One man's terrorist is another man's......

[David Johnson]

"we all believe in due process of law, of being innocent until proved guilty, of a sense of Western justice and fair play."

Exactly I agree with you.

"But I cannot really think you are either so
na?ve or just plain mad as to think two admitted jihadists (hopefully without
their AK 47s) can step off a plane as British citizens on their return and be
allowed to resume their lives as if nothing ever happened ? "

You agree with me. I have no problem with MI5 interviewing them and keeping tabs on them. If they are planning to launch attacks in the UK and there is proof they should be charged and have the full force of the law dealing with them.

"I appreciate the dig at Cameron in your piece but then the man is a prat
anyway."

Well he is the Prime Minister and he wanted to do exactly the same in Syria as these two lads did - provide military support to the rebels. The only difference is rather than risk his own testicles, he was planning to send others to risk theirs.

"And Essex Lad`s point that guys returning from the Spanish Civil
War - and lets add here that there were young Brits who went to support
Franco as well as the socialists - is a good one"

1. Do you also agree, Frank with Essex Lad's other "good point" that the arrest of the two lads on return seems to be against "due process"?

2. Your study of history does not seem to have included the Spanish Civil War. There were for example, a number of IRA members amongst the Spanish Civil War. I seem to recall the IRA did "threaten our lives with bombs and killings".

"I have read in the Press that it was the families of the returning jihadists who
alerted the police ? If so it seems to reduce your argument, I would have
thought."

I do not think it reduces my argument. I suspect the kids parents like nearly all parents do not want to get their sons' bodies back from some battlefield overseas. Hence their alert to the police.

[David Johnson]

" Stanley Baldwin?s government was keen to discourage recruiting activities by the Communist Party of Great Britain and stem the flow of British volunteers to Spain. They threatened everyone with an 1870 law, the Foreign Enlistment Act, which made it illegal for Britons to fight in conflicts abroad. But in the end no prosecutions were brought. The legal problems of proof and jurisdiction were too great even for the government?s cleverest lawyers."

As I have said elsewhere Frank, no problems with MI5 keeping tabs and seeing if there is proof of any plans to bring attacks to the UK. But I find it strange that someone should be sentenced in the UK for fighting in Syria which is what the BRitish government wanted to do last year without any proof of intentions here.

As Andy has said elsewhere - do British mercenaries fighting for whoever in Syria or any evil government throughout the world, get arrested here? No.

Now you may argue Frank that there is no evidence that mercenaries will bring violence to the UK, but without proof, it seems dodgy territory to get into when the British legal system is used to jail Muslims for fighting in Syria without any proof that they intend to do similar here.

What do you suggest? A very large Guantanamo Bay where we lock up all these guys for years without bringing any cases against them?