# Shamima Begum - In or Out



## PNWokingham (Feb 27, 2021)

What do you reckon - the right decision to ban her from the country and had her Bristish nationality removed?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56209007


----------



## JamesR (Feb 27, 2021)

Personally don’t care if she lives or dies. But if I was involved, I’d bring her back, and then throw the book at her.


----------



## Val (Feb 27, 2021)

Not a chance, she made her bed so she should lie in it


----------



## D-S (Feb 27, 2021)

I’d happily throw her out, but who’s problem should she be? If some nutter comes over here from another country to become a terrorist would they become suddenly our problem and not the state where they come from? It seems to be justice should be served from her country of origin not wherever she decided to inflict herself on.


----------



## 3offTheTee (Feb 27, 2021)

Let her stay where she is.

Anybody any idea how much she has cost our country so far?


----------



## harpo_72 (Feb 27, 2021)

Traminator is correct about the not being able to attend and so the case cannot go ahead.
But the court wants to make a ruling and she wants her day. Ultimately it’s just a matter of time before the get a work around. 
When that happens the legal system will spend and spend, as is their want. And she will get back her UK nationality... 
in the end she was a thick 15 yr who made a mistake and has pretty much enjoyed the stupid decision... but if she is returned they should just say .. behave, we don’t want you here.


----------



## toyboy54 (Feb 27, 2021)

OUT-strip citizenship-she's made her bed,let her lie on it!
The big problem coming up has got to be the home grown fanatics who believe in their 'cause' How do we deal with them?How much do we spend on watching them?Do we have the means and personnel to do this?How do we find them all?
Don't know if there's an easy answer to all this-does anyone?   On a lighter note Billy Connelly does a good sumnation on anyone trying it on in Glasgow(youtube-Glasgow airport)
Jimbo


----------



## harpo_72 (Feb 27, 2021)

3offTheTee said:



			Let her stay where she is.

Anybody any idea how much she has cost our country so far?
		
Click to expand...

We are to blame for the costs.. we allow our legal system to spend and to pay disproportionate salaries.. we capped that and the cost would drop.


----------



## williamalex1 (Feb 27, 2021)

toyboy54 said:



			OUT-strip citizenship-she's made her bed,let her lie on it!
The big problem coming up has got to be the home grown fanatics who believe in their 'cause' How do we deal with them?How much do we spend on watching them?Do we have the means and personnel to do this?How do we find them all?
Don't know if there's an easy answer to all this-does anyone?   On a lighter note Billy Connelly does a good sumnation on anyone trying it on in Glasgow(youtube-Glasgow airport)
Jimbo
		
Click to expand...

I'm just watching Billy Connolly's Made in Scotland  series on BBCi Player


----------



## toyboy54 (Feb 27, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			We are to blame for the costs.. we allow our legal system to spend and to pay disproportionate salaries.. we capped that and the cost would drop.
		
Click to expand...

Excellent point,also am thinking of the ambulance chasing shysters who went after our troops in N.I. and Iran(o.k. Iran especially-know that one was shut down)
Politicians and lawyers eh(well some of them are definitely dodgy lying(sorry-rephrase to read 'not well acquainted with with the truth but are at home with the version that suits them)
Jimbo


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 27, 2021)

We charge and punish those who spy and plot against us  as treason, but then here we are argueing over whether someone who knowingly went off to support an enemey force in their stated aim of killing us and our troops.

Let her back and shes a martyr and the tip of the iceberg of hate we let into our country. Let her die there shes a martyr to the hate for us.
Personally, a stray bullet wouldn't have any tears shed .


----------



## D-S (Feb 27, 2021)

‘Kick her out‘ to where? Who’s responsibility is she?


----------



## Lilyhawk (Feb 27, 2021)

I think she should be put on trial where she is. That should sort things out.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 27, 2021)

She wants to come back Because ISIS were defeated ( at the moment). Would she want to come back if ISIS were still trying to kill people opposed to ISIS.
If she comes back, it will be another Abu Hamza scenario where he worked the UK legal system for 8 years Before he was sent to the USA. Hypothetically if she was allowed back, If/ when she loses her case and is to be deported, where does she go to because Bangladesh has already said she is not going there.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 27, 2021)

Once she is allowed into the country, there is no way she will ever leave. You just need to see how asylum seekers are still here after however many rejections. I think she deserves her time in court (remotely), and when it is thrown out (correctly in my view), then she needs to accept that and deal with it.


----------



## greenone (Feb 27, 2021)

She is a British citizen. It is illegal under international law to make someone stateless.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 27, 2021)

Traminator said:



			I wonder how many guys on here look back at what they did from the age of 15 and wince?

How many of you with wonderful grown up children look back at what they were like at 15 and wonder how you didn't wring their neck?

As a serving member of the armed forces I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger on any one of the group she ran away to, but she was an ill-educated juvenile.  We are far better than those who took her for short term pleasure then disposed of her.  We should be seen to rise above our disgust and allow the legal process to be followed in a civilised, fair and unbiased way...

And then kick her out when we find her guilty...😘
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I look back at some of the decisions I made as a teenager and wince/blush/give thanks for the lack of the internet.

I've equally no doubt that she was to some degree "worked over" by sharper minds than hers and used to their advantage (but I don't buy that a 15 year old that gets herself to Syria is ill-educated, certainly not in respect of street smarts).

However I struggle with applying the level of forgiveness you propose.  Why?  Because none of my indiscretions at that age were ever at the level of proposing to wage, or support, war against my own country.  And I had sufficient sense of right & wrong and backbone to never have given in to the thought that waging or supporting war against my own country was the right thing to do. So I'm in the she made her bed camp.  She has had opportunities to renounce her chosen life style but never fully has to my knowledge.

As for letting her in & throwing the book at her, why risk not being able to throw her out again or having to pay the costs of imprisoning her?  

No, leave her where she is for me.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 27, 2021)

greenone said:



			She is a British citizen. It is illegal under international law to make someone stateless.
		
Click to expand...

Are acts of terrorism illegal under international law?  She isn't stateless, she chose to join the Islamic State.


----------



## greenone (Feb 28, 2021)

Blue in Munich said:



			Are acts of terrorism illegal under international law?  She isn't stateless, she chose to join the Islamic State.
		
Click to expand...

Islamic state was never an internationally recognised state and she has no other citizenship. Of course terrorism is illegal and if the evidence is there she should be tried for it.


----------



## toyboy54 (Feb 28, 2021)

ISIS have not been defeated by any means,they are re-financing/re-grouping/re-stocking with more brainwashed or radicalised elements/converts/disaffected people looking for a cause that they may see as  a viable alternative to the systems that are in place in our westernised(mainly)world culture.Whether this supposed alternative is long term and workable is a different matter.                 Most Western intelligence sources-France/Germany/Italy/Spain/U.K./U.S of A=the Anzac coalition view this re-emergence as a way of taking our 'way of life'back 2000 years.How do we stop this?..Ireally don't know but,whatever happens it's not going to be pretty and a lot of blood is going to be shed I fear(as do Chatham House/Imperial War College and institutions around the world.
To re-quote Bunkermagnet-an awful lot of bullets are going to be needed.
Jimbo


----------



## Paperboy (Feb 28, 2021)

greenone said:



			She is a British citizen. It is illegal under international law to make someone stateless.
		
Click to expand...

She had her citizenship revoked. She is also a Bangladeshi citizen as well from what I remember.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Feb 28, 2021)

So a 15 year old kid, runs away with a couple of chums, they have this idealistic notion of joining a cause, they must have been groomed in some way.

Once there,  it is pretty difficult to change your mind and come home, they are “married” off to ISIS fighters, and over the next 5 years the 2 chums are killed , she had 3 kids that all die as well as her “husband”.

She ends up in a camp and now has the chance to escape, but the people back home think she is some sort of monster and won’t allow her back.

A different narrative, and also playing devils advocate a bit.

Apart from “joining” ISIS which is obviously a terrorist organisation, what crime has she committed, no evidence she ever touched a weapon or hurt anyone, she was a breeding machine for future fighters and probably helped in the kitchens or laundry with the other women.

Part of me doesn’t want her back, quite a big part actually, but is she being demonised for making a very bad irreversible decision when still a kid?

Always 2 sides to a story, I’d like to find out how she was groomed, what made then want to go, what her community/ parents missed, 

I don’t profess to know the answer, just giving an alternative point of view


----------



## chrisd (Feb 28, 2021)

From what I remember, interviews she gave at the time she was initially seeking to return showed no remorse for her actions , in fact quite the opposite . If she has to be the one example that deters others from acting as she did the so be it in my opinion.


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Feb 28, 2021)

Let her back in and you open the door for all kinds of other lowlifes.    Sorry but she chose to go - she does not come back EVER.   It is as much the precedent as the original action.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

The last reports stated there were over 400 ISIS fighters now living back in the UK, some in prison, some walking the streets.

I agree she shouldn’t be allowed back, but then i don’t think any of them should of been allowed back in.

I also think she is already costing us millions in legal fees and one day will turn up in the UK and we’ll have the deportation to sort out.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2021)

15 year old girl is groomed and radicalised

Runs off with mates

Joins a cause she now believes is worthy

Watches her friends and her own children be killed

Reality hits her , finds a way to escape so that she can go home to her country of birth but finds out they are stripped her of that right because of the acts she did as a 15 year old - she has committed no terrorist acts etc

The UK have used her as a poster girl on what happens if you run off to join that cause

But the young girl has not shown any sort of remorse in any interview and has asked for sympathy - she appears unwilling to take any responsibility for her actions

It’s very hard and no right answer

They know that if she does find a way back into the UK there is nothing they can do then 

But I can see her back in the UK at some point with her citizenship reinstated- the human rights and leaving her stateless will come to the fore.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 28, 2021)

If you listen to police and other security people they will tell you how difficult it is to put together a case against any ISIS supporter / fighter who was out in the field. Where are the witnesses,  what crimes did she commit? Once the legal bods get hold of it then the fact that we know what she and others have done will be outweighed by what we can prove she has done. 

So, she comes back, maybe does a few years in prison, is released and then has a team of security personnel monitoring her constantly at enormous expense 🤔. No thanks.

It's a bad situation but the best solution is to kick the can down the road and keep these people out. Once back the only ones celebrating are the lawyers, bless em.


----------



## rudebhoy (Feb 28, 2021)

pauldj42 said:



			The last reports stated there were over 400 ISIS fighters now living back in the UK, some in prison, some walking the streets.
		
Click to expand...

You have to ask why the UK has quietly facilitated the return of hundreds of ISIS fighters, many of whom (maybe the majority of them) will be actual killers, while successive Home Secretaries have made a big show of removing her citizenship and stopping her returning?

If she had not been found by a journalist and then was naive / stupid enough to give an interview where she refused to apologise for her actions, she would have been back in the country and we would never have heard of her.

Just another example of gesture politics and playing to the gallery.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

Paperboy said:



			She had her citizenship revoked. She is also a Bangladeshi citizen as well from what I remember.
		
Click to expand...

At the time her British citizenship was revoked she was under 21. As a minor (in Bangladeshi law) born to Bangladeshi parents she is/was automatically a Bangladeshi citizen until she reached the age of 21 and chooses to confirm or refuse her Bangladeshi citizenship.

She wasn't stateless when her British citizenship was revoked, she was by birth right Bangladeshi. I can understand Bangladesh saying they don't want her but by Bangladeshi law she was Bangladeshi. So which country is making her stateless, the UK or Bangladesh?

It would appear there a several options.

1) Deny her citizenship. Seeing her in western garb on the news the other night only looks to confirm she's a dead (wo)man walking. She's not safe in the camp anyway because of her desire to return to the UK, and dressing in western garb won't do her any favours with the Mullahs. But is she deliberately dressing in western garb to mitigate how she appears to the majority of UK citizens?
2) Open the door and let her back in to get on with her life.
3) Open the door and let her in to prosecute her for being a member of a banned organisation.
4) Open the door and use her as a poster girl going round the schools telling young girls NOT to go off chasing pipe dreams. Highlighting the dangers of grooming etc.

For me, she was 15 when she had been groomed enough to go off and join ISIS. Chances are she was younger than 15 when the grooming started. I choose option 4. Bring her back under a very short leash, on licence, and use her shamelessly to try and ensure other girls aren't radicalised. And for the licence to include the term of treason. She signs it where she is now with the understanding that its a life term if she doesn't honour it. Yes it will cost the country a fair bit of money but what will it save in the long run if it protects other young lives?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

rudebhoy said:



			You have to ask why the UK has quietly facilitated the return of hundreds of ISIS fighters, many of whom (maybe the majority of them) will be actual killers, while successive Home Secretaries have made a big show of removing her citizenship and stopping her returning?

If she had not been found by a journalist and then was naive / stupid enough to give an interview where she refused to apologise for her actions, she would have been back in the country and we would never have heard of her.

Just another example of gesture politics and playing to the gallery.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly, there is an element of that, but the 400 got back to the UK, she hasn’t and currently, I believe, there are males in these camps who have also had their British citizenship removed and we don’t see the headlines over those.


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

I said on Twitter that the only place she should be is dangling on the end of a rope and some bed wetters found that offensive


----------



## Lilyhawk (Feb 28, 2021)

This is not the poster girl I’d propose to convince others that chasing jihad is a bad choice. 

