UK citizens and terrorist organisations

I attended the Home Secretary’s statement about UK citizens seeking to return from Syria and other terrorist hotspots earlier this week. He made clear the government’s displeasure that some UK citizens had left the UK to support or actively participate in terrorist movements. He reminded them that they chose to go to countries or territories where the UK warned they would have no Embassy or Consular support and where the UK state could not help them if they got into trouble.

He reminded us that he has powers to cancel a UK citizen’s passport and citizenship if they are dual nationals who have joined terrorist organisations or murderous activities. If a person is only a UK national he cannot make them stateless, but if they wish to return to the UK they will face investigation and prosecution for crimes they may have committed during their period in support of terrorists. He can also impose restrictions on their passport and travel plans.

I asked him to tell me how the UK authorities will investigate and prosecute. So far it is a small proportion of returners from Syria that have been prosecuted. He agreed that it is not easy gathering evidence and sifting the truthfulness of claims about what people may have done in a Syrian warzone. Given the mood in the Commons he was keen to say he would be investigating and seeking evidence, and could also legislate further where a sensible redefinition of the terrorist crime could help bring people to justice.

It is difficult to see how after the event the UK can satisfy itself about all the actions of citizens who deliberately put themselves in harms way and were probably on the side of a banned terrorist group that has threatened the UK as well as occupying parts of Syria. The government is working with allies we are told to try to collect more evidence as the conflict takes place, but this is still difficult where the UK is not involved on the ground in the war.

What do you think can and should be done? The UK state has every right to protect us from returners who have learned the crafts of terrorism and have ill intent towards us. It also needs to be fair to returners who were not  terrorists and who may not harbour any evil towards us.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

116 Comments

  1. Mark B
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 5:32 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    What do you think can and should be done?

    Well I seem to remember that some advice, quite some time ago, was given but as always no one had the forethought of what might happen once ISIS was defeated. It is now seems that MP’s and the government want to look at fitting new locks to the stable doors. Nice idea, if there was anything left to put in it !

    Sir John, things have moved on. We are no longer seeking to stop these people returning as many are now already here. So how do we stop those that are here from carrying out acts of terrorism against us. Who is going to prevent another Manchester ? As with the attacks outside Parliament, concrete blocks and CCTV are not going to save us.

    I think it is time we started to accept that the war, or battle ground, has shifted from Syria, Libya and Iraq to the UK and elsewhere. The enemy is within the gates !

    Before we can start to look for solutions we first must identify the problem(s). And we all know which part of society that is. Trouble is, just as with many things nowadays, even linking to someone else’s post on this blog / diary from a few days earlier, we are not allowed to talk about it. 😉

    • Peter Wood
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:16 am | Permalink

      Which is worse:
      openly declaring the desire to destroy the Country, or handing over control of it to an anti-democratic foreign power, by guile and stealth….

      Just a thought…

    • Peter
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:38 am | Permalink

      “ Trouble is, just as with many things nowadays, even linking to someone else’s post on this blog / diary from a few days earlier, we are not allowed to talk about it. 😉”

      Indeed. It is one of those subjects that it is pointless discussing on here. The same old platitudes will be rolled out,

      • Bob
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

        If someone is so inspired by watching videos of beheadings and people being tortured and burned alive in cages that they travel illegally to join the perpetrators and support their insurgency, then that person should also be prepared to face trial for their actions in the country where the insurgency took place, I.E. Syria.

        • Monty
          Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

          Indeed Bob at the time those dreadful videos came out, I recall shuddering as it dawned on me that they were part of the ISIS recruitment drive. That exhibition grade savagery was designed to attract the young folk who duly responded. I don’t want folk like that coming back here.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

      It should be made clear from the outset that the consequences of anyone going to fight illegal wars, especially ones that are against the UK’s national interest, will incur severe penalties. That isn’t to say the British have always acted legally or ethically in the pursuit of foreign interventions and that seems to have gone unspoken, yet is at the very root of this problem.

      A lot of individuals have been subjected to intense cultural brainwashing to the extent that they follow a belief system that is so different to our own, it sets them well apart (more by their choice than ours for they have no wish to dilute what they see as the true enlightened path. Assimilation it seems is not an option despite the extension of numerous olive branches).

      Politicians still haven’t grasped that cultures at either end of the spectrum are unlikely ever to peacefully co-exist. The religious zealots (fascists by another name) who see it as legitimate to harbour murderous intent to eradicate the rest, must be prevented.

      The law it seems, isn’t yet sufficiently robust to protect the placid peace-loving majority, or even to placate them. So how might it be strengthened?

      Jerry makes the point that to hang these returnees from Syria and elsewhere is to make martyrs of them, so how about internment on a distant island without fraternisation and to undergo a lengthy period of enforced ‘de-contamination’ and moral re-alignment before being allowed back onto the UK mainland?

      The politicians created this mess by seeding society with these people and this cancer is clearly flourishing, so it is now up to them to get us out of it or be replaced by people who can.

      Tad Davison

      Cambridge

    • NickC
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

      Mark B, I have no sympathy for those types of people whatsoever. ISIS declared itself a state. All those who went abroad to support ISIS therefore declared their allegiance to the ISIS state. Therefore removing their British citizenship does not make them stateless. All foreign born criminals should be deported to their country of origin. That should apply whether the criminal is an American born fraudster, or someone (even born in the UK) who has thrown in their lot with ISIS.

      • old salt
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

        NickC – I couldn’t agree more.

      • jerry
        Posted February 24, 2019 at 8:42 am | Permalink

        @NickC; Place of birth is not the same as their nationality [1], are you seriously suggesting that a UK diplomats child, who later turns to crime, should be deported to the country of their birth?

        [1] although they might well be entitled to claim duel nationality if they so wish as a result

    • Mark B
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 5:24 am | Permalink

      I would like to draw our kind host and others to what was written on the wall.

