POLL: Was Javid justified in revoking Shamima Begum’s citizenship?

Shamima Begum: Citizenship revoked.

Let’s answer the question straight away; I’ll come clean with my opinions below but I would appreciate it if you would respond to the poll with your own, uncoloured by anything I state.

For clarity: Home Secretary Sajid Javid has revoked Shamima Begum’s UK citizenship. It seems he has done this in line with the Nationality Act 1981 and government guidance from 2017, stating that Mr Javid has the power to order the deprivation if it would be “conducive to the public good”, as long as they are not left without any citizenship. It is believed to be possible that Ms Begum has dual citizenship as her family is of Bangladeshi origin.

Here’s the poll. Notice there are only two possible answers; I’m asking for a clear result:

This has proved an extremely divisive, emotive subject.

I have been accused of racism, extreme right-wing political views, of seeking the death of an unborn child, of supporting the grooming of children and more – all on the basis of absolutely no factual information at all.

Demands that Ms Begum must have been a victim of grooming collapse when one realises they are based on a comment by former chief of counter-terrorism policing, Sir Mark Rowley, who “suggested that she might be treated as a victim of grooming”. There’s a lot of “maybe” in that sentence!

Regarding the claims of racism, I have just been through both my previous articles  – one is here and the other can be found here – and can find no reference to race at all.

Nor can I find reference to extreme right-wing views. Concern for the protection of innocent people wasn’t extremism, last time I checked.

As far as I can tell, the claim that I wanted an unborn child to die was based entirely on the belief that if Ms Begum’s baby was born in the refugee camp that is her current home, it would die. Events have overtaken people who put forward that opinion, as it has been born there and is alive and well.

This fact renders another part of the argument irrelevant: Ms Begum had requested that she be returned to the UK for NHS medical treatment to help her give birth to the child and this is no longer an issue. She would have been ineligible for that treatment in any case, as NHS care for UK citizens is based on residence and she has not been in the UK for around four years.

That leaves us with the question of whether, as a UK citizens, Ms Begum should be returned to face justice and/or rehabilitation – be returned to society.

I have written at length on this in the other two articles, but it may be worth addressing the argument many have used – that hundreds of other UK citizens who have defected to IS in the past have been allowed to come back. This may be true, but Mr Javid has said more than 100 people of dual nationality have been deprived of their UK citizenship after travelling abroad in support of terrorist groups. This number includes two British men who had been accused of being members of an IS cell dubbed “The Beatles”.

The issue is whether these people may pose a risk to citizens of the UK if they come back.

I have already quoted the head of MI6, who pointed out that Ms Begum may present a threat to people in the UK if she returns and that a “very significant level of resource” would be required to ensure public safety.

He said: “We are very concerned about this because all experience tells us that once someone has been put in that sort of position, or put themselves in that sort of position, they are likely to have acquired the skills or connections that make them potentially very dangerous.”

We know that Ms Begum is unrepentant about her own actions and seems still to support IS, its aims and methods.

A prime purpose of a country’s government is the protection of the people. It is clear that the government could argue successfully against bringing a known terrorist sympathiser back into this country from a foreign land, in order to protect the population in general.

It is impossible to prove that bringing this person back to the UK is not deliberately putting UK citizens in harm’s way. That is a risk that no UK government minister may take – especially after Salman Ramadan Abedi – the Manchester Arena suicide bomber.

For those reasons – paramount being the protection of UK citizens – I have to say the decision is justified.

POSTSCRIPT: As I have been typing this, the BBC’s Newsnight has been discussing this issue, and I have been glad to see a series of experts telling presenter Kirsty Wark exactly what I have been saying in this article. Your opinion may be different – we’ll find out in the results of the poll – but after the storm of hostility I’ve had for even covering this story, the support is welcome. Catch it on iPlayer if you can.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

44 thoughts on “POLL: Was Javid justified in revoking Shamima Begum’s citizenship?

  1. Zippi

    I’m sorry that you’ve been subject to that kind of treatment, Mike. Sadly, it is a symptom of what our society has become, in this internet age. We should be able to enter into discourse, just as we would in person and have heated, impassioned debates but remain respectful, friendly and with any luck, more knowledgeable, as a result. We all have opinions but none of us is the oracle of Truth. We might not be right.
    I don’t believe you to be racist and Right Wing is a label that you do not wear well.

