Talk

Advanced search

To wonder how we CAN even consider not bringing the girl back from Syria?

(668 Posts)
SpeakingALanguage Mon 18-Feb-19 09:41:42

Do we not legally have to? We can't just wipe our hands of her, can we?

I've seen petition after petition on my Facebook feed about not allowing her back, sign the petition, etc etc.

But if she's a British citizen, does she not have every legal right to be here, even if she is vile and dangerous?

I did see someone mention she would have to get here on her own steam, but isn't there a big part in the British passport (I know she hasn't got one but she was entitled and is technically British), that says something along the lines of Her Majesty grants assistance and protection as needed?

Without her baby even coming into the argument, she alone regardless is allowed back here, vulnerable with a newborn or not.

SpeakingALanguage Mon 18-Feb-19 09:42:53

Oh and isn't Britain responsible for placing her anyway?

Idiota Mon 18-Feb-19 09:43:54

The UK withdrew all diplomatic staff from Syria years ago when the conflict started - it’s far too dangerous for them there.

The UK Government makes it clear on the Syria page on its website that it cannot provide consular assistance to UK citizens in Syria. That information was clear before she chose to travel there.

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe Britain should deny her entry if she manages to get to the UK, or to a British embassy/consulate in another country, like Iraq.

But I also don’t believe that Britain should risk the lives of British soldiers/diplomatic staff in trying to retrieve her.

Thehop Mon 18-Feb-19 09:44:07

I asked why her parents didn’t just fly out and bring her back at the start of this, though I don’t agree she should be “brought back” and endanger other people to do so.

I’ve read that, even if she did manage to get back to the UK, she’s be arrested. Let’s hope so.

badlydrawnperson Mon 18-Feb-19 09:44:57

Bringing her back and allowing her back are two very different things.

I don't think we should spend any money and/or risk people's lives in getting her.

If she finds her own way back (she found her own way out there) then, yes we have to accept her.

SpeakingALanguage Mon 18-Feb-19 09:46:00

I see. So just to clarify, the British government have 0 legal duty to retrieve her and are under no obligation to do so?

If that's the case, good. But something tells me it's not as clear cut

Idiota Mon 18-Feb-19 09:46:22

I agree with badlydrawn

Allowing her back? Yes.

Bringing her back? No way.

SuchAToDo Mon 18-Feb-19 09:47:19

I personally don't want her ever coming back to UK, first of all she chose to go there, second of all she only wants to come back to use the health service of a country that Islamic state despise and have attacked, thirdly she isn't sorry about joining and doesn't regret it, fourthly in the news interview they asked if she knew about the terror attacks in other countries by Islamic state etc and she said she knew and wasn't bothered because it is permitted by Islam...

Her mindset is still supporting Islamic state,...so no I don't think she should be allowed back,

She is a danger to citizens of age comes back,

Idiota Mon 18-Feb-19 09:48:02

*I see. So just to clarify, the British government have 0 legal duty to retrieve her and are under no obligation to do so?

If that's the case, good. But something tells me it's not as clear cut*

It is entirely that clear cut.

Take a look at the Syria page on the UKgov website:
www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/syria

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) advise against all travel to Syria. British nationals in Syria should leave by any practical means. Consular support is not available in Syria. The UK has suspended all services of the British Embassy in Damascus and all diplomatic and consular staff have been withdrawn from Syria. British nationals requiring assistance should make their way to a neighbouring country where the UK has a consular presence.

SpeakingALanguage Mon 18-Feb-19 09:50:22

I personally don't want her ever coming back to UK, first of all she chose to go there, second of all she only wants to come back to use the health service of a country that Islamic state despise and have attacked, thirdly she isn't sorry about joining and doesn't regret it, fourthly in the news interview they asked if she knew about the terror attacks in other countries by Islamic state etc and she said she knew and wasn't bothered because it is permitted by Islam

I don't want her back either. She can stay there and get lost for all I care.

But. What I want and what is the law/must happen are two different things.

However, it seems to be clarified that we can wash our hands of her since she's in Syria

BanjoStarz Mon 18-Feb-19 09:50:59

Legally it is that clear cut - we have to allow her in, we do not have to retrieve her.

Morally it’s a bit less clear but mainly IMO because of the new born - I can’t see people getting this worked up over a single female who chose to go now being stuck in a camp.