I believe If ISIS had control of Raqqa today she’d still be there. They lost, and now she’s looking for an out, knowing that the western world tend to fall over itself in trying to accommodate for those who wish us dead - cause otherwise “we would be just as bad as them”. 😂😂😂

2019:
On her first glance of seeing a severed head in a bin, she added: "It didn't faze me at all."

"It was from a captured fighter seized on the battlefield, an enemy of Islam. I thought only of what he would have done to a Muslim woman if he had the chance."

Despite the oppression and violence witnessed, Begum said she didn't regret leaving.
"I’m not the same silly little 15-year-old schoolgirl who ran away from Bethnal Green four years ago," she said. "And I don't regret coming here."

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....-british-schoolgirl-who-ran-away-to-join-isis


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 28, 2021)

No politician should have the power to remove British citizenship from an individual on any grounds. 

The Supreme Court judgement is simply based on the U.K. having the right to refuse entry to anyone who is not a UK citizen - I guess that this is usually done on security grounds - and that is all that has been done.

Meanwhile we ‘accept’ the 15yr old running a new-nazi terror group from his grandmothers house.  I wonder what the difference is...ah he just did it because he thought it was cool.  That’s alright then..

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 28, 2021)

PhilTheFragger said:



			So a 15 year old kid, runs away with a couple of chums, they have this idealistic notion of joining a cause, they must have been groomed in some way.

Once there,  it is pretty difficult to change your mind and come home, they are “married” off to ISIS fighters, and over the next 5 years the 2 chums are killed , she had 3 kids that all die as well as her “husband”.

She ends up in a camp and now has the chance to escape, but the people back home think she is some sort of monster and won’t allow her back.

A different narrative, and also playing devils advocate a bit.

Apart from “joining” ISIS which is obviously a terrorist organisation, what crime has she committed, *no evidence she ever touched a weapon or hurt anyone,* she was a breeding machine for future fighters and *probably helped in the kitchens or laundry with the other women*.

Part of me doesn’t want her back, quite a big part actually, but is she being demonised for making a very bad irreversible decision when still a kid?

Always 2 sides to a story, I’d like to find out how she was groomed, what made then want to go, what her community/ parents missed,

I don’t profess to know the answer, just giving an alternative point of view
		
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia;

The Daily Telegraph reported that Begum was an "enforcer" in ISIL's "morality police", and tried to recruit other young women to join the jihadist group.  *She was allowed to carry a Kalashnikov rifle and earned a reputation as a strict enforcer of ISIL's laws, such as dress codes for women.* An anti-ISIL activist told The Independent that there are separate allegations of "Begum [stitching] suicide bombers into explosive vests so they could not be removed without detonating".

On 13 February 2019, The Times' war correspondent Anthony Loyd found Begum at the al-Hawl refugee camp in Northern Syria, in what one newspaper described as "scoop of the decade". When interviewed, Begum revealed that she was nine months pregnant and hoped to return to the UK to raise her child, but* did not regret her decision to join ISIL*. She said she had been *unfazed by seeing the head of a beheaded man as he was "an enemy of Islam"*, but believes that ISIL did not deserve victory because of their corruption and oppression. 

Begum was interviewed by BBC correspondent Quentin Sommerville on 18 February. During the interview, Begum asked for forgiveness and claimed that she still supports "some British values". She said she was* inspired to join ISIL by videos of fighters beheading hostages* and also of "the good life" under the group. However, Sommerville noted that* she continues to espouse the ISIL ideology* and to try to *justify its atrocities*. When asked about the Manchester Arena bombing, she claimed it was wrong to kill innocent people, but that ISIL considered it justified as retaliation for the coalition bombing of ISIL-held areas.* When questioned about rape, enslavement and murder of Yazidi women, she claimed, "Shia do the same in Iraq"*.

Like you Phil, there's a degree of conflict and those that turned her represent a greater danger, but she's been turned once and appears to show a lack of genuine remorse; why risk having her back to turn again?


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No politician should have the power to remove British citizenship from an individual on any grounds. 

The Supreme Court judgement is simply based on the U.K. having the right to refuse entry to anyone who is not a UK citizen - I guess that this is usually done on security grounds - and that is all that has been done.

Meanwhile we ‘accept’ the 15yr old running a new-nazi terror group from his grandmothers house.  I wonder what the difference is...ah he just did it because he thought it was cool.  That’s alright then..

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash

Click to expand...

He should have the book thrown at him but he didn’t leave the country so there were no issues about letting him back in.

If begum is allowed to attend a hearing here you can bet she’ll claim asylum as soon as her feet touches UK soil and Cherie Blair will be representing her


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 28, 2021)

Thread should be closed by mods as this is a political matter.


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Thread should be closed by mods as this is a political matter.
		
Click to expand...

 No it’s not


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 28, 2021)

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...hamima_Begum&usg=AOvVaw3bBO6pIs_l11sT-eZUxggj
In what is an emotive topic, a little read about her may enlighten people re how we got to this situation.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No politician should have the power to remove British citizenship from an individual on any grounds.
		
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. If an illegal immigrant is favoured with British citizenship and then commits a crime that warrants a prison term then the Home Secretary should immediately remove that citizenship and deport the person back to their country of origin.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No politician should have the power to remove British citizenship from an individual on any grounds.

The Supreme Court judgement is simply based on the U.K. having the right to refuse entry to anyone who is not a UK citizen - I guess that this is usually done on security grounds - and that is all that has been done.

Meanwhile we ‘accept’ the 15yr old running a new-nazi terror group from his grandmothers house.  I wonder what the difference is...ah he just did it because he thought it was cool.  That’s alright then..

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash

Click to expand...




SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Thread should be closed by mods as this is a political matter.
		
Click to expand...

If it is a political thread then why are you commenting in it rather than reporting it to the mods...?  (That's a rhetorical question, everyone knows why  )


----------



## AmandaJR (Feb 28, 2021)

Out.

Nothing I've read here has changed that opinion. Made your bed, go lie in it.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Feb 28, 2021)

D-S said:



			‘Kick her out‘ to where? Who’s responsibility is she?
		
Click to expand...

Isis. After all, it stands for Islamic STATE.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2021)

chrisd said:



			I totally disagree. If an illegal immigrant is favoured with British citizenship and then commits a crime that warrants a prison term then the Home Secretary should immediately remove that citizenship and deport the person back to their country of origin.
		
Click to expand...

I agree - someone who has been awarded British Citizenship can have it removed for serious crime etc - they would still have citizenship from previous country etc 

But the minefield is removing someone of the Birth right Citizenship leaving them stateless - unfortunately I think that’s where this whole thing is going to come apart - I think there is some human rights laws that state it can’t be done , and ultimately I think that’s the next step , human rights involved etc and Citizenship reinstated and her returning


----------



## Imurg (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			At the time her British citizenship was revoked she was under 21. As a minor (in Bangladeshi law) born to Bangladeshi parents she is/was automatically a Bangladeshi citizen until she reached the age of 21 and chooses to confirm or refuse her Bangladeshi citizenship.

She wasn't stateless when her British citizenship was revoked, she was by birth right Bangladeshi. I can understand Bangladesh saying they don't want her but by Bangladeshi law she was Bangladeshi.
		
Click to expand...

If this is the case then I cant see that we have a problem.
She has/had, in effect, dual citizenship and we stripped her of ours.
So, sorry Bangladesh but she's your problem not ours.
We haven't left her "Stateless".

Next....


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No politician should have the power to remove British citizenship from an individual on any grounds.

The Supreme Court judgement is simply based on the U.K. having the right to refuse entry to anyone who is not a UK citizen - I guess that this is usually done on security grounds - and that is all that has been done.

*Meanwhile we ‘accept’ the 15yr old running a new-nazi terror group from his grandmothers house.*  I wonder what the difference is...ah he just did it because he thought it was cool.  That’s alright then..

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash

Click to expand...

Please show me where anyone has accepted this?  He has been dealt with for his crimes by due process.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 28, 2021)

Imurg said:



			If this is the case then I cant see that we have a problem.
She has/had, in effect, dual citizenship and we stripped her of ours.
So, sorry Bangladesh but she's your problem not ours.
We haven't left her "Stateless".

Next....
		
Click to expand...

Apparently the problem is that she has to claim her Bangladeshi citizenship; they've told her she isn't being granted it if she does claim it & that she will face the death penalty if she sets foot in Bangladesh because of their zero tolerance stance towards terrorism.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Feb 28, 2021)

The way I see it we have 2 choices.

1) We bring her back to the UK, the blood sucking leeches like Cherie Blair get involved and bleed the country of 10's of millions of pounds in fees. She is tried, found guilty and spends years in jail which costs us even more money. When she is released she may have changed her views or she may have become even more radicalised and a bigger threat to UK security.

2) We use all the above money to home some of our homeless UK citizens and feed some of the kids that Marcus Rashford has been campaigning for.

Very simplistic view but option 2 for me all day.


----------



## greenone (Feb 28, 2021)

Paperboy said:



			She had her citizenship revoked. She is also a Bangladeshi citizen as well from what I remember.
		
Click to expand...

That is my point, you can't legally revoke somebody's citizenship unless they are a dual national. Her parents are but she isn't and the Bangladeshi government won't let her in.


----------



## Junior (Feb 28, 2021)

If we bring her back, the country will shun and chastise her.  She'll turn back to isis and potentially will do something horrific.  

Leave her where she is.  Part of me feels bad judging here on decisions she made when she was 15, she was obviously groomed , but , in the interest of setting presidents and national safety, leaving her where she is is the best solution.


----------



## PNWokingham (Feb 28, 2021)

Junior said:



			If we bring her back, the country will shun and chastise her.  She'll turn back to isis and potentially will do something horrific. 

Leave her where she is.  Part of me feels bad judging here on decisions she made when she was 15, she was obviously groomed , but , in the interest of setting presidents and national safety, leaving her where she is is the best solution.
		
Click to expand...

i agree. It is a tough call and if she was not dual citizenship when we revoked it i think it could be a different answer as much as i despise her. I think if she had been totally and unashededly apologetic on the interviews, show how she was sucked in and now is totally against the values of ISIS, then she could have found some sympathy and maybe changed the course of events. Then we also have the other point that she left to join what she and other view as a state in ISIS, so her and many others are part of that at-the-moment failed state and that means she should be dealt with there. Either way, i don't want her back costing us tens of millions of pounds and dominating the airwaves.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

Blue in Munich said:



			Apparently the problem is that she has to claim her Bangladeshi citizenship; they've told her she isn't being granted it if she does claim it & that she will face the death penalty if she sets foot in Bangladesh because of their zero tolerance stance towards terrorism.
		
Click to expand...

When this subject came up a year or so back I looked on the Bangladeshi govt website. As she was below the age of 21 she was automatically a Bangladeshi until she was/is of age to make the choice/claim. It is a birth right enshrined in Bangladeshi law. Bangladesh does allow dual nationality, which is what she held by default. When the UK revoked her UK citizenship the default was she was already a Bangladeshi national. The UK didn't make her stateless, Bangladesh did.

Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. The relevant section is Jus Sanguinas. The short version means by blood right. If the parents are Bangladeshi, the child is, by default, Bangladeshi until the age of 21, irrespective of where they are born. On reaching 21 the person must confirm citizenship. Citizenship can only be revoked under 2 clauses. That the original citizenship was given to someone born outside the country who is not of Bangladeshi blood or that the person relinquishes it.

Begum had the right to contest Bangladesh's stance, if she wanted to, but as she is now 21 and didn't contest it, it could be argued she didn't want it.


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 28, 2021)

Dando said:



			I said on Twitter that the only place she should be is dangling on the end of a rope and some bed wetters found that offensive
		
Click to expand...

Probably because the death penalty is disgusting and akin to the types of beliefs that saw her go abroad in the first place.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 28, 2021)

greenone said:



			That is my point, you can't legally revoke somebody's citizenship unless they are a dual national. Her parents are but she isn't and the Bangladeshi government won't let her in.
		
Click to expand...

She has Bangladeshi citizenship automatically through her parents and that is why we were able to revoke her British citizenship. The fact whether they let her in, or its unsafe for her, was not our problem once the Home Secretary stripped her of her dual citizenship. Let her spend Bangladesh money fighting to go there!


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 28, 2021)

She should be allowed to return and stand trial for her alleged offences.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 28, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			She should be allowed to return and stand trial for her alleged offences.
		
Click to expand...

Absolute tosh! She's not a British citizen, we dont want her here.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			She should be allowed to return and stand trial for her alleged offences.
		
Click to expand...

Does she need to return to stand trial? Many cases are done via video link. If she needs to be on British soil, why not video link from a Consulate?


----------



## DanFST (Feb 28, 2021)

chrisd said:



			Absolute tosh! She's not a British citizen, we dont want her here.
		
Click to expand...

Why is her passport different to everyone else's?


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 28, 2021)

chrisd said:



			Absolute tosh! She's not a British citizen, we dont want her here.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree with the revocation of her citizenship. We’re supposed to be the better, more civilised society here.


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			Does she need to return to stand trial? Many cases are done via video link. If she needs to be on British soil, why not video link from a Consulate?
		
Click to expand...

I just feel that we should be the “bigger man” here. Bring her back to the UK mainland and have her stand trial for the alleged offences.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

DanFST said:



			Why is her passport different to everyone else's?
		
