Saudi Arabia again - Saudi girl facing possible death in Bangkok Airport

[FoxEye]

Let's not kid ourselves here... the UK would probably have handed her over if they could do so quietly without gaining any unwanted media attention.

Saudis can do whatever they want, wherever they want, so long as they keep signing large cheques.

 

[dowie]

Let's not kid ourselves here... the UK would probably have handed her over if they could do so quietly without gaining any unwanted media attention.

No they wouldn't, we do actually have some laws here regarding asylum claims etc...

 

[Rroff]

then it's really really bad not to mention we don't really have anyway to dispose of the waste

I'm surprised they don't generate electricity via thermoelectric generation from spent fuel after the reaction has stopped as it still takes a long time to cooldown - not sure what potential level of power output would be achievable in terms of producing electricity for the grid but it should atleast be possible to use it to provide pumping for its own cooling I'd have thought.

 

[Uther]

The only thing that might possibly save her is the press attention.Unfortunately once that dies so will she probably.

 

[Nasher]

Let's not kid ourselves here... the UK would probably have handed her over if they could do so quietly without gaining any unwanted media attention.

Saudis can do whatever they want, wherever they want, so long as they keep signing large cheques.

I doubt it, it takes years even to deport known foreign criminals thanks to EU "human rights" courts.

 

[FoxEye]

No they wouldn't, we do actually have some laws here regarding asylum claims etc...

If you have enough power the laws don't apply.

Were you not watching when the UK shut down all the investigations into the Saudi contracts? Because the Saudis said continuing the investigation would harm relations?

If you think back-channels can't be used to circumvent even our laws, well... We're not whiter-than-white, you know.

 

[dowie]

If you have enough power the laws don't apply.

OK do you have any examples of similar cases happening here?

Why was the ruler of Dubai not able to stop an investigation into the kidnapping of his daughter? Why are Saudi dissidents allowed to live in London at the moment?

 

[StriderX]

OK do you have any examples of similar cases happening here?

Why was the ruler of Dubai not able to stop an investigation into the kidnapping of his daughter? Why are Saudi dissidents allowed to live in London at the moment?

If the dissidents don't agitate i'm sure SA doesn't care too much, we literally rolled out adverts showing how good MBS was while he was plotting to dismember a Journo.

There is appearing to be doing something and actually doing something.

 

[FoxEye]

OK do you have any examples of similar cases happening here?

Why was the ruler of Dubai not able to stop an investigation into the kidnapping of his daughter? Why are Saudi dissidents allowed to live in London at the moment?

Doesn't have to be similar to this case. I'm sure the UK has more than once turned a blind eye to Saudi operations in the name of good relations.

As said above, the UK wants to present one face to their people at home, but you better believe they want to give the Saudis whatever they want if it can be kept quiet.

 

[ianh]

Unsurprisingly it's not reported out here, the only people who know about it (other than ex-pats) are those who read twitter and, as mentioned above a few times, Saudi culture is totally and utterly "family over individual" based to the exclusion of all else so the general response is less about her welfare and more about "how could she do this to her family". Culturally they don't/can't understand why all the fuss is being made "considering the amount disrespect she has brought upon her family/tribe with her actions".

The culture is starting, slowly, to change in less obvious ways, especially with the youth who all have access to the web and therefore access to a wider amount of info but as the core principals of family and faith are still absolutely driven into them from birth so it'll be a long while (multiple generations) before we could expect any "enlightening" to occur.

We don't, we need them for defence contracts and use of their military bases as staging bases for our own forces to bomb/infiltrate freedom in the middle East and keep tabs on both China & Russia

Just to clarify, we don't. They kicked all "foreign" forces out of the country straight after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was the only way Saudi would agree to being used that way by the US. The only thing left is a very small handful (<100) who are helping with training the Saudis, from pilots teaching them how to fly to folks helping with intel from/about Yemen. Of course what the Saudi's actually do with that info is upto them (and it's usually an utter cluster**** because they seem things through a much different ideological lens to the trainers) but some of our people are trying very hard to steer them away from the baffling ideas they have about what's a "correct" thing to attack regardless of whether it's civilian or not.

