Shamima Begum

[Big_Nothing]

It is ridiculous to ask posters for proof on any of this. The proof is with the British Security Services if anywhere. He has formed an opinion based on news reports, like we all do, rightly or wrongly.

Where is your proof he has told lies about her, if you have facts, publish them yourself? Show us the evidence that she is not a risk to anyone. She has shown little remorse, but she has said some words that indicate wanting forgiveness. How do you or anyone know whether those words are genuine, or just for show to try to help her case?

In the absence of you, me or any other poster on this board having any actual verifiable facts at our disposal other than from tv clips, her interviews (people can be dishonest as well as truthful) and published reports, we surely have to trust our security services and political leaders to make the right calls in the national interest of us all.

Your post seems a little ott from someone who has opinion rather than facts. What she says may be the truth, it may be a tissue of lies, or her mere spin of some or all events.

Was she groomed, probably, but can she be deradicalised is more pertinent. What did she willingly do for the ISIS cause? What is the likelihood of her radicalising others in the future? I don’t know, and quite importantly, neither do you. We elect people to make these decisions and pay our taxes to the state to employ people to get to the bottom of things like this and to make judgement calls to keep us all safe. If you don’t like it, use your vote, by all means campaign, but equally when all you have is opinion, be decent enough to others who don’t share your view.

I see both sides of the argument, I do not understand the levels of animosity toward those erring on the side of her guilt by those supporting her as a victim by thinking she deserves and needs help and money thrown at supporting her case.

Personally, whether she is guilty as charged or a victim I remain unconvinced either way, but trust the security services to make the right calls for the greater good of our people. I do feel were she to return to the UK she would be seen by many as some sort of hero and others as some sort of target. The media frenzy would elevate her to eventually earn significant wealth from her story (now, or in years to come if imprisoned). I for one feel that whatever anyones view, she does not deserve to rake in wealth and eventually achieve some sort of cult celebrity status from ’her truth’ that our media and the eventual circus would offer her in their lust for her attention.

I honestly think the reason she is not being allowed back in is due to the 'outrage' and frustration that would be directed at the tories who are going hard on crime & punishment, border control and the scaling back of civil liberties. To let this woman back in might be the final straw on the camels back for some of the diehard tory supporters to whom this person represents the 'enemy'.

I can't believe the party and its supporters which are so keen to triumph a strong British justice system will so freely disregard our responsibility in dealing with the actions of a British national.

 

[Facefuzz]

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.

So I’m a prejudice pr*ck because I’m not articulate? Sorry, I’ll brush up on it.

 

[fella]

Where are the doyle police when you need them?

 

[Liamo]

I've read both sides of the arguments and it's a very complex - and emotive - case.

Social media is already awash with the right wing knuckle draggers celebrating, proudly proclaiming if an appeal is over ruled by the ECHR we should leave that that too ......

I don't know, I'm not fully getting the "grooming" bit; she was old enough to know what she was getting into - and actively joined in. But, we don't know her maturity, what exactly happened in the months leading up to her running off and indeed what exactly happened to her in Syria. We've heard her side and various reports .....but sure there is a lot more to it.

But, she is British so is our problem. Jail her for life, whatever, but I think stripping her of her citizenship sets a dangerous precedent with the Tories.

There's a very good and (as far as I can tell) even-handed account of the events surrounding her departure and her time in Isis-controlled territory available on BBC iPlayer at the moment, called "The Shamima Begum Story."

Worth a watch if interested in this topic.

 

[Liamo]

I think she & her friends knew exactly what she was doing & getting into.
Removing citizenship, if she had duel then it is a valid option.
Yes she was young, though age itself shouldn't be mitigation for her actions.

But she didn't have dual citizenship. The British Government claimed she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship but as the article below shows, the Bangladeshi government denied it to her.

Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country, Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said.

Shamima Begum citizenship

So she's left as a stateless person, which according to international conventions, should not be allowed to happen.

 

[atypical_boro]

There's a very good and (as far as I can tell) even-handed account of the events surrounding her departure and her time in Isis-controlled territory available on BBC iPlayer at the moment, called "The Shamima Begum Story."

