True. Wasn't aware that part was actually in force yet as a lot of the other provisions of the act start in October. As you say, British-born nutters aren't affected though.


Cancelling the passport might prevent him or anyone actually getting on a plane in the first place, but governments don't necessarily share their suspect index lists, so if they tried to get a plane in Russia for example they might not know how dodgy he was. Cancelling the passport would flag up a problem to anyone though.

It's pretty moot anyway as there may well be some sort of accident befalling him while he is being arrested, if the airstrikes don't get him first.



I'm sure they'd keep hold of him too, but he'd have to prove he was British to gain entry. With no passport, or a cancelled one, how would he do that? The current immigration climate would suggest that a person with dark skin and no proof of identity or nationality might well end up in a detention centre before being sent back whence he came. Must admit I've never tried to get through immigration without some proper acceptable proof that I'm British.

If HMG decided that all those ISIS guys out there were not welcome back in the UK, could we not simply refuse entry on terrorism grounds?

Personally, I'd ship any who tried off on the first available flight to Cuba for our american chums to play with.....

which would make us as barbaric as them.

As has been said, how can you deny statehood to a born & bred British citizen?

Where would you ship a suspected terrorist back to? It's a fair bet that any jihadists won't be flying in from Iraq or Syria and would we really simply want to turn them back to carry on their "war on the West"? Unlike the way we buggered around with Hamza and Quatada, any such listed people should be put before a court ASAP.

As an aside, [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/jihadist-radicalisation-islam-for-dummies_b_5697160.html?utm_hp_ref=ukwhat the would-be jihadist is reading before he goes to war[/url

So to be British you just need to have born and raised here - Surely if u rail against the very fabric of British society, then that qualification becomes invalid??... .... It's up there with supposed Catholics, who visit church once every blue moon, live with partners outside of marriage, and indulge in sex using contraceptives - They are not Catholics in the same way these jihadists are not British.

There are rules you should have to follow to be a member of any community, whether it be British, Catholic, a Union, etc - One of the rules of being British should be that you don't nob off to fight some holy war, threatening to wage terror on the very things that you will have learnt during your British upbringing, such as respect for others and freedom of speech and thought for everybody.

The irony is, I am not normally one for patriotic British nonsense, in a UKIP, Nigel Farage manner, however, the idea that these scum can be labelled something that millions have fought for the right to be called, is an absolute travesty... Call them terrorists, freedom fighters, or whatever, just don't call them British.

Nope. If you're born here you're British regardless of what you do. There should never ever be any rules or qualification on citizenship for people born here.

That could work in a totalitarian state and if you'd be happy to live in that, you're welcome to it. I really shouldn't but I will invoke Pastor Martin Niemoller here: "first they came for....." You know the rest

Children are not born Catholic or of any other religion, they are introduced or indoctrinated into it.

Children are born, with very few exceptions, into a nationality or statehood. That position may be renounced in later years but the numbers who are born "stateless" are infinitessimily small.

I asked previously why we do not lump British Jews who choose to undertake Israeli National Service (although they have no legal obligation to do so), in the same group as the jihadists. Perhaps you could offer a rational explanation?

What will happen here is that the state will gain ever more control over our lives, in the name of "National Security". This is despite the fact that far more women are killed by their partners, or gays killed by homophobes, than ordinary UK citizens killed by terrorists. As catastrophic as the London bombings were, more people have been killed by other means, than terrorism. Yet we see no real drive to introduce new laws and restrictions on personal liberties to combat this. If we ploughed the same amount of money into developing new anti-biotics as we do anti-terrorism, we'd see far fewer people dying from illnesses than would ever die from terrorism.

Get some fooking perspective and stop viewing illegal war-porn websites

I wonder, what is the legal status of children who have been born in the UK to parents who are detained as "refugees" or "illegal immigrants"?

How to stop IS?

Well for a start I'd stop sending arms to the Syrian terrorists fighting the Assad regime.

Alternatively you could stop removing strong men/ dictators etc from their positions where they actuallly oppose the jihadists ie Assad, Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein all of whom were the enemies of the jihadists.

As opposed to those lovely nice saudis and Quataris who all actively support the jihadists



Then again if you were nasty to those saudi sheiks who would keep the property boom in London going ( particularly as we are ing off the Russian oligarchs )

To be honest, having watched some IS atrocities on youtube, though not the murder of James Foley, I am quite happy for the Yanks to bomb IS until they can't find anything bigger than a tooth or fingernail.

have you watched any videos of the American atrocities in Vietnam/Japan/Iraq?

No doubt if we'd had social media in the times of the crusades there would be plenty to see

But it still doesnt make it ok to murder innocent communities

I bet those videos didn't stay up for long though on YouTube.