  2. joanna

    I have voted yes because I think she would be a threat, she has already stated that the Manchester bombing was justified retaliation for the bombings in Syria.
    She only apologised begrudgingly which was too little too late!

  3. Peter Twohey

    However wrong or misguided she may have been, it is our responsibility. She is subject to our laws and should be convicted or not, under our normal judicial process. To remove her citizenship goes against all international law and is an emotional response to a basic legal issue.
    Whilst not wishing to judge the young lady, I most certainly do not want the Daily Mail to do it for me.
    Above all, I expect the Home Secretary to apply the law correctly and not pander to knee jerk reaction from the mob.
    This child/mother attracts little sympathy for being stupid, which is a pretty good description of many young teenagers. That does not mean we should forgive or excuse but it does require those in power to exert wisdom and the law as intended.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Why is it our responsibility? I had nothing to do with what happened to her. Did you? Do you want other people to be responsible for your actions – to take control of your life away from you? If not, why would you want that to happen to someone else? Actions have consequences, as I stated from the outset. And Ms Begum was old enough to know this when she made her choice to join IS.
      Removing her citizenship is not against international law, for the reasons given. It is not an emotional response. And it has been done many times before. Did you complain about the more-than-100 previous cases?
      Why do you (and others) keep mentioning the Daily Mail in connection with this case? Why won’t you accept that many people who can’t stand that paper’s politics have very strong opinions that they are entirely capable of justifying – as I am and have.
      Why do you say the Home Secretary has not applied the law correctly? He has had access to experts. Are you an expert on this aspect of the law?
      Those in power have indeed acted in accordance with the law. Is it not the case that you are arguing against their decision simply because you don’t like it?

      1. Robin Baldock

        by revoking her citizenship you make her stateless. this is against humanitarian law.

        citizenship is not a standard of behavior, all the other arguments you cite are merely mitigating circumstances, sure but they are mitigating circumstances to be decided properly and not by the whim of a home secretary or by a deficient home office still in run by the principle of hostile environment. The sort of thing that shows how compassionate or fear based our society really is and how willing to deal with its part in the mess of the middle east we are.

        You are wrong to support the revoking of citizenship for anything other than where it can be shown that the person took citizenship as an adult by knowingly lying about their status and intent (and in the current home office atmosphere that is a tool to be misused and wildly exceeded).

        You are encouraging the trend to revoke citizenship as an easy out for lowering immigration figures (hostile environment) and not having to deal with crime. But mainly it is just wrong and against the spirit even when not the letter of the law to confuse citizenship with behavior. In this case, it would likely be against the letter also, although again the govt has done a good job of making a legal has of the issue..

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/06/sajid-javid-windrush-deportation-criminal-jamaica

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        Nothing about this case encourages revocation of citizenship merely to reduce immigration figures.

        And don’t citizens of any country have an obligation to support that country? It’s a two-way street, you know. If people don’t like it here, they can always emigrate to another country and apply for citizenship there. That’s what Ms Begun did, of course.

      3. Peter Twohey

        Our interpretations of responsibility differ. If and until she returns to this country and faces due judicial process any action is knee jerk and pandering to the press for political gain. That her situation is unsympathetic matters not one jot. I certainly have no sympathy for her and would expect her to face severe consequences because of her actions. Nevertheless she was a minor when she left and that has to be taken into consideration. Let the law run it’s course and the outcome be decided in the correct manner.

      4. Laura

        I have no criticism of anyone elses opinions on what should/shouldn’t happen to Shamima Begum. My views will be, I expect, extraodinarily extreme. ISIS is a US/UK creation, also there has been the relentless bombing of Syria by US/UK for no valid reason (not forgetting Iraq and Libya) Assad has been labled a monster by the US/UK as were Gaddafi and Hussein, which of course is bollox I’m thinking ‘We reap what we sow’ As far as I am aware the only words we have heard from her are those broadcast on the BBC since when did any of us believe anything that the BBC/Government put out. She is probably less of a threat than the Manchester Bomber as there is nothing to suggest she was trained for terrorism by the UK. Until we eliminate the current Government, there will always be unsavory scenarios to consider and they will always be on the wrong side of any decision – no buts! I don’t think she should come back into the hostile environment this Government has created. However, it was incorrect of the Home Secretary to take away her British Citizenship he has left her Stateless as she does not hold a Citizenship for Bangladeshi.