Click to expand...

She doesn't hold a valid passport. And you can be a British citizen and have your passport revoked, e.g. football hooligans.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			When this subject came up a year or so back I looked on the Bangladeshi govt website. As she was below the age of 21 she was automatically a Bangladeshi until she was/is of age to make the choice/claim. It is a birth right enshrined in Bangladeshi law. Bangladesh does allow dual nationality, which is what she held by default. When the UK revoked her UK citizenship the default was she was already a Bangladeshi national. The UK didn't make her stateless, Bangladesh did.

Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. The relevant section is Jus Sanguinas. The short version means by blood right. If the parents are Bangladeshi, the child is, by default, Bangladeshi until the age of 21, irrespective of where they are born. On reaching 21 the person must confirm citizenship. Citizenship can only be revoked under 2 clauses. That the original citizenship was given to someone born outside the country who is not of Bangladeshi blood or that the person relinquishes it.

Begum had the right to contest Bangladesh's stance, if she wanted to, but as she is now 21 and didn't contest it, it could be argued she didn't want it.
		
Click to expand...

I believe and it was something a human rights lawyer said when I was also looking - the birth would need to registered at the Bangladesh Embassy or Mission for the citizenship to be inherited 

“
Note, however that the Act states that for this to be the case, if the parent from whom the citizenship is to be inherited obtained their Bangladeshi citizenship by descent (rather than birth, for example) then the birth must be registered at the nearest Bangladeshi Embassy or Mission.”

I do know that there will be only one winner this lot - the lawyers


----------



## PNWokingham (Feb 28, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			I just feel that we should be the “bigger man” here. Bring her back to the UK mainland and have her stand trial for the alleged offences.
		
Click to expand...

i hope you mean "bigger person" - no reason to bring up old stereotypes here


----------



## PieMan (Feb 28, 2021)

Perhaps she's desperate to come back to get her hands on the new PS5 that she'll undoubtedly get from the many benefits that she'll receive if she is allowed back.

After all, we're still in lockdown so she'd need something to keep her occupied.


----------



## DanFST (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			She doesn't hold a valid passport. And you can be a British citizen and have your passport revoked, e.g. football hooligans.
		
Click to expand...

So she jumped on a plane to be part of a disgusting sub human group. Without a passport? 


She's our problem, can't just ignore it because she is scum. Bring her back, arrest her for treason and put her away for the rest of her life.


----------



## IanM (Feb 28, 2021)

I think she needs a nice big house and a new car.


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

DanFST said:



			So she jumped on a plane to be part of a disgusting sub human group. Without a passport? 


She's our problem, can't just ignore it because she is scum. Bring her back, arrest her for treason and put her away for the rest of her life.
		
Click to expand...

She travelled to Syria on her sisters passport


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			i hope you mean "bigger person" - no reason to bring up old stereotypes here
		
Click to expand...

Doesn’t saying “bigger” discriminate against those who are vertically challenged or underweight


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 28, 2021)

Blue in Munich said:



			Apparently the problem is that she has to claim her Bangladeshi citizenship; they've told her she isn't being granted it if she does claim it & that she will face the death penalty if she sets foot in Bangladesh because of their zero tolerance stance towards terrorism.
		
Click to expand...

That isn't our problem, and as they say every action has a reaction.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 28, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			I disagree with the revocation of her citizenship. We’re supposed to be the better, more civilised society here.
		
Click to expand...

It was legal and that sometimes is all that is needed in order to protect our citizens


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I believe and it was something a human rights lawyer said when I was also looking - the birth would need to registered at the Bangladesh Embassy or Mission for the citizenship to be inherited

“
Note, however that the Act states that for this to be the case, if the parent from whom the citizenship is to be inherited obtained their Bangladeshi citizenship by descent (rather than birth, for example) then the birth must be registered at the nearest Bangladeshi Embassy or Mission.”

I do know that there will be only one winner this lot - the lawyers
		
Click to expand...

Your version only applies if the parent holds Bangladeshi citizenship by acquisition, not by birth right. Your version is Jus Soli, not Jus Sanguinis.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 28, 2021)

chrisd said:



			It was legal and that sometimes is all that is needed in order to protect our citizens
		
Click to expand...

..and so the 15yr old running the new-nazi terror group from his grandmothers - as a threat to our security he should have his citizenship removed?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash


----------



## GuyInLyon (Feb 28, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			What do you reckon - the right decision to ban her from the country and had her Bristish nationality removed?
		
Click to expand...

No.
She was, what, 15 years old when she skipped town and went to Iraq?
If every 15 year old that made a mistake was stripped of their citizenship the population of the UK would be in the hundreds.
She was a teenager, and she should be allowed to return to Britain and have her citizenship returned.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			..and so the 15yr old running the new-nazi terror group from his grandmothers - as a threat to our security he should have his citizenship removed?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash

Click to expand...

That's a matter for the judiciary to decide


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			I thought we were discussing the law, not politics?
		
Click to expand...

The law as applied by the Supreme Court is straightforward - she is not a British citizen and so has no right of access to the U.K.  The removal of citizenship being at the heart of the matter was political.  Decision may well have been legal - but it was political.  But hey.  Good to hear the views of the usual suspects and so I’m out on this.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 28, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			No.
She was, what, 15 years old when she skipped town and went to Iraq?
If every 15 year that made a mistake was stripped of their citizenship the population of the UK would be in the hundreds.
She was a teenager, and she should be allowed to return to Britain and have her citizenship returned.
		
Click to expand...

It might just be the level of the mistake that is in question here


----------



## Lilyhawk (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			..and so the 15yr old running the new-nazi terror group from his grandmothers - as a threat to our security he should have his citizenship removed?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash

Click to expand...

Is he also a Bangladeshi citizen? In that case I’d be in favour of that. If he doesn’t hold any dual citizenships, then no.


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			No.
She was, what, 15 years old when she skipped town and went to Iraq?
If every 15 year that made a mistake was stripped of their citizenship the population of the UK would be in the hundreds.
She was a teenager, and she should be allowed to return to Britain and have her citizenship returned.
		
Click to expand...

“Made a mistake” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Not every 15 year old joins ISIS!!!


----------



## chrisd (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The law as applied by the Supreme Court is straightforward - she is not a British citizen and so has no right of access to the U.K.  The removal of citizenship being at the heart of the matter was political.
		
Click to expand...

No, in the end the decision was about legality,  if it wasnt legal it couldn't have been carried out.


----------



## GuyInLyon (Feb 28, 2021)

Paperboy said:



			She had her citizenship revoked. She is also a Bangladeshi citizen as well from what I remember.
		
Click to expand...

Not according to Bangladeshi law.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The law as applied by the Supreme Court is straightforward - she is not a British citizen and so has no right of access to the U.K.  The removal of citizenship being at the heart of the matter was political.  Decision may well have been legal - but it was political.  But hey.  Good to hear the views of the usual suspects.
		
Click to expand...

And that removal was done by application of the law. 

And why finish with an insult Hugh? What purpose does that serve other than to make a good debate sour.


----------



## PNWokingham (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The law as applied by the Supreme Court is straightforward - she is not a British citizen and so has no right of access to the U.K.  The removal of citizenship being at the heart of the matter was political.  Decision may well have been legal - but it was political.  But hey.  Good to hear the views of the usual suspects and so I’m out on this.
		
Click to expand...

we have separation of powere in the UK, unlike in Syria and ISIS. The decision was a legal one and we do not need to go into politics to talk about it


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 28, 2021)

chrisd said:



			That's a matter for the judiciary to decide
		
Click to expand...

oh the irony...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 28, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			we have separation of powere in the UK, unlike in Syria and ISIS. The decision was a legal one and we do not need to go into politics to talk about it
		
Click to expand...

Which suits the agenda of many..


----------



## PNWokingham (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			oh the irony...
		
Click to expand...

you are not wrong!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			And that removal was done by application of the law.

And why finish with an insult Hugh? What purpose does that serve other than to make a good debate sour.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps the debate should be about whether a Home Secretary should be able to remove citizenship from a British citizen...especially when that act blocks British justice from acting on behalf of the state and the individual.  The answer to the question posted can only be enacted by a politician.


----------



## PNWokingham (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Which suits the agenda of many..
		
Click to expand...

have a break - you are capable of joing the discussion as most have or capable of ruining it in the way you usually do. Choose option 1 or go join another thread


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Perhaps the debate should be about whether a Home Secretary should be able to remove citizenship from a British citizen...especially when that act blocks British justice from acting on behalf of the state and the individual.  The answer to the question posted can only be enacted by a politician.
		
Click to expand...

And now who's making it a political discussion? For God's sake Hugh, keep the politics off the forum. We're having a perfectly good debate without your usual rubbish.


----------



## GuyInLyon (Feb 28, 2021)

Dando said:



			“Made a mistake”
Not every 15 year old joins ISIS!!!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, a mistake.

A 15 year old cannot vote, cannot drink alcohol, cannot sign a legal contract cannot get a full drivers license.

Will you strip the citizenship of every 15 year old that kills someone? Deals drugs? Fails to abide by Covid restrictions?

When does it end?


----------



## Imurg (Feb 28, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			Yes, a mistake.

A 15 year old cannot vote, cannot drink alcohol, cannot sign a legal contract cannot get a full drivers license.

Will you strip the citizenship of every 15 year old that kills someone? Deals drugs? Fails to abide by Covid restrictions?

When does it end?
		
Click to expand...

Probably with joining an outfit who's sole purpose is to destroy ways of life that don't match theirs......and not having any regrets.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 28, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			Yes, a mistake.

A 15 year old cannot vote, cannot drink alcohol, cannot sign a legal contract cannot get a full drivers license.

Will you strip the citizenship of every 15 year old that kills someone? Deals drugs? Fails to abide by Covid restrictions?

When does it end?
		
Click to expand...

If she still believes that it is right to behead people who subscribe to a different religion, or even a different sect of her own religion, that is hardly a 'mistake'.


----------



## DanFST (Feb 28, 2021)

I'll leave my 2C, The woman is one of the few I would happily punch in the face.

- We shouldn't leave anyone Stateless. We are better than that.
- Appeals etc shouldn't be done by us. They should be done by the UN. (It leaves too much variation between countries - Spain not recognising Kosovo etc.)
- I hope the people that are happy she has been denied appeal, have no opinion on Anne Sarcoolas. US decided that's what they wanted to do too.


It will never happen, as there is too much politicking. But a set of laws that apply to all would stop BS decisions.

EDIT: She's not a national security threat. She's a stupid girl, that if allowed back will hopefully seldom see sunlight.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 28, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			Yes, a mistake.

A 15 year old cannot vote, cannot drink alcohol, cannot sign a legal contract cannot get a full drivers license.

Will you strip the citizenship of every 15 year old that kills someone? Deals drugs? Fails to abide by Covid restrictions?

When does it end?
		
Click to expand...

I cant answer "where does it end" but certainly if it only starts at what she chose to do then that'll do for me to not allow her back ever again.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The law as applied by the Supreme Court is straightforward - she is not a British citizen and so has no right of access to the U.K.  The removal of citizenship being at the heart of the matter was political.  Decision may well have been legal - but it was political.  But hey.  *Good to hear the views of the usual suspects *and so I’m out on this.
		
Click to expand...

Says the usual suspect.


----------



## Sats (Feb 28, 2021)

If this isn't a political thread, then I don't know what is....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			Your version only applies if the parent holds Bangladeshi citizenship by acquisition, not by birth right. Your version is Jus Soli, not Jus Sanguinis.
		
Click to expand...

It’s a note in the Jus Sanguinis section 🤷‍♂️

*Jus sanguinis*

According to the Citizenship Act 1951, one method of acquiring Bangladeshi nationality is via jus sanguinis (Citizenship by right of blood). This means one may acquire citizenship regardless of whether they were born on Bangladeshi sovereign territory or not. Bangladeshi citizenship is provided primarily jus sanguinis, or through bloodline, irrespective of the place or the legitimacy of the birth. Therefore, any child born to a Bangladeshi woman illegitimately outside Bangladeshi soil would still be a Bangladeshi citizen, whereas a child born to two non-nationals in Bangladesh would not. This method is restricted if the child's parents also acquired their nationality through naturalisation or by descent.

Note, however that the Act states that for this to be the case, if the parent from whom the citizenship is to be inherited obtained their Bangladeshi citizenship by descent (rather than birth, for example) then the birth must be registered at the nearest Bangladeshi Embassy or Mission.

*Jus soli*

Citizenship is acquired jus soli (Citizenship by right of birth within the territory), or at birth, when the identity or nationality of the parents is unknown.[2] In this regard, the child is assumed to be born to Bangladeshi nationals, and hence, given citizenship upon birth. However, this does not apply to the children of enemy aliens born in Bangladesh and it also does not apply to people residing illegally in Bangladesh or refugees in Bangladesh.[4] Enemy aliens are people who do not recognize or refuse to recognize the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. Enemy aliens are also people whose country of citizenship is, or was, at war with Bangladesh since the declaration of independence in March 1971 by the father of the nation Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.[4] Jus soli citizenship is conferred upon some Urdu-speaking people of Bangladesh since May 2008 by a High Court verdict”


I suspect it’s a minefield of laws and rules but unfortunately I can see it coming back to haunt the Home Office - a human rights group and lawyer are going to make a mint from it all


----------



## rudebhoy (Feb 28, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			have a break - you are capable of joing the discussion as most have or capable of ruining it in the way you usually do. Choose option 1 or go join another thread
		
Click to expand...

