British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[Red Cat]

But it must be true, it's in the Mail on Sunday!



Never mind 'how', we have no evidence that it did take place at all!

And I'm not convinced we know enough about either her or the psychological processes of joining such organisations to even make that assumption with a lot of confidence.

I think there's been a fair amount of research into this (the latter) actually, it's not a complete unknown.

 

[Pickman's model]

Quite. Pretty much all we know is that she joined a brutal regime of rapists, murderers, and torturers. All the efforts to excuse that are pure speculation.

And all efforts to understand it the same I suppose

 

[Athos]

I think there's been a fair amount of research into this (the latter) actually, it's not a complete unknown.

Not completely, no. But far from settled.

 

[Pickman's model]

For the record, me pointing out the falsity of your (and others') claims about the law isn't to say I think legality is more important than morality. (And I've criticised the law and its application in this case, and explained the current situation isn't my preference.)

It isn't to say it. But it's not to deny it either. Criticising the law and its application is saying legality is important.

 

[Athos]

And all efforts to understand it the same I suppose

No, happy for that to happen. As long as people are honest about what's fact and what's speculation.

 

[bimble]

Quite. Pretty much all we know is that she joined a brutal regime of rapists, murderers, and torturers. All the efforts to excuse that are pure speculation.

Fine. I haven't been reading the thread for a few months but presumably those who think being a citizen of the UK should be a conditional honour which can be removed still think that, and those who don't don't.
Carry on!

 

[Athos]

It isn't to say it. But it's not to deny it either. Criticising the law and its application is saying legality is important.

No it's not. If someone misstates the law, correcting that mistake isn't to endorse that law, or law generally.

 

[Athos]

Fine. I haven't been reading the thread for a few months but presumably those who think being a citizen of the UK should be a conditional honour which can be removed still think that, and those who don't don't.
Carry on!

Broadly speaking, there's those two camps. With some in between.

 

[Athos]

What you spend the most time talking about can reasonably be assumed to be that what you consider most important. Though with you it's a way of pretending you've got your arse on the fence while keeping your feet squarely in the middle of 'string 'em up's' garden.

What I've my time on this thread correcting has been dictated by what you (and others) have got facially wrong.

Your mischarcterisation of my position is completely dishonest. I've very limited sympathy for her, but no desire to see her strung up. I've said quite clearly what I'd prefer to happen, and why.

 

[Pickman's model]

No it's not. If someone misstates the law, correcting that mistake isn't to entire that law, or law generally.

when you said you'd criticised the law and its application in this case I thought you meant you'd criticised the law and its application in this case, that is the law of the land and the way it was applied by the courts. But now you seem to say you didn't mean that at all.

 

[Athos]

when you said you'd criticised the law and its application in this case I thought you meant you'd criticised the law and its application in this case, that is the law of the land and the way it was applied by the courts. But now you seem to say you didn't mean that at all.

No, I did mean that. You're making no sense.

 

[Red Cat]

Not completely, no. But far from settled.

I wouldn't expect something that complex to be settled but it's actually probably pretty good.

 

[maomao]

What I've my time on this thread correcting has been dictated by what you (and others) have got facially wrong.

I didn't spend long arguing the legality of it at all, perhaps an afternoon. If you'd like to review my posts I think you'll find I've been mostly concerned with the right or wrong of the situation. Thank you.

 

[Athos]

I wouldn't expect something that complex to be settled but it's actually probably pretty good.

Good enough that, absent any detail about her, you can make an assumption of grooming with what level of confidence?

 

[Athos]

I didn't spend long arguing the legality of it at all, perhaps an afternoon. If you'd like to review my posts I think you'll find I've been mostly concerned with the right or wrong of the situation. Thank you.

Which is why I said "and others". You're welcome.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, I did mean that. You're making no sense.

No, you're making no sense when you respond to my post with piffle about correcting people's misstatements. Have you corrected any misstatements of the law made by judges? By MPs? By ministers? Or has it all been an extended episode of the Athos show? I suggest the last, as if you have been in correspondence with those involved in the case you've kept it very quiet.

 

[Red Cat]

Good enough that, absent any detail about her, you can make an assumption of grooming with what level of confidence?

I said assume deliberately i.e. suppose to be the case but without proof, thereby leaving it open. I think grooming is a complex process, that is not the same as coercion.

My main point was that we don't have any detail about her to consider how that may have come about, in a quite nuanced way. Not sure why you've jumped on the assumption bit like you're trying to prove me wrong about something.

 

[Spymaster]

No, you're making no sense when you respond to my post with piffle about correcting people's misstatements. Have you corrected any misstatements of the law made by judges? By MPs? By ministers? Or has it all been an extended episode of the Athos show? I suggest the last, as if you have been in correspondence with those involved in the case you've kept it very quiet.

 

[Athos]

No, you're making no sense when you respond to my post with piffle about correcting people's misstatements. Have you corrected any misstatements of the law made by judges? By MPs? By ministers? Or has it all been an extended episode of the Athos show? I suggest the last, as if you have been in correspondence with those involved in the case you've kept it very quiet.

I've corrected the misstatements of the law made by other posters.

 

[Athos]

I said assume deliberately i.e. suppose to be the case but without proof, thereby leaving it open. I think grooming is a complex process, that is not the same as coercion.

My main point was that we don't have any detail about her to consider how that may have come about, in a quite nuanced way. Not sure why you've jumped on the assumption bit like you're trying to prove me wrong about something.

I'm not trying to do that (and, in any event, it's not really provable either way). I'm genuinely interested in what level of confidence you think we can have in such an assumption given what we know about her and this field (where I'm sure you know more than me).

 

[maomao]

I've corrected the misstatements of the law made by other posters.

You've made legal 'misstatements' yourself, repeatedly claiming that she could have renounced her Bangladeshi citizenship when in fact this can't be done without a Bangladeshi passport.

 

[Pickman's model]

You've made legal 'misstatements' yourself, repeatedly claiming that she could have renounced her Bangladeshi citizenship when in fact this can't be done without a Bangladeshi passport.

Yeh but legal misstatements are never made by athos

 

[maomao]

Yeh but legal misstatements are never made by athos

Yes. It's just 'bollocks' when he does it.

 

[Pickman's model]

I've corrected the misstatements of the law made by other posters.

by other posters. But as maomao observes never those you've made

 

[Athos]

You've made legal 'misstatements' yourself, repeatedly claiming that she could have renounced her Bangladeshi citizenship when in fact this can't be done without a Bangladeshi passport.

I don't think that's been proven. (Though, in any event, since she was entitled to obtain one, she could have gone through that process.)

 

[Athos]

by other posters. But as maomao observes never those you've made

By all means point them out.

 

[Spymaster]

... repeatedly claiming that she could have renounced her Bangladeshi citizenship when in fact this can't be done without a Bangladeshi passport.

Can you post a link to this?

 

[maomao]

Can you post a link to this?

Strung out posted on this thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think that's been proven. (Though, in any event, since she was entitled to obtain one, she could have gone through that process.)

I'm led to believe there have been some difficulties experienced by people in northern Iraq and eastern Syria attending Bangladeshi consular services in Damascus and Baghdad. How do you suggest she should have obtained the documents and so forth necessary for a successful passport application?

 

[Athos]

I'm led to believe there have been some difficulties experienced by people in northern Iraq and eastern Syria attending Bangladeshi consular services in Damascus and Baghdad. How do you suggest she should have obtained the documents and so forth necessary for a successful passport application?

Perhaps she should have done so prior to joining that gang of murderers.