Blooming Personalities C/D 30Th November
Quizzes & Puzzles60 mins ago
What Is Wrong With This Country?
52 Answers
https:/
You couldn't make it up, not only wasn't this potential terrorist charged but another one was allowed to continue on her journey, to join ISIS.
It seems it is now more of a crime to belong to a banned right-wing group than it is to join a banned terrorist group.
What is the gamble that if this latest bit of garbage (Shemima Begumis) is allowed back into our country, she will get off lighter than our friend Tommy Robinson ever has.
You couldn't make it up, not only wasn't this potential terrorist charged but another one was allowed to continue on her journey, to join ISIS.
It seems it is now more of a crime to belong to a banned right-wing group than it is to join a banned terrorist group.
What is the gamble that if this latest bit of garbage (Shemima Begumis) is allowed back into our country, she will get off lighter than our friend Tommy Robinson ever has.
Answers
Could have sworn Gromit never took anything on trust and always asked of any source "Who's saying this and why?" But he's totally uncritical of a UN document which uses the phrase "violent extremism". This is another bit of uncritical thinking (unless, of course, you disagree with the victim stuff) from your post, Gromit: "My guess is that she was not...
16:31 Mon 18th Feb 2019
//in order to prosecute and convict you need convincing evidence//
A point AB's (and possibly the world's) greatest jurist has made before. He was speaking about prosecuting people who had enlisted in the International Brigade.
I couldn't remember the point of law pertinent to that situation. But did find this article (presented in the considered, informed and fair way we expect of the esteemed organ) in the Guardian which compared that situation with those going out to Syria to fight for ISIS. The proper way to view Ms Begum, the article suggests, is as an Orwell, or a Laurie Lee.
https:/
A point AB's (and possibly the world's) greatest jurist has made before. He was speaking about prosecuting people who had enlisted in the International Brigade.
I couldn't remember the point of law pertinent to that situation. But did find this article (presented in the considered, informed and fair way we expect of the esteemed organ) in the Guardian which compared that situation with those going out to Syria to fight for ISIS. The proper way to view Ms Begum, the article suggests, is as an Orwell, or a Laurie Lee.
https:/
There is a very long and detailed report about Children recruited by terrorist groups, and how the justice system should treat them, published by theUnited Nations.
https:/
I doubt any of you will look at it. My guess is that she was not prosecuted because the authorities judged that the young girl was a victim, and had been indoctrinated and exploited by the terrorists.
https:/
I doubt any of you will look at it. My guess is that she was not prosecuted because the authorities judged that the young girl was a victim, and had been indoctrinated and exploited by the terrorists.
Could have sworn Gromit never took anything on trust and always asked of any source "Who's saying this and why?" But he's totally uncritical of a UN document which uses the phrase "violent extremism".
This is another bit of uncritical thinking (unless, of course, you disagree with the victim stuff) from your post, Gromit:
"My guess is that she was not prosecuted because the authorities judged that the young girl was a victim, and had been indoctrinated and exploited by the terrorists."
This is the myth of "radicalisation": chaff to deflect the exocet. If you recall a father of one of the other girls - he's still vocal now - was himself a radical extremist. And that the girls all came from the same school in Tower Hamlets. (Tower Hamlets? Ring any kind of bell?)
Maybe, instead of chasing comforting chimeras about radicalisation by malign exterior forces, it would be more effective, if less comforting, to look at the radicalisation by malign interior forces.
This is another bit of uncritical thinking (unless, of course, you disagree with the victim stuff) from your post, Gromit:
"My guess is that she was not prosecuted because the authorities judged that the young girl was a victim, and had been indoctrinated and exploited by the terrorists."
This is the myth of "radicalisation": chaff to deflect the exocet. If you recall a father of one of the other girls - he's still vocal now - was himself a radical extremist. And that the girls all came from the same school in Tower Hamlets. (Tower Hamlets? Ring any kind of bell?)
Maybe, instead of chasing comforting chimeras about radicalisation by malign exterior forces, it would be more effective, if less comforting, to look at the radicalisation by malign interior forces.
I'm not sure of the relevance of the document to the Begum case, Gromit, except in as far as it specifies "correct practice" for the treatment of children in the justice system. Not that Ms Begum is a "child" (i.e. under 18) now.
Its remit is to ensure proper legal treatment and the rehabilitation of children. There's a further issue with returning jihadis, isn't there? Namely the threat they pose to their fellow citizens.