So because someone has a different point of view from you, they are "ruining the discussion"?


----------



## toyboy54 (Feb 28, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			Probably because the death penalty is disgusting and akin to the types of beliefs that saw her go abroad in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

Oh yeah,the death penalty that is so disgusting that ISIS threw alleged homosexuals off rooftops and sawed prisoners heads off(and let's not mention the mass rape of Yazidi women and girls in case the righteous are upset about how misjudged ISIS  and followers are)
Oh yeah,that must have been like moving to a real moral utopia?
Jimbo


----------



## PNWokingham (Feb 28, 2021)

rudebhoy said:



			So because someone has a different point of view from you, they are "ruining the discussion"?
		
Click to expand...

grow up. You can join him on plan B. Nothing about a different point of view - he was turning it political


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 28, 2021)

toyboy54 said:



			Oh yeah,the death penalty that is so disgusting that ISIS threw alleged homosexuals off rooftops and sawed prisoners heads off(and let's not mention the mass rape of Yazidi women and girls in case the righteous are upset about how misjudged ISIS  and followers are)
Oh yeah,that must have been like moving to a real moral utopia?
Jimbo
		
Click to expand...

I hate how these people torture and kill people. It’s disgusting. I know what’ll help. We’ll kill people. 

Cognitive dissonance.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 28, 2021)

To me, she is exactly where she is meant to be. Just leave her there. I am not sure why the UK should have to spend any time or effort repatriating her. There are more worthy causes around.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It’s a note in the Jus Sanguinis section 🤷‍♂️

*Jus sanguinis*

According to the Citizenship Act 1951, one method of acquiring Bangladeshi nationality is via jus sanguinis (Citizenship by right of blood). This means one may acquire citizenship regardless of whether they were born on Bangladeshi sovereign territory or not. Bangladeshi citizenship is provided primarily jus sanguinis, or through bloodline, irrespective of the place or the legitimacy of the birth. Therefore, any child born to a Bangladeshi woman illegitimately outside Bangladeshi soil would still be a Bangladeshi citizen, whereas a child born to two non-nationals in Bangladesh would not. This method is restricted if the child's parents also acquired their nationality through naturalisation or by descent.

Note, however that the Act states that for this to be the case, if the parent from whom the citizenship is to be inherited obtained their Bangladeshi citizenship by descent (rather than birth, for example) then the birth must be registered at the nearest Bangladeshi Embassy or Mission.

*Jus soli*

Citizenship is acquired jus soli (Citizenship by right of birth within the territory), or at birth, when the identity or nationality of the parents is unknown.[2] In this regard, the child is assumed to be born to Bangladeshi nationals, and hence, given citizenship upon birth. However, this does not apply to the children of enemy aliens born in Bangladesh and it also does not apply to people residing illegally in Bangladesh or refugees in Bangladesh.[4] Enemy aliens are people who do not recognize or refuse to recognize the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. Enemy aliens are also people whose country of citizenship is, or was, at war with Bangladesh since the declaration of independence in March 1971 by the father of the nation Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.[4] Jus soli citizenship is conferred upon some Urdu-speaking people of Bangladesh since May 2008 by a High Court verdict”


I suspect it’s a minefield of laws and rules but unfortunately I can see it coming back to haunt the Home Office - a human rights group and lawyer are going to make a mint from it all
		
Click to expand...

Begum's parents obtained their citizenship by birth, not descent. Therefore, Begum's parent's didn't have to register her birth at the nearest embassy or mission. However, Begum's children would have to be registered as she would have inherited by descent.


----------



## rudebhoy (Feb 28, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			grow up. You can join him on plan B. Nothing about a different point of view - he was turning it political
		
Click to expand...

The subject of the thread is whether a decision made by the Home Secretary was right or wrong.  If that's not a political discussion, I don't know what is!


----------



## toyboy54 (Feb 28, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			I hate how these people torture and kill people. It’s disgusting. I know what’ll help. We’ll kill people.

Cognitive dissonance.
		
Click to expand...

Where does the 'cognitive dissonance' come in? Don't think i've been inconsistent in my reasoning/beliefs on this,and just to prove it-shoot them,so glad that you agree with"we'll kill people"


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 28, 2021)

Can we not get her to road test one of the ISIS vests she helped others into?


----------



## toyboy54 (Feb 28, 2021)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Can we not get her to road test one of the ISIS vests she helped others into?
		
Click to expand...

Excellent idea....especially if videod and posted on www.joinusatisisforalovelylifestyle.com


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

Keep politics out of it, unless we mention Cherie Blair who has defended people on the left of politics and then it’s ok to call her a blood sucking leech!


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 28, 2021)

toyboy54 said:



			Where does the 'cognitive dissonance' come in? Don't think i've been inconsistent in my reasoning/beliefs on this,and just to prove it-shoot them,so glad that you agree with"we'll kill people"
		
Click to expand...

You’re saying execution is fine when it’s for a cause that you believe in. You’re also saying it isn’t fine for causes you don’t believe in.


----------



## SaintHacker (Feb 28, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The law as applied by the Supreme Court is straightforward - she is not a British citizen and so has no right of access to the U.K.  The removal of citizenship being at the heart of the matter was political.  Decision may well have been legal - but it was political.  But hey.  Good to hear the views of the usual suspects and so I’m out on this.
		
Click to expand...

To quote yourself, oh the irony


----------



## Crazyface (Feb 28, 2021)

The decision has been made hasn't it? Or have I missed something?


----------



## PNWokingham (Feb 28, 2021)

rudebhoy said:



			The subject of the thread is whether a decision made by the Home Secretary was right or wrong.  If that's not a political discussion, I don't know what is!
		
Click to expand...

No. It is the subject of the supreme Court ruling. They ate a court and they interpret the law. That is what we are talking about and what people think of that legal decision and anything to do with what she has done by joining isis. Feel free to start a political thread if you want and then you and Hogan can masticate over that while others can stay on this legal and moral discussion


----------



## garyinderry (Feb 28, 2021)

In northern Ireland we vote them into office.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Feb 28, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			You’re saying execution is fine when it’s for a cause that you believe in. You’re also saying it isn’t fine for causes you don’t believe in.
		
Click to expand...

This thread is not here to debate your favourite subject of 
"To execute or not to execute"


----------



## patricks148 (Feb 28, 2021)

lets keep Politics out of this please, or there may be some infractions


----------



## toyboy54 (Feb 28, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			You’re saying execution is fine when it’s for a cause that you believe in. You’re also saying it isn’t fine for causes you don’t believe in.
		
Click to expand...

Give that man a coconut(although I'm not sure what the 2nd sentence means-what 'causes'-parking tickets?
Let's get it straight--'An eye for an eye',what's wrong with that?Someone damages you or yours what would you like to happen-sit down with them and discuss why they behaved this way over tea and biccies?


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			lets keep Politics out of this please, or there may be some infractions
		
Click to expand...

For the “usual suspects?” 🤣


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			lets keep Politics out of this please, or there may be some infractions
		
Click to expand...

Well said,


----------



## rudebhoy (Feb 28, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			No. It is the subject of the supreme Court ruling. They ate a court and they interpret the law. That is what we are talking about and what people think of that legal decision and anything to do with what she has done by joining isis. Feel free to start a political thread if you want and then you and Hogan can masticate over that while others can stay on this legal and moral discussion
		
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the finer detail, but the court case was about whether the Home Secretary (a politician) had the authority to make the decision.

They decided he had that authority. They were not making a judgement on whether his decision was the right one or not.


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 28, 2021)

toyboy54 said:



			Give that man a coconut(although I'm not sure what the 2nd sentence means-what 'causes'-parking tickets?
Let's get it straight--'An eye for an eye',what's wrong with that?Someone damages you or yours what would you like to happen-sit down with them and discuss why they behaved this way over tea and biccies?
		
Click to expand...

If someone killed a loved one of mine I’d probably want them to die in the heat of the moment and that’s why I should have no say in the punishment. 

And quoting the Bible doesn’t really help your argument; the first half of that book is about an omnipotent being continually feeding his blood lust.


----------



## toyboy54 (Feb 28, 2021)

Moderators....if you're advising me of possible infractions ,then I apologise as that is not my intention(I know,I know-rise above and don't take the bait)
Cheers guys.................come on Livvie!


----------



## patricks148 (Feb 28, 2021)

Dando said:



			For the “usual suspects?” 🤣
		
Click to expand...

only some of you


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			only some of you

Click to expand...

I’ve been good!


----------



## rudebhoy (Feb 28, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			lets keep Politics out of this please, or there may be some infractions
		
Click to expand...

The entire thread is political, it's a debate about whether a decision made by a politician was right or wrong. If you want to keep politics out of it, you should close or delete the thread as it's impossible to do that.


----------



## Imurg (Feb 28, 2021)

Dando said:



			I’ve been good!
		
Click to expand...

So if you don't get anything does that mean you've been good for nothing


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

Dando said:



			I’ve been good!
		
Click to expand...

Teacher's pet...


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Feb 28, 2021)

pauldj42 said:



			Keep politics out of it, unless we mention Cherie Blair who has defended people on the left of politics and then it’s ok to call her a blood sucking leech!
		
Click to expand...

That wasn't a political comment it was a legal one.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 28, 2021)

rudebhoy said:



			The entire thread is political, it's a debate about whether a decision made by a politician was right or wrong. If you want to keep politics out of it, you should close or delete the thread as it's impossible to do that.
		
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's a thread about whether YOU think she should be allowed back, and if so, why, and if not, why.


----------



## rudebhoy (Feb 28, 2021)

murphthemog said:



			No, it's not. It's a thread about whether YOU think she should be allowed back, and if so, why, and if not, why.
		
Click to expand...

Talk about splitting hairs....


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 28, 2021)

rudebhoy said:



			Talk about splitting hairs....
		
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. It's about your opinions, what you think. It has nothing to do with politics, citizenship, lawyers, or anything else other than your own opinion.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

drive4show said:



			That wasn't a political comment it was a legal one.
		
Click to expand...

Really?


----------



## Slime (Feb 28, 2021)




----------



## Ethan (Feb 28, 2021)

I think she should be allowed back and enjoy both the privileges but also experience the weight of the law. If she is guilty of a crime, convict her, throw away the key. If she is not convicted, let her go. I am sure MI5 would be keeping an eye on her for a while if that latter happened. There should be one standard of law for everyone. She was very young and naive when she went and may have wised up now. Or maybe she hasn't. I am sure the court could figure out which.


----------



## rudebhoy (Feb 28, 2021)

murphthemog said:



			No, it really isn't. It's about your opinions, what you think. It has nothing to do with politics, citizenship, lawyers, or anything else other than your own opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Tell you what, why don't we have a thread "do YOU think we should rejoin the EU?" - by your definition, that wouldn't be a political discussion either 😀


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Feb 28, 2021)

Ethan said:



			I think she should be allowed back and enjoy both the privileges but also experience the weight of the law. If she is guilty of a crime, convict her, throw away the key. If she is not convicted, let her go. I am sure MI5 would be keeping an eye on her for a while if that latter happened. There should be one standard of law for everyone. She was very young and naive when she went and may have wised up now. Or maybe she hasn't. I am sure the court could figure out which.
		
Click to expand...

Well she hasn't shown any remorse yet or sympathised with the victims of the Manchester bombing so that says quite a lot about her current position.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 28, 2021)

rudebhoy said:



			Tell you what, why don't we have a thread "do YOU think we should rejoin the EU?" - by your definition, that wouldn't be a political discussion either 😀
		
Click to expand...

You have liked a post above, by Ethan. It is his view, it is not political. See, it is possible?


----------



## PieMan (Feb 28, 2021)

The way this thread is going reminds me of the 'blasphemy' scene in Life of Brian........'It's political; it's not politcal' 😉😂😂

Let's bring back Shamima AND political threads.........😉


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

Imurg said:



			So if
		
Click to expand...




Imurg said:



			So if you don't get anything does that mean you've been good for nothing

Click to expand...

I’m saving it up mate for a massive fish style eruption


----------



## Ethan (Feb 28, 2021)

drive4show said:



			Well she hasn't shown any remorse yet or sympathised with the victims of the Manchester bombing so that says quite a lot about her current position.
		
Click to expand...

I am sure the court would consider that too.


----------



## toyboy54 (Feb 28, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			If someone killed a loved one of mine I’d probably want them to die in the heat of the moment and that’s why I should have no say in the punishment.

And quoting the Bible doesn’t really help your argument; the first half of that book is about an omnipotent being continually feeding his blood lust.
		
Click to expand...

Certainly wouldn't be in the heat of the moment(although if I was Physically there then?)...No I think that I could sit,wait and 'enjoy a dish served cold' would even pull the handle/trigger 
That doesn't make me omnipotent it might make me a bit happier that I went some way looking into their eyes and asking them if it was worth it,before sending them on their way!
Lovely talking to you but got to go and do something worthwhile.................OOPS,original point?Let her rot where she is!!-Deserves nothing from this country!
Jimbo


----------



## KenL (Feb 28, 2021)

Is this not the most political thread possible yet it is allowed to run? 
Nothing good can come out of a thread on this subject.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 28, 2021)

KenL said:



			Is this not the most political thread possible yet it is allowed to run?
Nothing good can come out of a thread on this subject.
		
