Shamima Begum wins right to return to UK
- Thread starter Lemmy_kilmister
- Start date
coluka
Well-known member
Why not, it is the legal age for criminal responsibility after all. I knew the difference between right and wrong at 10, I am sure just about all do. It might help parents keep a closer eye and keener interest on what their kids get up to.
I love the way people know the current system does not work but seem to object to anything that might improve things or make parents more accountable.
Laughing
Well-known member
It wasnt meant to be an exhaustive list of points I didnt agree with BBG - If you disagree with some of Coluka's points you should really take it up with Coluka, not me. For the record, I don't see any advantage in naming child offenders, and you are seriously reducing their chances in life. Do you name and shame a 10 year old shoplifter?
coluka
Well-known member
Well of course it depends on the crime, the individual , like everything, I assumed people would get that. The list was musings ideas not necessarily for every single possible situation in every case
Laughing
Well-known member
What would you expect that tactic to achieve though Coluka? I don't see the benefits. I would assume the younger the person, the more open to rehabilitation they were, which I suppose is the reason childrens names cannot be used when reporting children that have commited crimes.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
I wasn't taking it up with you Laughing. I was adding to your point not trying to flag up a worse one. If it read that way I apologise. For the record, number 6 also troubles me in that it's ok to send people back to where they came from but not accept our own criminals back.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Ten year olds are certainly more open to rehabilitation and also more susceptible to peer pressure or parental influence to commit crime. Naming and shaming will do nothing to help their future education or employment prospects.
coluka
Well-known member
I believe it would incentivise some parents to take a greater interest in what their kids get up to and perhaps help in preventing future misdemeanours. If anyone, kids included are serial offenders within a community then people have a right to know. Some drug dealers even use young kids to do all sorts, act as look outs, drop goods off why not name them. If behaviours change as a result surely thats a good thing and should not be able to be used against them in adult life.
I am not talking about littering the internet with everyones past and what they have done across newspapers, well, unless its major that is, like Mr Venables for example, just cases where the police feel it would be in a streets, estates or community interest to be aware.
I am not talking about littering the internet with everyones past and what they have done across newspapers, well, unless its major that is, like Mr Venables for example, just cases where the police feel it would be in a streets, estates or community interest to be aware.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
I place the emphasis on used because that makes them victims more than criminals and naming and shaming can destroy their futures before their lives have gotten properly started.
Randy
Well-known member
I would. Embarrasses the parents.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
Roofie, what war crimes? Stop Spouting unproven rubbish.
Bobbyspandex
New member
I'd like to know which lottery this was a prize?
tripleheader
Well-known member
She does has the right to appeal, and to do that effectively she needs to communicate with her lawyers. According to 'the judge', she cannot do this from where she is ie abroad. That is the right thing to do and then the appeal can be heard.
parmoboy
Well-known member
I think it does make sense to bring her back, purely because of our obligations to international law.
She's a British citizen, and if it's our job to try her in court, so be it.
Let her rot in jail for the rest of her days would be my hope but I don't believe we can just pass off our responsibilities onto other nations. We're better than that.
She's a British citizen, and if it's our job to try her in court, so be it.
Let her rot in jail for the rest of her days would be my hope but I don't believe we can just pass off our responsibilities onto other nations. We're better than that.
Last edited:
Redwurzel
Well-known member
She should be placed in a detention centre in the UK. Then interrogated/interviewed on her current beliefs. If her views have genuinely changed since she was 15 she should get a fair trial. I would ask her if she was willing to participate in campaigns to stop young people joining violent Islamic groups.
In 1945 we had a group of captured British and Commonwealth men who had fought in the British Free Corps (with the Nazis). We did hang 2 of this group, but the majority received short prison sentences and were allowed to remain British and Commonwealth citizens.
I would be interested to know how she became a British Citizen as her father appears to be a Bangledeshi citizen and resident.
In 1945 we had a group of captured British and Commonwealth men who had fought in the British Free Corps (with the Nazis). We did hang 2 of this group, but the majority received short prison sentences and were allowed to remain British and Commonwealth citizens.
I would be interested to know how she became a British Citizen as her father appears to be a Bangledeshi citizen and resident.
remember the guy on London Bridge who killed the people helping him, after being in jail.
He’d changed don’t you know.
Her type don’t change. She’s vermin.
Only think to change her is a small piece of lead from a few thousand yards. That should have been done already.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Are you saying that you're unaware of any criminal being rehabilitated?