Samcro Mon 18-Feb-19 09:51:31

who is going to "bring her back" who is going to risk their life?

Idiota Mon 18-Feb-19 09:51:40

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you there @SuchAToDo

If she’s a danger, then she is every bit as much a danger to Syrians as she is to Brits. Islamic State killed thousands of Syrians, far more than it ever killed in Britain.

If you’re saying that she’s dangerous so should be left in Syria, then the logic your argument rests on is that Syrian lives are worth less than British lives...

I don’t believe that the UK government should actively bring her back. But if she manages to return herself we have to allow her entry.

She’s not a Syrian citizen and isn’t their problem.

bengalcat Mon 18-Feb-19 09:54:16

As a British Citizen she’s entitled to return to the country but would obviously be a ‘ person of interest ‘ to the authorities and thus be arrested and undergo the same type of detention and questioning that any other person with terrorist links or views would face .

SpeakingALanguage Mon 18-Feb-19 09:55:32

If you’re saying that she’s dangerous so should be left in Syria, then the logic your argument rests on is that Syrian lives are worth less than British lives...

I imagine a lot of people will respond that yes, they do view British lives as worth more, since it's protecting their own.

A bit like the question "If someone is clearly a danger to someone else, why would I then retrieve that danger for my own?"

Yes it's all morally questionable. I know

Uptheapplesandpears Mon 18-Feb-19 09:55:59

There isnt any legal duty to retrieve her and it is that clear cut. There is a legal duty to provide consular assistance if she turns up at a consulate, which at present would mean leaving Syria. I think you're confusing depriving her of citizenship, which we cant do, with not helping her come back, which we can do.

meditrina Mon 18-Feb-19 09:59:52

The goverment's position on this - that no-one will be assisted within Syria (in place since the embassy closed) is clear and openly published.

It's totally legal.

Some countries will retrieve their nationals - just like some countries pay ransoms for their nationals - but that does not all countries should follow suit.

If we were going to lift Brits from those camps, then we should get all of them. Not just the one the media has heard of. Establishing who is there and claiming to be British (and then verifying as far as possible) would mean British officials in the camps (when there are none anywhere in the country on safety grounds) or trusted third parties. Are there any suitable ones?

JellyBook Mon 18-Feb-19 10:01:20

I would just like common sense to come into these situations sometimes, rather than have to blindly follow what should ‘legally’ happen.

What laws has she been adhering to since she made her decision to go?

Idiota Mon 18-Feb-19 10:02:10

I imagine a lot of people will respond that yes, they do view British lives as worth more, since it's protecting their own.

A bit like the question "If someone is clearly a danger to someone else, why would I then retrieve that danger for my own?"

I’m not saying we retrieve her. I’m just saying we can’t stop her from entering herself.

And it’s not the same as that question - it would only be the same if you changed it to be:
“If my dog, which I bought and raised, turns violent one day and starts attacking a child in the street, why would I then retrieve my dog because it might start attacking me”

lizzzyyliveson Mon 18-Feb-19 10:07:35

A dangerously out of control dog can be shot by the police. I don't think your argument pans out the way you want it to.

SaturdayNext Mon 18-Feb-19 10:10:32

Her mindset is still supporting Islamic state,...so no I don't think she should be allowed back

But how do you suggest she can be legally prevented from coming backHer mindset is still supporting Islamic state,...so no I don't think she should be allowed back, @SuchaToDo?

JellyBook, fortunately we don't operate on the basis that, if someone disobeys the law, they and their children thereby lose all legal protections. We would be reducing ourselves to the level of terrorists and criminals if we did.

IWannaSeeHowItEnds Mon 18-Feb-19 10:12:34

You would retrieve your dog so it could be put down. Do you really want to go with that analogy?

I am in favour of rescuing the baby, who did not choose to be there and is an innocent. If she makes her own way back, she ought to be arrested and imprisoned.

CoolCarrie Mon 18-Feb-19 10:12:35

She used her sister’s passport, which Ibet has been sold on to some other IS bastard!

PinkHeart5914 Mon 18-Feb-19 10:13:57

Why should someone from here to sent to a fucking war zone to recuse her?

Ummm no she went willing so......

Isn’t life a bitch sometimes

IWannaSeeHowItEnds Mon 18-Feb-19 10:14:08

She didn't worry about the law when she went. We shouldn't be held to it now she wants to be brought back.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »