firm or are a people trafficker :norty:

Nope

The irony is that if Anthony Lloyd (the reporter to first interview her) had not found and interviewed her and if she changed her tune, was remorseful and pleaded for forgiveness. Chances are she would have got back in the country under the radar and also given some degree of freedom in the UK (probably tag/curfew etc). Anthony Lloyd's publicity stunt ensured she would never ever be allowed to be anonymous ever again.

We have him to thank in part for badgering and hounding security officials until they gave him what he wanted. What is troublesome though is he refuses to publicise all of the information he garnered from that interview be it to the public or to the authorities; What further information is he holding on to that he considers it to be withheld from public and government/intelligence agencies? (thankfully court orders have prevented their destruction or 'accidental loss'). He harps on about press neutrality and being a war correspondent takes the moral high ground on human rights, yet he was the first hack to condemn her to being the stateless Isis poster girl and ensuring her miserable life will remain miserable.

Wasnt he high lighting the general approach uk has made to these people - ie Dont let them back / strip citizenship

where as other countries havnt ...

If that's to do with the amendments to the counter terrorism bill, I don't they were ever passed as MPs squabbled over the definitions of 'British Values' in law. So AFAIK nothing was done, it all went quiet after Cameron vacated.

And predated that Begum by quite some interval. UK MPs only doubled down after the Begum scoop and used other already existing legislation to prevent her repatriation.

What Antony Lloyd probably intended on publishing his big scoop was to give awareness that UK nationals were being imprisoned overseas for war crimes. That alone was enough to make a good headline, but a pregnant woman that's left the UK as a teenager was journalist's gold.

If his intentions was to allow repatriation to home countries, then it royally backfired big time; If he kept quiet, just informed UK authorities and Begum's family...chances are she'd have been back years ago.

I've woke up next to worse in my younger days. :)

:eek:.



Have you lost your head





:D

Beauty is only a light switch away ;-)

I've never been to bed with an ugly girl, but I've woken up with a few :lol1:

She was clearly wearing western clothing the other week, so I'm surprised it's taken this long:

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-...192626526.html

And so the manipulation begins....what a sweet looking girl she is, why would we not allow her back in to the UK. Doesn't seem to be doing to badly considering this, "Removing the veil comes at a cost, Ms Mironova said, as committed Islamic State supporters in the camp have better access to money and other contraband such as mobile phones through their networks"

She'll be back in the UK within 5 years.

The line where it says ' one woman needed to come back urgently as her son needs medical attention!' get it there.