I don't have a problem with her because other than getting groomed as a child and leaving the UK I've seen nothing presented as fact that she's done anything wrong.
What's your problem with her? Provide facts to support that opinion please.
Shamima Begum
- Thread starter Priv
- Start date
What's your problem with her? Provide facts to support that opinion please.
changingman
Well-known member
100% this. Government's tactics here have clearly been to reignite the debate around her actions in the hope that they cloud the crux of this matter - the removal of citizenship. It appears to have worked completely.
Mr Justice Jay told the semi-secret court dealing with her case that her appeal had been fully dismissed.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission has ruled that decision, taken after ministers received national security advice about Ms Begum's threat to the UK, had been lawful.
From the BBC website. Her case has been dismissed. She still poses a threat.
Thats the courts evidence which is good enough for me.
Now, what conclusion have to come to about me, and the courts?
Why are you lying AGAIN? Where does it say "she still poses a threat"?
Shamima Begum bid to regain UK citizenship rejected
The 23-year-old loses her appeal on national security grounds, which means she cannot return to the UK.
www.bbc.co.uk
h_m_boro
Well-known member
Missing my point entirely
Lying again? Have you confused me with someone else? You haven't accused me of lying once yet??Why are you lying AGAIN? Where does it say "she still poses a threat"?
Shamima Begum bid to regain UK citizenship rejected
The 23-year-old loses her appeal on national security grounds, which means she cannot return to the UK.www.bbc.co.uk
Anyway paragraph 8.
In 2019, the then home secretary Sajid Javid stripped her of her British citizenship, preventing her coming home, and leaving her detained as an IS supporter in a camp.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission has ruled that decision, taken after ministers received national security advice about Ms Begum's threat to the UK, had been lawful - even though her lawyers had presented strong arguments she was a victim.
This was an appeal against this judgement i believe.
TeaCider
Well-known member
Agreed.
We've only been able to strip her of her citizenship because of a technicality in Bangladesh's citizenship laws, and I think it sets a very unfortunate precedent.
What's worse to me is that she's not even in Bangladesh, who obviously don't want to accept her, she's staying in a refugee camp in a war torn country where they have so many of their own problems.
The Kurds are in the middle of a brutal civil war, facing ethnic cleansing from both Turkey and the Syrian government, and our government is knowingly burdening them with somebody who we should be dealing with in the UK.
Last edited:
Redka
Well-known member
That’s what I just asked you - what is the evidence that she was groomed other than her lawyer saying that after a few years trying other avenues? I’ve seen nothing presented as fact that she was groomed.
It works both ways and unless either of us were privy to the details the security services are then we can debate all day long and beyond.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
We've become a juvenile nation. That's how.
Quicksilvera
Well-known member
The crux of this whole thing is that as a nation we have abandoned a child who was groomed and abused. If that doesn’t shame you as a British national then I’m not sure what would.
BobUpnDown
Well-known member
As the judge said - reasonable people - given full facts may come to different conclusion, however removing citizenship is Home Secretary discretion..
muniz
Well-known member
plenty of the people sticking up for her on social media I bet are same ones that would be moaning about it if she was allowed back lol
muniz
Well-known member
some achievement on this board as well
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Witness E for the security services conceded that she was groomed. The judge said she was groomed. If she was groomed whilst she was a minor and the UK failed to prevent her leaving the country (as the judge said today - the UK failed in its responsibilities) she should be brought back to the UK.
Based on the above she was a child and was a victim of grooming. She is our problem.
Grooming is real you know... kids are groomed by paedophiles - are these kids not victims too? Or is it just grooming by ISIS that isn't real?
Based on the above she was a child and was a victim of grooming. She is our problem.
Grooming is real you know... kids are groomed by paedophiles - are these kids not victims too? Or is it just grooming by ISIS that isn't real?
TeessideCleveland
Well-known member
I find it hard to have any sympathy for her
Randy
Well-known member
Which one is then?Provide me with evidence that she "took part in atrocious acts against fellow humans" or shut up.
There isn't any so stop lying.
And with regards to remorse she asked the public for foregiveness "from the bottom of my heart"
Again. Stop lying.
Shamima Begum: Runaway IS bride from London sorry 'from the bottom of my heart' - as she says her only crime was being 'dumb'
As a teenager, Shamima Begum ran away to join Islamic State in its former stronghold in Syria and has been accused of playing an active role in the group - something she denies; the stateless 22-year-old says she would welcome a fair trial back in the UK.news.sky.com
So what's behind your need to tell outright lies about her?
If she didn't do anything then why is she asking the public for forgiveness?
"Nah I only ran away from a comfortable, well educated existence in England to travel to a war zone ran by the most dangerous group since Al Qaeda to make the lads some Baba ganoush after they had a busy day beheading innocents, tearing down historically important buildings and packing vans full of C4, I never took part in any of those things though, don't listen to the security services of the U.S and the U.K."
She's tried to come crawling back because ISIS' aim of setting up a terrorist ran country failed.
wilkos_perm
Well-known member
Who on here says we shouldn't be? What we're actually doing is taking no real stance and washing our hands of a problem arguably for political reasons.
i Have to say I agree with the decision. What happens if she is allowed back and she, or those around her uses her infamy as a tool to radicalise others? Other Terror Groups could also tell those they are grooming, ‘if it all goes pear shaped they can just come home‘. So despite my misgivings, I can’t see how a UK Government can allow her back in. That goes for any returning Jihadi.