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's only political because people are dragging politics into it, giving not their opinions on how to deal with the situation, but their opinions on how the powers that be are dealing with it. These are totally able to be separated, if their is the desire to do so.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Feb 28, 2021)

KenL said:



			Is this not the most political thread possible yet it is allowed to run? 
Nothing good can come out of a thread on this subject.
		
Click to expand...

I consider this thread to be about the legality of the case not the politics.


----------



## KenL (Feb 28, 2021)

To remove someone's citizenship is a political decision no?


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 28, 2021)

KenL said:



			To remove someone's citizenship is a political decision no?
		
Click to expand...

Then don't discuss it.

Would you bring her back, pay to bring her back, leave her there, give her boat loads of cash and a medal, jail her, put her on telly, give her a lecture tour. There are endless possibilities that do not involve how this has been handled by some one who is not you.


----------



## PNWokingham (Feb 28, 2021)

KenL said:



			To remove someone's citizenship is a political decision no?
		
Click to expand...

For the sake of repeating again. You can go political if you want and join the other suspects on that. This is about what we think of the decision - right or wrong and why. We do not have to mention the government, ministers etc. So either post about the moral and legal issues and what you think of them, or about her, or Don't


----------



## funkycoldmedina (Feb 28, 2021)

It's been a cause celebre in the right wing media, pushed by a right wing populist government and posted on here by a right wing sympathetic poster. If SILH had posted the left wing equivalent all the posters thst are saying send her packing would be calling political agenda. 
The comments about wasting tax payers money are political. There's been barrel loads of tax payers money wasted in the last 12 months but that's off limits.


----------



## KenL (Feb 28, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			For the sake of repeating again. You can go political if you want and join the other suspects on that. This is about what we think of the decision - right or wrong and why. We do not have to mention the government, ministers etc. So either post about the moral and legal issues and what you think of them, or about her, or Don't
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but I was late joining the party.😂

Personally I would not post whether the decision made was right or wrong.
You either come out of is as a right wing extremist nutter or a left wing sympathiser.

So for me it is no comment.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			For the sake of repeating again. You can go political if you want and join the other suspects on that. This is about what we think of the decision - right or wrong and why. We do not have to mention the government, ministers etc. So either post about the moral and legal issues and what you think of them, or about her, or Don't
		
Click to expand...

Then it would of been better if those who posted their pov didn’t name call those who disagreed or had a jib at people who are just doing their job.

I totally agree this can be discussed non-politically, but both sides should consider how they post, most know were posters political allegiances lie.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 28, 2021)

funkycoldmedina said:



			It's been a cause celebre in the right wing media, pushed by a right wing populist government and posted on here by a right wing sympathetic poster. If SILH had posted the left wing equivalent all the posters thst are saying send her packing would be calling political agenda.
The comments about wasting tax payers money are political. There's been barrel loads of tax payers money wasted in the last 12 months but that's off limits.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, because most of that is politics.

So, politics aside, it is an opinion, for example, that she should have her citizenship re-instated, be brought to the UK, to stand trial, serve her sentence if found guilty, and be allowed to go back to her family, then that is an opinion. Not politics.

See? It really isn't that hard.


----------



## PNWokingham (Feb 28, 2021)

pauldj42 said:



			Then it would of been better if those who posted their pov didn’t name call those who disagreed or had a jib at people who are just doing their job.

I totally agree this can be discussed non-politically, but both sides should consider how they post, most know were posters political allegiances lie.
		
Click to expand...

There are only the choice few who have dragged politics into this and everyone else telling them to keep it out of this debate. There was no political angle or side to this thread and nor should there be one


----------



## Ethan (Feb 28, 2021)

PieMan said:



			The way this thread is going reminds me of the 'blasphemy' scene in Life of Brian........'It's political; it's not politcal' 😉😂😂

Let's bring back Shamima AND political threads.........😉
		
Click to expand...

She's not a Jihadi, she's a very naughty girl?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			There are only the choice few who have dragged politics into this and everyone else telling them to keep it out of this debate. There was no political angle or side to this thread and nor should there be one
		
Click to expand...

You don’t see it as you sit on the same side as them.


----------



## PNWokingham (Feb 28, 2021)

pauldj42 said:



			You don’t see it as you sit on the same side as them.
		
Click to expand...

I certainly don't


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			I certainly don't
		
Click to expand...

I genuinely believe you do, you only have to follow the “likes” on here to see like minded people.


----------



## PNWokingham (Feb 28, 2021)

pauldj42 said:



			I genuinely believe you do, you only have to follow the “likes” on here to see like minded people.
		
Click to expand...

You make no sense. I was commenting on the people who are dragging politics into this, not the rest of us who are debating this issue with views for and against and having a broad range of unpolitical personal views


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			You make no sense. I was commenting on the people who are dragging politics into this, not the rest of us who are debating this issue with views for and against and having a broad range of unpolitical personal views
		
Click to expand...

I’m on about the like minded people to yourself who make comments that others on here see as political, you don’t see them as political posts as you think the same way as the poster.


----------



## AmandaJR (Feb 28, 2021)

For me it's about my moral and not political compass. I believe the two are separate. She declared herself an enemy of my country and was happy to help cause and celebrate deaths of innocent people. Morally she's in the gutter so can stay there.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

pauldj42 said:



			You don’t see it as you sit on the same side as them.
		
Click to expand...

Who's them? People with hard beliefs in strong laws - does that make others weak on laws?

I don't see it as political at all. The issue is should she be allowed back to the UK. Why is that political? The original decision might have been political, AND quite frankly I'm not interested in that aspect of it. The question remains, should she be allowed back into the UK?

I haven't a clue who would choose what, bar a few outliers who have very strong beliefs. 

I believe she should be allowed back, and should have her citizenship reinstated. Quite on what terms that should be I'll leave to the courts/authorities. She was a 15 year old kid who was groomed, and potentially a 21 year old woman who can be re-educated/un-brainwashed. Surely as a child let down by the education system, her parents and a society that can't get its house in order when it comes to stopping grooming she deserves better?

The revocation of her citizenship, bearing in mind Bangladeshi law, might be legal but I feel its immoral. I feel there's a process to go through, i.e. the courts, in terms of any illegal actions by her. Revocation of her citizenship abdicates the UK's moral responsibility to put a potential criminal through the courts.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 28, 2021)

I noticed there was a very thoughtful and balanced response from PhilTheFragger, who unless he has resigned his position is the ModFather.

Surely if this was a political thread he would have put the warning up then rather than posting in the thread?  And that post was before the political aspects were raised.

I think that's our answer as to whether or not this is a political thread or not.  As Amanda says, it's more morals.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			Who's them? People with hard beliefs in strong laws - does that make others weak on laws?

I don't see it as political at all. The issue is should she be allowed back to the UK. Why is that political? The original decision might have been political, AND quite frankly I'm not interested in that aspect of it. The question remains, should she be allowed back into the UK?

I haven't a clue who would choose what, bar a few outliers who have very strong beliefs.

I believe she should be allowed back, and should have her citizenship reinstated. Quite on what terms that should be I'll leave to the courts/authorities. She was a 15 year old kid who was groomed, and potentially a 21 year old woman who can be re-educated/un-brainwashed. Surely as a child let down by the education system, her parents and a society that can't get its house in order when it comes to stopping grooming she deserves better?

The revocation of her citizenship, bearing in mind Bangladeshi law, might be legal but I feel its immoral. I feel there's a process to go through, i.e. the courts, in terms of any illegal actions by her. Revocation of her citizenship abdicates the UK's moral responsibility to put a potential criminal through the courts.
		
Click to expand...

I’ve already said I don’t see it as political either, but some posters are immediately scrutinised over what they write as other posters previously are ignored.

Dando tells us about “bed wetters” getting upset with a point he made, yet “bed wetters” is a term given to left wing do gooders, if she’s brought back (and I disagree) we must accept she should be given a fair trial and a fair defense, instead we get Cherie Blair mentioned, despite this having nothing to do with the subject.

Nobody, but nobody says a word about either comment being political and I see both comments coming from a right sided point of view.


----------



## williamalex1 (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			Your version only applies if the parent holds Bangladeshi citizenship by acquisition, not by birth right. Your version is Jus Soli, not Jus Sanguinis.
		
Click to expand...

You forgot to add " so there  "


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

pauldj42 said:



			I’ve already said I don’t see it as political either, but some posters are immediately scrutinised over what they write as other posters previously are ignored.

Dando tells us about “bed wetters” getting upset with a point he made, yet “bed wetters” is a term given to left wing do gooders, if she’s brought back (and I disagree) we must accept she should be given a fair trial and a fair defense, instead we get Cherie Blair mentioned, despite this having nothing to do with the subject.

Nobody, but nobody says a word about either comment being political and I see both comments coming from a right sided point of view.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair, it cuts both ways as we've seen in the thread. Some see people being hard on law as the usual (right wing)suspects, whilst others think that letting her back might be more of a Cherie Blair leftie stance.

Cherie Blair is good at her job. Not sure why that has to be considered political.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			To be fair, it cuts both ways as we've seen in the thread. Some see people being hard on law as the usual (right wing)suspects, whilst others think that letting her back might be more of a Cherie Blair leftie stance.

Cherie Blair is good at her job. Not sure why that has to be considered political.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree, unfortunately some see good Barristers defending people in cases against Governments as left wing, not all, just some.


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

Why is everyone saying she was groomed? Is there proof apart from her lawyer who would say night is day. Maybe she was just a wrongun who decided that was the life she wanted


----------



## SaintHacker (Feb 28, 2021)

Blue in Munich said:



			I noticed there was a very thoughtful and balanced response from PhilTheFragger, who unless he has resigned his position* is the ModFather*.

.
		
Click to expand...

Paul Weller won't be impressed to be told Phil has taken his crown


----------



## chrisd (Feb 28, 2021)

Blue in Munich said:



			I noticed there was a very thoughtful and balanced response from PhilTheFragger, who unless he has resigned his position is the ModFather.

Surely if this was a political thread he would have put the warning up then rather than posting in the thread?  And that post was before the political aspects were raised.

I think that's our answer as to whether or not this is a political thread or not.  As Amanda says, it's more morals.
		
Click to expand...

Fragger for Prime Minister  😁😁😁😁

Oh bugger, that sounds political 😖


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

chrisd said:



			Fragger for Prime Minister  😁😁😁😁

Oh bugger, that sounds political 😖
		
Click to expand...

it sounds bloody frightening


----------



## rudebhoy (Feb 28, 2021)

pauldj42 said:



			I’ve already said I don’t see it as political either, but some posters are immediately scrutinised over what they write as other posters previously are ignored.

Dando tells us about “bed wetters” getting upset with a point he made, yet “bed wetters” is a term given to left wing do gooders, if she’s brought back (and I disagree) we must accept she should be given a fair trial and a fair defense, instead we get Cherie Blair mentioned, despite this having nothing to do with the subject.

Nobody, but nobody says a word about either comment being political and I see both comments coming from a right sided point of view.
		
Click to expand...

It's quite simple, if you belong to the 'let her rot in hell, hangings too good" school of thought, you are merely stating your own personal opinion, but if you dare to question the decision to remove her citizenship, you are a bleeding liberal bed wetter who is committing the ultimate sin of "bringing politics into it"


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			Begum's parents obtained their citizenship by birth, not descent. Therefore, Begum's parent's didn't have to register her birth at the nearest embassy or mission. However, Begum's children would have to be registered as she would have inherited by descent.
		
Click to expand...

Cheers Bri 👍

Looks like there is a lot of issues with the whole thing 

I don’t think they have even got to the stage of appealing the Citizenship issues - the current ruling was about her being allowed to return to appeal that

It seems they are denying her being allowed due to the belief she is a danger to the country - the initial appeal allowed her to return so then government then went to the Supreme Court to appeal that - I’m not sure what’s next but IMO she should be allowed to appeal the decision to remove her citizenship and it also should be given back to her but she must make her own way back and then when she does return she faces any consequences then 

It appears there are have been multiple countries who have found a way to allow the people who have been radicalised as a child bride to be reintroduced into the countries society 

For me there is one thing harming her chances - her own attitude , the lack of remorse or feeling of wrong doing on her behalf.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 28, 2021)

rudebhoy said:



			It's quite simple, if you belong to the 'let her rot in hell, hangings too good" school of thought, you are merely stating your own personal opinion, but if you dare to question the decision to remove her citizenship, you are a commie pinko who is committing the ultimate sin of "bringing politics into it" 

Click to expand...

Nope, you still don't get it. The first is an opinion, right, wrong, whatever.

The second is politics. Her citizenship has been revoked. The here's and why fores of that are irrelevant, unless you happen to be a lawyer. Questioning a decision made by the Home Secretary is politics.
Should she be allowed back, to stand in a UK court and ask for it back? That is opinion, and nothing to do with politics.

This post isn't about left or right wing, it's a post trying to point out something that to me is pretty simple. What is, or is not political.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

rudebhoy said:



			It's quite simple, if you belong to the 'let her rot in hell, hangings too good" school of thought, you are merely stating your own personal opinion, but if you dare to question the decision to remove her citizenship, you are a bleeding liberal bed wetter who is committing the ultimate sin of "bringing politics into it" 

Click to expand...

