Things Noticeable this week

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

Trouble is the kid might not get adopted,There's a shortage of Asian people looking to adopt and there would all kinds of trouble if He went to white couple.

I had a bit of a revenge fantasy for a moment in which Ms Begum's unfortunate child is raised in a British Army orphanage, joins the Army aged 17 and rises to become a four star general commanding Allied forces in operations against Islamo-Fascist terrorist groups, occasionally sending postcards to Ms Begum detailing his exploits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqoLPPlHPPs

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I had a bit of a revenge fantasy for a moment in which Ms Begum's unfortunate child is raised in a British Army orphanage, joins the Army aged 17 and rises to become a four star general commanding Allied forces in operations against Islamo-Fascist terrorist groups .............

......... and was also openly Gay

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Meanwhile, there are unconfirmed reports that ISIL schoolgirl Shemima Begum has given birth - its a boy apparently. With a bit of luck she will fall into the hands of the Assad regime and the problem will be solved. But otherwise the crime I would try her for would be Treason, on the grounds that she adhered to the Queen's enemies. Probably a life sentence would be excessive, unless she participated in fighting and/or executions - but a ten to fifteen stretch would be quite fair, plus the mandatory removal of her child to be adopted by decent people, certainly not by any relatives of Ms Begum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98tM3ZGrAuc

The concept of betrayal is an ancient one, covered historically by the law of treason. But the UK’s Treason Act of 1351 is unworkable, partly because it was framed to protect the monarch rather than the country. The think-tank Policy Exchange has argued persuasively that the act must be updated to make betrayal a specific crime, which must be punished. This has not happened — partly because the machinery of lawmaking has been gummed up by Brexit.
IRA terrorists were never prosecuted for Treason precisely because it was so difficult to legally prove and also politically it was exactly what they wanted. To be seen as soldiers in a political struggle for their own 'sovereignty' and not just murderers.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

The concept of betrayal is an ancient one, covered historically by the law of treason. But the UK’s Treason Act of 1351 is unworkable, partly because it was framed to protect the monarch rather than the country. The think-tank Policy Exchange has argued persuasively that the act must be updated to make betrayal a specific crime, which must be punished. This has not happened — partly because the machinery of lawmaking has been gummed up by Brexit.
IRA terrorists were never prosecuted for Treason precisely because it was so difficult to legally prove and also politically it was exactly what they wanted. To be seen as soldiers in a political struggle for their own 'sovereignty' and not just murderers.

I suppose before Brexit the government were a bit busy on other projects such as austerity and wanting to re-legalise fox hunting. However, I don't think the same dynamics apply to Islamo-Fascist terrorists as used to apply to the Provisional IRA in the 1970s. Those who were born and raised here cannot invoke Irish allegiance, and if they could, the Irish would be just as happy to do them for treason in Ireland. Even secret friends of terrorists such as Pakistan, and not so secret friends of terrorists such as Iran would be wary of the risk of extending their citizenship to British traitors like Ms Begum. Her hand is against every man's and every man's hand is against her. We should make full use of her pariah status to punish her as an example.

On general principles I would support a reform of the treason law to make clear that the Queen is the nation's figurehead and that disloyalty to the nation and its whole people is the real essence of treason as a crime. But in the case of Shamima Begum and the other returning ISILs I don't think that's a problem. She's a British citizen and I reckon the case against her for treason under the 1351 statute is very strong neither is there a conflict between her duty of allegiance to the Crown (1351 statute) and her duty of allegiance to the country of her birth.

If she manages to make it back to Blighty without any help from the British authorities, then I reckon we should make sure we have prepared the ground for prosecuting her as soon as she shows up.

[vinceprince]

We are talking about ISIS, not sure what relevance Pakistan/Iran have here.

A Treason prosecution that will almost certainly fail according to lawyers, rather than the uninformed reactionary Tabloid press (that also call for Remainer MPs to prosecuted for treason) will be a massive boost for the Mad Mullahs of ISIS.

A very unlikely successful one will make her even more of a Martyr and figure head for them.

Personally I think the publicity would be counter productive if the first Treason Prosecution since WW2 is a naïve 15/19 year old female Jihadi bride rather than all the terrorist Male bombers and mass murderers before her that weren't tried for Treason if it is indeed quite possible to try for Treason as you say.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

We are talking about ISIS, not sure what relevance Pakistan/Iran have here.

A Treason prosecution that will almost certainly fail according to lawyers, rather than the uninformed reactionary Tabloid press (that also call for Remainer MPs to prosecuted for treason) will be a massive boost for the Mad Mullahs of ISIS.

A very unlikely successful one will make her even more of a Martyr and figure head for them.

Personally I think the publicity would be counter productive if the first Treason Prosecution since WW2 is a naïve 15/19 year old female Jihadi bride rather than all the terrorist Male bombers and mass murderers before her that weren't tried for Treason if it is indeed quite possible to try for Treason as you say.

I dont think you could treat her any differently than the others. I would use the treason law against any British person who bears allegiance to the enemies of Britain in a war; not just this woman only. Naturally I would be careful to take legal counsel and I agree that a prosecution should only be mounted if the case is extremely strong, because an acquittal would be very damaging, and the courts and judiciary are independent and will follow the law, not political convenience. It's only worth doing if the facts and the evidence support it - but prima facie the story is clearly one of running away to join and lend comfort to the enemy, which looks awfully like treason to me.

She might not make it back here - she's stranded in a refugee camp surrounded by forces which are hostile to her chosen side and which no doubt have heard of her. Maybe she will just stay where she is and rot, which would be the most just punishment possible, because she did it to herself.

Hubris calls for nemesis, and in one form or another it's going to get it, not as a punishment from outside but as the completion of a pattern already started. ~ Mary Midgeley.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

the enemies of Britain

How do you define "enemy" in UK? Don't you have to be at war with someone before you have an enemy? I mean legal wars of course

Do you have any other enemies?

[haroldeye]

Well you don't seem awfully friendly to us Brits judging from your posts old chum.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Well you don't seem awfully friendly to us Brits judging from your posts old chum.

I'm not always complimentary about the UK state, because there are many reasons not to be. But I'm not unfriendly to individuals. At least I hope no one thinks I am, because it's not intended

Or did you mean something different?

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by palo5

How do you define "enemy" in UK? Don't you have to be at war with someone before you have an enemy? I mean legal wars of course

Do you have any other enemies?

Palo you know as well as I do that there are many kinds of "wars". Right now there is political/economic war with Russia's buddy China with several other countries. Then there is the cyber war with the US and many others going on with Russia and China. Just for two.
So Russia has enemies in Syria and Ukraine huh??

Originally Posted by palo5

I'm not always complimentary about the UK state, because there are many reasons not to be. But I'm not unfriendly to individuals. At least I hope no one thinks I am, because it's not intended

Or did you mean something different?

Palo does not deliberately hammer the West. He just can't help believing that poor old Russia and his buddy Putin are always right and the west is persecuting them for no reason.