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/07/andrew-marr-george-orwell-would-have-sneered-spat-statue-unveiled/

  2. Ian wragg
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    Bring back hanging for treason.

    • Andy
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:52 am | Permalink

      Presumably after a trial? Or do you now just want the state to start killing people you disagree with? Which is sort of what I.S does.

      • Anonymous
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 10:32 am | Permalink

        Of course after trial.

        You always advocate for the other side, don’t you !

      • Richard1
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

        The one on this blog who has advocated at least imprisoning people they don’t agree with – & once I think inflicting violence against them – is you.

      • Fedupsoutherner
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        Andy, do you mean like the OAPs you would love to get rid of?

      • Hope
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

        Under Gauke our criminal justice system is broken. He now advocates no short term prison. Shop lifting as gone through the roof because there is no deterrrent, no police taking action and some shops closing because they cannot cope. Gangs have worked out low level value items i.e. Coffee and bacon can be stole in large quantities and sold on. If caught get an in store caution. There is no risk or deterrent to them. Other items equally attractive, easy to be sold on line car bootie etc.

        Rudd watering down welfare reform, Javid watering down, again, immigration promises. There is no difference between labour and Tories. There is no right of centre party. Let us hope Farage fills the void.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted February 24, 2019 at 3:36 am | Permalink

          Indeed there are no real deterrents for most crime.

    • jerry
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:18 am | Permalink

      @Ian wragg; “Bring back hanging for .”

      Your typical unthinking knee jerk reaction!

      When so many of these would-be terrorists are prepared to die anyway, in the course of their actions, being executed for their crimes would in their minds merely seal their ‘Martyrdom’ status…

      • Ian wragg
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 10:42 am | Permalink

        I think you mean neck jerk. It doesn’t really matter how they die,, it is less pressure on the security services and the welfare budget.
        These people will never integrate because the ultimate aim is to take over.

        • jerry
          Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

          @Ian Wragg; Making martyrs of people tends to encourage & harden others resolves, so actually your ‘solution’ would likely result in more pressure on the security services and the welfare budget, you only have to look at the attacks on the UK (never mind elsewhere) since the second Iraq war was compounded by the ‘Gitmo’ detention camp, and then of course there have been those innocent westerners out in the Middle east who meet their deaths dressed in orange overalls – the same colour as those overalls used for detainees at ‘Gimo’…

      • Hope
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

        I accept your view to a degree. However, sometimes it is a definitive way of ridding a fanatical threat. It is also far more cost effective. Even a preeminent strike is self defence. Cameron vaporised two alleged terrorists by drone. What is the difference?

      • Kevin Lohse
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

        Death by hanging prevents the jihadi from getting into Paradise.

      • NickC
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

        Jerry, I think we should have a referendum on whether to bring back the death penalty for what I call “murder and . . . ” (eg murder after torture or rape). I would probably vote against. However that is civilian justice within our own borders.

        Something like ISIS is different. ISIS declared itself a state; and declared it intended to extend the Caliphate to Europe. In my book that is a declaration of war. Nevertheless I would put on trial all returnees and merely deport them if found guilty.

    • Bob Latham
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:21 am | Permalink

      Good suggestion. I think around 80% of MPs should easily qualify with their anti brexit and anti Britain actions.
      Bob.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 10:24 am | Permalink

        I cannot agree with you here. Surely it is only 7o% of MPs.

        But about 90% of the Lords and nearly 100% of presenters and experts on the BBC.

    • James
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:00 am | Permalink

      I believe it likely that in a referendum there would be a majority vote to bring back capital punishment for murder/terrorism/treason. Many people were against capital punishment due to the possibilities of mistakes being made and wrongful convictions ensuing. In our age of DNA being capable of being obtained from a fingerprint there is a greatly reduced chance of this happening, though like the EU referendum there would probably be a majority of MPs who would oppose it. Another case where Parliament would not be reflecting the will of the electorate.

      • Andy
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 10:47 am | Permalink

        Everything you say is true.

        Which is why it wrong to give complex decisions to the people.

        The people think they know best.

        They don’t.

        • NickC
          Posted February 23, 2019 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

          Andy, Following your logic, democracy itself must be eliminated. Choosing which party to vote for in a general election is much more complex than the straightforward decision whether to Remain in, or Leave, the EU. Bear in mind, too, that MPs are just people, and don’t acquire magical properties of wisdom merely on being elected.

        • Edward2
          Posted February 23, 2019 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

          It is only people who are MPs

        • Cheshire Girl
          Posted February 23, 2019 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

          Maybe ‘the people’ think they know best, because it is often they, and not the Politicans that are at the sharp end of terrorist attacks.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

          Actually the people do tend to have a far better record than politicians. Politicians suffer from idiotic PC group think. They certainly would have been against Blair’s and Cameron’s absurdly damaging wars, the ERM, the Millennium dome, Green Crap energy, absurdly high taxation, Maastricht, HS2. Lisbon and in favour of a right of recall for MPs, they would be against the BBC licence fee too.

          I am against capital punishment myself and I suspect that the voters would now also be against that too.

      • Fedupsoutherner
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

        Agree James

      • Dave Andrews
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

        I don’t share your view that the age of DNA fingerprinting makes wrongful convictions less likely. It’s just another scope for tampering with and massaging of evidence.
        I agree that anyone committing crimes as bad as murder or rape deserves to die, but the criminal justice system needs to be as pure as the driven snow for there to be sound convictions. I worry our justice system is just another candidate for corruption and incompetence, along with the rest of government.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

          Corruption incompetence and indeed indifference. The legal system is more concerned with criminals than victims they are a better source of income to them.

      • Hope
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

        Life imprisonment would help if it actually meant they die in jail not let out after a few years!

      • jerry
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

        @James; DNA, like finger print evidence, merely places the person at the crime location, it does not prove the person carried out the (alleged) crime, there could be a wholly innocent reason why a persons DNA is recovered.

