Politics Thread 5

[Blue Eyes]

So what are people's opinions on the jihadi girl? I had a minor argument with my mum yesterday who said she shouldn't be allowed back, I pointed out that on the one hand you can't support deporting foreign nationals who commit crimes in our country and then refuse to take back our nationals who commit crimes abroad.

For me it is a matter of rights. She gets the same rights as anyone other citizen and we can't be selective on that. If she gets to a UK embassy, she should be allowed repatriation and due process.

She's a British citizen and it wouldn't be legal to take that citizenship away.

From what I understand, she is currently in Syria and there are not British Consulate services available so she would somehow have to make her own way back. So if she gets to another country with a British Embassy then they can bring her home, if she stays where she is then there's not much we can do.

If she returns she should be prosecuted for any crimes that she has committed just as anybody else should be. Her age at the time of leaving is a factor for some leniency but her refusal to show any remorse subsequently will count against her.

Yep I totally agree with you there.

Whether she shows remorse or not is a moot point. She has to be afforded the same rights as anyone else, it's a defining principle of law.

Remorse doesn't matter if we are talking about her coming back to the UK. She has the right to return as she is a UK citizen.

In court remorse absolutely counts, I am not sure why you think the law doesn't take remorse into account.

It's a difficult position though because the public also has a right to protection and can that be guaranteed in this instance? The lack of remorse would suggest she would still consider herself a jihadi fighting for ISIS causes. The only option then would be to lock her up until her risk is reduced which isn't a solution.

If she’s a risk to the public then she should be locked up. I haven’t said anything different.

I doubt she'd be much of a risk to the public. If anything she'd be a risk to herself seeing as Britain is racist now. She'd be ripped to shreds pretty quick by some skinheads.

[Lex-Man]

We could really quickly recognise ISIS as a country, then we'd be able to take her citizenship away as she's legally a citizen of another country. I wonder how the skinheads would react if we did that though?

[captain red dog]

So what are people's opinions on the jihadi girl? I had a minor argument with my mum yesterday who said she shouldn't be allowed back, I pointed out that on the one hand you can't support deporting foreign nationals who commit crimes in our country and then refuse to take back our nationals who commit crimes abroad.

For me it is a matter of rights. She gets the same rights as anyone other citizen and we can't be selective on that. If she gets to a UK embassy, she should be allowed repatriation and due process.

She's a British citizen and it wouldn't be legal to take that citizenship away.

From what I understand, she is currently in Syria and there are not British Consulate services available so she would somehow have to make her own way back. So if she gets to another country with a British Embassy then they can bring her home, if she stays where she is then there's not much we can do.

If she returns she should be prosecuted for any crimes that she has committed just as anybody else should be. Her age at the time of leaving is a factor for some leniency but her refusal to show any remorse subsequently will count against her.

Yep I totally agree with you there.

Whether she shows remorse or not is a moot point. She has to be afforded the same rights as anyone else, it's a defining principle of law.

Remorse doesn't matter if we are talking about her coming back to the UK. She has the right to return as she is a UK citizen.

In court remorse absolutely counts, I am not sure why you think the law doesn't take remorse into account.

At the end of the process remorse counts. Until then, remorse does not apply in terms of the legal the rights she is afforded as a UK citizen. Whether you have remorse or not, everyone has the same rights.

We don't base the concept of a fair trial against signs of remorse, that is a misnomer against the principles of innocent until proven guilty. Only the sentence, once a verdict has been reached, will depend on the remorse shown.

[Moggy]

So what are people's opinions on the jihadi girl? I had a minor argument with my mum yesterday who said she shouldn't be allowed back, I pointed out that on the one hand you can't support deporting foreign nationals who commit crimes in our country and then refuse to take back our nationals who commit crimes abroad.

For me it is a matter of rights. She gets the same rights as anyone other citizen and we can't be selective on that. If she gets to a UK embassy, she should be allowed repatriation and due process.

She's a British citizen and it wouldn't be legal to take that citizenship away.

From what I understand, she is currently in Syria and there are not British Consulate services available so she would somehow have to make her own way back. So if she gets to another country with a British Embassy then they can bring her home, if she stays where she is then there's not much we can do.

If she returns she should be prosecuted for any crimes that she has committed just as anybody else should be. Her age at the time of leaving is a factor for some leniency but her refusal to show any remorse subsequently will count against her.

Yep I totally agree with you there.

