Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
Yeah well. I think we'd be better of with her somewhere in a ditch with a bullet through her head.
I don't really care what coping mechanisms you choose to embrace in your flailing struggle to deal with difficult feelings about grooming victims. This may be a personal issue for you, but the discussion isn't about you and your subjective preferences.

The level of suffering that she and her ilk have inflicted upon the middle east merits her being ostracized. Especially because this particular piece of human refuse shows not the slightest bit of remorse.
That is simply irrelevant, because the question is not what she deserves but what the British govt. may or may not do. Many people deserve horrific fates, but, as a rule, our govts are prohibited from delivering such punishment. Placing such restrictions on govts is vital to the preservation of liberal democracy--much more important than trying to send a British jihadi to Bangladesh in order to score brownie-points with the public.

And thanks for the lecture on what's the rule; an overruling legal principle is that no agreement can be turned into a suicide pact.
This RBian objection is also irrelevant, because returning her to the UK in order to prosecute her and punish her does not constitute national suicide, any more than any other law protecting the rights of any other criminals is regarded as a suicide pact in modern western states. The British govt. agrees with my interpretation, and has therefore allowed many jihadis to return prior to this decision. If you disagree, you may as well permit the summary execution of people suspected of crimes ranging from petty theft onwards. The UK may not revoke the citizenship of a British citizen if doing so would make that individual stateless; suicide or not (it isn't), that is a pact it has made with itself as well as with its global peers, and it must uphold that agreement. No amount of hyperbole and histrionics about suicide pacts will change this.