    • Merlin
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:22 am | Permalink

      My initial thinking was fairly hardline too. Especially after the revolting comments the IS lady made about the children bombed at the Ariana Grande concert.

      However, I am concerned that this has the same problems as the drugs issue. I can cover my ears, deny the problem and hope it goes away – but it may make the situation worse. This was done with lots of prisoners in Egypt and led to massive radicalisation as the Egyptian authorities put large numbers of Muslim prisoners with jihadi fanatics for years at a time.

      Bringing them back home has problems too and is politically toxic. I accept that too.

      I guess you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t and I’d rather be damned if I do.

  3. sm
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 6:12 am | Permalink

    I have read many thoughtful comments covering both sides of the current debate about allowing British jihadi supporters to return to the UK, and there is truth in the cliche that ‘hard cases make bad law’.

    I have come to the conclusion that there is no absolutely clear and fair solution, and therefore it falls to the Government of the day to fulfil one of its primary duties, which is protection of the realm. Part of that protection is surely to demonstrate that if a UK subject breaks the law (such as using another’s passport to exit the country) and then supports a criminal or terrorist body, there will be punishment.

  4. J Bush
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    If asked, would you choose to go to a worn torn country, where awful atrocities were daily taking place, for a holiday, or even out of curiosity?

    A simple question, but the answer would invariably be absolutely not! Possibly accompanied by a look that suggested the questioner had fallen out of their tree.

    However, that simple question opens a whole bag of worms as to why anyone (except possibly a journalist) would choose to go.

    Actus Reus
    Mens Rea
    Beyond reasonable doubt

    The first duty of the State is defence. It is time politicians, lot of whom apparently studied law, stopped being hand-wringing snowflakes, did their duty and applied the law.

    Failing that, all the politicians who believe terrorists and those who support it should come back, then let them have the courage of their convictions. No more police guarding Parliament, no more 24/7 protection, no armoured vehicles to travel in. Drive a standard car or use public transport and run the gauntlet like they want the rest of us to do. That includes the PM and her cabinet.

    • jerry
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:33 am | Permalink

      @J Bush; It is time politicians, lot of whom apparently studied law, stopped being hand-wringing snowflakes, did their duty and applied the law.”

      Some might argue that is the problem, these legally train people ARE applying the law, International law!

      As for your last paragraph, all those security issues have been put in place due to home grown terrorism, perhaps some on the right should recall the incident within the parliamentary estate almost 40 years ago, on the day the 1979 general election was called…

    • Everhopeful
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      Agree 100%.

      And maybe the politicians who vote/instigate for the mayhem-causing wars should lead the initial charge ?

  5. Nigl
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    What a vicious un compassionate country we have become with a virtue signalling, look how tough I am, Home Secretary seeking vengeance from a person, still not very old in years, who made a mistake as a schoolgirl, and even worse condemning a small child to a life of poverty.

    Of course people who actively participated in war crimes or fought against our armed services, by their actions prove that they are our enemies/do not believe in our societies values etc should be excluded but a young woman and a small baby, nasty, very nasty.

    If this government had really wanted to keep us secure it would not have accepted refugees of indiscriminate ages and done something about the vast number of illegals who, common sense would suggest, pose a potential threat.

    Presumably given the vogue for rewriting history, we should now condemn the people that went to fight Franco and his fascists.

  6. Mick
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/231521
    We should bring back the death penalty for treason and child killers we are just to soft on crime end of

  7. agricola
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    You ask for opinions but you and the country are so PC that you will not acknowledge or allow us conntributors to this diary to mention the causes or offer solutions. The problem goes way beyond three silly young girls going to Syria to become camp followers. It was created by some of our own politicians who mistakenly believed it would enhance their own political strength, while ignoring the effect it has had on the social fabric of our country. In support of this I would state that my own rural city of 70000 is now building thousands of houses to sell largely to escapees from the multi cultural society that has swamped them in the nearby large city. As politicians you must decide whether you are part of the problem or its solution.

    • agricola
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:57 am | Permalink

      My secretary thought you would find it unpalitable.
      Enjoy your seekend.

  8. Denis Cooper
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    Those who transferred their allegiance to a hostile state, Islamic State, would not have been made stateless if the Home Secretary at the time, Theresa May, had responded by stripping them of their UK citizenship, as was suggested here in November 2015:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/11/15/is-the-west-at-war-with-isil/#comment-789315

    “if any UK citizen wishes to give it their allegiance as if it were a new state then we should take them at their word and initiate proceedings to remove their citizenship.”

  9. Mick
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Off topic
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6735419/PM-mass-walkout-three-senior-ministers-signal-theyre-ready-help-delay-Brexit.html
    Are these people for real, they are not after a delay there like the independence group they want to stop Brexit, I’m getting a little bit cheesed off with the constant media coverage given to these bunch of sad losers , these sad losers are not taking the PM on but the 17.4 million that voted out

  10. Lifelogic
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    “If a person is only a UK national he cannot make them stateless.” So why has he done this in the Begum case?

    Meanwhile we have the letter in the Mail from Greg Clark, Amber Rudd and David Gauke saying they are prepared to defy Theresa May and vote for a delay. Trying by this to ram through May’s appalling no Brexit deal, tie the UK into a permanent hugely damaging straight jacket, defy the referendum and split the Tory party.

    We are leaving the EU on March 29th and Brexit means Brexit said May endlessly. Well we shall see. Her deal is certainly not Brexit in any real sense at all. It is surely worse than remain.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:01 am | Permalink

      Looks like a bet on a second referendum might well be worth it. I should probably have placed one earlier. May has ruled it out (and any delay out) so both must be very likely to happen – given her dire record of keeping promises. Current odds are about 3:1.

      If there is a second referendum it will surely be an even larger majority (unless it is fixed with a duff question).