Worth a watch if interested in this topic.

Yes it is a good watch.

 

[Redka]

But she didn't have dual citizenship. The British Government claimed she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship but as the article below shows, the Bangladeshi government denied it to her.



Shamima Begum citizenship

So she's left as a stateless person, which according to international conventions, should not be allowed to happen.

That’s not quite true by the Bangladeshis own rules she has citizenship.

 

[Laughing]

You seem to be missing a lot of the nuance.

Because there isn't nuance. She is British born, British educated and radicalised in the uk. It's our responsability.

 

[Redka]

Because there isn't nuance. She is British born, British educated and radicalised in the uk. It's our responsability.

And I’ve said three times I agree with that. Once you get past that point I’m surprised everyone is going with the “she was groomed “ narrative.

 

[h_m_boro]

Bit of a tangent here, and I'm playing devils advocate. She's had her citizenship revoked as she's deemed a threat to national security. Okay.

David Ballantyne Smith sold secrets to the Russians via the British Embassy in Berlin. Jailed, citizenship intact. His actions could easily have caused the deaths of British citizens.

Boris Johnson is in the pocket of Russian money, and met with Lebedev Snr without his security detail present, as PM, and it's just "tsssk.....that's Boris!".

Remember she didn't commit any of the atrocities, she was just naïve enough to be a puppet supporting them.

Where is the line drawn?

 

[joeydiaz]

if she’s become stateless I recommend speaking to Viktor Novorski.

 

[Chris_Boro]

That’s not quite true by the Bangladeshis own rules she has citizenship.

By *our* interpretation of their rules, she has Bangladeshi citizenship, there is a huge difference between the two.

Bangladeshi law also allows them to deny such interpretations. The UK also ignored official notices from Bangladesh that stated Bagum would never be granted a passport and will be denied entry.

 

[newusername]

This is from 2019 but I'm still rocked that Rees-Mogg said something that I agree with...

 

[Liamo]

That’s not quite true by the Bangladeshis own rules she has citizenship.

It's true that on the face of it, Bangladeshi law would seem to say that she should be entitled to citizenship. But the government there has denied it to her.

By the same token, the British government has removed her British nationality even though our laws would also say that (in normal circumstances) she's entitled to British citizenship.

Bottom line is, governments have means at their disposal to override the normal citizenship rules and both governments have decided she's not going to have their nationality, which leaves her stateless.

 

[muniz]

There as some really mad b@stards on this thread. I did loads of terrible things when I was fifteen. I guess that we should probably send me to prison and throw away the key, or strip me of my citizenship and boot me out of the country.

turn your self in, we will talk deportation later

 

[muniz]

For those who made mistakes when they were younger, including me.

Has anybody ever ran away and joined a terrorist organisation? It’s a biggy

i've went to a sunderland home game before if that counts

 

[Redka]

By *our* interpretation of their rules, she has Bangladeshi citizenship, there is a huge difference between the two.

Bangladeshi law also allows them to deny such interpretations. The UK also ignored official notices from Bangladesh that stated Bagum would never be granted a passport and will be denied entry.

It’s pretty clear what the written rule is and not really open to interpretation. If their ministers come out and say she won’t be allowed in that’s something different.

 

[Randy]

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.

And who helped the home secretary make that decision?

Here's one, what's the bets that if the home secretary represented Labour and had made the exact same decision there would be nowhere near as much hooplah about the whole decision? We all know the answer.

Disappear to go and join an terrorist organisation? '**** around and find out'.

 

[MolteniArcore]

Whether or not the 'Security Services' think she is a risk to national security there is a real problem with the court decision.

It would appear that the buck stops with the Security Services so there is effectively no checks or scrutiny of their work by an independent party. This is a worry.

 

[Laughing]

Whether or not the 'Security Services' think she is a risk to national security there is a real problem with the court decision.

It would appear that the buck stops with the Security Services so there is effectively no checks or scrutiny of their work by an independent party. This is a worry.

I am not sure the court had the power to reverse the decision in anything other than due process. It was entirely the decision of the home secretary. You are not wrong though, it's a worry.