I’m certainly on the the '”let her rot in hell, hangings too good" side of the fence.👍🏻

But don’t understand why such opinions need justifying by putting others down.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 28, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Cheers Bri 👍

Looks like there is a lot of issues with the whole thing

I don’t think they have even got to the stage of appealing the Citizenship issues - the current ruling was about her being allowed to return to appeal that

It seems they are denying her being allowed due to the belief she is a danger to the country - the initial appeal allowed her to return so then government then went to the Supreme Court to appeal that - I’m not sure what’s next but IMO she should be allowed to appeal the decision to remove her citizenship and it also should be given back to her but she must make her own way back and then when she does return she faces any consequences then

It appears there are have been multiple countries who have found a way to allow the people who have been radicalised as a child bride to be reintroduced into the countries society

For me there is one thing harming her chances - her own attitude , the lack of remorse or feeling of wrong doing on her behalf.
		
Click to expand...

I am no legal expert, clearly, but if some one is, can they explain the following?

Why does she need to be in the UK, or another country, where she will be able to communicate better with her legal team at present? The issue initially, is a citizenship one. This is a point of UK law. I can't see what her personal input is going to be on this (or even if it is relevant). It either is, or is not legal to remove citizenship. This is not just about her case, but a point of law.

Once that is resolved, then her citizenship needs to established, and then any legal matters related to prosecution for potential illegality would obviously require her side of the story.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 28, 2021)

An observation, might disappoint a few, but Cherie Blair hasn't done human rights cases for a few years now.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 28, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			An observation, might disappoint a few, but Cherie Blair hasn't done human rights cases for a few years now.
		
Click to expand...

She used to be in employment law back in the day, which wouldn't be particularly useful in this case either.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Feb 28, 2021)

Why are people getting wound up by my reference to Cherie Blair? I referenced lawyers LIKE her, not necessarily her in particular. My point was that if Begum is brought back to this country for trial no doubt it would end up in the High Court and the biggest beneficiaries would be the mega expensive barristers who would milk the system of millions of pounds. Money that I personally would rather see spent on what I consider to be more worthy causes.


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Feb 28, 2021)

chrisd said:



			Fragger for Prime Minister  😁😁😁😁

Oh bugger, that sounds political 😖
		
Click to expand...

Jeez free incontinent pants for people who have had their second jab, tax relief for people with high handicaps and 120% difference in match play.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

drive4show said:



			Why are people getting wound up by my reference to Cherie Blair? I referenced lawyers LIKE her, not necessarily her in particular. My point was that if Begum is brought back to this country for trial no doubt it would end up in the High Court and the biggest beneficiaries would be the mega expensive barristers who would milk the system of millions of pounds. Money that I personally would rather see spent on what I consider to be more worthy causes.
		
Click to expand...

In all fairness, you weren’t the first to mention her, however, if she is brought back (and I for one don’t want that) then she should be given a fair trial and fair representation.

Cherie Blair is a socialist, known for being more left wing than her husband, so singling her out by you and and another, I questioned whether choosing her as an example it had any political connotations, which I accept from your first reply, didn’t from you.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 28, 2021)

drive4show said:



			Why are people getting wound up by my reference to Cherie Blair? I referenced lawyers LIKE her, not necessarily her in particular. My point was that if Begum is brought back to this country for trial no doubt it would end up in the High Court and the biggest beneficiaries would be the mega expensive barristers who would milk the system of millions of pounds. Money that I personally would rather see spent on what I consider to be more worthy causes.
		
Click to expand...

2 or 3 posters mentioned her, I can't be bothered to trawl through all 9 pages to confirm. People use her as a bogeyman and seem to dislike her whatever she does, good or bad. She hasn't practised in that field for quite a few years now so whilst she did represent Begum at some point I believe she hasn't for some time and so shouldn't be in the equation.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2021)

pauldj42 said:



			In all fairness, you weren’t the first to mention her, however, if she is brought back (and I for one don’t want that) then she should be given a fair trial and fair representation.

Cherie Blair is a socialist, known for being more left wing than her husband, so singling her out by you and and another, I questioned whether choosing her as an example it had any political connotations, which I accept from your first reply, didn’t from you.
		
Click to expand...

Horses for courses Paul. If I was up in court for something cuddly I'd want her defending me. Couldn't give a toss about her politics.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			Horses for courses Paul. If I was up in court for something cuddly I'd want her defending me. Couldn't give a toss about her politics.
		
Click to expand...

I’d be happy with anyone of her level and wouldn’t care about gender, race or political persuasion.


----------



## Dando (Feb 28, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			2 or 3 posters mentioned her, I can't be bothered to trawl through all 9 pages to confirm. People use her as a bogeyman and seem to dislike her whatever she does, good or bad. She hasn't practised in that field for quite a few years now so whilst she did represent Begum at some point I believe she hasn't for some time and so shouldn't be in the equation.
		
Click to expand...

If you think she hasn’t practiced those
fields for a few year then you’ll be mistaken


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			2 or 3 posters mentioned her, I can't be bothered to trawl through all 9 pages to confirm. People use her as a bogeyman and seem to dislike her whatever she does, good or bad. She hasn't practised in that field for quite a few years now so *whilst she did represent Begum at some point* I believe she hasn't for some time and so shouldn't be in the equation.
		
Click to expand...

No she didn’t mate! Internet rumours.

https://fullfact.org/online/shamima-begum-cherie-blair/


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 28, 2021)

My last comment was on page 2, it’s been a busy day. Suffice  to say we are nearly on page 11. Wonder how many read my link on Wikipedia. Enlightening oneself reading that would be better time spent than discussing whether it is political,  Cherie Blair or fragger for prime minister.
What I do find interesting is her not having any citizenship. She choose to join a State, the ISIS state. As far as I am aware it supersedes any countries nationality. Her choice. Her husband wanted both him and her to be repatriated into Holland. They have said that’s not happening. We are not the only country that does not want back terrorists.


----------



## spongebob59 (Jun 16, 2021)

Richard Madeley on GMB  😲


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1405057516548075521


----------



## harpo_72 (Jun 16, 2021)

spongebob59 said:



			Richard Madeley on GMB  😲


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1405057516548075521

Click to expand...

He has a point and we did not wipe out the offspring of the black shirts either … 
Hitler always said I don’t need you I need the children..


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 16, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			He has a point and we did not wipe out the offspring of the black shirts either …
Hitler always said I don’t need you I need the children..
		
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of anyone wiping her out either.


----------



## IanM (Jun 16, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I'm not aware of anyone wiping her out either.
		
Click to expand...

I guess that's ok then.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 16, 2021)

greenone said:



			She is a British citizen. It is illegal under international law to make someone stateless.
		
Click to expand...

She is also, apparently, a Bangladeshi citizen, so would not be stateless.
That (important) aspect of the case - which was never part of the appeals process - at least as far as I've seen, but could be wrong - this appeal (to the SC) was on the basis of whether the government, via a Minister, had the right to do what it did and the SC clearly believed that it did! Whether it was the 'right' thing to do is beside the point, as this process has solely been about whether the Government's action was 'lawful', not about whether it was 'right'!


----------



## GuyInLyon (Jun 16, 2021)

Foxholer said:



			She is also, apparently, a Bangladeshi citizen, so would not be stateless.
		
Click to expand...

Bangladesh has repeatedly said that she is not a Bangladeshi citizen, so she would be stateless.


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 16, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			Bangladesh has repeatedly said that she is not a Bangladeshi citizen, so she would be stateless.
		
Click to expand...

See post #29. I also posted subsequent to that with more detail on Bangladeshi law. If she wants to fight being stateless, maybe her argument is also with Bangladesh. The U.K. didn’t make her stateless, Bangladesh did.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 16, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			Bangladesh has repeatedly said that she is not a Bangladeshi citizen, so she would be stateless.
		
Click to expand...

If that really was the case, then I'm certain that argument would have been used during the legal process!
As it wasn't, then I believe it's legitimate to presume that she IS (entitled to be) a Bangladeshi citizen, so would not be stateless!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 16, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			Bangladesh has repeatedly said that she is not a Bangladeshi citizen, so she would be stateless.
		
Click to expand...

Just because they say it doesn't mean it's correct.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 16, 2021)

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....-begum-insists-just-dumb-kid-joined-isil/amp/

She certainly seems to be changing or is it just growing up


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 16, 2021)

Had Bangladesh got in first then we could not have stripped her citizenship. Fast moving from the UK govt.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 16, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....-begum-insists-just-dumb-kid-joined-isil/amp/

She certainly seems to be changing or is it just growing up
		
Click to expand...

Or wising up.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 16, 2021)

IanM said:



			I guess that's ok then.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 16, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Or wising up.
		
Click to expand...

All part of growing is it not, part of maturing into an adult and realising your mistakes you made as a child


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 16, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			All part of growing is it not, part of maturing into an adult and realising your mistakes you made as a child
		
Click to expand...

Yes, if that's the real objective.  I have a strong suspicion in this case it's more a matter of saying anything to get you off the hook.


----------



## OntheteeGavin (Jun 16, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			All part of growing is it not, part of maturing into an adult and realising your mistakes you made as a child
		
Click to expand...

At her age my mistake was liking Bros. Not travelling to a war zone...


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jun 16, 2021)

OntheteeGavin said:



			At her age my mistake was liking Bros. Not travelling to a war zone...
		
Click to expand...

Liking Bros at any age is a mistake.


----------



## Dando (Jun 16, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....-begum-insists-just-dumb-kid-joined-isil/amp/

She certainly seems to be changing or is it just growing up
		
Click to expand...

Do you claim your winnings for the Nigerian lottery?


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 16, 2021)

I wonder if she would be so desperate if Isis had won? Just asking…


----------



## Voyager EMH (Jun 17, 2021)

There is a political aspect, but we can easily avoid that discussion. There is a legal aspect and a moral aspect.
Legally, she is not a UK citizen. Home secretary did not act wrongly.
If Bangladesh do not accept her, there are other countries she could approach or she could mount her legal campaign to have Bangladeshi citizenship.
The UK have made it very clear what the legal position is as far as the UK is concerned.
Morally, she is OUT OUT OUT of the UK in my view. This is the aspect where they may be differing opinions.


----------



## rudebhoy (Jun 17, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			There is a political aspect, but we can easily avoid that discussion. There is a legal aspect and a moral aspect.
Legally, she is not a UK citizen. *Home secretary did not act wrongly.*
If Bangladesh do not accept her, there are other countries she could approach or she could mount her legal campaign to have Bangladeshi citizenship.
The UK have made it very clear what the legal position is as far as the UK is concerned.
Morally, she is OUT OUT OUT of the UK in my view. This is the aspect where they may be differing opinions.
		
Click to expand...


Has that been established? My understanding is she has appealed against it, and the appeal has still to be heard.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 17, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			There is a political aspect, but we can easily avoid that discussion. There is a legal aspect and a moral aspect.
Legally, she is not a UK citizen. Home secretary did not act wrongly.
If Bangladesh do not accept her, there are other countries she could approach or she could mount her legal campaign to have Bangladeshi citizenship.
The UK have made it very clear what the legal position is as far as the UK is concerned.
Morally, she is OUT OUT OUT of the UK in my view. This is the aspect where they may be differing opinions.
		
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that a human rights appeal court will disagree and that the removal of her UK citizenship was unlawful and left her stateless mainly because she was born in the UK and she will be allowed to re enter the UK. She can then be charged with any crimes they deem she has committed. The removal of her UK Citizenship was more about satisfying the public as opposed to any perceived threat she is. Her attitude appears to change over the last couple of years and maybe losing her three children and realities of what was happening hit home. It won’t be long before she is back in the UK imo


----------



## rudebhoy (Jun 17, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I* have a feeling that a human rights appeal court will disagree and that the removal of her UK citizenship was unlawful and left her stateless mainly because she was born in the UK and she will be allowed to re enter the UK. She can then be charged with any crimes they deem she has committed. *The removal of her UK Citizenship was more about satisfying the public as opposed to any perceived threat she is. Her attitude appears to change over the last couple of years and maybe losing her three children and realities of what was happening hit home. It won’t be long before she is back in the UK imo
		
Click to expand...

And that's the right way to deal with it IMO. Imagine if someone came over here from Iran or Iraq (or wherever), were found to be plotting against us, then when they got arrested, their country of birth said we are revoking their citizenship, they can stay in the UK for the rest of their lives? can just imagine the moral outrage that would cause!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jun 17, 2021)

Nothing has changed imo, Let her rot in hell, her and anyone else who supports terrorists that kill innocent women and children.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jun 17, 2021)

I went to my first military funeral yesterday. I hope it’s the last. He committed suicide due to ptsd. It was due to things he saw in Afghan. Done by people that this woman supported. She should never set foot on this country’s soil again.


----------



## Beezerk (Jun 17, 2021)

pauldj42 said:



			Nothing has changed imo, Let her rot in hell, her and anyone else who supports terrorists that kill innocent women and children.
		
Click to expand...

I'm with this, re Phil's comment about her citizenship being removed to please the public, I would sincerely hope it was to stop another potential Manchester Arena, London Underground etc etc etc bomber entering the country.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 17, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			I'm with this, re Phil's comment about her citizenship being removed to please the public, I would sincerely hope it was to stop another potential Manchester Arena, London Underground etc etc etc bomber entering the country.
		
