... esteemed members' comments on this: If teenage girls want to join Isis in the face of all its atrocities, then they should leave and never return - Comment - Voices - The Independent
They should be treated exactly as men who are stupid enough to be brainwashed to join the fight. Women are not weak souls who are 'victims' any more than the men are, and it's dis-empowering to other women to treat them in this way. The country should be doing everything in it's power to integrate these people into society and stop them from making these decisions but if they cross the line and have blood on their hands then they deserve the consequences.
Not disagreeing with you but two of them are 15. Should we be spending money and resources try to get them back on that basis?
Really? must admit I'm uninformed enough to not know that. I thought they were 'A grade students', implying they had been to college?!
Students is a noun used for pupils these days to empower them - doesn't seem like this trio needed much empowerment though.
Do you disagree with me asking the question or disagree that we should be spending resources on trying to find them? If it's the latter I think you'll find that you agree with me!
anyone that goes, male or femail, should be charged with treason the moment they are apprehended, here or abroad. end of.
Yes. And I know what you're going to say! I really couldn't put myself in that position - and if you knew my incredibly risk-averse daughter you'd know why. I'm separated from her mother and don't even tell her when I'm going out in my bike to avoid the tears and guilt-tripping!
Knowing that I can't believe you wouldn't spend the money trying to get them back before they disappear forever. They haven't gone with their eyes wide open
As I understand it as two of them are minors the law requires that "reasonable efforts" are made to find them.
Definition of a child, anyone yet to reach their 18th birthday. So as they are children (and due to the grooming particularly vulnerable) we should be dealing with this in the same manner as if they had been groomed for the purposes of sexual exploitation and travelled abroad to meet with their 'groomer'. So yes I believe we should be using all available resources to get them back.
No. You can leave home and get married at 16 so in the eyes of the law you are an adult. You are a minor under 16. And would be tried in an adult court at the age of 17.
These girls seem to be having a good education and nice families Believe me when I say if a female wants to do something she will regardless of what anyone tells them One knows what she was doing as she used her sisters pass port For the education they were receiving I can't believe they thought life would be better for them I don't think they want to be found for whatever reason If it was my daughter yes I would do anything to find her. These girls havnt been abducted they have left of their own free will Where did they get the money from to get tickets
No the definition of a child is anyone yet to reach their 18th birthday. Irrespective of their ability to live alone or get married with parental consent, does not change their entitlement to services or help.
Where do you get your definition? I will check. If you want to disappear once you are 16 I think you are perfectly at liberty to do so. Also child support stops at 16 for divorced couple, which would seem to indicate that childhood stops at 16 too. That is backed up by the age of consent being at 16 too. Are you saying that a child can consent to sexual intercourse? All very confusing! We seem to have children having sex, getting married, and shortening their lives by smoking. That doesn't seem right somehow. I am not absolutely sure but I thought you could also join the army at 16. Do we have child soldiers now?
Childrens act 1989, UN convention of the rights of a child. The age of consent is indeed 16 years which does allow children to consent to sexual activity, with several anomalies including 'position of trust', creation and possession of indecent images, which are defined as being images of a sexual nature of children (e.g. under 18years) so technically a married couple of 17 years of age could take sexual images of each other and be committing a criminal offence. Children of 16 and 17 can indeed join the army however they are not able to serve on the frontline.
This is muddling together several different issues. In the UK at present, people reach the age of majority at 18 years (it used to be 21). That means they can fight in wars, be held criminally responsible, vote in elections, enter into binding contracts, make valid wills, and do various other things. People under the age of 18 are more limited. Under 10, children are below the age of criminal responsibility so cannot be convicted even they kill. Under 13, children cannot consent to sex, so anyone who sex with an under 13 year old is committing rape. Under 16, children cannot lawfully have sex, so if anyone has consensual sex with a 13-15 year old it is unlawful intercourse. Under 16, children cannot get married, and if they are 16 or 17 they need consent to marry. Children can join the armed forces at 16, but cannot fight until 18. It is compulsory for children to receive schooling until they are 16, and illegal for them to do paid work in school time. Children under 17 cannot drive a car on a public road. Law in Scotland varies only slightly from England and Wales. The UK is party to international treaties which affect some of these issues (e.g. the one about using child soldiers).
Most of us made mistakes as teenager but generally not of the " join an inhumane group of murderous barbaric nutters despite having seen the executions on the news " type. They are not missing , we all know where they have gone and that they went freely although possibly after being groomed. What were their backgrounds like ? Are the families devout Muslims and if so maybe they encouraged this to happen, possibly without thinking it ever would ? I see the survey today showing the frightening number of British Muslims that are ok with Charlie Hebdo type shootings. Maybe the families are in that group ? I saw reports of the families blaming everyone but themselves for what has happened , even blaming the state for not watching them closely enough. Nice. This may be harsh but I would not spend taxpayers money chasing after them. Let the families do what they can , if at some stage they try to return then I suppose the various services need to get involved and make a decision about having them back or keeping them out.
