My understanding is that treason is specifically action undertaken to undermine / destroy the British State. I doubt if the actions of a few misguided British citizens electing to fight 'for' Afghanistan could ever present any threat whatsoever to the British State. Therefore, you'd have a hard job making a treason charge stick.

Perhaps they've read EM Forster of Hornblower fame:

"Given the choice of betraying my friend or my country, I hope I'd have the courage to betray my country".

Personally, I'd deny them the right of re-entry to the UK if they survive. If they want an Islamic State, then by all means go and stay in one, but leave us alone.

The unfortunate thing is that we are making such a pig's ear of the propaganda war and there are 1 Billion subscribers to this particular superstition who will feel their loyalties strained. (For the sake of fairness, I regard Islam as no better or worse than the christian superstition: All of this mumbo-jumbo has a hell of a lot to answer for).

In the interest of discussion only :), what is the difference between this catering worker and the loyalists who attacked an 18 year old British soldier in NI last week?


Mutt :)

misterploppy - you confused me!

EM Forster - right quote
Hornblower !? - CS Forester, methinks!

Tocsin

Damn! Methinks you're right!

Now wasn't Blunkett proposing legislation against persons inflaming racial and religious hatered. Well that Talinut from Luton on TV the other night inflamed me!! So what are the Police doing about him?

I bet if a Methodist steps upto the podium and says what he thinks they will be down on him like a ton of stones at a Afghani execution!

What's really confusing me is that these young kids interviewed on the radio say they want to go and fight with the Taliban against the enemies of Islam, surely the people they are most likely to end up fighting against are the various factions in the Northern Alliance... who are also followers of Islam... not such a holy war after all!!

Jackonicko:

High Treason

Treason Act 1351:

Declaration of Treasons
Item, whereas diverse opinions have been before this time in what case treason shall be said, and in what not; the King, at the request of the Lords and of the commons, hath made a declaration in the manner as hereafter followeth; that is to say, when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen, or of their eldest son and heir; or if a man do violate the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir; or if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be provably ["provalement"]attainted of open deed by the people of their condition.....and if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King's justices of the one bench, or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assize, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places doing their offices. And it is to be understood, that in the cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged treason wich extends to our lord the King and his royal majesty.....

Treason Felony Act 1848

s3 If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen.....from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of Her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against Her Majesty... within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force of constraint to compel Her....to change Her....measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or in order to intimidate or overawe both houses or either house of parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom, or any other of Her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of Her Majesty....and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare by publishing any printing or writing....or by any other overt act or deed, every person so offending....shall be liable...to be imprisoned for the term of his or her natural life....

s6 Provided always....that nothing herein shall lessen the force of or in any manner affect anything enacted by the Treason Act 1351.

There could be some interesting legal arguments relating to charges of Treason brought against Brtish subjects fighting for the Taliban. However it should also be born in mind that by virtue of section 9 of the Offences against the Persons Act 1861
'Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen's dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty, in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or manslaughter....may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined and punished....in England or Ireland.'

So any British subject killing somebody abroad could be tried for murder or manslaughter in England or Wales.

Mind you they could put up the Tony Martin defence.... Starts new topic and runs "Incominggggggg"

That will be 500 guineas please

Just wondering...are these youths from Oldham. You know the ones who've been mistreated and havn't been given the same chances and opportunities as other folk. The ones who havn't been allowed to integrate into our society?

Yeah, let them go. Plenty of opportunities in Afghanistan right now. Crater filler, quantity surveyor (1 bomb, 2 bombs...)...

Bug ger I'm stuck. Any more?

(Edited due to more spleen venting.)

[ 31 October 2001: Message edited by: Gravity Selected ]

Legalapproach: I never have been very good at understanding these long sentences you legal people seem to delight in constructing, so tell me if I have got this right.

The act 1848 did not lessen or diminish the provisions of the act of 1351, which is, presumably, still in force.
If what I read at the time was correct, if by his own admission a certain army officer did violate the wife of the monarch's son and heir that person would be guilty of treason:
right or wrong ?

[ 31 October 2001: Message edited by: henry crun ]

[ 01 November 2001: Message edited by: henry crun ]

Henry

Alleged, dear chap, alleged. Never convicted, so not guilty.
(But otherwise you are spot on).

Its all very confusing at the moment. There are dozens trying to get into the counry from France (understandable :D ) and then there are loads who want to leave and go and fight (as Gash Handlin says, against fellow muslims?). I suppose if we wanted to be nice, we could do a one for one exchange at the channel tunnel.