Click to expand...

I could understand that theory if there was any evidence at all of her taking part in any terrorist activity at all - and so far there isn’t 

We have terrorists in jail etc so if they do suspect then allow to her arrive then arrest her and charge her etc 

I don’t think the whole thing is black and white hence why I can see her winning her appeal against what the Home Secretary has done


----------



## Beezerk (Jun 17, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I could understand that theory if there was any evidence at all of her taking part in any terrorist activity at all - and so far there isn’t

We have terrorists in jail etc so if they do suspect then allow to her arrive then arrest her and charge her etc

I don’t think the whole thing is black and white hence why I can see her winning her appeal against what the Home Secretary has done
		
Click to expand...

She gladly went over there to join Isis and be doctrinated into their beliefs, that for me is good enough reason to believe she wouldn't hesitate to set off a rucksack full of bombs in a crowded market. As already mentioned, the fact they got defeated means she maybe never got as deep into it as she anticipated, we don't know the full extent of what she did and didn't do out there, nor do we know the full extent of her activities when she was here in the UK, group of girls just suddenly decide one day to jump ship and join Isis? Something smells fishy with that.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jun 17, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			She gladly went over there to join Isis and be doctrinated into their beliefs, that for me is good enough reason to believe she wouldn't hesitate to set off a rucksack full of bombs in a crowded market. As already mentioned, the fact they got defeated means she maybe never got as deep into it as she anticipated, we don't know the full extent of what she did and didn't do out there, nor do we know the full extent of her activities when she was here in the UK, group of girls just suddenly decide one day to jump ship and join Isis? Something smells fishy with that.
		
Click to expand...

She supported them, married one of them, bred with one of them. That’s more than enough for me. 
Just because we don’t have her fingerprint on a weapon makes no odds imo, she’s one of them and they all should be exterminated.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 17, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I could understand that theory if there was any evidence at all of her taking part in any terrorist activity at all - and so far there isn’t

We have terrorists in jail etc so if they do suspect then allow to her arrive then arrest her and charge her etc

I don’t think the whole thing is black and white hence why I can see her winning her appeal against what the Home Secretary has done
		
Click to expand...

She's one of them by association.  We don't want her back in our society or pay for her to stay in our prisons.   I do hope we take the same line with all of them though.


----------



## rudebhoy (Jun 17, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			She's one of them by association.  We don't want her back in our society or pay for her to stay in our prisons.  * I do hope we take the same line with all of them though*.
		
Click to expand...

We don't. Around 900 UK citizens travelled to Syria to join ISIS. As of last November, 400 of them had returned to the UK.


----------



## PNWokingham (Jun 17, 2021)

rudebhoy said:



			We don't. Around 900 UK citizens travelled to Syria to join ISIS. As of last November, 400 of them had returned to the UK.
		
Click to expand...

and with luck there will be a lot less than the missing 500 left


----------



## rudebhoy (Jun 17, 2021)

PNWokingham said:



			and with luck there will be a lot less than the missing 500 left
		
Click to expand...

20% of those who went over copped it, the rest are in jail.


----------



## RichA (Jun 17, 2021)

pauldj42 said:



			She supported them, married one of them, bred with one of them. That’s more than enough for me.
*Just because we don’t have her fingerprint on a weapon makes no odds imo, she’s one of them and they all should be exterminated.*

Click to expand...

I have no opinion on this case, as I haven't read all the facts, but that statement is the kind of reasoning that the terrorists use to justify killing anyone whose taxes have paid for what they consider to be assaults on their countries. Dangerous ground.


----------



## GuyInLyon (Jun 17, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Just because they say it doesn't mean it's correct.
		
Click to expand...

If the government of Bangladesh says that she isn't a citizen, then she's not a Bangladeshi citizen.
BBC News says, "Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said Ms Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country."


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 17, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			If the government of Bangladesh says that she isn't a citizen, then she's not a Bangladeshi citizen.
BBC News says, "Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said Ms Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country."
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way. Otherwise you would not be arguing that we could not simply do the same. They don't want her, don't blame them, but it is in the realms of technicalities now. It is where the legal people make money.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 17, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			If the government of Bangladesh says that she isn't a citizen, then she's not a Bangladeshi citizen.
BBC News says, "Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said Ms Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country."
		
Click to expand...

There was something that Hobbit posted that means because her parents were Bangladesh Citizens she was giving Citizenship by birth which is the reason why the UK believe they can remove her UK Citizenship because she wouldn’t be left stateless 

Then Bangladesh says she isn’t a Citizen because she didn’t ever claim it and didn’t ever have a Bangladesh passport so she can’t go there 

If the appeal court sides with Bangladesh ( and I think they will ) then the UK won’t be able to remove her citizenship because that will leave her stateless , either way the lawyers are going to make a mint from this


----------



## Don Barzini (Jun 17, 2021)

Fairly sure she'll end up back here at some stage.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 17, 2021)

Don Barzini said:



			Fairly sure she'll end up back here at some stage.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are probably right.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Jun 17, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Unfortunately you are probably right.
		
Click to expand...

She will be a long time in prison if she does come here. And she will be in isolation to protect her from other prisoners. All paid for by the taxpayers.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jun 17, 2021)

My thoughts on this are known. But I would be interested to know peoples thoughts on where a line should be drawn on when folk should be allowed back to the UK. Come to that matter even deported.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jun 17, 2021)

RichA said:



			I have no opinion on this case, as I haven't read all the facts, but that statement is the kind of reasoning that the terrorists use to justify killing anyone whose taxes have paid for what they consider to be assaults on their countries. Dangerous ground.
		
Click to expand...

We didn’t start it, no point taking a knife to a gunfight imo.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 17, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			She will be a long time in prison if she does come here. And she will be in isolation to protect her from other prisoners. All paid for by the taxpayers.
		
Click to expand...

Will depend on what crime she is charged with - if she has committed no terrorist acts it’s going to be hard to charge her at that level


----------



## RichA (Jun 17, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			She will be a long time in prison if she does come here. And she will be in isolation to protect her from other prisoners. All paid for by the taxpayers.
		
Click to expand...

Will she though? Is there the possibility that the UK are so keen to keep her away because there isn't that much actual court usable evidence against her. Lots of information, but how much actual evidence. Absolutely not defending her - just wonder what they've got that can be put in front of a jury.

Edit: LiverpoolPhil has the fastest fingers.


----------



## backwoodsman (Jun 17, 2021)

I'll start by saying I dont want her back. She was young but she made her bed and she should lie on it.  But ...

As far as I have read, she was born a British citizen. (If she wasn't,  I  don't  see how the UK could strip her of it?).. And being "entitled" to Bangladeshi citizenship is not the same as "having" Bangladeshi citizenship. So if the Bangladeshis have not yet given her citizenship (and indeed, don't want her), and her UK citizenship has been removed, I'm not sure how she's not stateless? But I'm not a lawyer..

And while she is reported as holding extreme and abhorent views (I say that as I dont personally know her) , that is hardly exclusive and she is not alone. Which really seems to leave only whether she has actually committed any  "terrorist related" crime that the UK can charge her with  - should she come back that is?

To me, it all adds up to being a mess.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 17, 2021)

backwoodsman said:



			I'll start by saying I dont want her back. She was young but she made her bed and she should lie on it.  But ...

As far as I have read, she was born a British citizen. (If she wasn't,  I  don't  see how the UK could strip her of it?).. And being "entitled" to Bangladeshi citizenship is not the same as "having" Bangladeshi citizenship. So if the Bangladeshis have not yet given her citizenship (and indeed, don't want her), and her UK citizenship has been removed, I'm not sure how she's not stateless? But I'm not a lawyer..

And while she is reported as holding extreme and abhorent views (I say that as I dont personally know her) , that is hardly exclusive and she is not alone. Which really seems to leave only whether she has actually committed any  "terrorist related" crime that the UK can charge her with  - should she come back that is?

To me, it all adds up to being a mess.
		
Click to expand...

Becoming a member of ISIS must be an offence.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jun 17, 2021)

If someone willingly joins a state ( ISIS ). There not stateless. 
Come what may, backwoodsmans last sentence sums it up perfectly ☹️


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 17, 2021)

It's tough on her but She needs to be an example to deter others from contemplating similar action in the future.

ISIS is an outfit that carried out some of the most despicable acts of murder and mutilation.  Anyone from this Nation who joins it absolutely needs keeping out of the country.   It sickens me the thought of this person coming back and I despair at anyone suggesting she should.


----------



## Kellfire (Jun 17, 2021)

Tashyboy said:



			If someone willingly joins a state ( ISIS ). There not stateless. 
Come what may, backwoodsmans last sentence sums it up perfectly ☹️
		
Click to expand...

ISIS isn’t a recognised state.


----------



## Val (Jun 17, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			It's tough on her but She needs to be an example to deter others from contemplating similar action in the future.

ISIS is an outfit that carried out some of the most despicable acts of murder and mutilation.  Anyone from this Nation who joins it absolutely needs keeping out of the country.   It sickens me the thought of this person coming back and I despair at anyone suggesting she should.
		
Click to expand...

Not often I agree with you but I'm 100% with this statement


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 17, 2021)

Val said:



			Not often I agree with you but I'm 100% with this statement
		
Click to expand...

Oh Val!  And I thought we were getting on so well these days 🙂


----------



## Tashyboy (Jun 17, 2021)

If someone willingly joins a state ( ISIS ). There not stateless. 
Come what may, backwoodsmans last sentence sums it up perfectly ☹️


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 17, 2021)

backwoodsman said:



			I'll start by saying I dont want her back. She was young but she made her bed and she should lie on it.  But ...

As far as I have read, she was born a British citizen. (If she wasn't,  I  don't  see how the UK could strip her of it?).. And being "entitled" to Bangladeshi citizenship is not the same as "having" Bangladeshi citizenship. So if the Bangladeshis have not yet given her citizenship (and indeed, don't want her), and her UK citizenship has been removed, I'm not sure how she's not stateless? But I'm not a lawyer..

And while she is reported as holding extreme and abhorent views (I say that as I dont personally know her) , that is hardly exclusive and she is not alone. Which really seems to leave only whether she has actually committed any  "terrorist related" crime that the UK can charge her with  - should she come back that is?

To me, it all adds up to being a mess.
		
Click to expand...

I think that is what sums it up 

It is a mess 

ISIS have carried out horrific attacks over their time in response to the occupation of various Middle East countries - it’s a vast never ending circle of hatred and death which will prob still continue there and in other places as we see in Jerusalem currently. 

Many of those organisations will have sympathisers etc but currently having belief isn’t a crime - there are no doubt many people who believe that all “…..insert any race or religion” should die - but it’s just a belief - carry out the action and that’s a different ball game 

She had a belief ( groomed or not ) - she followed that belief , it cost her badly. If she hasn’t carried out any terrorist attack then it’s hard to see what crime she could be charged against hence why I think the lawyers know it’s an easy case for them - having a belief regardless of who repugnant that belief is currently isnt a crime. 

And ISIS isn’t a recognised state by international law so can’t use the old “she has a state” 

It’s a very complex situation that I expect will unravel soon enough with her back in the UK - what live she lives then will be dependent on her actions before and after


----------



## Val (Jun 17, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Oh Val!  And I thought we were getting on so well these days 🙂
		
Click to expand...

These days yes 🤣


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jun 17, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If she hasn’t carried out any terrorist attack then it’s hard to see what crime she could be charged against
		
Click to expand...

Isn't joining a banned/ terrorist organisation a crime?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 17, 2021)

ColchesterFC said:



			Isn't joining a banned/ terrorist organisation a crime?
		
Click to expand...

I suspect it will be down to what the lawyers can figure out in regards what’s classed a “joining a terrorist organisation” - I guess unless there is some official “membership” or some ceremony or something then a lawyer will find a loophole . Like I said I don’t think the whole thing is black and white - but if they believe a crime has been committed by her then charged her and then through the courts etc to and punished.


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 17, 2021)

ColchesterFC said:



			Isn't joining a banned/ terrorist organisation a crime?
		
Click to expand...

ISIS is/was a proscribed organisation, and she could be charged with membership. The sentencing guidelines/matrix is fairly clear. However, defining where she fitted into the hierarchy will be more difficult.

Sentence for being a member starts at 2 years and goes up or down depending on involvement. It could be reduced to a high level community order, or it could be increased to 4 years custody.

If she was an active member, for example the stories of her being an enforcer in the morality police, the sentence starts at 5 years but, again, can be mitigated or increased to a max of 7 years.

The higher sentences are for prominent members. Rule that one out.

I’d expect her defence, as per the guidelines, will include age on entry, grooming, exploitation, coercion and intimidation. That’s all assuming she does get back to the U.K. and wins the reinstatement of her citizenship.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 17, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I suspect it will be down to what the lawyers can figure out in regards what’s classed a “joining a terrorist organisation” - I guess unless there is some official “membership” or some ceremony or something then a lawyer will find a loophole . Like I said I don’t think the whole thing is black and white - but if they believe a crime has been committed by her then charged her and then through the courts etc to and punished.
		
Click to expand...

Would you be content for her to come back?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 17, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Would you be content for her to come back?
		
Click to expand...

