to think they should charge the Syria girls

[adsy]

If they are indeed with terrorists in Syria then when a small chink of sense comes back to them and they want to come home, I hope they will be charged.

Yes, tiggs post agrees with me. As she says, and I did, you need PROOF of membership, PROOF there is a knife in my car, PROOF of supporting terrorists.
However people keep posting that they don't need any of that pesky proofs, they've made their minds up. They've read the tabloids online and thats all they need to know....

Wannabe Operation Yewtree was established after his death so I'm not sure how he could be tried - but there is plenty of EVIDENCE to show what he did and enough to charge and convict other people

As has been stated repeatedly these girls will be charged with any crimes they have committed should they return

This is right and proper

It doesn't mean you don't strive to understand what they did - because that's how you prevent others doing the same

It also doesn't mean 2+2 = 6 ... the evidence is not enough to accuse them of marrying rapists for example

exactly - Tiggs post is about evidence and proof - of criminal activity - it's not filled with frothing conjecture and paranoid anger

thankfully

but they probably won't come back. And thus we won't be able to try them for anything, but that won't make them not guilty.

Intent isn't simply wanting to do something, it is believing you are taking steps to make it happen. As these girls believe, have taken steps to do something. And DNA is not definitive evidence! It might show that contact had been made between a peroan and surface/another person etc. But what if in the hypothetical scenario, she had already been raped and ran from where is happened, barging into him, flailing at him and he gripped her arm to get her off him. Then proceeded round the corner?. Or, what if she had grazed herself on a wall, and brushed against his jeans as she ran past, then he scrathed to get the blood off? DNA is not 100% evidential of every crime. But it is surmis3d as to how DNA ended up somewhere, so that is then presented as almost fact.

I would say debating on age of criminal culpability and measures that can be taken, without appearing racist, ageist and sexist, is a controversial subject.

There is proof of them supporting ISIS. They have been in direct contact with them and one of them is on 70 pro ISIS web support groups. I'd say that's proof of support. And that is illegal

Anyway I give up. AS the saying goes: never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience.

Luckily all of your opinions on what should or should not happen are entirely irrelevant, and people with far more sense will make the decisions. If you want to get your rocks off here talking about getting revenge on teenagers, knock yourself out.

But countess you've not addressed my point that they have ALREADY broken the law by being in contact with a proscribed terrorist group. So, on the basis that they have already broken the law, do you think they should be charged if they return?

I'm off to watch paint dry - I am - I have a hall and 2 bedrooms to do this week

have fun

the scottish girl they had contact with has been over there since 2013. She is married to an IS fighter. She is actively recruiting women to join IS and marry fighters. She's not likely to be coming back. But she's still a terrorist, not being able to charge or convict her doesn't make that less so.

all this talk of needing evidence is only relevant for if they come back. Assuming they don't, and they do in fact go to syria and marry IS fighters (they might already be in fact for all we know) then they will be terrorists. you don't become a terrorist because you've been charged and convicted, conviction is a hopeful outcome but the lack of conviction doesn't mean the crime doesn't exist.

Will some luck they will be bombed and we can stop wasting money trying to find them,

Travelling to join IS does however make you a terrorist under British law

I'm no legal expert but yes, that's how I understand it, though I'm another who'd rather wait for actual proof. That said, even if proof existed, it probably wouldn't be enough for those whose "competitive compassion" (well said, Limegold) seems to blind them to the dangers here

As I've said before, the security of the vast majority should matter more than futile excuses for the few

Serious question ghosty and count - where and why do you think they have gone? And IF they have gone to join ISIS do you think they should be charged?

As that's what this thread is about.

joyfull I've asked them that a few times but they don't seem to have an answer. I just get accused of being revengeful, frothing, vindictive and a daily mail reader.

I also tried asking that Joyful but not as directly, lets hope you get an answer I doubt it somehow .

I can answer.

I think they've gone to Turkey.
I think there is a chance they will go to Siria
I think there is an outside chance they have gone to bring back their friend.

IF they join ISIS then:

1. They probably will never come back, so charging them is not an option

2 If they come back they should be charged with joining a terrorist organisation.

Problem?

Serious question ghosty and count - where and why do you think they have gone? And IF they have gone to join ISIS do you think they should be charged

Can I suggest you read the thread as I have answered that repeatedly - but one more time

I think they have gone to Turkey - I think they probably intend to try to get in to Syria - if they have committed a crime they should be charged

I've said that a lot all over this thread - hth x

do you agree that as they have already committed a crime of being in direct contact with ISIS then they should be charged with that if they return. even if they only made it to Turkey?

ghosty?

um - which law would that be adsy? you have to break a law in order to commit a crime. It's the issue of evidence and proof again. If there is evidence that they are IS supporters then they have committed a crime. An awful lot of people on here seem to have access to information that is not in the public domain - you seem to know what these girls have done in terms of access to websites, what their tweets said, what the authorities think - or are you just accepting everything you turn up online after a quick google as evidence?

Sorry ghosty I must have missed it although if going of your last post your others posts are a little contradictory. If your going of the stance that you shouldnt put 2+2 together when you post that you agree they probally have traveled to Syria

well it seems to be public knowledge , and the police and families have not disputed it, that they have been in direct contact with members of ISIS. That is against the law. ( also known as committing a crime) Altough I don't have direct access to their computers, that is where the police will have found the evidence of the contact.
evidence / proof = case to prosecute

Posted too soon. You agree that they probally have intent of getting in to syria - but what do you think they are going there for?? Why would they be travelling to Syria ?

loiner have you listened to the radio recently or watched the news ? Several times a day over the past two days I've heard them talk about the contact they have had on media sites and Isis supporting websites?

Why do you keep screaming for proof? Open your ears or eyes, turn the news on... .

They were interviewed last year when their friend went to Syria. one of them stole a passport to travel. they told no one wgere they were going. their families are appealing for them not to join ISIS.
as a teenager, if I'd run away, my family's and the police's immediate thought wouldn't have been that I had joined a terrorist organisation so I think we can be quite confident that evidence points to that's what they're doing.
otherwise, why wouldn't the headlines just be "3 schoolfriends run away to Turkey" ( don't bother saying it's because they're muslim. Plenty of muslims run away each year without the assumption they're joiing ISIS)