Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Given that he?s actively positioning himself to take over from May, I?d say ?hardly surprising? is my initial thought.


It?s like his own little Falklands...


Less sarcastically? Well, when were the current treason laws written? Are they relevant to the modern world? Talking about them isn?t a bad thing so long as it?s done sensibly. So I?d say both pragmatic and opportunistic. Plus just because an MP talks about something hardly means they?re actually going to do anything...

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318093
Share on other sites

From a certain nasty paper...


"Mr Javid was asked by Tory colleague Julian Lewis whether he would consider revamping the treason law to 'specify that it is treason to support a group that one knows intends to attack the UK or is fighting UK forces'".


That could be Spain folks (It's already getting feisty over Gibraltar)

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318104
Share on other sites

Javid has been engaging in dog whistle politics for a while now and it is clear who his target market is. How far to the right he would actually take the Tory Party if he were to become its leader is another question, but for now, he is speaking to an increasingly right wing and increasingly diminishing party membership.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318128
Share on other sites

Finally the UK has stood its ground and said it like it is. The reason this has been brought to the fore is because of the jahadi school girl who now wants too come back here. She is an enemy of the state and as such has no place here, she fore fitted the right to return here when she went to join diaesh and in doing so committed treason. What's more she's shown not an once of remorse or denounced diaesh. She even called her baby Jarrah after a 13th century murderous war lord.


How about all those who were beheaded in cold blood by diaesh or those that where murdered in the Manchester, London Bridge and Westminster Bridge attacks? Simply put she has no place in this country or right of return, nor anyone who went out to join diaesh and wants to come back to the UK.


"traitor (plural traitors)


1. Someone who violates an allegiance and betrays their country; someone guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers their country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place entrusted to his defence, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished quotations


2. Someone who takes arms and levies war against their country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.


Hence, one who betrays any confidence or trust."


https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/231521

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318134
Share on other sites

Mr Pedantic would like to point out that - as far as we know - Begum has not committed treason under our current definition.


This is rather the point of Javid opening up the question of what should constitute ?treason?.


That said, she?s shown no remorse over her behaviour or allegiances and seems only to want to avoid having a third infant die in the hellhole she occupies. Now I feel personally that the child has committed no crime and should be allowed to come here; it is the offspring of a British citizen and is currently somewhere that no child should have to be. Begum herself should be arrested upon landing and interrogated, and if she is found to have committed a crime she should be imprisoned.


The child is the complicating factor. It does not deserve to suffer the sins of the parent, but unless she agrees (highly unlikely) it cannot be separated from her and we will have to face that. Otherwise she could frankly stay where she is.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318146
Share on other sites

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Finally the UK has stood its ground and said it

> like it is. The reason this has been brought to

> the fore is because of the jahadi school girl who

> now wants too come back here. She is an enemy of

> the state and as such has no place here, she fore

> fitted the right to return here when she went to

> join diaesh and in doing so committed treason.

> What's more she's shown not an once of remorse or

> denounced diaesh. She even called her baby Jarrah

> after a 13th century war lord.

>

> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/231521


She should be allowed back as others have been. Agree with JoeLeg she should be arrested on return and questioned and monitored for the future.


I?m not sure how I stand though with the likes of the Jihadist Beatles. Not only are they likely to be responsible for unspeakable atrocities I can?t see how they?d ever reintegrate to ?normal? life. Shamima at least stands a chance.


Finally on dbboy?s post, I think you?ll find drug dealers and pushers do more harm to the fabric of Britain than our indigenous extremist Muslims.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318152
Share on other sites

We're a member of the rule based international order - you have to follow the rules and the others will follow rules about you.


The "beatles" are in my view hostis humani generis due to their actions and outside the international rules (like pirates of old) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis. Not sure this girl is a combatant.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318189
Share on other sites

walkman85 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd be horrified if she or her offspring were let

> back into this country.


The child is barely a week or two old. It?s commited no crime, and did not ask to be born. Why should the sins of the parent be visited on that poor infant?

Be all means separate them - an argument can certainly be made that she should not be allowed to raise the kid only to hate this country. But don?t punish a newborn for the hatred of the parent.


The right message should

> be that if you want to leave the country to

> support a terrorist organisation then don't expect

> to come back.


Part of me (a big part) has no problem with the idea of banning her from returning. But the idea of creating a precedent for making someone stateless because they don?t agree with our ideals is somewhat trickier - a slippery slope perhaps. Also, I?m very ok with her returning, being arrested and interrogated robustly (and no that is not a euphemism for torture). Another message worth sending is treat you can come back but we will make damn sure you face the consequences, gloves very much off.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318196
Share on other sites

It is very clear from interviews with her that she is not the brightest of young people. Naivety is no defense granted, but we are not talking about some Jihadi mastermind here. We are talking about a teenage girl who was seduced by something she had little understanding of. It is exactly the same psychology that drives teenagers to join any gang. What strikes me most about her, is her lack of emotion. She seems disconnected and this is not a normal cognitive response.


We have had over 300 Jihadi fighters return. Others HAVE been stripped of UK nationality where a clear case of dual nationality exists. So why all this focus all off a sudden on one young woman who never pointed any gun at anyone. I think a case can be made for the old adage that what men do might be shocking, but women only have to stand by to be more vilified. Women are are demonised for less, history is full of examples of that. And I can't help but think there is a bit of that going on here.


