House wife's father now blames the UK

[jasonzyx]

It cannot be prevented.

So you do believe that terrorists are born, not made?

People will and do go to great lengths to do what they believe for a cause.
Please explain then, as you think you are an expert, how the country will stop a 15 year old, who is off the radar of any terrorist watch list, can be prevented.
This will be interesting.....

People are alienated first before they resort to public complaints, demonstrations or further, more violent acts against the 'system'.
Prevent the alienation and you prevent the subsequent consequences.

Failure to prevent alienation means that you need to employ other measures, prevent further radicalisation, utilise efficient and effective passport control systems, develop better international cooperation in recognising and returning potential terrorists.
There are a multiplicity of measures that could be taken. Even whether 15 year olds should be allowed to travel without parental consent. (consent and with accompaniment are different)

 

[jasonzyx]

I am of the point of view that the UK did correct by it's people by not allowing a woman, who on TV, showed no remorse of being a member of a terrorist group, back on UK soil. The safety of the UK must come first. She made her choice, the UK is not responsible for her actions, only she is.

It also, imo, showed a very very important message to others who may ever think of doing the same.

That message could also have been conveyed by arresting her, trying her and punishing her.
Even if it was decided that she had not committed any crime (and merely by going there, she had, not to mention the use of a false passport) she could still be put on special watch, told where she must reside, her child adopted, her liberty restricted, etc, etc.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Do you think the Home Secretary is responsible for all crime because he didn't prevent the criminals from thinking the way they do?

 

[Bosswhite]

I am of the point of view that the UK did correct by it's people by not allowing a woman, who on TV, showed no remorse of being a member of a terrorist group, back on UK soil. The safety of the UK must come first. She made her choice, the UK is not responsible for her actions, only she is.

It also, imo, showed a very very important message to others who may ever think of doing the same.

So how do you explain away the Preventable Death of a young baby who was legally a British Citizen ?

 

[Vinty]

Dissociating myself from your initial comments,
The UK failed to prevent the exit of Shemima. It then compounded those omissions by failing to present a responsible international role model, then failed to honour its international responsibilities in two ways, arresting, trying and if possible punishing an offence, and also taking one more potential terrorist out of circulation.

I am not and have not denied the responsibility that Shemima ought to bear, but the death of a child is not an appropriate punishment.
The abdication of responsibility is not, and should not be, an acceptable action of a UK minister.

The reason this girls child is dead is because she chose to go to a war zone and get pregnant.
The UK legally allows the killing of thousands unborn children in its own country every year, so why all the handringing about the death of a child in a far away country.

 

[jasonzyx]

The reason this girls child is dead is because she chose to go to a war zone and get pregnant.

We all agree, I think, that was a contributory factor.
But so was the UK's Home Secretary's decision a factor.
Which one exudes the the greater responsibility? Which one exudes the deeper understanding of responsibility on a personal, a national, and on an international level?

 

[Notch7]

What's an SJW

Social justice warrier

 

[Notch7]

The reason this girls child is dead is because she chose to go to a war zone and get pregnant.
The UK legally allows the killing of thousands unborn children in its own country every year, so why all the handringing about the death of a child in a far away country.

The UK allows the killing of thousands of unborn children every year?

What a good example of conflating an issue when losing an argument

I suppose you are a pro lifer......it figures

 

[SirGalahad]

What this has set now is a precedence that at 15 you are capable of making life altering decisions. In that case give the vote to 16 year olds.

 

[SirGalahad]

The UK is not responsible for the death of a child. End of. It certainly didn't seek out to 'punish' her by killing her child.

Hmm

So when UK tourists and citizens are stranded abroad or in life threatening situatuon the Government can conveniently deny them help.

 

[jasonzyx]

What this has set now is a precedence that at 15 you are capable of making life altering decisions. In that case give the vote to 16 year olds.

I'd go along with that comment.

 

[Brigadier]

What this has set now is a precedence that at 15 you are capable of making life altering decisions. In that case give the vote to 16 year olds.

And then revoke it after (you hope) they've voted Remain? (Should a peoples' vote come to pass).
Big Shaq (sic?) for high office, anyone?

 

[Deleted member 18243]

She wanted our sympathy and yet named the baby after a mass murderer!

RIP little Adolf, a great loss.

 

[sodthisforfun]

So how do you explain away the Preventable Death of a young baby who was legally a British Citizen ?

Is the home secretary responsible for all infant deaths? Or just those who hit the media? We also do not know if it was entirely preventable. Kids get sick, the only difference is that being in the UK, had he made it back in time (unlikely), he would've been seen by docs.

The kid was born in a war zone, well, the aftermath and all that entails, lack of hospitals, docs etc.. The kids parents had a hand in creating that situation, and more than a hand in creating the kid in the first place. If we are going to blame someone, don't you think the parents should shoulder more of that responsibility?

 

[sodthisforfun]

Hmm

So when UK tourists and citizens are stranded abroad or in life threatening situatuon the Government can conveniently deny them help.

Are people who run overseas to join a disgusting, murderous terrorist group considered tourists.... hmm indeed.