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

[SpeakingALanguage]

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.

I don't know about other countries but I certainly wouldn't want to forfeit my right to deport foreign criminals over this one individual.

They could have as many death wishes as they like. I don't envisage them wandering about, playing ping pong.

I see them locked up in small, soundproofed, individual cells, which they never leave and never, ever have contact with anyone.

Every country would have a period of staffing and financing the boat. If a country wanted to spend the bare minimum during their stint, then they could, even if it meant that all the stateless people ate during that period was dried beans!

If a ship would be easier, then great but same guiding principles. The main thing is that we cannot let technical excuses-expense /difficulty of building these vessels- be used as a reason as to why it couldn't happen.

The people these creatures kill have less...a six foot plot.

@finding my feet.

You're missing the point. Land prisons are on...land. Some country has to take these twats in.

International prison ships would come with the added bonus that international law could declare them stateless. They are not allowed on any land. No country has to take responsibility for them.

In the case of this creature, Syria doesn't want her, Holland doesn't want her, the UK don't want her, so off she pops for a life on the ocean wave.

Sweet dreams attend her!

I think people put too much stock in 'deradicalisation' programmes. The governments own figures suggest a 95% failure rate, and there were reports that a multimillion euro French one did not deradicalise a single jihadist

I wasn't aware of that, though it doesn't surprise me at all. When will folk realise that a bit of time spent on silly "programmes" stands no chance at all against a lifetime of conditioning and the kind of mindset where even an innocent baby (if it's hers) gets named after a jew killer?

But a prison ship is still being manned by someone! Whether on a rota or not. What has land or sea got to do with it?

Why shouldn't we take responsibility for our own criminals?

Ligtning, do you not think that one of the reasons you, for instance, prefer to live in the UK than Oooh Afghanistan, is because in the UK we live by the Rule of Law? Or because we adhere to the idea of Human Rights, unlike, say, Saudi?

If we forget that PEOPLE must be treated with humanity, if we forget to apply the Rule of Law, what separates us from places where they don't?

Those principles apply in the UK, they undline the whole of our lives. Sometimes it can be hard to remember them, and even harder to apply them , but if we are to maintain our way of life, we must make that effort.

There is so much more riding on this than you seem to be aware of.

You can’t say Syria doesn’t want her. They are not yet in a position to start war trials yet as IS is not yet fully defeated. They have not asked for her to be removed nor is she free to move about freely as she is being held in a separate camp for IS women. And why is there a separate camp unless the Syrian authorities are thinking that at some future time they will want these people to be identifiable so they can face trial.

We should not even consider allowing her to leave Syria and go anywhere not just back here until Syria has a chance to decide whether they wish these women to stand trial and face justice for the wrongs they have committed against the Syrian people.

Yes, manned by the international community-all taking turns.

These criminals are people who have pissed off to another country to wage war against their own country.

Unsurprisingly, many people in those countries don't want the twats back when they find they are on the losing side and, as in this case, turn up with a baby-not hers I shouldn't think- and a sob story.

So, no-one wants them and no-one should have to have them. The country of origin declares them stateless in a ceremony much like he reverse of the one that confers citizenship and off they go to the sea.

Every country takes a stint at 'steering' the ship according to their own lights and we forget all about them.

@Dontweather

Great Point!

Yeah a shared prison ship is the future

If Brexit has taught us anything it's that international collaboration is the way forward...

Absolutely, let Syria decide what to do with her.

@Bluntness100 the family prob aren't forking our for the flight as they'll be expecting and waiting for the government to fork out..

We should not even consider allowing her to leave Syria and go anywhere ... until Syria has a chance to decide whether they wish these women to stand trial

I take your point, but it's not really about "allowing" her to leave since we can't actually stop her

As said, I'm more concerned that some idiot will take it upon themselves to help her do exactly that - and while the roads aren't exactly the M1, it's only 60 miles from the camp to the border

If you dig into her family life a little, you can tell this 'radicalisation didn't happen from nowhere.

After her Mum died in 2014, she lived with her uncle, devout Muslim and former religious scholar, Shamim Miah. Articles quote him staying he got her up at 5am to pray each day and that she was "upset about her Mum, even though as Mulsims we believe that earthy life means nothing."