      5. joanna

        Her citizenship can’t be revoked, she hasn’t got any citizenship with Bangladesh and does not have any dual nationality, therefore she would be stateless which is supposed to be against her human rights. It might be up to her to get to a country where she could arrange a way to the UK.

      6. Robin Baldock

        Mike, you are choosing to argue everything that is aside from the point.

        It is wrong by to barter citizenship based on behavior it is wrong and illegal by uk law and international human rights law to render someone stateless in the current world system,
        It is also wrong to try and first our international obligations for that citizenship onto other countries.

        other arguments you make you are not afraid to address the knock on effects of eroding laws to suit political expedience, yet here you deny any relationship to the continuing eroding of citizenship law that has gone on under this this govts hostile environment. It all fits in quite nicely with that policy to find yet more means to deny citizenship.

        The uk allows dual citizenship, it does not require its citizens to rescind UK citizenship to acquire another one, even in the unlikely and unreported event that she explicitly rescinded her citizenship in a manner formally formally accepted by the home office she was 15 at the time, it is unlikely to stand in a UK court of law which is where it would need to be decided. not as a political decision. It is wrong highly unlikely to be legal to allow children to rescind their citizenship without the permission of their legal guardian.

        As for “And don’t citizens of any country have an obligation to support that country? ” Whatever that is meant to mean in this context it does not mean we get to abscond on ours.

      7. Mike Sivier Post author

        Responsibility goes both ways. If one person reneges on their responsibility to another, then the other has no obligation to fulfil its own. Weren’t you aware of that?

  4. Terence Wallis

    The revocation of Ms Begum’s citizenship is what I would expect from a harsh Tory like the pop-eyed Javid, looking for a popularity boost. Instead, why not hand her and her baby over to the total care of her parents ? But, in a country where kindness & understanding to anybody has been long ago abolished, locking to door is about par for the course.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      You’d hand her back into the care of her parents, considering the great job they did in keeping her out of trouble before?
      Are you sure you’ve thought that one through?

    2. Maggie

      @Terence Wallis, What a very silly statement to make. The parents had no control over the girl to begin with, so how are they expected to control the woman. Who has a husband…. She made her bed and now she should lie in it and be made an example of. She is in no danger.. regardless of what the media says.
      ISIS have been roaming free, supported by the USAID for 8 years or more,, and now the bespoke army wants to return to recede back into the shadows from whence they came, and she thinks she can just come back to UK and forget about it. Well NO, she can’t. There are far more deserving people who need our support and help first. Like all the displaced families with children, who have been maimed by her Husband’s actions.
      We already have the ‘White Helmets’ here… FGS!
      Ex SAS sociopath mercenary James le Mesurier has much to answer for IMHO.

  5. joanna

    Also if she was to return she would have to be in protective custody for many years, and maybe even get a new identity all paid for by taxpayers.

    1. Terence Wallis

      We are told the UK is a rich country. It is, after all, where £billions are siphoned off to make the rich even richer. Surely there’s enough to spare to try to look after a wayward mother with a new baby. Give the parents a break too.

    2. Pipkin

      If she was to return, she would be indebted to MI6 for the rest of her life.
      Poised – on call for the next (false flag) drill, where a useful idiot is required.

