schoolgirl who joined IS but wants to come home.

[DungBeetle]

New tax laws in recent years have taken a guilty until proven innocent stance.  Taxman can demand payment (and penalties) and then it is up to you to prove your position.  If it’s good enough for rich people then it’s good enough for people who openly join terrorist networks.

[kukushkin88]

If we are involved in a "war" with terror and ISIS are involved in "jihad".

They arm themselves and attack us.

How is it not a war, how are they not soldiers?

We are still thinking in traditional terms to solve a modern phenomenon (imo)

I'm pretty sure we've also had a war on waste before - I don't think we need to prosecute any plastic bags for treason though.

The people who have used these terms are engaging in PR.

Do plastic bags blow up our children on their way to school?

Why don’t we change the principle to guilty until proven innocent for the 0.0001% who fly off to join our enemies?

Continuing to quote legalities isn’t delivering solutions mate

Yes, I would be happy with that, but we would still need a trial to prove that an accused person did actually fly off to join our enemies.

Isn’t ‘innocent until proven guilty’ just about the #1 key component of ensuring a fair trial? I’d be less willing to give it up.

In terms of delivering solutions. Terrorism has never been less of a problem (in any measurable way) in the UK than it is now. We could carry on as we are? Obviously it’s unfortunate if people are afraid and it’s hard to know what to do about that, we could encourage them to try and keep the scale of the actual threat in perspective?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-killed-terrorist-attacks-uk/amp/

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7613/CBP-7613.pdf

I guess there’s actually some complicated maths and interpretation needed before I state the trend quite so unequivocally. It’s down though, by most measures.

[MANTIS01]

The important measure where it’s up I believe is the accessibility and new methods. Folk can simply act alone, little planning, hard to identify and impossible to stop. Drive a van into crowds, homemade bomb at a concert. All influenced by messages online. So I think it’s important to combat with our own messages. For sure let’s be holistic and positive to attack the roots but if you step outside of civilised society you are no longer protected by the rules of civilised society. Thus allowing Begum to return and just carrying on with normal life because we can’t investigate or offer a fair trial sends out what message? Well it says you can just step in and out of civilised society when it suits when in fact it should be a luxury, a gift.

[RED-DOG]

The important measure where it’s up I believe is the accessibility and new methods. Folk can simply act alone, little planning, hard to identify and impossible to stop. Drive a van into crowds, homemade bomb at a concert. All influenced by messages online. So I think it’s important to combat with our own messages. For sure let’s be holistic and positive to attack the roots but if you step outside of civilised society you are no longer protected by the rules of civilised society. Thus allowing Begum to return and just carrying on with normal life because we can’t investigate or offer a fair trial sends out what message? Well it says you can just step in and out of civilised society when it suits when in fact it should be a luxury, a gift.

But how do we decide who has, and who has not stepped outside of civilised society?

How do we write that into UK law?

[MANTIS01]

The important measure where it’s up I believe is the accessibility and new methods. Folk can simply act alone, little planning, hard to identify and impossible to stop. Drive a van into crowds, homemade bomb at a concert. All influenced by messages online. So I think it’s important to combat with our own messages. For sure let’s be holistic and positive to attack the roots but if you step outside of civilised society you are no longer protected by the rules of civilised society. Thus allowing Begum to return and just carrying on with normal life because we can’t investigate or offer a fair trial sends out what message? Well it says you can just step in and out of civilised society when it suits when in fact it should be a luxury, a gift.

But how do we decide who has, and who has not stepped outside of civilised society?

How do we write that into UK law?

Just as an aside Red, if you could flick a switch that saw Hitler shot in the face at 18 would you? Or would you say that due process including a fair trial in a court would be the right principle.

[RED-DOG]

The important measure where it’s up I believe is the accessibility and new methods. Folk can simply act alone, little planning, hard to identify and impossible to stop. Drive a van into crowds, homemade bomb at a concert. All influenced by messages online. So I think it’s important to combat with our own messages. For sure let’s be holistic and positive to attack the roots but if you step outside of civilised society you are no longer protected by the rules of civilised society. Thus allowing Begum to return and just carrying on with normal life because we can’t investigate or offer a fair trial sends out what message? Well it says you can just step in and out of civilised society when it suits when in fact it should be a luxury, a gift.

But how do we decide who has, and who has not stepped outside of civilised society?

How do we write that into UK law?

Just as an aside Red, if you could flick a switch that saw Hitler shot in the face at 18 would you? Or would you say that due process including a fair trial in a court would be the right principle.

If we are doing imaginary switches mine would make 18yo Hitler grow into a great and just leader.

In regards to your question I would choose shot in the face, and I would also agree to alleged terrorists to being convicted without trial if we could do it with hindsight, 80 years after the fact.

