Shamima Begum wins right to return to UK

A detective once said to me if prison is so easy why do robbers run away.

I find this thread very hypocritical, those who normally devalue this country as corrupt , now see it as a shining light.
 
We are a ‘tough on crime’ society and always have been.
Prison is used more than most other societies - it ticks a box.
it doesn’t deter because largely, some people won’t be deterred regardless of the criminal consequences.
Most people who commit crimes don’t believe they will get caught.

It is right and proper that she faces the legal system in the UK and takes whatever consequences are deemed necessary.
15 is a troublesome age for our legal system. You may disagree with that but you shouldn’t judge 15 on the seriousness of the crime. IMO of course

She was only 15 yrs and 6 months old when she first left. What about the crimes committed aged 16, aged 17 aged 18?

She received an education. I doubt there are many 15 year olds that don’t understand what is right and wrong. At 16 in the UK, you are legally permitted to have your own home, tenancy, live independently and be responsible for your life. Her age on leaving is not a major factor for me in any way. Her beliefs and actions since leaving are.
 
It does stick in the craw allowing terrorists back into the country but we can't allow stripping of Citizenship/Removal Of Passport on a nod from the Government that sets a very dangerous precedent. Any returning Jihadi should face trial and a long custodial sentence if found guilty.
 
I find the ruling a bit strange it quotes fairness above national security and that there are ways to protect national security whilst allowing her back.

I also find it strange that they feel she needs to be in the country to appeal, given half the world is working remotely and has done for six months surely her appeal could be done remotely.

Once she is back the appeal is a moot point because is she wins she stays and if she loses ahestays, where are we going to deport her to? Bangladesh the only country she has citizenship rights to don’t want her.

finally in the article I read it suggested that it was now up to the uk to facilitate bringing her back which I’m not sure I agree with. She has won the right to appeal surely it’s up to her and her backers to bring her back to make that appeal.

the home office has appealed the decision so let’s see where this one goes next
 
Coluka, on the subject of our soft prisons. In Sweden they have an almost total open prison environment where most offenders get home every weekend. Many are allowed to go to jobs, but must return to the prison after work. Interestingly enough they have very low levels of repeat offenders. This is probably because they try and avoid institutionalising them.

You are sent to prison as punishment not for punishment. Prisons should be geared up to try and rehabilitate and give offenders the best chance at resuming a law abiding lifestyle. Not because they deserve it, but because it costs the tax payer less in the long run, and they may start to contribute to society.

Our prisons do very poorly on rehabilitation. Anyone who thinks someone burgles a house has anything other than low self esteem is kidding themselves. If you create an environment that engenders self worth, it is much harder to commit crime on release.

Our judicial system isn't very good, and, wait for it, it is lack of funding that has caused the problem. Too many people see justice as some form of revenge, it isn't.
 
This is very true, I agree wholeheartedly. What's the solution to this problem in general then?

No idea, I can only offer my opinion.

1. Serve full sentences that reflect their crime, no reductions.
2. Make prison life harsher. No visitors, no sky TV, single cells, proper work, but include time for compulsory education built in. Learn skills useful within society.
3. Make criminals pay the full cost of any damages caused
4. Once leaving prison have schemes to incentivise employers to employ ex prisoners. Have a form of localised ‘national service‘ where they receive the minimum wage within communities gardening schemes for the disabled, decorating schemes, litter picking, all sorts of jobs, overseen by probation or councils to improve the community to practice their skills. Rehabilitation only works if it is continued after release.
5. Repeating of criminality apply increased sentences if found guilty
6. Deportation of non UK citizens or revoking citizenship where dual status held.
7. Death penalty for terrorists and serial killers
8. Name and shame anyone aged 10 or over guilty of a serious/repeated criminal offence
9. Hold parents to account more than is currently the case for their children's actions.
10. Home curfews and increased tagging for low level offenders.

There‘s a few musings of which none will ever happen, a mixture of strong deterrent and some incentivising. Schools should teach more on citizenship, good parenting, life skills, not just the core subjects. A troubled home life is often the cause for a delinquent child growing into a criminal adult. Nobody teaches anyone to be a good parent unfortunately, children learn from parental behaviours, not just the good stuff unfortunately. In lots of households parents don’t check what their kids are up to outside of the home. The home, thats where the seeds are often grown and determines how we blossom as adults, not always, but more often than not.
 
