British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[Athos]

Grooming.

What distinction has been made, and by whom, though?

 

[seeformiles]

This is spot on but what sticks in the craw is the response some people have had to this case versus say 15 year old loyalist in rathcoole.

I spent a lot of time in Rathcoole in my yoof (& had an occasional job posting flyers round the same for “Spiders’ Nightclub”). Surprised to hear it mentioned on this thread and a blast from the past

 

[butchersapron]

What distinction has been made, and by whom, though?

They haven't made the distinction public - that's not how it works. How it works is this equals fully groomed girl, the nationalists who killed Lyra McKee = semi-groomed, those loyalist kids = fully not groomed and responsible for each and very action. Which is why grooming as regards political stuff is a dead end - because it will never be applied universally - yours are always fighters, their's are always groomed.

 

[butchersapron]

I spent a lot of time in Rathcoole in my yoof (& had an occasional job posting flyers round the same for “Spiders’ Nightclub”). Surprised to hear it mentioned on this thread and a blast from the past

Disco grooming.

 

[Athos]

They haven't made the distinction public - that's not how it works. How it works is this equals fully groomed girl, the nationalists who killed Lyra McKee = semi-groomed, those loyalist kids = fully not groomed and responsible for each and very action. Which is why grooming as regards political stuff is a dead end - because it will never be applied universally - yours are always fighters, their's are always groomed.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree that grooming isn't a useful way of understating some aspects of this, if applied properly.

 

[Red Cat]

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree that grooming isn't a useful way of understating some aspects of this, if applied properly.

How do you think it can be applied properly?

 

[Athos]

How do you think it can be applied properly?

I think for starters you'dneed to be aware of the possibility for bias that butchersapron mentioned.

 

[Red Cat]

I think for starters you'dneed to be aware of the possibility for bias that butchersapron mentioned.

I think his point is that it is probable rather than possible.

 

[seeformiles]

Disco grooming.

A free drink with each flyer!

 

[Athos]

I think his point is that it is probable rather than possible.

Yes, you're right.

 

[alsoknownas]

Denying people citizenship based on criminality is well dodgy. There are people assured of citizenship who have performed far more heinous acts. People oppose the British state when they lob a half brick at a policeman.

This debate has a nasty, racist edge to it. The underlying thrust is that she doesn't deserve the privileges of Britishness in the same way that other people who conspire killing, or plot against the state do. I don't buy it.

 

[Athos]

Denying people citizenship based on criminality is well dodgy. There are people assured of citizenship who have performed far more heinous acts. People oppose the British state when they lob a half brick at a policeman.

This debate has a nasty, racist edge to it. The underlying thrust is that she doesn't deserve the privileges of Britishness in the same way that other people who conspire killing, or plot against the state do. I don't buy it.

It's not even criminality; the provision under which Javid stripped her of her British citizenship doesn't require a conviction, merely that citizenship is not conducive to the public good.

No doubt, the government's argument would be that they'd like to strip sole British nationals of it too where they represent a similar threat, but that international law prevents them from doing so! But it does create a two tier system of citizenship, albeit one which could be legally justified - notwithstanding it's a prima facie breach of article 14 ECHR - on national security grounds.

I think most people could conceive of extreme circumstances where that could be justified. But the fear is Home Secs using it willy-nilly, and to posture.

 

[Ax^]

also they stripped her of British citizenship as a point of brinkmanship with the international community


will work about as well as Brexit

if it was not for the pesky liberals or remainers

 

[alsoknownas]

.

(reiterated earlier point basically, but with less rhyme and reason)

 

[Athos]

It's crap though. There are plenty of people who it would 'be better' for everybody if they weren't British (everybody in this country at least!). It seems we only consider un-Britishing someone in this manner when they've got a 'whiff of foreign' about them.

That's the only people to whom they can do it under international law.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Denying people citizenship based on criminality is well dodgy. There are people assured of citizenship who have performed far more heinous acts. People oppose the British state when they lob a half brick at a policeman.

This debate has a nasty, racist edge to it. The underlying thrust is that she doesn't deserve the privileges of Britishness in the same way that other people who conspire killing, or plot against the state do. I don't buy it.

This particular case stinks of racism. And to see people on here cheering it on is really depressing.

 

[Athos]

This particular case stinks of racism. And to see people on here cheering it on is really depressing.

I'm not cheering it on; whilst I'd not care less if she lives out the rest of her life in the camp (or, indeed, if she's executed there), I do think we ought to challenge the state's use of such powers. But this does raise a really interesting question. Do you think there could ever be a situation in which discriminatory treatment would be justified on national security grounds?

 

[Ax^]

at what point don't you still classify as a British citizen

just wondering

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not cheering it on; whilst I'd not care less if she lives out the rest of her life in the camp (or, indeed, if she's executed there), I do think we ought to challenge the state's use of such powers. But this does raise a really interesting question. Do you think there could ever be a situation in which discriminatory treatment could be justified on national security grounds?

No. You find another way.

 

[Athos]

No. You find another way.

That seems a bit naive, and unrealistic. If, for example, you had gold-plated intelligence that a French person was travelling to the UK to plant a dirty bomb in London that would kill millions, I think most people would think a temporary travel on ban on the French could be a proportionate response in pursuance of a legitimate aim. What would the alternative be? Let the bomber come? Ban all travel?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That seems a bit naive, and unrealistic. If, for example, you had gold-plated intelligence that a French person was travelling to the UK to plant a dirty bomb in London that would kill millions, I think most people would think a temporary travel on ban on the French could be a proportionate response in pursuance of a legitimate aim. What would the alternative be? Let the bomber come? Ban all travel?

That's not an equivalent situation. This is discrimination of a totally different kind. That's not even discrimination, really, of the racist kind I'm talking about. It's not much different from banning people from certain countries from entering a country during the pandemic.

It is not naive to think that a state can and should operate in a non-racist way. To demand it, in fact. It is naive to think that to do otherwise and to discriminate by race in this kind of way, either directly or indirectly, is not immensely damaging in a deep and long-lasting way.

 

[Athos]

That's not an equivalent situation. This is discrimination of a totally different kind. That's not even discrimination, really, of the racist kind I'm talking about. It's not much different from banning people from certain countries from entering a country during the pandemic.

How is treating people differently based upon their nationality discrimination of a different kind/not discrimination?

 

[Athos]

It is not naive to think that a state can and should operate in a non-racist way.

It is; states are racist by definition.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It is; states are racist by definition.

That's OK then.

 

[Athos]

That's OK then.

Don't be stupid, Frank.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Don't be stupid, Frank.

Don't make manifestly dreadful arguments to justify racist policies.

 

[Athos]

Don't make manifestly dreadful arguments to justify racist policies.

What racist policy have I sought to justify, and where?

 

[cyril_smear]

he doesn't live in the uk

I'm a soppy cunt

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How is treating people differently based upon their nationality discrimination of a different kind/not discrimination?

You can't see how? Really?

 

[Athos]

You can't see how? Really?

Really. Can you say how?