[kukushkin88]

This is a case we absolutely want to be heard.

The government is wanting to remove the citizenship of someone born here. Even if there was a video of her beheading someone I'd want this case to be heard. The only way these arguments are going to be heard is if she has legal representation. As this case could set precedent, it's important the best case is made for her. Regardless of your opinion of this girl, this is a very important case

Legal aid is under attack by the gutter press and it's sad to see.

When the state is trying to impose an action on you, the right to basic competent legal defence should be cherished. The fee is a standard fee and when you see headline figures of 100k you have to remember that does not go to the accused. It is paid directly to the legal team. Vat is applicable, as is income tax and national insurance. The actual cost to the tax payer is much less than the reported figure

This really was a good post. I’ll quote it again in response to the most recent posts (including a good one from Mantis)

I certainly didn’t anticipate that she’d be coming home to carry on as normal. If there’s a crime, let’s identify it and take appropriate action.

I wouldn’t underestimate how much she will have suffered, for a decision (a decision that we believe to be a terrible one) that she made, when she was a child.

[MANTIS01]

The important measure where it’s up I believe is the accessibility and new methods. Folk can simply act alone, little planning, hard to identify and impossible to stop. Drive a van into crowds, homemade bomb at a concert. All influenced by messages online. So I think it’s important to combat with our own messages. For sure let’s be holistic and positive to attack the roots but if you step outside of civilised society you are no longer protected by the rules of civilised society. Thus allowing Begum to return and just carrying on with normal life because we can’t investigate or offer a fair trial sends out what message? Well it says you can just step in and out of civilised society when it suits when in fact it should be a luxury, a gift.

But how do we decide who has, and who has not stepped outside of civilised society?

How do we write that into UK law?

Just as an aside Red, if you could flick a switch that saw Hitler shot in the face at 18 would you? Or would you say that due process including a fair trial in a court would be the right principle.

If we are doing imaginary switches mine would make 18yo Hitler grow into a great and just leader.

In regards to your question I would choose shot in the face, and I would also agree to alleged terrorists to being convicted without trial if we could do it with hindsight, 80 years after the fact.

Yah so the variable of hindsight would compromise your principle that everybody deserves a fair trial.

So for me it’s not so outlandish for folk to wonder what other variables might compromise this principle

Fact is we cannot say it should be a resolute principle if we would in fact compromise it

[RED-DOG]

The important measure where it’s up I believe is the accessibility and new methods. Folk can simply act alone, little planning, hard to identify and impossible to stop. Drive a van into crowds, homemade bomb at a concert. All influenced by messages online. So I think it’s important to combat with our own messages. For sure let’s be holistic and positive to attack the roots but if you step outside of civilised society you are no longer protected by the rules of civilised society. Thus allowing Begum to return and just carrying on with normal life because we can’t investigate or offer a fair trial sends out what message? Well it says you can just step in and out of civilised society when it suits when in fact it should be a luxury, a gift.

But how do we decide who has, and who has not stepped outside of civilised society?

How do we write that into UK law?

Just as an aside Red, if you could flick a switch that saw Hitler shot in the face at 18 would you? Or would you say that due process including a fair trial in a court would be the right principle.

If we are doing imaginary switches mine would make 18yo Hitler grow into a great and just leader.

In regards to your question I would choose shot in the face, and I would also agree to alleged terrorists to being convicted without trial if we could do it with hindsight, 80 years after the fact.

Yah so the variable of hindsight would compromise your principle that everybody deserves a fair trial.

So for me it’s not so outlandish for folk to wonder what other variables might compromise this principle

Fact is we cannot say it should be a resolute principle if we would in fact compromise it

Well if you can write 80 years of hindsight into law I'm all for it.

[MANTIS01]

Without hindsight the best we can do is anticipate consequences to protect innocent people

I’d say it’s reasonable to anticipate we couldn’t investigate Begum properly, charge her or call witnesses so no fair trial available

We could anticipate she would carry on as normal and this would be zero deterrent or just punishment and the problem of terror would grow

Hence my view that everybody deserves a fair trial is very complicated facing this new challenge and disastrous consequences

[kukushkin88]

😂 I thought it was going well. I thought the fact that we wouldn’t at any point have access to a time machine was a given, foolish me. We are saying we shouldn’t aspire to hold a fair trial because we might make different and possibly better decisions if we had a time machine?

[Marky147]

😂 I thought it was going well. I thought the fact that we wouldn’t at any point have access to a time machine was a given, foolish me. We are saying we shouldn’t aspire to hold a fair trial because we might make different and possibly better decisions if we had a time machine?

Click to see full-size image.

It's coming, kush