Whether she shows remorse or not is a moot point. She has to be afforded the same rights as anyone else, it's a defining principle of law.

Remorse doesn't matter if we are talking about her coming back to the UK. She has the right to return as she is a UK citizen.

In court remorse absolutely counts, I am not sure why you think the law doesn't take remorse into account.

At the end of the process remorse counts. Until then, remorse does not apply in terms of the legal the rights she is afforded as a UK citizen. Whether you have remorse or not, everyone has the same rights.

We don't base the concept of a fair trial against signs of remorse, that is a misnomer against the principles of innocent until proven guilty. Only the sentence, once a verdict has been reached, will depend on the remorse shown.

So exactly what I said then?

[captain red dog]

So what are people's opinions on the jihadi girl? I had a minor argument with my mum yesterday who said she shouldn't be allowed back, I pointed out that on the one hand you can't support deporting foreign nationals who commit crimes in our country and then refuse to take back our nationals who commit crimes abroad.

For me it is a matter of rights. She gets the same rights as anyone other citizen and we can't be selective on that. If she gets to a UK embassy, she should be allowed repatriation and due process.

She's a British citizen and it wouldn't be legal to take that citizenship away.

From what I understand, she is currently in Syria and there are not British Consulate services available so she would somehow have to make her own way back. So if she gets to another country with a British Embassy then they can bring her home, if she stays where she is then there's not much we can do.

If she returns she should be prosecuted for any crimes that she has committed just as anybody else should be. Her age at the time of leaving is a factor for some leniency but her refusal to show any remorse subsequently will count against her.

Yep I totally agree with you there.

Whether she shows remorse or not is a moot point. She has to be afforded the same rights as anyone else, it's a defining principle of law.

Remorse doesn't matter if we are talking about her coming back to the UK. She has the right to return as she is a UK citizen.

In court remorse absolutely counts, I am not sure why you think the law doesn't take remorse into account.

At the end of the process remorse counts. Until then, remorse does not apply in terms of the legal the rights she is afforded as a UK citizen. Whether you have remorse or not, everyone has the same rights.

We don't base the concept of a fair trial against signs of remorse, that is a misnomer against the principles of innocent until proven guilty. Only the sentence, once a verdict has been reached, will depend on the remorse shown.

So exactly what I said then?

I guess, you seemed to be suggesting I didn't think that which is why I clarified.

[Lotus]

Michael Portillo tonight: “Chris Grayling, the most incompetent minister of all time”

The Times:

This Week, the BBC’s long-running politics programme, is being axed by the corporation after Andrew Neil, its host, decided to step down.

The BBC One show will disappear from schedules this summer after the corporation decided it would not be recommissioned, The Times understands. It has run for 16 years.

The cancellation will disappoint fans of This Week’s informal and gently satirical take on Westminster affairs.

Despite its late slot, airing at 11.45pm after Question Time on Thursdays, the programme’s lighthearted but rigorous tone attracted a loyal audience.

Regular panellists included Michael Portillo, the former Conservative MP, and Diane Abbott, Labour’s shadow home secretary, who enjoyed an unlikely on-screen chemistry despite their political disagreements.

BBC: This Week will end after its current run, as presenter @afneil steps down from late-night presenting. Fran Unsworth, BBC Director of News, says: “We couldn’t imagine This Week without the inimitable Andrew Neil, one of Britain’s best political interviewers. After 16 years, Andrew is bowing out of late-night presenting on the show, at the top of his game,

“We want to keep Andrew at the heart of the BBC’s political coverage. He continues to present Politics Live on Thursdays and we look forward to developing future projects with him.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc- ... -fmfx2sg9s

That's a shame, it was quite entertaining sometimes.

Caught a bit of Question Time last night, which I generally avoid watching these days. They should've just ditched it when David Dimbleby left, or broadcast 'Any Questions' in its place.
There was stunning woman on the panel though, think her name was Grace - worth tuning in just for her. Used to be someone from The Economist who they'd get on who was lovely as well, can't remember who she was but she was

[Lex-Man]

Michael Portillo tonight: “Chris Grayling, the most incompetent minister of all time”

The Times:

This Week, the BBC’s long-running politics programme, is being axed by the corporation after Andrew Neil, its host, decided to step down.

The BBC One show will disappear from schedules this summer after the corporation decided it would not be recommissioned, The Times understands. It has run for 16 years.