  6. Jenny Hambidge

    Mike, have you any idea of the facts of the situation Miss Begum has been in? Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? Of course she is unrepentant because that is what she has been brainwashed into believing. When you have been subjected to the most regorous practices and ideology of the barbarous cult ie Daesh it takes a long time to disinfect someone, and the utmost care and compassion. She was a child when she decided to run off to Syria. Kids are very very impressionable at that age- I know because I have raised or helped raise three generations of teenagers. She has been profoundly damaged. She has been emotionally and psychologically raped. She has been coerced- in the sense that she was persuaded to be a jehadi bride- into marriage to produce jihadi offspring. At the age of 19 she has had 3 pregnancies in which two of her babies have died probably because of the condition of the places she gave birth. She has been traumatised. There is no guarantee that treatment will necessarily work- it doesn’t always. IF- and we don’t yet know -she has Pakistani citizenship, without family and medical support , she could easily fall into
    Daesh hands again and become one of those who become easily led through anger and despair to radicalise other and commit crimes. This is not a situation either shades of extremes.
    Compassion and understanding is what is needed here. She is more sinned against than sinning. As far as we know she has killed no-one. She has repeated what daesh has indoctrinated her to say- Indoctrination does NOT disappear overnight. She is still very young and very immature, and could not have known what she was doing at age 14-15 years old.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Jenny, she wasn’t kidnapped. Stockholm syndrome isn’t a fact here – it’s an assumption, based on very little. I was chatting with my brother – Dr David Sivier – about brainwashing the other day and he said there are serious doubts about the veracity of the theory behind it. Americans who were said to have been brainwashed in the Korean War (I seem to recall – possibly Vietnam) turned out not to have been, as soon as they returned home; they just played along with their captors as long as they had to. Who says she’s been subjected to the most rigorous practices and ideology of Daesh? How do you know she has been emotionally and psychologically raped? How do you know she has been coerced? I can tell you that all the evidence we have is that she was NOT persuaded to be a jihadi bride. I seem to recall hearing information that suggests you’re mistaken about the conditions of her first to children’s deaths as well. Her alternative citizenship is Bangladeshi, not Pakistani. I don’t know whether that makes a material difference.
      I don’t buy claims that people aged 15 don’t know what they’re doing. I made plans when I was that age that I’m still working through today, because they were good and they have worked. Most of the people I knew at that time were very strong characters who also knew exactly what they were about.
      There is no evidence to support your claims about her. Saying she must have been groomed, coerced, brainwashed because she is unrepentant about joining IS is not evidence. It seems some people want to believe that because they want to believe it, rather than because there’s any factual accuracy to it.

      1. Laura

        ‘Responsibility goes both ways. If one person reneges on their responsibility to another, then the other has no obligation to fulfil its own’ It still has to be proven – i.e. Shamima is a British CItizen, if she has renaged on her responsibility it needs to be proven in a Court. Surely you must have seen the twitter comment that says, When white British girls are groomed at the age of 15, hoards of white British people blame Asian men. When a British Asian girl gets groomed at the age of 15, the same white British people blame her. You are making claims to ‘Evidence’ that you don’t seem to want to impart. You are slowly eroding all the credibility you have built up for years and clearly showing an attitude that is blatantly prejudicial. Again she does not have Bangladeshi Citizenship. I have had three daughters who have transisted through the age of 15, I still have the mental scars. I said previously that I didn’t think she should come back, my reason being that the Torys are openly hostile as are a lot of the population. Why are you setting yourself up as judge and jury? You say she is not showing any remorse, how much remorse do you have that the UK has flattened at least three countries in the last 20 or so years and killed or displaced probably hundreds of millions of innocent people (just for oil!) I won’t embark on the sins of the British Empire. People in Glass Houses etc – I am certainly not prepared to throw stones at one British girl who has been made stateless.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        As far as I can tell it is not contested that Shamima Begum left the UK in order to join IS and help it in its terror campaign against western nations, including the UK. No proof needed.

        Any claim that she was been groomed IS contested. Prove it, otherwise it seems YOU are making claims to evidence that you don’t seem to have.

        And this is going to court in any case, so what’s your problem? I haven’t set myself up as anything other than a writer with an opinion, and all I have done since I expressed that opinion is defend it.

        Your attempt to smear me personally shows the weakness of your argument. Your whataboutery – asking me if I have any remorse about the other countries the UK has attacked – is misplaced, as any glance through This Site’s articles about those conflicts will reveal.

        You seem so desperate to be right that you’ll resort to dirty tricks. Not here, thank you.

      3. Laura

        I suspect your latest post is in reply to mine although I am struggling to recognise your claims against me. ‘Any claim that she was been groomed IS contested. Prove it, otherwise it seems YOU are making claims to evidence that you don’t seem to have’ – I have not mentioned one way or the other as to whether she was groomed and have not made any mention of evidence or lack of, unlike yourself. ‘I can tell you that all the evidence we have is that she was NOT persuaded to be a jihadi bride’ meaning what? What is this evidence and what is to you?