    • Lifelogic
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:31 am | Permalink

      I assume May gave them the nod for this letter given her record. If not what is she going to do about this appalling behaviour?

      Nothing I suspect which will surely confirm the above assumption.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      I see that Rees-Mogg sensibly agrees with my views on Begum. Javid should change his mind and save all the legal costs and the distractions for his department. They have more important things to do. A police service that served the public, tackled knives crime and recruited the best people rather than being obsessed with gender and ethnic breakdown. Which by definition ensure you will not recruit the best people.

      Thus discriminating heavily against straight white men as we see in recent tribunal ruling.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:26 am | Permalink

        Recruitment should be purely on merit. They should not be arranging flowers for politicians appreciation, they should be tackling real crime. Ms Dick, T May, Macpherson, Jack Sraw and many other are totally wrong headed on this issue.

  11. Kenneth
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    All international treaties that override UK democracy (so-called “International Law”) need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by Parliament and either cancelled or amended in order to remove the elements that override our own law and our own democratic wishes.

    Where this cannot be done, there should be referendums on each “law” so we can decide if we agree to defer it to a foreign court or panel.

    From now on I would urge that any proposed international treaty that bypasses our own law and democracy must be put to a national referendum first.

  12. Mrs Alison Houston
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    Treason, as it has always been understood, does not require acts of terrorism to have been committed.

    In this nation all justice and protection flow rom the crown. There can be no justice, no court, no right to a fair trial without the crown. All judges swear allegiance to the crown as do all parliamentarians. The liege gets his protection in return for his loyalty. If he gives up his allegiance he gives up his right to the protection of the crown.

    There is nothing complex or difficult about this idea, it is simple enough for every subject to comprehend.

    In Common law a subject, whether native or naturalised cannot cast off his allegiance to the crown by any lawful act, so to cast it off and give allegiance to a different state is treason.

    For all Tony Blair might have repealed an Act of Parliament relating to treason, for all the Department of Justice might claim our Constitution is just a series of Acts of Parliaments, all of which can be repealed, treason has not and cannot be excised from our Constitution. This could only occur if we were to become a republic, if the monarchy were to be overthrown and nothing put in its symbolic place to serve the same function. This has not happened, treasonous acts are still treason, since they are committed by those who haveattempted to cast of their allegiance to the crown. Since they have done that they do not deserve the crown’s protection or justice.

  13. Dame Rita Webb
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    The establishment have no objection to her returning. The human rights lawyers will ensure Mr Javid’s ban will only be temporary. However the inevitable granting of de facto pardon, the council flat and inevitable life time on benefits, is just another confirmation that the establishment only care for those who do not obey the law, pay their taxes or do any work.

    • Andy
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      I enjoy they way your answers always consist of a rant about the status quo.

      Mr Redwood asked you what YOU would do.

      You did not answer.

      The Begum case is a difficult one. One which shows up all the flaws in the black and white way you view the world.

      So what would you do?

      • NickC
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

        Andy, The question was asked of you too. You haven’t answered. Or are you special, in your opinion?

        • Andy
          Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

          It’s obvious what I’d do.

          I believe in the rule of law. She is a British citizen. The law says she can not be made stateless. We have no legal grounds from refusing her return.

          If it turns out she has committed a crime under British law then she should be investigated, prosecuted and should get her day in court.

          The law applies to all of us. To you, to me, to her, to Sajid Javid. Simple.

    • Peter
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      Anarcho-tyranny as American paleoconservatives describe it.

      “we refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).”

      Complain and you will get hounded. Criminals are fully aware of this and happily play the system.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

        And that Peter, is their fallback position. They preach and practise hatred, but take advantage of the freedoms and benefits of our liberal democracy. That will continue until their prescriptive doctrine ultimately consumes us unless we do something to set out ethical parameters beyond which no malevolent way of life will be accepted. But will that happen, or are those who speak out against evil intent to be treated as the real criminals and the enemies of the state?

        A bill of rights and a properly written constitution might help to stem this madness. This is one pendulum that needs to start swinging in the opposite direction.

        Tad

      • agricola
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

        PC politicians are the controllers of the tyranny. Nowhere was the result more manifest than in Rotherham.

  14. Steve
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Bed, make, lie in it.

  15. oldtimer
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    The state should not assist those seeking to return to the UK. They went of their own volition. They are on their own. If/when they do return then they should be arrested and subject to the appropriate legal processes. It is clear, as a starting point, that they have supported a terrorist organisation. In the recent case which has attracted attention, the person in question should be advised to rejoin her husband who apparently has returned to Holland.

  16. Dominic
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    To defeat Marxist Labour and all that it is one must destroy its client state and to do that you target the funding of its client state

  17. Anonymous
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF3OQkWEyZA

    I have only just seen this and I’m horrified. Jacob Rees-Mogg vs James O’Brien and I’m afraid to say that O’Brien wins hands down.

    To O’Brien’s “Did your economist of choice, Patrick Minford say that farming and manufacturing in the UK would be destroyed by Brexit or not ?” there was nothing but evasion from JRM.

    As one of your most ardent Brexiters I am in low spirit. I don’t know what interview the Brexit commenters in the thread below the were watching. I cannot find the original comments by Minford.

    • Anonymous
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:26 am | Permalink

      Brexit commenters in the thread below the *video* were watching.

    • Andy
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 10:56 am | Permalink

      Minford did say this.

      It was in a evidence session to The Commons Foriegn Affairs Committee on September 11 2012. It was in response to a question by Bob Ainsworth MP. The transcript is online. Question 138.

      • Edward2
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

        Read his whoĺe speech
        This a spin on his answer.
        He was asked about what might happen if after brexit there was no subsidies from the EU for industry.
        He has spoken about the effect of leaving the EU for years.
        And how even with no manufacturing thecUK would survive and thrive.
        But I realise he is a bogey man for the extreme left.

