Jetpilot

This is a valid point but again something that wouldnt phase me too much, a local branch of Tesco had some contamination (what i dont know) in their tank/tanks (shut down and put new tanks in) and a few cars ended up in a bad way, but they had to pay out, hence why it wouldnt bother me. I wonder what the tuners on here feel in relation to Rabbits tuners remarks, would be interesting to know, i cant say Jez mentioned anything when my Zed went supercharged or any tuning in relation to my Rx7 days.

So be proud of the fact you got a good deal and put Stuttgart stickers on them Please dont try and pass them off as Rays/Volks, that is just cheap and nothing to do with getting a good deal

My point is, we dont need to define Isis, its well defined, along with other terror regimes over the last few decades, I am sure we could all name more than a few well recognised, established and defined regimes of our generation and more. I understand your reluctance to agree when the leader of your chosen party is happy to side up alongside varying terror regimes, lay wreaths at their graves etc, hell Labour even released one to go home. No one has mentioned deporting, removing someones citizenship when they have left of their own free will knowing the consequences (if made law) is an entirely different topic.

Would just come down to which is closer and more convenient to me, I certainly wouldnt drive further or go out my way to put one or the other in.

But they arent Rays/Volks

Personally we dont need to define anything, they are well known and recognised as terrorist regimes by varying governments and sure they will keep up to speed in whom they define as such. Absolutely, a disgrace, but you can thank the ecj for not allowing us to deport certain individuals (well documented), hopefully we can decide for ourselves in future, fingers crossed. Did you get the strudel ref?

I see your point of course, but opening a can of worms to the definition of a terrorist regime bears no resemblance to this, we all know Isis are a terrorist regime and i feel pretty confident that such regimes have been well documented over the last half a century or more and we know who are they are and on the flip side so do they, they actively promote their terrorist label. As with many conversations in recent times the laws may be pretty dam good, but, there is no reason why they cant get better and clearer, for all us as law abiding and law breakers, nothing stands still, up until a few years ago we could all drive around on mobile phones knowing not much would happen, as times change so should the laws and this is no exception.

Absolutely totally agree and exactly what i said in my first post, lets define and make it clear that fighting or supporting (imho) a terrorist regime will result in "x" regardless of whether you sat in a hut or not to avoid all the chat in the future!

I think this is the point that the members on here who have supported the decision to revoke her citizenship are getting at. If someone commits murder, 15 or 50, they know the punishment (hence why the 15 bit is irrelevant) and its a pretty severe life imprisonment (however life be decided by the judge), a lot like that dude who fled the country when he killed his date in a speedboat accident, he didnt hang around because he knew he was f****d and if he comes back or gets bought back will rightly feel the full force of the law. It would seem at present, the reality is, not much will happen to her and if she did end up being prosecuted she will probably face a small custodial sentence at best, not forgetting the huge cost associated with that, so whats the point, leaving her there is punishment enough, adding to that, she wants "us" to go and extract her I guess what this really comes down to morally as individuals with other offences being bounded about as examples, how do you view terrorism, equal to murder, rape, child abuse etc or a minor offence like shop lifting, speeding, taking drugs etc

I am also thinking there might be bit of deja strudel in here and the "other" thread

A rather tenuous and weak link to radicalisation imho, one of the girls fathers once attended a rally a long time ago and I wouldnt suggest he was photo'd "with" Choudrary. On the other hand in support, if she was radicalised at home which as Ekona points out is very difficult to prove and prosecute, why not just be clear on the consequences. If you support extreme terror organisations and leave the country to support or fight for them, you will have your citizenship revoked? If said parents then knew their children may never come "home", would they still risk radicalising them? We all have boundaries in life, some push those boundaries not being afraid of the consequences. So why not make the consequence something that may make them think twice or longer and harder for all concerned, this situation is just too easy, trip off to Syria, do what ever she wants and come back to a stern talking too and a debrief. She clearly has zero regard for life, why should we have regard for hers?