 

[Johno please?]

....use of their military bases as staging bases for our own forces to bomb/infiltrate freedom in the middle East and keep tabs on both China & Russia

Except the fact is that the US removed two regimes that the saudis wanted to keep, but don't let that stop you from posting more of your stupid tripe though.

 

[dowie]

If the dissidents don't agitate i'm sure SA doesn't care too much, we literally rolled out adverts showing how good MBS was while he was plotting to dismember a Journo.

There is appearing to be doing something and actually doing something.

That is completely missing the point - I'm well aware we cost up to these gulf state regimens - highlighting that we cosy up to them doesn't imply that we'd just illegally ship off someone trying to claim asylum and ignore due process etc...

That is getting into conspiracy theory territory or just showing blind ignorance to the way the world works... as

Doesn't have to be similar to this case. I'm sure the UK has more than once turned a blind eye to Saudi operations in the name of good relations.

As said above, the UK wants to present one face to their people at home, but you better believe they want to give the Saudis whatever they want if it can be kept quiet.

Well it does actually, you made a claim that we'd do something and that claim is rather bold and has no precedent. That we cost up to the regime isn't evidence to support that it would be likely or even necessarily possible for us to act in the way the Thai authorities have done.

It would cause a complete **** storm, a British Airways or other civilian carrier employee able to go and confiscate a passport at the gate then UK border officials all being persuaded to go along with the charade and then UK police being persuaded to monitor her in a hotel and hotel staff being told to comply etc..etc.. it requires rather a lot of actors and in a country where there isn't rampant corruption, laws are better enforced, authority comes with accountability, the likes of the police etc.. do have watchdogs and frankly individual police officers or border officials generally aren't in the habit of just blindly following orders to break the law etc.. then it isn't too feasible.

 

[FoxEye]

That is completely missing the point - I'm well aware we cost up to these gulf state regimens - highlighting that we cosy up to them doesn't imply that we'd just illegally ship off someone trying to claim asylum and ignore due process etc...

That is getting into conspiracy theory territory or just showing blind ignorance to the way the world works... as



Well it does actually, you made a claim that we'd do something and that claim is rather bold and has no precedent. That we cost up to the regime isn't evidence to support that it would be likely or even necessarily possible for us to act in the way the Thai authorities have done.

It would cause a complete **** storm, a British Airways or other civilian carrier employee able to go and confiscate a passport at the gate then UK border officials all being persuaded to go along with the charade and then UK police being persuaded to monitor her in a hotel and hotel staff being told to comply etc..etc.. it requires rather a lot of actors and in a country where there isn't rampant corruption, laws are better enforced, authority comes with accountability, the likes of the police etc.. do have watchdogs and frankly individual police officers or border officials generally aren't in the habit of just blindly following orders to break the law etc.. then it isn't too feasible.

I distinctly remember saying they would do it if they could guarantee nobody finding out about it.

Which implies a certain amount of dis-similarity to this case, no?

I appreciate that once things get into the public domain the UK likes to act like a law-abiding country that loves 'ooman rights and all that jazz.

But we do also like a good bit of Guantanamo torture, covering up evidence of corruption, and giving foreign govts what they want in return for money. It's undeniable.

 

[dowie]

I distinctly remember saying they would do it if they could guarantee nobody finding out about it.

Which implies a certain amount of dis-similarity to this case, no?

OK give an example then...

In fact explain how your scenario even works?

At some level it will still rely on a bunch of actors all being happy to act illegally. It seems very detached from reality.

I appreciate that once things get into the public domain the UK likes to act like a law-abiding country that loves 'ooman rights and all that jazz.

But we do also like a good bit of Guantanamo torture, covering up evidence of corruption, and giving foreign govts what they want in return for money. It's undeniable.