      • NickC
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

        Andy, Setting up a straw man of uniformity is false. Leaves are not clones of Prof Minford. There are disagreements about how to proceed among Leaves, just as there are political disagreements in nations already independent of the EU, and even within the EU itself.

        However your characterisation of Prof Minford is entirely (and typically) in error. He was not advocating policy, he was replying to a specific question and pointing out the marginal economic benefit of not subsidising an uneconomic industry such as car manufacture.

        My own, and many Leaves, views are that paying a percent or two of GDP to protect strategically valuable industries is worth it. That’s what the EU does, but mostly to suit Germany and France, rather than the UK. Out of the EU we can make our own decisions to suit ourselves not to suit the EU. That’s the point of Leave.

        • Andy
          Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

          Except that those strategically important industries are now all global – and they largely won’t base themselves in a market of 60m when they could be in a market of 450m.

          Which is one of the many points of remain.

    • Den
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

      O’Brien is clearly a single minded socialist favouring the EU. His body language is proof that he is single minded and will not listen to alternatives views. Constant interruptions are proof of an argument loser and this sad man does that in spades Furthermore he does not know really know what he wants from the interview except to badger the witness. So typical of these wretched, wretched socialists. He will not accept that tariffs are so high that they hit the poor consumers.
      So, to analyse the “debate” I would say the interviewer had more to say than the interviewee. He takes extractions from old speeches to distort their meanings as proof. A classic socialist move that is now looking soooo overplayed and outdated. So what was the point of his interview?
      All he has done here, is proven the case that all he wants on his show is an opportunity to badger the witness if they do not follow his ideals. JRM ignore this trash he is not debater he is a professional agitator.

      • Andy
        Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

        He’s brilliant. Every leaver who calls him ends up sounding like a total goon. This is usually because they are total goons.

        They end up arguing in favour of banning holidays, or house prices crashes or other really, really dumb stuff.

  18. Iain Moore
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    For some our nationality has been reduced to a transactional deal, there is no requirement for you to buy into our values or culture, just take what you want , like a product on a supermarket shelf , but don’t worry you don’t have to buy into the culture that has created these rights, which is what S Begum is doing, she wants the goodies our society has produced while hating everything it stands for.

    Unfortunately the people who have created this soulless mercenary reduction of our country are to be found in the British establishment, their mantra is ‘tolerance’, which really means don’t defend any values , don’t have any principles, and certainly don’t be judgemental of other cultures, for they have bestowed equivalence on all cultures, its multiculturalism. In failing to value who we are the establishment has let back into the country people who hate everything we stand for , for if they had valued it they would have been furious at people taking up arms against our civilisation, and made dammed sure they didn’t come back here without standing trial for Treason .

    If Government policy was the destruction of IS, how is it that the consequences of that policy weren’t planned for ? Did they not think about where all these foreign fighters were going to go? If its not too late we need to put modern Treason law onto the books, though Parliament will probably be insulted to be asked to do this as they probably think it racist or Islamophobic.

  19. Dominic
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    We have watched Labour’s client state and even the British government turn a convenient blind eye to brutal criminality over many decades in the name of ethnicity and religion.

    In 2010 the then Tory PM David Cameron stood up and took action against these criminals who had for many years enjoyed special protection as per their special relationship with Labour.

    Cameron understood that Labour is a vile entity only too willing to sacrifice lives and safety of young people of the altar of a favoured bloc vote. The fact that the Tories have still not explained to people why Labour is morally bankrupt and how they’ve conspired to conceal violence is an indication of just how weak the Tories have become

    Why is Labour’s relationship with this ethnic bloc vote and the abuses committed as a result of it not been a major political issue? because Labour’s client state suppresses it

    The Tories MUST destroy Labour’s client state or else the UK and all decent people will suffer greatly

  20. Iain Gill
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    War crimes tribunal in the Haig

    • Peter
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 10:55 am | Permalink

      “Don’t be vague, ask for Haig”

      I wonder how many on here remember that.

    • Big John
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 11:50 am | Permalink

      I agree, or the trial should be in the country where the crimes were commited.

  21. Sir Joe Soap
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    The first answer would have been in the way of an “export declaration” – to export oneself to such an area one would have to apply for permission.
    Next, it should be made clear to people that if they skirt around such rules that they risk being stripped of citizenship and not being allowed to return from the area visited.

    The horse as bolted on this one; Mme May no doubt was in post when these structures should have been put in place, but she was probably sitting on some other fence at the time.

    The only guideline to be used now is what keeps the UK safest.

  22. Richard1
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    An update to the treason act seems sensible and reasonable. That should make it possible to convict people who go off to join or support terrorist organisations or regimes engaged in actions hostile to the UK, without having to prove beyond doubt that they did such and such at some specific time and date. I agree with revoking citizenship where possible but we should be wary of just dumping our scumbags on other countries. I would have thought as far possible people should be prosecuted for their crimes where they have committed them. So those who have gone and joined IS should expect to face justice eg in Iraq, whose citizens they might have assisted in murdering and torturing, and perhaps spend the rest of their lives in prison there.

  23. Al
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Start with re-establishing due process and remove the politicians from the decision making on individual cases.

    Arbitrary stripping of citizenship is an anachronism to British justice , creating a tier of second class citizens. It sits comfortably alongside hostile environment and windrush. It should go.

    • Anonymous
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 10:36 am | Permalink

      Yet arbitrarily killing British citizens in a war zone is not anachronism (nor shojld it be.)

      Since we abolished the death penalty we have returned it via armed police constables and army privates – then we prosecute them instead.

    • mancunius
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      ‘Comfortably’ in a confused mindset perhaps. Removing citizenship from those who fight for terrorists has nothing in common with deterring illegal migrants from remaining here. And even less to do with a procedural Home Office blunder in the Windrush case.