        With regard to smearing you personally I think you are doing a very good job of that for yourself. My belief that the UK should not be complicit in bombing other countries, killing, maiming and displacing millions is not out of place, it is the very cause of Shamima’s situation. Your claim that my mentioning it is ‘Dirty Tricks’ is actually proof that you are not thinking your argument through. ‘You seem so desperate to be right’ – I am truly not pathetic enough to harbour a need to be right, neither am I opinionated enough to pass judgement on Samima Begum other than that she face due process. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/02/when-is-a-british-person-not-british/

      4. Mike Sivier Post author

        You mentioned grooming twice in your comment, and the implication was clearly that you consider this young lady to have been groomed. Are you backtracking on that? If so, why mention it at all?

        The evidence to which I referred was all the information we have available to us, showing that she went to IS-controlled territory of her own free will and chose the life she had there, including marriage.

        You were trying to smear me personally – attributing beliefs and intentions to me that simply were not accurate. For instance, your assumptions about my feelings towards the UK’s participation in recent foreign wars is a long way off the mark, as readers of This Site know very well.

        I suggest you do a little research before the next time you put finger to keyboard.

  7. Julia Lowndes

    Very interesting this, I see this case as no difference to other grooming and child abuse, she was 15, a child and a very strong safe guarding issue should be reviewed. I feel because she is a young woman the aprobriam she has faced is more than other males who have fought in the area for and against ISIS. What had she to offer to ISIS, money, a knowledge of the language, fighting ability…..well NO. The world over men have sex with young girls and let’s call it for what it is paedophilia. An the zealots of any religion are involved, Catholic Church to the good old republican pastors.
    Because like it or not this is about men and power and control.
    I do not agree with her action, but I repeat she was a child. And removing her citizenship by The Home Secretary is a dangerous path and what’s and who would next?

    Just a knee jerk, Sun newspaper inspired action by a Secretary of State ready to do anything to tap into the right wing lurch this country has taken, and to get away from,the disastrous Brexit.
    Trump has already threatened to release prisoners his army have captured and that other governments in Europe should take responsibility for its citizens. It’s a threat from him the most appalling president USA has elected, but we need to be mindful and look at our responsibilities. I believe if she comes back she has to deal with the consequences of her actions. The authorities here need to interview and look at what our laws, yes our laws, can do with this sad, misguided, groomed young woman.
    Where is our humanity? Kids make mistakes, I admit a big one by this young woman, but what do you do, throw them under the bus at the first sight of trouble.

    This is a young woman who has lost two kids and the husband, a 27 year old Dutch national should be done for statutory rape.

    I am dismayed and appalled, 2019 and we still have mysogony running through this case, as we do in society as a whole.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      You “see” this case as grooming. You “feel” this is about gender. You present no facts at all.

      She isn’t a child now. And her words show she would do exactly as she did before, if she thought IS could win. So, like it or not, it isn’t about men and power and control – it’s about this particular individual.

      Even your claim about removing her citizenship has no basis in fact – around 100 people have already lost their citizenship in similar circumstances and you never complained about them.

      Trump’s threat to release prisoners is a separate issue that should not be connected with this.

      If you’re going to ask where our humanity is, you open yourself up to the obvious question from us: Where is Ms Begum’s?

      Your observation about throwing her “under the bus at the first sight of trouble” is risible. She has been away for four years.

      Your reference to her husband being prosecuted for “statutory rape” is also misguided as you are forgetting that neither he nor she were subject to the laws of the United States (the UK has a law against unlawful sex, but even that would not apply as the laws of the place in which she was living applied instead).

      This is not about misogyny and you are mistaken to suggest it.

      1. Julia Lowndes

        Well Mike we have agree to disagree. In my previous roles at work, in court and on charitable boards, in other word in my experience misogyny is rife, top to bottom of our society and in to an even greater extent elsewhere.
        And there are facts aplenty supporting this view, from domestic abuse, hate crimes, employment, sexual abuse, social media etc etc.
        And like it or not there are elements of this case in reporting….we have not seen many former male jihadists photos as target practice for a gun club have we? And why is that?
        Because if she was just another jihadist then it would have reported as such or like your quoted 100 presumably men, who have had their citizenship revoked. But I am sure we all know why this case has been so well publicised,

        With this case I feel she should face justice here, and be an example to others, what she has done is wrong, but it does not take away the fact she was a child when she went to be in effect a baby machine within a highly dangerous and totally misogynistic terrorist group, where men think it’s just fine to have sex with children, although this is something not exclusive to these men.

