Jihadi Jack Parents Guilty Of Funding Terrorism

[naomi24]

//The parents of a Muslim convert dubbed "Jihadi Jack" have been found guilty of funding terrorism.

John Letts, 58, and Sally Lane, 57, from Oxford, sent their son £223 while he was in Syria despite concerns he had joined the Islamic State group.

An Old Bailey jury found the couple not guilty of sending him a further £1,000 and could not reach a verdict on a third charge of funding terrorism.

The pair each received 15 months imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.
In a statement read by their solicitor, they said: "We have been convicted for doing what any parent would do if they thought that their child's life was in danger."//

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-48676894

Their son, who had declared his wish to decapitate people and to carry out a suicide attack now wants to return to the UK, assuring us that he won’t blow us up.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jihadi-jack-interview-islamic-state-isis-syria-terrorism-a8971276.html

Funding terrorism or caring parents?

[Zacs-Master]

Can’t they be both?

[Jackdaw33]

Let him rot in the tish-hole he now finds himself. He should never be allowed back into the UK.

[naomi24]

They say they're not.

[Zacs-Master]

No but I mean by default. Caring parents to send the money / funding terrorism by naivety.

[naomi24]

Funding terrorism by naivety isn't funding it intentionally. I wonder how many parents in their situation would send their child money and how many would draw a line and say 'no'?

[Zacs-Master]

You didn’t ask if it was done intentionally.

[agchristie]

The parents obviously love their son and blood is thicker than water. The trial judge recognised their love for him and remarked that they were intelligent people.

However, despite repeated warnings, they crossed the line by sending the payment.

Zacs is right, they can and are in my opinion, both caring and funding terrorism.

[naomi24]

ag, what would you do in their situation? Would you send your child money?

[Zacs-Master]

I think most parents would. That doesn’t make it right and, in the current terrorist threat climate, they need making an example of. It really is that simple.

[agchristie]

I wonder how the jury found them guilty of sending one amount and not the other?

I mean, the £1000 was either sent or it wasn't.

There must have been some evidence surely and had it been sent then there it could only be used for terrorist funding given that they were found guilty of sending the lesser sum?

[naomi24]

Yes, I thought that odd too, ag.

[youngmafbog]

It's a difficult situation and I think, in this case, Zacs is right.

However, funding terrorism it is. So the prosecution and sentence is correct, apart from I think they should have served some jail time.

[agchristie]

Naomi, I would probably have done the same knowing that I would have to face any consequences.

Mind you, I would have tried my utmost beforehand to warn my children not to convert to Islam!

[naomi24]

ag, It's a difficult one, but I really don't think I would fund a child of mine in that situation.

[youngmafbog]

I would certainly not send any money to any of my kids.

[anneasquith]

Caring parents.

[agchristie]

It's not as if either sum was a significant amount in terms of it lasting long for genuine purposes or funding terrorism for that matter.

They were defiant though and the amount is secondary to the act.

I'd be willing to bet that some parents who, if put in that position, would say they wouldn't have acted in the same way actually would.

Generally, I've known parents continually give money to their sons and daughters knowing full well that it is not to pay bills or get food but actually fund their drug habit!

[ludwig]

// [The judge] said that they were "intelligent adults" who set aside their suspicions to "please your son". //

I don't believe it's as trivial as 'pleasing their son'. I believe they thought he was in great danger and wanted to help him get back home, which is understandable.

However, this is the problem..

// She added Letts and Lane were repeatedly told by "numerous police officers" not to send any money. //

If the police repeatedly tell you not to do something because of it's potential illegality, but you choose to do it, you have to accept the consequences. So although I understand their motives, they've got no defence in legal terms, and should probably just be thankful they've avoided imprisonment.