    • N Murphy
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

      I rather like the idea of creating ‘second class citizens’ out of those who have done wrong but cannot be stripped of their British citizenship. Such second-class citizens would be deprived of the passports they detest, banned from travelling on any commercial flight from a UK airport, banned from ever occupying social housing or even emergency housing, and have no entitlement to any access to the Welfare state. I suspect that many of those facing such treatment will not want to come back.

  24. Alan Joyce
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Dear Mr. Redwood,

    Some of those who left the UK to support terrorist organisations in Syria may be
    ‘punished’ when they return providing there is sufficient evidence. Many will just carry on living their lives as before with no consequences for their actions as they know in most circumstances the government is too weak to carry out any retribution and to protect its own citizens.

    The same sort of thing happens in other walks of life. There are little or no penalties for criminal, irresponsible or reckless behaviour.

    An MP who falsified details about who was driving a car at the time of an accident is in jail but is still an MP.

    A knight of the realm involved in underhanded financial dealings and who has molested and assaulted several women, allegedly, is still a knight of the realm.

    Doing the right thing goes unnoticed, unrewarded as it should because it is the norm. To be expected. But there are just too many instances where doing the wrong thing has no detriment to the individual whatsoever.

    It is as if the government just cannot be bothered.

  25. Denis Cooper
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Off-topic, I read this morning:

    “Theresa May is facing the threat of a Cabinet walkout after three senior ministers signalled they are ready to help force a delay to Brexit to stop a No Deal.”

    Well, I wouldn’t jump to any conclusion that this is something she sees as a “threat” rather than something she wants and has been actively conspiring to bring about.

    Somebody should remind all parliamentarians of all parties and none, including ministers and including the unelected legislators-for-life in the House of Lords, that in 2016 the Cameron government made a clear and unambiguous promise to the electorate:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk

    “A once in a generation decision”

    “The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.”

    “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.”

    Not:

    “This is your decision. But if you make the wrong decision then the government will find excuses not to implement what you decide.”

    JR, I wonder how you can bear to be in the same party as these shysters.

  26. stred
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    The grand idea of Cameron, Clinton and others of supporting sections of the Syrian population in the overthrow of a secular leader, who was an improvement on his father and was improving living conditions, turned out to be an overthrow by Islamic extremists instead of an Arab Spring and western type democracy. Hundreds of thousands dead, raped, kidnapped, homeless and displaced to Europe and much of the country destroyed. Same in Libya and Iraq.

    The most atrocious war crimes were committed by IS. Anyone participating should be tried in the countries where the murders, rapes and genocides were committed. The British government should admit its mistake and interview the Yisadis ? and Christians who were victims. Some of them already have said that the women were as evil as the men.
    Then extradite them for trial.

  27. Dame Rita Webb
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    “It also needs to be fair to returners who were not terrorists and who may not harbour any evil towards us.”

    JR how do you define whats fair? During the next general election campaign you will be vilifying Comrades McDonnell and Corbyn for doing no more than meeting with terrorists too. If the returnees have done nothing different, why does the state give them the kid gloves treatment instead of heaping abuse on them that they are a threat to national security?

  28. TheyWontCrushBrexit
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    When a revocation of citizenship was made, many people applauded the idea. I very much agree with it.

    Almost immediately, there were cries against this, including from our esteemed PM in waiting. ..Mr Gummidge.

    I saw a comment yesterday:-

    “This ISIS devotee wants to bring her son to the UK for his safety…the rest of the UK wants to keep ISIS collaborators out…for OUR sons’ safety”.

    Go WTO exit.

    Spend some of the £39 billion to build new jails to house terrorists and their collaborators. Enjoy a small boost to the employment that will bring. Enjoy increased safety in our lives.

    Ensure the jails are designed NOT to allow cross radicalisation…but a program of de-radicalisation.

    Change the Treason laws, to allow appropriate action to be taken, for the circumstances we now face. Appropriate punishments to fit the crimes.

  29. mancunius
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    if they wish to return to the UK they will face investigation and prosecution for crimes they may have committed during their period in support of terrorists…. [The UK] also needs to be fair to returners who were not terrorists.
    Who is to tell the difference? There will be few or no witnesses to testify, and the CPS will find it impossible to build any case.

  30. lojolondon
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Very interesting that “If a person is only a UK national he cannot make them stateless, but if they wish to return to the UK they will face investigation and prosecution for crimes they may have committed during their period in support of terrorists.”
    I wonder how many of the 400 returned Jihadi’s have been investigated, charged, prosecuted and punished for their brutal crimes. I suspect the answer is ZERO.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

      lojo,

      According to the press and other sources, there are 23,000 of this kind on the watch list. That is a huge number and I personally doubt if the government agencies have sufficient resources to monitor them all.

      To do the job properly would be massively expensive. I would have preferred it had the liberal do-gooders and snowflake appeasers not been listened to in the first place and not made this country a haven for people who are more of a curse than an asset.

      Members of the settled Jewish community are feeling very pressed right now with many moving elsewhere. People who have given much to build this nation and its cultute, whilst others have contributed very little to either. To use a hackneyed phrase, religious bigotry poses an existential threat to our nation. We simply cannot afford to accommodate it any longer.

      Tad

  31. Carl
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Such individuals are, of course, innocent until proven guilty. But there are reasonable grounds for putting them under very heavy, indefinite, surveillance. They can also be apprehended and investigated under existing anti-terrorism legislation should that be necessary. Until they commit a crime in the UK, however, they should be free to live their lives normally in any other way. Given the likely level of surveillance, it would surely be impossible for them to pose a threat. That said, should deaths unfortunately occur, it is the price we must pay for our open, free society based on fundamental human rights. To fetter that in any way is to undermine the basis of our value system and our democracy.

