It’s nothing to do with whether or not she can be a citizen of Bangladesh it’s the fact that HM government are choosing to interpret international law to the detriment of other countries. For all the people on here saying she shouldn’t be allowed back please tell me where you would like a British criminal to go. Using a war torn or less economically wealthy country to deposit your undesirable citizens is a pretty disgusting way for a civilised country to behave.
6 Likes
Some will take that view.
I am realistic enought to accept that, by offering my perspective on her culpability, I am open to the same charge, that I am aiding or supporting terrorism myself.
Let’s see how many pop a few 
in support of my being stripped of my citizenship, Mark! 
Oh dear Teresa; bend it like Beckham eh?
No-one is suggesting she actually goes there just that she is not rendered stateless by withdrawing her British citizenship.
You still haven’t said where you think this woman and her child should live.
Teresa…
I think that this is a very broad question…
In the main… I am content for the country where the crime is committed… to deal with the criminal according to their Laws.
In the main… it seems reasonable to me.
However, as always, there will be extenuating circumstances in some cases…
However, such cases are not always as clear-cut as we might wish…
So, there is no hard and fast answer, I guess…
2 Likes
“So there is no hard or fast answer… I guess”
That’s why there is international law that shall apply in such cases, so that a just decision be reached that takes account of national security interests and the rights of an individual to a fair trial. It doesn’t have to be fast, or hard.
Knee-jerk decisions may silence the howling mob
but even the procurator of Judea balked at that and, calling for a bowl of water, publicly washed his hands in symbolic dissociation from the cry “Crucify! Crucify!” (What would we do without these literary allusions?).
Let evidence be marshalled against the woman accused and a proper verdict delivered. Her comments to a journalist would be inadmissable in a court as she was not cautioned by a properly authorised officer of the law.
No 'Kangaroo Courts" and “Mob Justice” to demonstrate that Daesh had the UK bang to rights all along.
1 Like
Peter… I think you know, perfectly well, that I was not meaning anything “hard” or “fast”… it is a common enough phrase… and I am sure you understand its meaning…
And I was agreeing with you, Stella! 
It’s been a long day… and it didn’t come across like that… sorry if we have unnecessarily crossed swords…
I don’t know whether she has got Bangladesh citizenship or whether she should have to do something to establish such citizenship - it might not be automatic. In which case she has, indeed been rendered stateless in practice. From that it might follow that Javid has acted illegally. I imagine the lawyers will enjoy sorting it all out.
1 Like
I agree with you much more than I disagree, Stella. And because the peace that passeth all understanding prevailed during your weekend jaunt to ogle the old jalopies, I didn’t realise you were away. But welcome back! 
Bisous.
To completely change the subject as you have mentioned Pilate. Today i was looking in a shop window and noticed there are crucifixes for sale where the crucified ‘person’ is holding a guitar whilst hanging from the cross. Anyone know what this is all about?
“Anyone know what this is about?”
Money for old rope? 
1 Like
Syria her most loved place on earth
Playing along to ‘Always look on the bright side of life’…
I know - too simple…
1 Like
Oooh! Duh.
Thanks
As somebody said, politicians do much for their own or their party’s ends. Javid may well be eyeing a big prize, knowing that her exile will be very popular.
3 Likes
Her comments to a journalist would be admissible - especially as there is a corroborating tape recording. Journalists are not obliged to caution. Another example is where a person wearing a covert recording device has a conversation with another who makes certain statements or admissions. Your contention that a formal caution must be given for the conversation to be admitted into evidence does not fly.
1 Like
Thanks, Dan. I accept that I was wrong on that point. Perhaps a good defence counsel could challenge the validity of the evidence by drawing attention to the mitigating circumstances in which the evidence was obtained?
I’m only thinking here that she may not have been aware that her interview could be and would be used against her in advance of any proper trial.
The whole affair is a ghastly mess.
Not least because it is whipping up racist feeling in the UK - not just anti IS but generally - I’ve seen comments on FB calling for her whole family to have their citizenship revoked and sent back to Bangladesh.
1 Like