Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

I usually try to read people's posts in the context of what I know of them. I hope that most people do the same for me. The idea that I wouldn't have given any genuine thought to how she may be how she is is absurd. But knock yourself out.
If you actually read my post then you would have seen that much of what I say relates not to how she is but who she is and I have not the impression from reading your posts that you have thought about that. Indeed your response quoted demonstrates you haven't.
 
Regardless of what she's done she's just lost her friends, two children, been bombed out of her home and put in a refugee camp. It would be weird if she didn't have some sort of ptsd surely?
That could well be the reason.
 
End of the day she was a child who got groomed online by an organisation who’s MO is to select vulnerable young people, who are isolated in their faith, isolate them further, coach them through leaving their families, and impress on them that the only righteous way is their way. Then she has lived through a war, lost two children, and ended up in a refugee camp pregnant. Plus she’s been living in a society where any expression of reflection or regret is profoundly seen as against God.

Stick her in front of the cameras of the West and she appears like the odd, dislocated kid that she is. De-radicalisation will take months or years. Not believing something after you’ve known it to be true- that takes time and exposure to another reality.

We should take her back because she is a UK citizen and our responsibility, but also out of mercy. I think that’s my view now.

Presumably, we only have her word for it that she's lost two kids?

I'd be interested to know if there's any evidence regarding the efficacy of deradicalisation programmes, particularly in respect of those who've shown no remorse.

We should also bear in mind that we don't know what threat she poses, as were not necessarily party to all of the information on which the Home Secretary based his decision.

Still finding it hard to care too much about her, albeit I care about the possibility that what's being used to exclude her might be a racist law applied in a racist way.
 
She expresses herself in a very odd way, not just flat, but saying things like my 'old' son talking about her son who died and 'it was a shock' seems the extent of her emotional vocabulary. I must admit to being surprised by these...limitations.
She certainly comes across as thick, and maybe nervous sometimes, neither of which are surprising given the life she pursued with gusto, where she's been for the last 4 years and what she's experienced. A lot of what she's said most recently are clearly not her own words and are completely the opposite of what she was saying when she was first interviewed so she has very obviously been given some instruction in what to say in media interviews. Therefore, the emotional vocabulary that you mention most likely isn't hers anyway. Could it be that she just hasn't learnt her lines properly?
 
Last edited:
Quite apart from the instances of demonstrable failure of deradicalisation. The idea that she could be monitored sufficiently well to remove all risk is fanciful. For instance, anyone could visit the house with a pay-as-go smartphone registered in any name, and, 'hey presto', she had unmonitored access to communications and the internet. Who knows what contacts she's made and training she's received in Syria. And what she'd be willing to do now.
 
Presumably, we only have her word for it that she's lost two kids?

I'd be interested to know if there's any evidence regarding the efficacy of deradicalisation programmes, particularly in respect of those who've shown no remorse.

We should also bear in mind that we don't know what threat she poses, as were not necessarily party to all of the information on which the Home Secretary based his decision.

Still finding it hard to care too much about her, albeit I care about the possibility that what's being used to exclude her might be a racist law applied in a racist way.
Even if she doesn’t ever change her mind (be “deradicalised”) she remains the responsibility of the uk.

And even if she hasn’t lost two infants, she deserves mercy. She is demonstrably unable to think through or around what she believes, and lacks any wider perspective whatsoever. She doesn’t lack remorse so much as completely lack the ability to see how others might perceive what she’s saying. That’s the profound effect of living within a cult for half a decade at a formative age.

The degree to which she is culpable and responsible for her actions is complex here. The context of her decisions- that she was a young person exposed to a radicalising cult experienced in psychological manipulation- shouldn’t be ignored. As a minimum let’s get her back here and try her. I’m surprised you disagree and just want her left wandering other countries who have more than their share of trouble.
 
Going to work now and on my phone, so will be brief. If I were doing a state of mind exam I would note the limit of her emotional range and expression, that her capacity to think and feel seems very compromised. That's my observation. I would wonder about the effect of trauma but would also consider underlying pre-existing vulnerabilities that may effect her emotional and intellectual capacity.

I hope that's clearer.
 
No, its not down to 'us' to get her back here. She shouldn't be getting preferential treatment over what any other citizen like you or I would get. Usual consular services should be provided where possible.
remembering the consular 'assistance' afforded to people who were nicked by the police in prague in 2000 (s26) or indeed in genoa in 2001 such 'assistance' might be better termed inaction.
 
No, its not down to 'us' to get her back here. She shouldn't be getting preferential treatment over what any other citizen like you or I would get. Usual consular services should be provided where possible.
All due respect this isn’t exactly a normal situation. This isn’t someone losing a passport in Spain and pleading special circumstances. It’s significant enough for several crews of international journalists to travel to her. Just bring her back with them.
 
Going to work now and on my phone, so will be brief. If I were doing a state of mind exam I would note the limit of her emotional range and expression, that her capacity to think and feel seems very compromised. That's my observation. I would wonder about the effect of trauma but would also consider underlying pre-existing vulnerabilities that may effect her emotional and intellectual capacity.