Tellingly, when she went missing, instead of calling the police they called Islamist group Cage (of the jihadi John is beautiful brigade). Don't forget Moazzam Begg (always harping on about how racist Prevent is etc) moved his family over to live under the Taliban in Afghanistan, as he believed in the caliphate/their morals.

So I think the family had a lot to do with Shamima going out there. If you watch the Sky news interview carefully, when Shamima is asked about her family, there is a Freudian slip moment when she says "at first they helped me" then shook her head and backtracked "at first they tried to stop me".

I also notice the Islamist lawyer blaming everyone but her family, of course.

It wouldn't surprise me if the uncle gave her the money to go and helped arrange it.

I agree with the last post entirely. If it was so easy for 15 year old Muslim girls to be lured to Isis I think there’d be more cases. I think her family had everything to do with this.

I think the girls were looking for something that they didn't get from home - love, security, autonomy, recognition. The people who radicalised them seized on this to lure them over.

They did support a murderous regime however and at 15 knew what they were doing.

medusa83, from what I read from trusted News Stories, the Father did contact Scotland Yard as soon as he found out. "The Family" was made up by two members, one of which, the Grandmother, could have been subject to the same treatment. It wasn't after the death of her Mother, it was whilst it was happening. Which makes sense, if you have the view that her grief and need for a Family, being a child, was exploited.

The Police have admitted that they made mistakes in the handling of the three Girl's cases.

The money came from her savi GS, given around the death of her Mother, which is the norm in their Culture. As she was an only child.

TheRiverIsAComfort, they are people, not creatures and as said, dehumanising people doesn't do any society any good. Explain her crimes, because I'm not understanding what she is the perpetrator of.

"They did support a murderous regime however and at 15 knew what they were doing."

Yet we don't view child prostitutes (child abuse victims), or Girls who run away with older Men etc in that way.

We certainly didn't advocate licking up the killers of James Bulger, until they were full Adults.

We also don't view child soldiers, who happen to be male, who have raped/murdered as monsters. There are charities that work to rehabilitate them.

What did the Girls do that anyone who was married to a member of the provisional IRA, didn't do?

Or many other regimes.

I think distinguishing between people and those who want to maim and kill in the most frightening way possible is entirely necessary and helpful to every society.

They are at best a sub class of human-murderous and inhumane.

Are you possibly suggesting that she is innocent when you say, 'explain her crimes'? Surely not! But, if you are, what is your motivation in that?

Having read about her and from recent media coverage, she is completely brainwashed. She was groomed (by a group at her mosque, online and girls at her school). Despite her horrendous experiences over the past 4 years, she is still a supporter. She should be monitored very closely wherever she goes. The concern is that she will recruit/groom others into the same way of thinking.

They actively sought to travel to support a regime that harmed others. They weren't living in Syria and got caught up.

I do think she must be allowed back in and be imprisoned.

But I think you are right to an extent Birds. Tony Blair has never been made accountable despite being responsible for the illegal murder of thousands which he's admitted. This girls crimes pale in comparison and imbalances like that only help to recruit more people like her.

The uncle went to Cage - not the father. Cage are Islamists.

There was also a report stating a women's group at the East London mosque was also radicalising her.

So she was getting it from all quarters.

No other country would even consider taking the likes of her back, the Netherlands wouldn't, nor would France or the United States

They undoubtedly would if she were a sole citizen of those respective countries, due to the fact that they're signed up to the same international treaties.

The question about crimes is pertiment - as a society we penalise based on those crimes committed which can be proved. Her lawyers point about Nazis is also pertinent. They are tried when caught despite already being members of the Nazi party.

As for using language like "sub class", clearly our own society hasn't moved on much if we're going to persist with that type of thinking.

So, no-one wants them and no-one should have to have them. The country of origin declares them stateless in a ceremony much like he reverse of the one that confers citizenship and off they go to the sea.

Every country takes a stint at 'steering' the ship according to their own lights and we forget all about them.

Bear in mind that no justice system is infallible, and some regimes have their own reasons for wanting to shut up inconvenient people.

Would you be happy to have a relative or friend of yours shoved onto this submarine on the say-so of a regime that has arbitrarily decided to declare them stateless?