Last edited:
Coluka, on the subject of our soft prisons. In Sweden they have an almost total open prison environment where most offenders get home every weekend. Many are allowed to go to jobs, but must return to the prison after work. Interestingly enough they have very low levels of repeat offenders. This is probably because they try and avoid institutionalising them.

You are sent to prison as punishment not for punishment. Prisons should be geared up to try and rehabilitate and give offenders the best chance at resuming a law abiding lifestyle. Not because they deserve it, but because it costs the tax payer less in the long run, and they may start to contribute to society.

Our prisons do very poorly on rehabilitation. Anyone who thinks someone burgles a house has anything other than low self esteem is kidding themselves. If you create an environment that engenders self worth, it is much harder to commit crime on release.

Our judicial system isn't very good, and, wait for it, it is lack of funding that has caused the problem. Too many people see justice as some form of revenge, it isn't.

I agree the lack of funding in this area is a real issue, we should spend more on education, training in lifeskills, citizenship and trades that people can utilise. I can see certain crimes where the Swedish system would have its place too. I think education in schools and poor parenting are a contributory factor to life opportunities at a young age would help. Increased funding into our run down public sector is essential. I am in favour of a paid national service (not the forces) for all leaving school that have no immediate prospects such of a job, apprenticeships or university education, so they learn to link in to the real world, work within supervised roles in the community and most of all are occupied in some way but get the minimum wage.
 
I know I am probably in the minority here, but if she is to be allowed back in, she should be held in a detention centre until her case is determined. If she wins her case, then she should be charged immediately with her crimes. This poor lass that many feel sorry for clearly made a cold calculated decision to become involved in terrorism. Her age does not mitigate her actions. She will cost this country millions, moving forward if she wins. More Jihadis will end up returning if she is allowed to remain. If 1 life is lost as a result of her or others directly or indirectly returning to the UK will this prove to be ‘acceptable justice’?

If she wins her case, it sends the message out that it is ok to go anywhere in the world and commit terror as you will always be welcomed back to the UK with our soft penal codes, maybe serve a bit of time in prison, then maybe be supported on benefits, maybe even given a tax payer funded home, its the least she deserves after all she has been through I guess, bless.

Eventually some poor souls will have to have her living next door to them with all the press attention and personal fear that that will bring. I sleep much easier knowing that we have a country that has boundaries to its freedoms and does not shelter terrorists. I really do not see why one penny of any of my taxes should be used to support such a wicked person. This is not just about the rights and freedoms of a young woman, it is about national security, the safety of the population and how safe the state can keep its people, this should carry a greater weighting. If she loses, and I sincerely hope she does, it will act as a deterrent to others, if she wins, I fear we will see more follow her pathway in future. That is not a country I want to live in.
If we are vtalking Col about loss of life [others blood on our hands] we should look at Tony Blair and send him to the Hague for war crimes ......
We have criminals in suits in our country, including faceless ones in the intelligence services and Whitehall, funding mercenaries [with our money] such as the "Free Syrian Army" - a terrorist group designed to disrupt and provoke unrest in a foreign sovereign state. Their bullets have our names on them.
This young lady has merely got what justice we have in place to stop mercenaries and populist rabble from organising lynch mobs.
 
it’s a moot point once she is back - where can we deport her to should she lose her appeal?
If she convicted of terrorist offences stick her in a solitary confinement cell for the rest of her days like any terrorist should be punished.

Or shot. Whichever suits.
 
No idea, I can only offer my opinion.

1. Serve full sentences that reflect their crime, no reductions.
.

Number 1 really bugs me Coluka. The reason prisoners only serve part of their sentence is because the second half of the sentence is waived but only for good behaviour. It incentivises prisoners to behave. If they misbehave their time served can go up without recourse to the courts.

For lots of the more serious offences, and I believe any sentence in excess of 2 years requires a parole board to release a prisoner, serving 50% of the sentence is not automatic. I believe you are eligible for parole after 12 months, but non of your sentence is commuted without the parole boards say so. The parole board must asses the risk of releasing prisoners back into the community. If the parole board think the risk is still present the prisoner can be made to serve his entire sentence.

I know the arguments about the parole board releasing people for economic reasons, but that us an entirely different argument.
 
Our legal system is a pile of **** and has been for a very long time.
No doubt she will work out some form of deal, she'll get a new identity, possibly a minimal custodial sentence to please the masses then be setup with a new home and continue to sponge off of the taxpayer for the rest of her privileged life.

Unfortunately if you served to protect this country and sacrificed your home, marriage and mental health and end up living rough on the streets you're at the back of queue behind ***** like this woman.