She will end up coming back here after a long legal process because she does not have dual nationality. Javid has engaged in dog whistle politics yet again, to forward his real aim of replacing May when the time comes. Yes she will need monitoring, deradicalising and her child may be taken into care, but that is nothing new for he UK. We already have over a hundred returnees undergoing deradicalisation programmes. It can be done. And we also have a legal process for prosecuting anyone guilty of a crime under UK law, of which joining IS is.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318201
Share on other sites

The child is the result of this teenage jihadi getting pregnant by another Dutch jihadi, and where is the father?

So why do you want her child in this country brought up by the grand father who radicalised his own daughter. And the father will not ignore his baby, he'll want to come here from Holland to see her and her baby. Why put this country at further risk? Solution, why doesn't the family go and join her in Syria? Result, Today's child is tomorrow?s terrorist

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318202
Share on other sites

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> walkman85 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'd be horrified if she or her offspring were

> let

> > back into this country.

>

> The child is barely a week or two old. It?s

> commited no crime, and did not ask to be born. Why

> should the sins of the parent be visited on that

> poor infant?

> Be all means separate them - an argument can

> certainly be made that she should not be allowed

> to raise the kid only to hate this country. But

> don?t punish a newborn for the hatred of the

> parent.


I understand this argument and but personally I would prefer for terrorist progeny not to be shipped to the UK despite how young or innocent they are. Although she doesn't strike me as being an ideal mother or role model, separating mother and child has its own issues.



> The right message should

> > be that if you want to leave the country to

> > support a terrorist organisation then don't

> expect

> > to come back.

>

> Part of me (a big part) has no problem with the

> idea of banning her from returning. But the idea

> of creating a precedent for making someone

> stateless because they don?t agree with our ideals

> is somewhat trickier - a slippery slope perhaps.

> Also, I?m very ok with her returning, being

> arrested and interrogated robustly (and no that is

> not a euphemism for torture). Another message

> worth sending is treat you can come back but we

> will make damn sure you face the consequences,

> gloves very much off.


I wish the system here was capable of that but it could easily be the case whereby there is not enough evidence to prosecute and she walks free. Everyone lives happily ever after...

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318203
Share on other sites

And here I?m ending my participation in this thread.


I?m ex-Army, I have a ?robust? attitude towards grown people who decide to join organisations such as ISIS, and I do not feel myself to be naive. However the idea that a one-week old infant has been deemed a terrorist already leaves a frankly bad taste in my mouth, to say the least.


We separate children from parents (and the rest of their family) for less, and the father can easily be denied entry to the U.K.. The kid didn?t ask to be born and the fact that you?re already telling it that it?s an enemy of the state is something you might want to think about. Or not. It?s up to you.


Either way I?ll leave you to it.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318211
Share on other sites

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She would be well advised to stop giving

> interviews. She is just digging an even deeper

> hole for herself rather than gaining sympathy. It

> does seem problematic stripping her citizenship.

> Has anybody born in the UK ever had their

> citizenship stripped?


Obviously she doesn't have a media adviser.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318226
Share on other sites

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And here I?m ending my participation in this

> thread.

>

> I?m ex-Army, I have a ?robust? attitude towards

> grown people who decide to join organisations such

> as ISIS, and I do not feel myself to be naive.

> However the idea that a one-week old infant has

> been deemed a terrorist already leaves a frankly

> bad taste in my mouth, to say the least.

>

> We separate children from parents (and the rest of

> their family) for less, and the father can easily

> be denied entry to the U.K.. The kid didn?t ask to

> be born and the fact that you?re already telling

> it that it?s an enemy of the state is something

> you might want to think about. Or not. It?s up to

> you.

>

> Either way I?ll leave you to it.



No, the baby isn?t a terrorist and hasn?t done anything wrong, and if he?d had the choice he probably wouldn?t have chosen to be born in a refugee camp in a war-torn country. I just think he should be kept with his mother as far away from here as possible.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318229
Share on other sites

The question surely must be has Begum (for whom I hold no brief and seems a pretty repellent character) committed any crime, let alone treason? Unless she has actually taken up arms herself (for which there seems to be no evidence), how does marrying a criminal make her a criminal? As a British citizen she surely has the right to return to the UK and be asked to account for herself and sanctioned as necessary, however much that may stick in our collective craw. Allowing a politician to declare someone "uncitizen" for holding views, but not committing actions, that most of us find repulsive is not a safe precedent.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318309
Share on other sites

While the thought of letting someone re-enter, who has left our country to go work for a terrorist organisation a bitter taste in our mouth, we should really consider the experience that this girl has gone through. Why did a 15 year old girl feel the need to leave her family in Bethnal Green to go to Syria? In the time that she has been there, the other two girls she left with have been killed and she has had 2 children die. Sounds like a pretty traumatising experience, no wonder she wants to come back.

Perhaps if we let her back and enter her into a deradicalisation program (as others before her have been allowed to do) we can learn how this happened and prevent other school children from doing the same in the future.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/218693-treason/#findComment-1318542
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...