Jeez dude, i thought i was bad The above is pretty much called torture and i wouldnt subscribe to that, but frankly prison would possibly be an easy touch these days and a lot better than her current existence. I am curious to hear the views from your Pakistani friends and whilst i appreciate they may not be the voice of all muslims, they as a race in the UK will be far more affected by her actions than i ever will be sadly for them.

So if she was radicalised at Gman says, is that not hard evidence as presumably if that is accurate they must know where and when and who it happened? This case aside and no directing at you gt, why cant we in the future make a law that if you go to support isis or any other terror organisation (not fussy about which) your citizenship will be revoked, we all abide by laws and know the penalties, seems ironic that i could do in excess of 100mph and possible face a prison sentence, yet someone who supports a terror organisation "could" get off with a stern questioning!

Any links, i cant see anything to that nature, quite the opposite, she was alleged to have self radicalised. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1089664/Shamima-begum-news-latest-syria-isis-bride-citizenship-revoked-Henry-Jackson-Society OK, so if you believe she was radicalised i would presume they know who, why not find and prosecute them?

Genuine question, how do we know this, there was nothing at the time of her leaving that she was radicalised in this country, i.e friends, family members, teachers etc, by all accounts not on any watch list or associating with known extremists with links to isis. So are we saying she is just radicalised in name only by her actions or for example she was radicalised on/by the internet and if that was/is the case, what difference does her location make?

As pointed out earlier, the LAW (according to the BBC not me) is she can claim citizenship up to the age of 21, nothing to do with being condescending and if they dont want her for grounds of terrorism why should we, talk about double standards. Illokigal puts it well above, if she is defending the manchester bombings she still doesnt get it!

We do lock people up for "life" if the bill fits the crime and we have deported people Sorry, the child thing just doesnt wash, she knew what she was doing, she wasnt enough of a child to fund and find her way there with her mates, get married, chuck out a few kids, knowing all the time the risk to her life and her future, most of us know right and wrong even as a child and if she really genuinely didnt know what she was doing was wrong then she doesnt deserve any better than the life she choose. As per first post, lets make it clear, make it law, then there can be no confusion for the future.

Why would you take the risk? You dont barrel down the roads at 100 mph plus because you know the penalties, implications, danger and loss of life it may cause and you are keen to jump on any thread where someone condones speeding, yet your prepared to risk the possible rehabilitation of a known terrorist, jeez dude, there is no logic that can explain that, your moral compass is all over the shop.

I hope no one here has kids that are killed when a terrorist they have supported being allowed to return detonates themselves in their vicinity, the wrong crowd and fleeing the country to support a brutal terrorist regime are worlds apart. Sorry the child argument is just invalid or do you think the Bulger killers as minors and mentioned elsewhere should have walked free?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47301623 From the above: Ms Begum's mother is believed to be a Bangladeshi national, and lawyers have told the BBC that under Bangledesh law this means Ms Begum is automatically a citizen of the country as well.

She hasnt, she is dual nationality, allegedly.

And watch anyone who "deals" with her be up on a charge of racial hatred before you can blink, oh the irony! If what i have read is true she also holds a Bangladesh passport which is part of the reason why her citizenship has been revoked because she is not without a nation.

It really should be very simple, make it law that if you leave to support or fight for isis or any terror network, you waive all rights to return, British Citizen or not and then there can be absolutely no confusion for the future. And there isnt a chance in hell i want my taxes paying for her to be imprisoned.

Dont forget to watch it keep going up in value, seems to happen a lot to you

I was going to put up some links to the RS6 but didnt think it was your bag, same could be said for M6 or M5 There is a lot out there with that budget, as always with these what next, get out and drive a few, it will probably become apparent what floats your boat and what doesnt. A VX220 couldnt have been any further from my radar when i was looking, but they caught my eye whilst trolling the usual sale sites, went and drove one, albeit way beyond standard trim and it knew i had to have it, it was an awesome car to own! Good luck, keep us all posted