I must admit I am starting to get a bit sick of the news coverage of the whole affair now, it does not take long for the press and the public to forget that thousands of innocent people died and that those that started this had no thought for collateral damage (far from it infact). War is hell and innocent people will get hurt, sorry :(

Tonks

Henry

Yes it is still in force.

Yes he would have been guilty of treason if it was true.

He is now safe because under section 5 of the 1695 Treason Act an indictment for that particular offence would have to be brought against him within three years of the treasonable act. :)

Tonks,

I agree with your comment about the media and the way they're covering the situation in Afghanistan....is it me or are the BBC news reports coming from the angle of "The poor and starving people of Afghanistan suffering at the hands of hooligan Western forces" ? C4 news beggars belief.

How about showing repeats of 5000 people being murdered in NY. It sickens me how quickly some people forget why the US/UK are having to target the Taliban, I guess it's a symptom of the Immediate Gratification Age.

Sarah Kennedy, the respected Defence journalist, sorry......early morning broadcaster on BBC Radio 2, was stating that in her opinion the "Generals don't know what they're going to do next....it's all a bit directionless isn't it ?" How the f**k did she come to that conclusion - I wonder if : A)She sits in on the Allied Command O Groups and then forms a rational opinion, or B) Hears a load of guff on the telly and forms an airhead half-arsed opinion ?

Is it me ?
:mad:

Islamic talking heads whineing about the injustice of western retaliation seem to be getting more than their fair share of media exposure at the momment, Paxman put one of them firmly in his place last night on news night, I love that man, if I could bottle that sneer I could make a fortune. :(

Legalapproach, has capital punnishment been abolished for high treason? I understood it was still an option, although highly unlikely to be used.
btw, what were the other offenses to which one could lose their heads and could they still do so?
If I remember, was it:
Piracy on the high seas (Could this also aply to aircraft hijack?)
Arson in HM Dockyard (does this still count as they have all be sold off :mad:
Was the last something to do with the Royal Mail and highway robbery?
Just wondering.

Personaly, I would offer anyone who wanted to go the Bin Liner a free one way ticket! :cool:

Descend to what height - As far as I know the death penalty for treason in the UK was abolished 3 years ago. Got that from an article in the Daily "International" Express on the same topic. Doesnt say why it was abolished though. Maybe it should be reintroduced in this instance, but thats only my opinion.

Following my successful world best seller 'Memoirs of a Kamikaze Pilot' I am writing it's sequel, a much longer two page book entitled 'Memoirs of a British Taliban Fighter'. ;) I will of course include a history of the war, but need help with some of the detail. When Carpet Bombing was introduced did we bomb their carpets to prevent them praying for more British volunteers, and, having seen a photo of Afghanistan recently, when did the Americans use Agent Orange? :eek:

Personally I would give all those who wished to go a one way ticket, on the condition that they all handed in their British passports at the check-in. Unfortunately, as Tonks says (Hi Tonks How is sunny St Andrews?) they would only appear back at the Chunnel entrance in a few weeks time asking to get back in!!

Interesting to note that all the yooof of certain 'British' towns and cities that a few weeks ago were saying that they were as British as anyone else because they were born here don't seem to be proclaiming it as loudly as before. Now they all seem to be muslims!! Is that a state? Or just a state of mind!

Wonder what HMG would have done if some of us christians had openly volunteered to go fight for the IRA or Loyalist paramilitaries.

As misterploppy said earlier, we shouldn't allow those fighting against the UK & USA the right of re-entry to the UK - but how could we prove what they'd been doing whilst abroad?

I agree with Jackonicko that we should be asking how to better integrate the Moslem population within Britain. Perhaps compulsory English for immigrants would be a good start. The benefit for an immigrant is increased participation in elections and therefore a democratic representation of their views; the benefit for the established population is a loyal fellow citizen who feels included in their community and has a sense of being British first and foremost.

mutt '....what is the difference between this catering worker and the loyalists who attacked an 18 year old British soldier in NI last week?'. None as far as I can see. Has someone said otherwise?

Yes Sugar_Junkie, '.... if we were to deny them access to the country, they would just claim asylum as they would be killed in their own country?' Somehow our immigration laws need to be able to differentiate between freedom of speech and the undermining of a democratic government; we must be able to provide asylum for immigrants under threat of death in their own countries for POLITICAL views and activities whilst ensuring that we don't harbour terrorists. Not sure how we achieve that!!! I do think our immigration laws need updating though. :(