I hope that's clearer.

What does that say about the risk she might pose if she returns?
 
All due respect this isn’t exactly a normal situation. This isn’t someone losing a passport in Spain and pleading special circumstances. It’s significant enough for several crews of international journalists to travel to her. Just bring her back with them.
which might of course put the hacks at risk - prominent daesh people can't be popular throughout syria and i'd imagine there'd be a number of people who'd merrily see her dead.
 
remembering the consular 'assistance' afforded to people who were nicked by the police in prague in 2000 (s26) or indeed in genoa in 2001 such 'assistance' might be better termed inaction.

Well quite, the same consular service that anyone else would get. Get yourself nicked in a foreign country and you're essentially on your own. Got no money to get home? Well, tough (though they may lend you a bit if you're lucky). These are the risks we all knowingly take when we leave the country.
 
All due respect this isn’t exactly a normal situation. This isn’t someone losing a passport in Spain and pleading special circumstances. It’s significant enough for several crews of international journalists to travel to her. Just bring her back with them.

Special treatment for the celeb then?

If you lose a passport abroad (and I've been with people 3 times when this has happened) you get no special treatment and you have to join the line in consul like everyone else.
 
Well quite, the same consular service that anyone else would get. Get yourself nicked in a foreign country and you're essentially on your own. Got no money to get home? Well, tough (though they may lend you a bit if you're lucky). These are the risks we all knowingly take when we leave the country.
all the other countries whose nationals got nicked actually did provide assistance to get their people out of the prague hellhole but the uk were singularly distinguished by their lack of action.
 
What does that say about the risk she might pose if she returns?
What risk? She poses little risk. She’ll be in prison for years, after which she’ll be under surveillance for years. I’m more worried about the unidentifed terrorist whose still going about their normal business.
 
Even if she doesn’t ever change her mind (be “deradicalised”) she remains the responsibility of the uk.

And even if she hasn’t lost two infants, she deserves mercy. She is demonstrably unable to think through or around what she believes, and lacks any wider perspective whatsoever. She doesn’t lack remorse so much as completely lack the ability to see how others might perceive what she’s saying. That’s the profound effect of living within a cult for half a decade at a formative age.

The degree to which she is culpable and responsible for her actions is complex here. The context of her decisions- that she was a young person exposed to a radicalising cult experienced in psychological manipulation- shouldn’t be ignored. As a minimum let’s get her back here and try her. I’m surprised you disagree and just want her left wandering other countries who have more than their share of trouble.

I think the risk she poses outweighs any mercy she's due (which is informed by her past conduct, albeit I accept that there are factors that mitigate culpability).

I'd rather she wasn't here, and have little sympathy that her desire to come to the UK had been thwarted.

But, I would challenge the mechanism by which the UK seeks to achieve that. Whilst it might be lawful, it's deeply concerning.

I guess an analogy is if, say, the murderers of Stephen Lawrence were flung out on the Home Secretary's whim following a change in the law that allowed him to do so, I'd have no sympathy for them and think we're better off without them, but would be worried about the arbitrary use of power.
 
What risk? She poses little risk. She’ll be in prison for years, after which she’ll be under surveillance for years. I’m more worried about the unidentifed terrorist whose still going about their normal business.

In one breath you are saying she is a traumatized child who has been indoctrinated into a cult and in the second you blithely say she possess little risk? Of course she poses a massive risk, as big a risk as any young male IS fighter who is returning from the front line.

Given she initially committed her 'crime' (if any crime has been committed) as a child Jail is not a given and these decentralization programs are questionable at best.

These are not reasons she shouldn't be allowed back - she should be, but its bizarre to claim she poses little risk.
 
What risk? She poses little risk. She’ll be in prison for years, after which she’ll be under surveillance for years. I’m more worried about the unidentifed terrorist whose still going about their normal business.

You have no idea what risk she poses. What she would like to do (she thought the Manchester bombings were justified), what she's capable of doing (she was intelligent and resourceful enough to get to Syria as a child, despite being on the state's radar), what training, contacts or resources she gained in Syria - we only have her word for it het activities were confined to those of a housewife; she might be an expert bombmaker.

Admittedly, nor do I know the risk, but I'm less willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

The maximum for that offence is ten years. That'd be for the committed adult male fighters who tried to recruit others. She'd say she was a child, was brainwashed, never fought, never recruited. There'd be psych reports saying she has PTSD etc., and reports about the impact of prison on her child. She'd probably get 4-6 years, of which she'd have to serve half, some of which would be out on a tag - she could do not much more than 18 months.

Effective surveillance of someone who knows they're being watched is near impossible, and would be relatively easy to avoid. The example I have above of an unregistered mobile. Or, if, say, she leaves home with a suitcase and goes to the tube, then what? She gonna be stopped every time, just because someone is watching her house. What if she drives out of her garage with a bit full of explosives? Pull her over every time she uses a car?
 
Back
Top Bottom