  32. Kevin Lohse
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    Good afternoon. The existence of so many jihadis of British origin is tribute to the failure of the multicultural policies foisted on the country by the Blair/Brown government and enthusiastically continued by Cameron, with May a major player as Home Sec. It’s the UK’s mess, and we should take responsibility for clearing it up, After all, taking responsibility for our own actions is the major plank in the Brexiteers case for leaving the EU. The current Home Sec clearly has a sense of how much damage has been done by the ghettoisation of minorities in the UK. All those seeking to return to the Uk are de facto enemy combatants and should be handed over to the security services and thoroughly debriefed. That process should give an indication of who can be de-radicalised and who will continue to be a danger to the nation for the rest of their lives. Remedial treatment and/or incarceration can follow after due process of law. in the longer term, multiculturalism must give way to assimilation which has worked in the Uk for centuries.

  33. Etcetc
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Internment is best until they can be sorted out..don’t know how people can be tried in British courts for actions that may or may not have beencommitted in far away places, especially in places nothing to do with UK?..so best thing is internment and then re-education camps until we can be sure they are safe to be released into the community.

    Don’t forget people also join armies, even foreign armies like the Kurds, foreign legion etc etc and get training in carrying out all kinds war actions where they drop bombs etc etc and terrorise people? how are we going to deal with these returnees?

  34. Raymond
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Well, Clearly UK internal security is in a mess. The first thing to do is to stop digging which, I suppose, would be to prevent people returning to the UK from trouble spots unless they can show they are friend and not foe.

  35. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    The Home Secretary would make things a lot easier for himself if he pre-announced the crimes for which IS returnees will be prosecuted.

    For males it is easy. They were combatants fighting against their own country. The charge is treason and if convicted they would be hanged by the neck until dead. The existing Statute is just fine.

    In Islamic countries, females have a lesser role. They have no power of decision, no rights and no souls. They could be charged with being accessories after the fact. Something like a 5 year sentence would be right.

    No doubt the Home Secretary would want to run it past the Attourney General and the DPP before making such an announcement. If he were able to make it, it would act as a deterrent and many of the IS exiles would decide not to return. Who knows, Saudi Arabia might take a few. After all, the Wahabi secretly supported IS.

  36. Mrs Sarah Tun
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Can the government not declare such individuals as treasonous, supporting if not contributing against humanity?
    In Britain, what is the penalty for Treason?
    I suggest that those who would seek to return to Britain might reconsider if they were to be subject to investigation that could bring the death penalty.
    This is a hard stance, but those who seek to join with terrorists, make their choices.
    Shamina Begum suggested the Manchester bombing was equivalent to Syrian bombing.
    Perhaps she and others like her need to recognise running to ISIS is the same as contributing to terrorism and therefore excludes one from Western society. In any case, she chose to abandon Western society and without remorse. Why on earth should she be accepted back?

  37. DennisA
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    “this is still difficult where the UK is not involved on the ground in the war.”

    It seems we have been on the ground in Syria for quite a while and still have special forces there:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Shader#Training_and_ground_support
    “On 5 January 2019, two British special forces soldiers (presumably of the Special Air Service) were reportedly injured in an attack carried out by ISIL while supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces’ Deir ez-Zor campaign; one Kurd also died. US troops evacuated the two soldiers.”

    With regard to Begim, it is better she is here and monitored, rather than raising a new terrorist abroad.

  38. Bryan Harris
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Anyone absent from the UK that have been in a war zone for more than a month should be investigated, and incarcerated while that is going on … Some notable exceptions would be reporters or those with honest business in said countries…
    They would only be released if investigations showed no evidence to prosecute them, but they would have to swear allegiance to the crown and not allowed to live off benefits.
    Identifying real suspects who have killed for terrorist groups is clearly a nightmare, as would be proving it, but a message needs to go out that anyone going to war zones will be treated as a criminal, and be made to report into police once a month on their return, and their activities watched closely.

  39. Fuddy Duddy
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    If it is illegal to make someone stateless then it is a race for the governments of the ‘other nationality’ to get in quick to revoke the nationality of their person to land it in the court of the other. What fun!

    Then perhaps Shamim Begum will become a valued UK tax payer. When she returns all the media studios will vie to get to interview her, then a newspaper will pay a hefty sum for an exclusive story then after a bit, with perhaps with the help of a ghost writer, she will write her best seller and become a millionaire. On benefits, hopefully no.

    • Original Richard
      Posted February 24, 2019 at 9:00 am | Permalink

      “Then perhaps Shamim Begum will become a valued UK tax payer.”

      Very likely.

      And of course it will not only be Shamina Begum who will benefit but also all the lawyers and security services involved.

  40. ChrisShalford
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    As you suggest, there are major difficulties in holding a fair trial for (suspected) terrorists returning to the UK. How does one collect the forensic evidence or arrange the attendance of witnesses? Yet keeping the nation and world safe must be the priority. I suggest prisoner of war camps in line with the Geneva Conventions until the terrorists cease their wars of terror on decent people.

  41. zorro
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    She is British and our problem, she ( may have ed) committed an offence under current law. Prosecute her and imprison her and let her know that she is being watched – she is on the record then.

    zorro

    • zorro
      Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

      indeed! Thank you

      zorro

  42. outsider
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    Dear Mr Redwood: On principle, anyone returning from Syria without a reasonable alibi (journalism, aid, care or medical organisation or perhaps registration with “democratic” forces) should be prosecuted. And there must be no sexual discrimination.

    It is entirely a matter of will whether this happens. Like most citizens, I have little idea what the law is in this area, given that so many old laws have been abolished and new ones enacted. As most of us know, however, ignorance of the law is no defence and if the authorities are seriously annoyed with us, they will find some offence to charge us with. Remember that photographers and a party conference heckler have been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

    Aiding and Abetting, conspiracy et al should provide a minimum, the seriousness of any penalty depending on how much was generally known before the person travelled to Syria and whether ISIS openly seeks to include the UK in its caliphate.

    Mr Grieve and others have shown that the law gives ample scope for the creative trained mind. As I say, it is entirely a matter of will.