Its remit is to ensure proper legal treatment and the rehabilitation of children. There's a further issue with returning jihadis, isn't there? Namely the threat they pose to their fellow citizens.
If Ms. Begum is allowed back into the country, I would hope that proper legal procedures will be implemented (please don't bother to post about me not holding my breath anyone!) as they should certainly be.
As far as comparisons, they are rarely appropriate, and in all cases, the issues caused by one criminal do not counter-balance or mitigate the issues caused by another criminal.
As far as comparisons, they are rarely appropriate, and in all cases, the issues caused by one criminal do not counter-balance or mitigate the issues caused by another criminal.
//We are discussing an unnamed school girl being let off, not Miss Begum. The UN document does apply to her//
Granted,Gromit. The UN document has a remit to uphold the "rights" of the child and to rehabilitate her. I am not so fastidious (boo, hiss!). More concerned with the the first remit of the report: prevention.
Concerning which the document starts off quite well with its analysis of child recruitment by Boko Haram, Al-Shabab and other such groups in their own territories. However, when it discusses the wider issue of recruitment (which importantly to me means recruitment in the UK and other European countries) it lapses, sadly, but predictably into the usual psychobabble, truth avoidance and obscurantism.
Here are two examples from the section on prevention:
(under the heading "Key challenges" )
'Stigmatization: practices such as “selective engagement” are based on the assumption that certain individuals or groups are especially at risk of recruitment. These methods are particularly concerning from a human rights perspective, as they tend to enhance discrimination and stigmatization of minority, ethnic, religious and
indigenous groups.'
(Report from the Viennese Network which was founded in 2014 with the objective of protecting children fromcruitment by terrorist groups. This is one of its "lessons learned".)
'The reasons why children and youth join terrorist and violent extremist ndividual and should be identified on a case-by-case basis. However, experience has shown that neglect, abuse, violence, marginalization and discrimination play a considerable role in many cases. The perception of injustice is especially strong for
children and can lead to a rejection of societal rules. Effective approaches entail focusing on the prevention of child rights violations and violence.'
So precious few "lessons learned" there. And sod-all chance of anything a rational human would consider an "effective approach"
Granted,Gromit. The UN document has a remit to uphold the "rights" of the child and to rehabilitate her. I am not so fastidious (boo, hiss!). More concerned with the the first remit of the report: prevention.
Concerning which the document starts off quite well with its analysis of child recruitment by Boko Haram, Al-Shabab and other such groups in their own territories. However, when it discusses the wider issue of recruitment (which importantly to me means recruitment in the UK and other European countries) it lapses, sadly, but predictably into the usual psychobabble, truth avoidance and obscurantism.
Here are two examples from the section on prevention:
(under the heading "Key challenges" )
'Stigmatization: practices such as “selective engagement” are based on the assumption that certain individuals or groups are especially at risk of recruitment. These methods are particularly concerning from a human rights perspective, as they tend to enhance discrimination and stigmatization of minority, ethnic, religious and
indigenous groups.'
(Report from the Viennese Network which was founded in 2014 with the objective of protecting children fromcruitment by terrorist groups. This is one of its "lessons learned".)
'The reasons why children and youth join terrorist and violent extremist ndividual and should be identified on a case-by-case basis. However, experience has shown that neglect, abuse, violence, marginalization and discrimination play a considerable role in many cases. The perception of injustice is especially strong for
children and can lead to a rejection of societal rules. Effective approaches entail focusing on the prevention of child rights violations and violence.'
So precious few "lessons learned" there. And sod-all chance of anything a rational human would consider an "effective approach"
// she will get off lighter than our friend Tommy Robinson ever has. //
who is another terrorist yeah ?
can you please write something that at least makes sense.
we are talking about a soppy 15 y old who was hauled off a plane - not a jihadi armed to the teeth with suicide belt and shooting everyone ( = terroristen to my mind )
but hey it is 10 pm and we are on AB
who is another terrorist yeah ?
can you please write something that at least makes sense.
we are talking about a soppy 15 y old who was hauled off a plane - not a jihadi armed to the teeth with suicide belt and shooting everyone ( = terroristen to my mind )
but hey it is 10 pm and we are on AB
Latest Posts
ChatterBank89 mins ago
ChatterBank98 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles122 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles122 mins ago