        She was living under our laws when she went and recognised as a child therefore vulnerable when she went, because we here in the main live with and obey the rule of law and not support beheadings as a punishment. ( well not yet anyway)
        She may have been away four years but I don’t suppose if she wanted to come back when the scales fell from her eyes maybe and the indoctrination had ceased to be effective, that a simple plane trip home was on offer or possible,

        The prisoners are not a separate issue I would argue because citizenship issues would potentially come up, and Trump is powerful enough to try and force countries to take people back.

        Where is Ms Begum’s humanity? Thus far she has been portrayed as an uncaring person not “fazed by heads in a bin”. And the comments about Manchester arena and comparing with the bombing on children where she has been living, could be seen as totally insensive from UK perspective. Most people are not in the mood for this, but as I have always felt there is an element in reportage that white bodies are worth more than brown of black bodies

        Ms Begums comments are shocking I know, but I believe that an element of shock of the past four years has played a part in her demeanour and attitude now.

        All in all it’s an appalling case on so many levels, and of course we are having to live through such a stressful and uncertain times in this country, with seemingly a level of governmental incompetence that beggars belief. I don’t trust the Home Secretary’s motives as I think the element of self publicising, with a view to the leadership of his party is clear to see. And of course his background won’t be lost on most people and I would be the first to admit the right wing press would have been even more vile if he had allowed her to come back.
        But this case rumbles on, until the next case or something like.

  8. trev

    She can go live in Bangladesh. IMHO anyone who left Britain to go join or fight for ISIS should not be allowed to return. Pity the Government has already let 360 of them back in, which is a slap in the face to all the victims and their families who were killed or injured in the terrorist attacks in Britain e.g. Manchester.

    1. Terence Wallis

      She cannot go to Bangladesh, & the pop-eyed Javid has made her stateless.
      I can only imagine that this is the latest example of the maybot’s ‘strong & stable government’ that she promised before starting on Brexit………..it can only get worse.
      There is the option of a climb-down of course…………

  9. Audrey Pool

    This woman made her own choices,she didn’t want to be part of our society,didn’t want to live in this country and respect it’s values.Instead she chose to support a terrorist organisation,to illegally flee this country and offer those terrorists her active support.Every interview I’ve heard her give makes it clear that she still supports Isis , has no regrets for her actions ,and regards the acts of terrorism they have committed as justifiable.As far as I’m concerned she’s made her choice and now needs to face the consequences ,I’ve zero sympathy for her and am happy that she is not being allowed to come back here.

      1. eli

        She was old enough to know what she was doing. And the age of criminality in this country is younger than 15, so she can be held accountable for her actions. She should absolutely not be let back in. She has no remorse or shame. She had no problem with seeing heads in baskets, victims who would have suffered tremendously by being beheaded by a blunt knife, so would have taken a long time. I do not want that kind of ***** in my country, and frankly the rest of those people who came back from supporting isis, should be kicked out.

  10. Fluffywuffybunnywunny

    Honesty is the best policy. Let people go and fight for what they believe in. But make it clear from the moment they leave these shores that they knowingly agree to forfeit there british citizen ship.

  11. Rik

    well… it looks like JC has put his foot in it this time saying this creature should come back to the UK. .
    I’m sure that’s going to get him more voters. .
    I’m sorry to say that but, maybe we do need a new Labour leader after all ? ?

    I don’t know anymore as so confused. . I hope I’m wrong

    1. eli

      Rik, Corbyn is a known terrorist sympathiser, so his comment about this ‘creature from hell’, does not surprise me.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        No, he is not. People who have claimed this have used false arguments to do so. I bet you’re thinking of his use of the word “friends” to describe Hamas, aren’t you? And his discussions with the IRA, that eventually led to Labour’s breakthrough Good Friday Agreement and the end of “The Troubles”?

  12. Terence Wallis

    A new leader? Why? JC works on the principle that truth & being decent sometimes hurts. If you heard his speech at Glastonbury, & no other, then you have seen & heard the Corbyn that people voted for. That’s the Corbyn we/they want for Prime Minister….and remember, he’s surrounded by Blairites who don’t.

    Did you see the Aljazeera videos The Lobby when it was broadcast on tv in Jan 2017 ? They show where all the antisemitic slurs aimed at the Labour Party & JC especially, came from & still do. The Israelis especially do not want JC as UK PM & are still trying to get rid of him. WE have to support him to make sure this doesn’t happen.

Comments are closed.