Are you rutters in disguise?
Shamima Begum
- Thread starter Priv
- Start date
Acklam_Lad
Well-known member
The words Bum and stripped in the same post seem like a definite attempt to outrage the board’s decency rules…
I smell a naughty step incoming for you
Muttley
Well-known member
I'm done on this. I'm sure you think there is some logic to your "beliefs"...
I just hope that no one ever treats you unfairly and if they do no one takes the attitude that you have to this young lady who you accept is being used as a political pawn.
Does the thought of a naked, bum-faced man frighten and upset you? We're just people, mate. We might be a bit different to you, but you don't need to be scared of us.
Wearing body armour for 6 months in warm sandy places and seeing the impact that people with her ideology have on the local population has probably influenced my beliefs.
You refer to her as a young lady. Did you refer to the Manchester bombers brother who supported him, as a young man?
She’s at the very very least a terrorist sympathiser.
Randy
Well-known member
Her appeal was dismissed for national security reasons.
Sorry if this ***** people off but I'm more likely to take the side of people who work in and amongst this sort of stuff day in and day out.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
Why, what makes you suddenly believe government experts now?
Yep. Spending time in a warm sandy place definitely makes your views more valid. TBH, mate I don't even know who you are. I'm more annoyed with Randy than I am with you. Randy always seems like a decent bloke until he starts kicking off with his bonkers opinions.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
If she was groomed (which she obviously was) why would she then be tried when she gets back to the UK and what for?
This is the tricky bit for me. I don’t think she can just slot straight back into society but if she is deemed innocent of any wrongdoing then you can’t just stick her in prison (or try her for anything).
I don’t know what the answer is but it is as if the government retracting her citizenship is just what they find the easiest thing to do, regardless of precedent. I’m sure there is a degree of “making an example of her” at play too, which is of course totally unfair.
I don’t think there is an obvious solution to any of this.
This is the tricky bit for me. I don’t think she can just slot straight back into society but if she is deemed innocent of any wrongdoing then you can’t just stick her in prison (or try her for anything).
I don’t know what the answer is but it is as if the government retracting her citizenship is just what they find the easiest thing to do, regardless of precedent. I’m sure there is a degree of “making an example of her” at play too, which is of course totally unfair.
I don’t think there is an obvious solution to any of this.
Redka
Well-known member
You seem to be missing a lot of the nuance.
And around 150 who have lost their citizenship
Stocko
Well-known member
why did I read ”bonkers opinions“ and immediately think of Donald Trump?
who incidentally said the uk should take shamima begum and her ilk back into the uk
I dunno. Is there a punchline to this joke?
Randy
Well-known member
Government or military?
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
Again to those missing the big picture...
Begum has been left stateless, which is against international law. She is a UK citizen and the UK have used the fact she has Bangladeshi heritage to claim they have not deprived her of a state.
This creates a two tier class system whereby a precedent is set that could allow the UK government to strip people of citizenship based on their heritage.
If Bagum's family was of British heritage then this simply would not be happening, regardless of their threat to national security.
UK law should apply equally to all UK citizens regardless of their heritage, if a crime has been committed then due process and a fair trial should be the result.
Begum has been left stateless, which is against international law. She is a UK citizen and the UK have used the fact she has Bangladeshi heritage to claim they have not deprived her of a state.
This creates a two tier class system whereby a precedent is set that could allow the UK government to strip people of citizenship based on their heritage.
If Bagum's family was of British heritage then this simply would not be happening, regardless of their threat to national security.
UK law should apply equally to all UK citizens regardless of their heritage, if a crime has been committed then due process and a fair trial should be the result.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
The military would in this case be the experts advising the government. Similar to say, medical experts.
Why do you believe that only their opinion in this case should dictate an outcome?
I hope that I didn't offend you by calling Facefuzz a silly sausage. That wasn't my intention. I didn't realise that we had any sausages posting on this board.
BaronSmoggie
Well-known member
Just to point out, I called you a PP because of how your attitude came across in your post. If you'd bothered to articulate valid reasons in a concise manner, I would have accepted, albeit still disagreed with that viewpoint.
Don't play the victim.
Honey_Glazed_Sausages
Active member
I'm willing to give you a pass just this once
No, it wasn't. The appeal was dismissed on the legal grounds that, in law, the SAIC was unable to challenge the Home Secretary's decision as the Supreme Court had ruled that the Home Secretary was the appropriate decision taker, as the law stands. The commission felt that it only had the power to challenge the decision on narrow administrative grounds of procedure. It was unable to consider the merits of the case.