Randy, I am certain you are aware, but if you know any serving or ex-servicemen or women in the boat you describe then try this:

https://www.veteransgateway.org.uk/

Veterans Gateway.jpg
 
Randy, I am certain you are aware, but if you know any serving or ex-servicemen or women in the boat you describe then try this:

https://www.veteransgateway.org.uk/

View attachment 4831
I don't personally.
I know of a lad who got help from a charity a few years ago after leaving the army after a tour of Iraq that is adamant that charity saved his life. I can't remember the name of it off hand. But serving and ex serving members of the armed forces shouldn't be having to ask charities for help, this government should be.
 
If I thought that would happen I would be more in favour of her coming back, what annoys people is she will be likely portrayed as a victim, not be punished, cost tens of thousands in security and then take in money for her story from the likes of the sun newspaper.
 
No idea, I can only offer my opinion.

1. Serve full sentences that reflect their crime, no reductions.
2. Make prison life harsher. No visitors, no sky TV, single cells, proper work, but include time for compulsory education built in. Learn skills useful within society.
3. Make criminals pay the full cost of any damages caused
4. Once leaving prison have schemes to incentivise employers to employ ex prisoners. Have a form of localised ‘national service‘ where they receive the minimum wage within communities gardening schemes for the disabled, decorating schemes, litter picking, all sorts of jobs, overseen by probation or councils to improve the community to practice their skills. Rehabilitation only works if it is continued after release.
5. Repeating of criminality apply increased sentences if found guilty
6. Deportation of non UK citizens or revoking citizenship where dual status held.
7. Death penalty for terrorists and serial killers
8. Name and shame anyone aged 10 or over guilty of a criminal offence.
9. Hold parents to account more than is currently the case for their children's actions.
10. Home curfews and increased tagging for low level offenders.

There‘s a few musings of which none will ever happen, a mixture of strong deterrent and some incentivising. Schools should teach more on citizenship, good parenting, life skills, not just the core subjects. A troubled home life is often the cause for a delinquent child growing into a criminal adult. Nobody teaches anyone to be a good parent unfortunately, children learn from parental behaviours, not just the good stuff unfortunately. In lots of households parents don’t check what their kids are up to outside of the home. The home, thats where the seeds are often grown and determines how we blossom as adults, not always, but more often than not.

No visitors etc would cause so many problems in prisons, plus unfair to stop kids seeing parents who are in prison too.

Its meant to be for rehabilitation, any of those things completely defeat the point of that and would cause much worse issues further down the line
 
I don't personally.
I know of a lad who got help from a charity a few years ago after leaving the army after a tour of Iraq that is adamant that charity saved his life. I can't remember the name of it off hand. But serving and ex serving members of the armed forces shouldn't be having to ask charities for help, this government should be.
The Government operate Veterans Gateway, though they provide minimal support to Armed Forces Charities.

Combat Stress: https://www.combatstress.org.uk/

SSAFA: https://www.ssafa.org.uk/

Army Benevolent Fund: https://soldierscharity.org/
 
Last edited:
Number 1 really bugs me Coluka. The reason prisoners only serve part of their sentence is because the second half of the sentence is waived but only for good behaviour. It incentivises prisoners to behave. If they misbehave their time served can go up without recourse to the courts.

For lots of the more serious offences, and I believe any sentence in excess of 2 years requires a parole board to release a prisoner, serving 50% of the sentence is not automatic. I believe you are eligible for parole after 12 months, but non of your sentence is commuted without the parole boards say so. The parole board must asses the risk of releasing prisoners back into the community. If the parole board think the risk is still present the prisoner can be made to serve his entire sentence.

I know the arguments about the parole board releasing people for economic reasons, but that us an entirely different argument.
It's number
Number 1 really bugs me Coluka. The reason prisoners only serve part of their sentence is because the second half of the sentence is waived but only for good behaviour. It incentivises prisoners to behave. If they misbehave their time served can go up without recourse to the courts.

For lots of the more serious offences, and I believe any sentence in excess of 2 years requires a parole board to release a prisoner, serving 50% of the sentence is not automatic. I believe you are eligible for parole after 12 months, but non of your sentence is commuted without the parole boards say so. The parole board must asses the risk of releasing prisoners back into the community. If the parole board think the risk is still present the prisoner can be made to serve his entire sentence.

I know the arguments about the parole board releasing people for economic reasons, but that us an entirely different argument.

What about number 8, naming and shaming 10yr olds?
 
Back
Top