The cancellation will disappoint fans of This Week’s informal and gently satirical take on Westminster affairs.

Despite its late slot, airing at 11.45pm after Question Time on Thursdays, the programme’s lighthearted but rigorous tone attracted a loyal audience.

Regular panellists included Michael Portillo, the former Conservative MP, and Diane Abbott, Labour’s shadow home secretary, who enjoyed an unlikely on-screen chemistry despite their political disagreements.

BBC: This Week will end after its current run, as presenter @afneil steps down from late-night presenting. Fran Unsworth, BBC Director of News, says: “We couldn’t imagine This Week without the inimitable Andrew Neil, one of Britain’s best political interviewers. After 16 years, Andrew is bowing out of late-night presenting on the show, at the top of his game,

“We want to keep Andrew at the heart of the BBC’s political coverage. He continues to present Politics Live on Thursdays and we look forward to developing future projects with him.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc- ... -fmfx2sg9s

That's a shame, it was quite entertaining sometimes.

Caught a bit of Question Time last night, which I generally avoid watching these days. They should've just ditched it when David Dimbleby left, or broadcast 'Any Questions' in its place.
There was stunning woman on the panel though, think her name was Grace - worth tuning in just for her. Used to be someone from The Economist who they'd get on who was lovely as well, can't remember who she was but she was

Is't he a total prick in real life.

[Preezy]

There was stunning woman on the panel though, think her name was Grace - worth tuning in just for her.

Grace Blakeley - Economist at left-wing think tank the IPPR and economics commentator at The New Statesman.

Fit

[KK]

Is't he a total prick in real life.

Andrew Neil reminds me a bit of Paxman. Rather boorish in real life maybe, but one of the best heavyweight (in more ways than one!) political interviewers on TV.

[Blue Eyes]

Theresa May criticising school children for going on a strike over climate strawberry floating crisis and labelling them timewasters. You strawberry floating bitch. You hypocritical, useless old banana split. Die in a fire.

[Moggy]

Theresa May criticising school children for going on a strike over climate strawberry floating crisis and labelling them timewasters. You strawberry floating bitch. You hypocritical, useless old banana split. Die in a fire.

Did she mention timewasting while on her 153rd trip to Brussels to talk about a deal that she knows Brussels will reject and her own party doesn’t really want?

[Jenuall]

Can school children go "on strike", surely you have to be an employee of some description to take strike action?

Not to take away from the fact that May is a complete gooseberry fool of course, that is unquestionably the case - both in this specific instance, and in pretty much everything she has ever done.

[Oblomov Boblomov]

I went on strike from school to protest against the Iraq War.

Got such a bollocking .

Happy memories .

[Rax]

Can school children go "on strike", surely you have to be an employee of some description to take strike action?

Yup, we did it when we were kids, the teachers were striking, they were doing their regular classes but refusing to fill in for sickness, absence, study classes, that kind of thing. It dragged on for ages so some students organised a pupil strike cos they were affecting our chances of a good education. Most people just went along with it to get a day off school though.

[Moggy]

Bloke in my office: “but what if she comes back and then detonates a bomb that kills YOUR children, how will you feel then?”

I love it when people get into a frothing rage over something that only exists in their imagination.

[Jenuall]

Can school children go "on strike", surely you have to be an employee of some description to take strike action?

Yup, we did it when we were kids, the teachers were striking, they were doing their regular classes but refusing to fill in for sickness, absence, study classes, that kind of thing. It dragged on for ages so some students organised a pupil strike cos they were affecting our chances of a good education. Most people just went along with it to get a day off school though.

Oh I appreciate that kids can decide to all stop going to school, it's more whether that should be described as a "strike".

I'm just being pedantic.

[Moggy]

My mum remembers going on strike at school. Some of the kids in the years above her organised it as they were sick to death of the teachers going on strike.

[Lex-Man]

Is't he a total prick in real life.

Andrew Neil reminds me a bit of Paxman. Rather boorish in real life maybe, but one of the best heavyweight (in more ways than one!) political interviewers on TV.

I've seen a number f tweets where it looks like he's pretty far right. Seems to be big into Brexit and UKIP though.

[Lagamorph]

When I was in first year at Secondary School the Third Years all went on strike one day because they thought they were getting too much homework.
It was in the middle of one of the morning classes and suddenly the entire third year got up and walked out of classes onto the school field in protest.

[Moggy]

twitter.com/chunkymark/status/1096413545112195072