  43. Den
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    It would appear then that the UK still suffers from its OTT liberal socialist ideals dominated by Lawyers and forced into our Laws – this time with the matter of permanently protected Statehood.
    Surely, when any British citizen, with or without a passport, goes to ‘lie’ down with our enemy, they must be declared an ‘enemy of the State’ and banned from re-entering?
    How can they be determined otherwise but our enemy? Especially when such persons would support those that wish to do us harm? Why are we effectively protecting them by accepting their return? Surely we should declare that in the absence of any evidence of criminal proof against them to prosecute, they are no longer welcome back here because they did “lie” with our enemy.

    That they are singularly British nationals should become an irrelevance in such cases and their citizenship revoked. They went to join the enemy and that is where there shall stay. Forever.

    The Home Office should consult with their colleagues in the USA, Australia and Canada et al to establish how they overcome this internally generated problem of ours. I say “Internally” because I cannot believe such confusion reigned post World War 2 and I feel it has been brought about by the PC Liberalised Socialism that has now infiltrated in high positions everywhere in this country.
    A paramount requirement of any Government is to keep its citizens safe. To allow back any person who has left to join an enemy is to present a clear and present danger to the people unless they are executed or jailed for whole life.

  44. An appeal to JR
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    Please, no more nanny state laws to protect us please John.

  45. An appeal to JR
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    Corbyn is so blinded by party politics and hatred for the Tories he genuinely seems to think everything May does it about appeasing her own party backbenchers? The man is a complete fool if he believes that. She has been working for the EU not the backbenchers.

  46. An appeal to JR
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    I watched an interesting documentary about the Greek EU crisis the other day, did anyone else see it? I thought the Greek govt played it very well, much better than how we have so far. They actually used leverage, strategy, by calling a flash referendum to help add leverage to their position they won a concession of having a third privatised state assets invested back in their economy. We could still try using leverage by getting rid of Mrs May.

  47. Richard
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    Such people returning to Europe should be investigated and if suspected of crimes given a fair trial. Moving forward they should be supported to effect reintegration and rehabilitation.
    This is not a new problem. The UK has a track record for dealing with this sort of challenge in Northern Ireland, and in Scandinavia and Germany, programmes exist to help people exiting neo-Nazi groups.
    The problem with all this is funding. The criminal justice system in this country is creaking at the seams through chronic underfunding by this government over many years.
    The CPS is understaffed and underfunded. There are insufficient resources to properly investigate crimes. Crimes are rising, prosecutions falling through lack of evidence.
    The Home Affairs Committee has warned of dire consequences for public safety and criminal justice if the government does not increase funding for struggling police forces.
    Listen to them ! Fund them properly !

  48. Original Richard
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    We are at war with ISIS.

    So all those UK citizens caught fighting for ISIS are prisoners of war and as is normal they should be locked up until hostilities cease.

    It should be made illegal for UK citizens to travel to ISIS held regions without a UK visa which should only be issued in advance to genuine reporters and aid agency workers.

  49. Christine
    Posted February 23, 2019 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    “What do you think can and should be done?”

    When I write constructive advice it gets censored and deleted. So there’s little point in trying to answering your question.

  50. An appeal to JR
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 12:47 am | Permalink

    When I write constructive advice it gets censored and deleted

    >
    By who? John hopefully? I presume he wishes to keep within a permitted MSM narrative lest they find something on this blog they can use against him? If so then I suppose it is a little understandable? Personally, I never censored anything when I had my own Youtube channel apart from threats and overt racism. I allowed the government agencies to post on my channel and put their point of view, even though they all behave disgracefully.

    I was watching the Parliament channel the other day and a female Labour MP made a remarkable and shocking statement. She *(appeared) to say there were 6 people currently in jail for threatening her on social media/the internet. Is this true?
    First off, threats are totally unacceptable and all these people needed to be visited by the Police and given a strong warning. But jail? Seriously? Normal people get threatened all the time when they debate online but just brush it off, I have been threatened but didnt even report it, surely if the idea is to protect MPs all they are doing is creating more reason to be hated by acting like precious princesses? Do other MPs not feel uncomfortable when they hear stuff like this? MPs do a slightly dangerous job, as do the Police and Army and many others, and I do admire MPs who resolutely crack on without making a big fuss, as I do police officers and others.

  51. An appeal to JR
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    ? I presume he wishes to keep within a permitted MSM narrative lest they find something on this blog they can use against him?

    >
    Everyone has been socially conditioned to mock conspiracy theorists even though everything’s a conspiracy. Thats why some of my posts dont pass moderation? Yet alas, as a conspiracy theorist I am used to it and have become quite philosophical about it.

  52. Gareth Warren
    Posted February 24, 2019 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    The answer is simple, the UK has no legal jurisdiction over Syria so it is virtually impossible to try them for crimes c omitted when outside the country.

    So hand them over to the proper legal authorities, that’s Assad’s lot, we may pay a financial price even as a cost to restore diplomatic relations. But justice will be done, that way we are no longer having to make people stateless.

  53. BR
    Posted February 25, 2019 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    I think we have treason laws for a reason (that may need to be updated).

    These people should be seen as people of the Islamic State that they left the UK to join.

    When these people left they joined another State. This organisation had land (albeit conquered land), income and laws (however much we may despise those laws).

    The fact that we do not recognise that State is not really relevant. There are many States that are not recognised throughout the world but they exist, recognised or not.

    We have to look at it from a security angle. The idea of ‘de-radicalising’ them is fraught with danger. They could be trained to resist that while appearing compliant/receptive (IS must know that returnees will be subjected to this) and their history is of waging warfare via indirect methods, so what better way than to indoctrinate a bunch of young minds, train them to resist de-radicalisation and send them back to be the next generation of terrorists?

    The first duty of government is defence/security. It trumps all other considerations. Therefore these people cannot be allowed back. Any that have returned should be sent packing. Why were their passports not rescinded? if they were unable to return we would never have had this problem.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page