Coddy, Israeli s/Jews are not murdering scum ergo they can never be lumped in the same category as those murdering jihadist/IS/Hamas etc scum bags

HTH

Also just because you are born in a certain country doesnt make you a national of that country.
When we were stationed in Singapore in the mid 60s friends of the family had a baby girl born over there in Changi. she was British not Singaporean.
Same goes for all forces kids born abroad.They are Brits.

Nobody argued it does.



To be more accurate, they can be registered as Brits. And would not be eligible to be Singaporean anyway, unless one parent was. Most countries have different categories, such as nationality by birth, and, in this case, nationality by descent.

[urlhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/261503/bn4.pdf[/url

I have seen some footage of Viet Nam though obviously, due to camera phones not being invented at the time, there is not as much about and surely most people know about My Lai now. The mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is well documented however thanks to modern technology.

Atrocities occur in all wars and though some people on here won't want to hear it some of them were also perpetrated by British troops e.g. during the Mau Mau Rebellion.

I would like to think that instances of allied troops committing such acts are rare, but I doubt it.

The difference is that the IS routinely execute prisoner and civilians as a matter of course to instil fear in the locals. Beheadings are commonplace as are crucifictions (the latter mercifully post shooting). In one instance captured Iraqi soldiers were beheaded and their severed heads put on spikes lining the roads (footage of all this on youtube). This is going back to the dark ages and if this persists I am sure genocide of the Shia muslims in IS controlled areas will ensue.

The Israelis are also comitting war crimes. I see no distinction between the IDF and IS. Hamas are also violating human rights and committing was crimes e.g. the recent execution of civilians for allegedly collaborating with the Israelis.

I think that a political solution can be sought about Gaza, but sadly don't see this being the case with the IS and that the only solution to avoid mass murder of innocent civillians is the military option.

and you recall what we did to Dick Turpin, Guido Fawkes?

we're no better, and should stop claiming to be.

Christianity is nor more or less valid than Islam, where were we in Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge were doing exactly what IS are?

not our fight, leave them to it.

Acknowledging the flag in your signature, could you explain this in more detail?

As far as I'm concerned Hamas and the Israeli government are both a set of utter scum bags, killing innocent children for a political point, but I'm happy to await your view

I was waiting for you to raise the six-pointed star.

FYI, I have no axe to grind against people of Jewish faith, apart from the fact that religion is total bollox. Neither do I have anything against Israelis in general.

I do have a beef with zionists who insist that they have a god-given right to areas that have been deemed by numerous treaties to berlong to peoples of another race. This is compounded by state representatives who claim that bombing and shelling women and children is justified because those women and children have remained in their homes (in their own territory), even after the illegally invading state has tolod them to leave.

This bombing, shelling and ultimate murder of innocent women and children cannot be justified by any sane or reasonable person. Similarly, if British citizens are legally prevented by law from engaging in warfare, except on behalf of the British state, that sanction should be applied equally.

I think most people would agree with this if I wasn't for the fact that,

1. A large number of those fighting, or potentially going to fight in the future, are living amongst us all right now.

2. One of those sides fighting (and seemingly winning) has already stated its intention of marching on towards the western world and exterminating all those who do not fall into line with their religious 'views'.

Combine those 2 facts and you have enough reason why we shouldn't just sit back and 'leave them to it'.

I wonder if all those who supported attacking IRAQ
Overthrowing Gadaffi
Opposing Assad

are aware of their own hypocrisy and the fact that they are as responsible for creating Jihadi John as are the mad mullahs he follows.
?????

That's as stupid as saying Britain & France are responsible for creating the Nazi Party. There may be a link between the 2 as to why they happened but that doesn't mean they're responsible.

Overthrowing dictators and trying to bring in democracy is not a bad thing. This is just the next stage that needs to be overcome.

The main problem being that there was never much thought given to who would fill the inevitable power vacuum afterwards.

Blair still claims he was right to authorise the Iraq invasion, although he does concede that the post-war effort could've been better managed (so that's him off the fooking hook then?).

In many ways, Britain, France & the USA were responsible for the rise of the Nazi party. WW1 reparation conditions, trading conditions, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires can all lead us to modern conflicts, from the Balkans to the Middle East. Remember in 1918, we still had an empire, as did France. No doubt the US would have loved to have one and seems to have been hell-bent on acquiring one.

Learning from history is the best way of avoiding future mistakes. Unfortunately we don't seem to have learned an awful lot in the last 100 years

You can add as many noughts to that 100 as you like, the Human race is it's own worst enemy, once some idiot invented religion we were screwed.