Again you're just throwing in unrelated stuff as CT types do in the other threads "X seems plausible because Y happened and Y was a dishonest/bad thing ergo we can make any other dubious claims involving dishonesty and just cite Y as our evidence that they're plausible because Y involved bad stuff"

I mean people die in police custody sometimes, sometimes officers have covered for each other etc.. but there is still an audit trail, some evidence a possible investigation etc.. etc.. they can't very easily cover up the fact the person was there or get rid of the body etc..etc..

 

[FoxEye]

I love how you say "The UK is a law-abiding country committed to human rights" then completely ignore the fact that we've already done stuff completely counter to this position.

Like dropping investigations into bribery and corruption at the request of the Saudis Like our involvement in Guantanamo.

Sure, it's all CT stuff. The UK govt is totally committed to human rights and would never turn a blind eye or ease the recovery by the Saudis of their own citizens against their will. Could be as simple as allowing a chartered flight to come in and leave again unmolested despite knowing it might be the "recovery" of a stray Saudi citizen.

OK fine I'll be in the room with the CT nuts. I don't believe our govt is beyond doing frankly awful things if they calculate they won't ever be exposed.

 

[dowie]

I love how you say "The UK is a law-abiding country committed to human rights" then completely ignore the fact that we've already done stuff completely counter to this position.

Like dropping investigations into bribery and corruption at the request of the Saudis Like our involvement in Guantanamo.

Nice straw man - I've not ignored that at all, I've pointed out that quoting unrelated bad things is a flawed argument though. Try using the quote function too.

Sure, it's all CT stuff. The UK govt is totally committed to human rights and would never turn a blind eye or ease the recovery by the Saudis of their own citizens against their will. Could be as simple as allowing a chartered flight to come in and leave again unmolested despite knowing it might be the "recovery" of a stray Saudi citizen.

OK fine I'll be in the room with the CT nuts. I don't believe our govt is beyond doing frankly awful things if they calculate they won't ever be exposed.

I never claimed our government hasn't done bad things, I'm pointing out that what you're saying is just not grounded in reality.

The idea that the UK could get a load of independent actors together to get a passport of an 18 year old girl arriving on a civilian flight, somehow together cover up her arrival, keep her hidden somewhere and then get her out of the country all because the Saudi's want her back is silliness. It makes some assumptions of people and how they behave that is so detached from reality and perhaps borderline autistic, which is perhaps why is seems in line with CT type thinking.

 

[mmj_uk]

So in summary a girl in Saudi Arabia is fleeing her family and country for fear of being 'honour killed' by her family or the state for renouncing Islam and the majority of the corporate media isn't covering it. I wouldn't come to the UK if I was her she's likely to be targetted by grooming gangs whilst in asylum care and the police will blame her.

 

[FoxEye]

How is the UK in its past dealings with Saudi bending/braking the law a straw man, exactly? That's mind-boggling.

 

[dowie]

How is the UK in its past dealings with Saudi bending/braking the law a straw man, exactly? That's mind-boggling.

That isn't what I've said - ironically you've now just replied to me calling out a straw man with another straw man.

You pretending that I've ignored the UK doing unethical things when I've directly acknowledged them - that is a straw man argument. Making up a quote/attempting to paraphrase rather than using the quote function is dubious too.

Not being funny but this is getting taken way off topic now - especially if you're going to throw in replies like that and I then end up having to re-explain a previous post that you didn't bother reading.

I'm not sure there is much more to say on this silliness tbh...

 

[FoxEye]

A straw man is anything you don't personally agree with, apparently, so whatever.

e: And this from you is exactly what you're accusing me of.

The idea that the UK could get a load of independent actors together to get a passport of an 18 year old girl arriving on a civilian flight, somehow together cover up her arrival, keep her hidden somewhere and then get her out of the country all because the Saudi's want her back is silliness. It makes some assumptions of people and how they behave that is so detached from reality and perhaps borderline autistic, which is perhaps why is seems in line with CT type thinking.

None of that resembles anything I actually said.