I don’t expect anyone to be “content” about her - some will be outraged, some will think she deserves to dealt with correctly by the courts for her actions what ever they might be and some won’t be bothered either way - I’ll Prob be in the last camp


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 18, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			ISIS is/was a proscribed organisation, and she could be charged with membership. The sentencing guidelines/matrix is fairly clear. However, defining where she fitted into the hierarchy will be more difficult.

Sentence for being a member starts at 2 years and goes up or down depending on involvement. It could be reduced to a high level community order, or it could be increased to 4 years custody.

If she was an active member, for example the stories of her being an enforcer in the morality police, the sentence starts at 5 years but, again, can be mitigated or increased to a max of 7 years.

The higher sentences are for prominent members. Rule that one out.

I’d expect her defence, as per the guidelines, will include age on entry, grooming, exploitation, coercion and intimidation. That’s all assuming she does get back to the U.K. and wins the reinstatement of her citizenship.
		
Click to expand...

If she does get sentenced I'd want her to get the maximum.  Life in Swindon.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Jun 18, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			If she does get sentenced I'd want her to get the maximum.  Life in Swindon.
		
Click to expand...

Ahem, Broome Manor is one of the best Pay-and-Plays in the country. 
Community service would be good for her though - directing traffic standing at the centre of the Magic Roundabout 6 days a week.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 18, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			If she does get sentenced I'd want her to get the maximum.  Life in Swindon.
		
Click to expand...

Blimey - I didn’t she was that bad , she would prob prefer to stay in the refugee camp that have to live in Swindon


----------



## Junior (Jun 18, 2021)

Let's say she comes back to the UK.   Gets sentenced for 4 years, serves 2 and is then released.   What then? 

Maybe she becomes totally reformed and sets an amazing example of our justice system, or, maybe due to the inevitable hatred directed towards her and the mental scarring of the past 10 years of her life, she decides to end it all in a very crowded area.   Sadly, I know where my money is.  

This is a political nightmare but she should be left where she is.


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 18, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Blimey - I didn’t she was that bad , she would prob prefer to stay in the refugee camp that have to live in Swindon
		
Click to expand...

To be fair, Swindon is a lovely place to leave.

There was a very nasty factory fire there earlier this year. It caused £3m worth of improvements.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Jun 18, 2021)

Junior said:



_Let's say she comes back to the UK.   Gets sentenced for 4 years, serves 2 and is then released.   What then?_

I believe she would be given a new identity and be closely monitored for her protection and for the protection of others. Even shipped abroad if possible eg New Zealand or Canada.

_Maybe she becomes totally reformed and sets an amazing example of our justice system, or, maybe due to the inevitable hatred directed towards her and the mental scarring of the past 10 years of her life, she decides to end it all in a very crowded area.   Sadly, I know where my money is. _

Unlikely. No terrorist organisation will have her because she will be closely monitored and therefore a risk to their own exposure. Also she is a failure in that respect and undesirable. Acting alone to commit a violent act is a possibility but she would have to be very clever not to be suspected beforehand and I don't think she is very clever (sheep mentality). Merely making preparations to commit a violent act would put her back in prison. 

_This is a political nightmare but *she should be left where she is*_*.*

Click to expand...

..._ I hope so._


----------



## GuyInLyon (Jun 18, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			It doesn't work that way. Otherwise you would not be arguing that we could not simply do the same. They don't want her, don't blame them, but it is in the realms of technicalities now. It is where the legal people make money.
		
Click to expand...

It appears that she definitely had UK citizenship, and that it was removed on the "strength" of the UK's claim that she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, not that she had it, just that she was eligible.
Bangladesh says she isn't and it really up to them whether she gets it or not.
If Bangladesh says not there's no way for the UK to force it to give her citizenship.
As the UK has signed on to treaties that promise not to make someone stateless it looks as though, once this is all over, she'll have  her UK citizenship returned.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Jun 18, 2021)

She is our problem really.
Born and brought up here.
If we make her stateless ,unlawful?
We have no moral ground to ever deport a foreign criminal.

She was aiding and abetting a terror network ,I am sure our clever CPS can come up with a sutible charge in court.
But I have very little trust in our criminal justice system atm.
Terrorists let out after half the sentence to kill people in London .
Terror related sentences should not be halved but served in full and made longer.


----------



## Dando (Jun 18, 2021)

she'll be on "I'm a celebrity" by the end of the year


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 18, 2021)

Dando said:



			she'll be on "I'm a celebrity" by the end of the year
		
Click to expand...

Or a BBC Middle East News Correspondent.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 18, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			It appears that she definitely had UK citizenship, and that it was removed on the "strength" of the UK's claim that she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, not that she had it, just that she was eligible.
Bangladesh says she isn't and it really up to them whether she gets it or not.
If Bangladesh says not there's no way for the UK to force it to give her citizenship.
As the UK has signed on to treaties that promise not to make someone stateless it looks as though, once this is all over, she'll have  her UK citizenship returned.
		
Click to expand...

No one disputes that she had UK citizenship but at this point the courts agree with the UK in their actions. That may change, it may not. Who knows when it comes to legal matters.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 18, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			Ahem, Broome Manor is one of the best Pay-and-Plays in the country.
Community service would be good for her though - directing traffic standing at the centre of the Magic Roundabout 6 days a week.
		
Click to expand...

I think the Magic Roundabout was designed to stop people leaving. I knew a bloke who was a rear gunner on a Taxi in Toothill.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Jun 18, 2021)

My brother lived in Swindon for 3 years.................................then emigrated to Australia.

When he applied for a visa at the Australian embassy they asked whether he had a criminal record. He replied, "I didn't realise you still needed one."


----------



## GuyInLyon (Jun 19, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			...at this point the courts agree with the UK in their actions...
		
Click to expand...

Bangladeshi courts (who would seem to have  the final say) or just UK courts?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 19, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			Bangladeshi courts (who would seem to have  the final say) or just UK courts?
		
Click to expand...

The Supreme court in the UK rejected her appeal. I don't think we are part of the European system any more so I don't know where she goes to next.


----------



## rudebhoy (Jun 19, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The Supreme court in the UK rejected her appeal. I don't think we are part of the European system any more so I don't know where she goes to next.
		
Click to expand...

Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) - hearing currently underway

https://news.sky.com/story/shamima-...e-was-trafficking-victim-court-hears-12335862


----------



## Beezerk (Jun 19, 2021)

rudebhoy said:



			Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) - hearing currently underway

https://news.sky.com/story/shamima-...e-was-trafficking-victim-court-hears-12335862

Click to expand...

Trafficking? 
WTF!


----------



## IanM (Jun 19, 2021)

Save everyone the bother of further discussion

1) If you think she's done *nothing* wrong - you are a lefty snowflake and possibly even a vegan! 

2) If you think she has done *something* wrong - you are a racist bigot and might even play golf in long socks. 

Being young and impressionable is no defence....if you play cricket, but it might be ok for support of Terror Groups!


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jun 19, 2021)

IanM said:



			Save everyone the bother of further discussion

1) If you think she's done *nothing* wrong - you are a lefty snowflake and possibly even a vegan!

2) If you think she has done *something* wrong - you are a racist bigot and might even play golf in long socks.

Being young and impressionable is no defence....if you play cricket, but it might be ok for support of Terror Groups!  

Click to expand...

Oh…… shall I close the thread then? 🤭


----------



## Lilyhawk (Jun 19, 2021)

IanM said:



			Save everyone the bother of further discussion

1) If you think she's done *nothing* wrong - you are a lefty snowflake and possibly even a vegan!

2) If you think she has done *something* wrong - you are a racist bigot and might even play golf in long socks.

Being young and impressionable is no defence....if you play cricket, but it might be ok for support of Terror Groups!  

Click to expand...

You forgot one thing for alternative 1. They like to be referred to as they/them.


----------



## IanM (Jun 19, 2021)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Oh…… shall I close the thread then? 🤭
		
Click to expand...

Go on Fraggers.........you know you'll be locking it at some point.    Someone will go full ranty-pants soon enough!  



Lilyhawk said:



			You forgot one thing for alternative 1. They like to be referred to as they/them.
		
Click to expand...

And doubtless, several other possible alternatives for number 2!


Maybe my recent experience about pronouns is one for another thread.


----------



## Dando (Jun 19, 2021)

IanM said:



			Go on Fraggers.........you know you'll be locking it at some point.    Someone will go full ranty-pants soon enough!  



And doubtless, several other possible alternatives for number 2!


Maybe my recent experience about pronouns is one for another thread.
		
Click to expand...

Don’t get me going on pronouns. My daughter had decided they are non binary and have changed their name


----------



## Ethan (Jun 19, 2021)

In my opinion, the UK should let her return and:

1. Imprison her if she has been convicted of any crimes
2. Prosecute her if they think she has committed any crimes for which she has not been tried
3. Let her back into society but surveil her if they think she may be a serious risk
4. Let her back into society and leave her be if they don't think she is a serious risk


----------



## Imurg (Jun 19, 2021)

Ethan said:



			In my opinion, the UK should let her return and:

1. Imprison her if she has been convicted of any crimes
2. Prosecute her if they think she has committed any crimes for which she has not been tried
3. Let her back into society but surveil her if they think she may be a serious risk
4. Let her back into society and leave her be if they don't think she is a serious risk
		
Click to expand...

Ref..#4
Do you see a possibility of her meeting, shall we say, a sticky end if she's let loose and not watched..?
Does she need to be under surveillance for her own safety?


----------



## RichA (Jun 19, 2021)

IanM said:



			Save everyone the bother of further discussion

1) If you think she's done *nothing* wrong - you are a lefty snowflake and possibly even a vegan!

2) If you think she has done *something* wrong - you are a racist bigot and might even play golf in long socks.

Being young and impressionable is no defence....if you play cricket, but it might be ok for support of Terror Groups!  

Click to expand...

Or a third option, if you _really_ don't like arguments...
Nobody reading this forum knows all the evidence. The commission get to hear the secret stuff, know the relevant law and will make a decision based on the actual evidence rather than guesswork based on what the media have published.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 19, 2021)

Imurg said:



			Ref..#4
Do you see a possibility of her meeting, shall we say, a sticky end if she's let loose and not watched..?
Does she need to be under surveillance for her own safety?
		
Click to expand...

Prob one of the most realistic ends as well - if she did come back and was free then I suspect she would be placed somewhere in the UK where the risk of that would be as low as possible- you would hope that someone wouldn’t carry out any sort of retribution


----------



## KenL (Jun 19, 2021)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Oh…… shall I close the thread then? 🤭
		
Click to expand...

No you should not, even if it is a political thread!


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jun 19, 2021)

KenL said:



			No you should not, even if it is a political thread!
		
Click to expand...

It was a light hearted throwaway comment Ken

But if it crosses the line ………..


----------



## Beezerk (Jun 19, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Prob one of the most realistic ends as well - if she did come back and was free then I suspect she would be placed somewhere in the UK where the risk of that would be as low as possible- you would hope that someone wouldn’t carry out any sort of retribution
		
Click to expand...

Send her up to Scotland 😬😂


----------



## KenL (Jun 19, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			Send her up to Scotland 😬😂
		
Click to expand...

She'd be fine here. Nice house, plenty cash and everything for free. 🙄


----------



## KenL (Jun 19, 2021)

Imurg said:



			Ref..#4
Do you see a possibility of her meeting, shall we say, a sticky end if she's let loose and not watched..?
Does she need to be under surveillance for her own safety?
		
Click to expand...

No, I don't.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jun 19, 2021)

Ethan said:



			In my opinion, *the UK should let her return and*:

1.* Imprison her if she has been convicted of any crimes*
2. Prosecute her if they think she has committed any crimes for which she has not been tried
3. Let her back into society but surveil her if they think she may be a serious risk
4. Let her back into society and leave her be if they don't think she is a serious risk
		
Click to expand...

If she's committed crimes then they will have been in Syria, aside from possibly joining a banned/terrorist organisation. Shouldn't she be prosecuted under Syrian law where the offences took place? And then if she is convicted and serves her sentence there she should return to the UK to be prosecuted for any crimes under UK law.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 19, 2021)

Ethan said:



			In my opinion, the UK should let her return and:

1. Imprison her if she has been convicted of any crimes
2. Prosecute her if they think she has committed any crimes for which she has not been tried
3. Let her back into society but surveil her if they think she may be a serious risk
4. Let her back into society and leave her be if they don't think she is a serious risk
		
Click to expand...

Why should the UK have to cover the cost of her returning and any subsequent imprisonment.  She made her decision to be a part of an organisation who created genocide, we don't need that type of person here.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 19, 2021)

Ethan said:



			In my opinion, the UK should let her return and:

1. Imprison her if she has been convicted of any crimes
2. Prosecute her if they think she has committed any crimes for which she has not been tried
3. Let her back into society but surveil her if they think she may be a serious risk
4. Let her back into society and leave her be if they don't think she is a serious risk
		
Click to expand...

Option 3 is staggeringly expensive and labour intensive. Lord knows who many people are involved in surveillance right now.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 19, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Why should the UK have to cover the cost of her returning and any subsequent imprisonment.  She made her decision to be a part of an organisation who created genocide, we don't need that type of person here.
		
Click to expand...

If she is allowed to return there is no doubt one of the red tops will pay for her to return 



Lord Tyrion said:



			Option 3 is staggeringly expensive and labour intensive. Lord knows who many people are involved in surveillance right now.
		
Click to expand...

Option 3 is already carried out on no doubt hundreds of people around the country already


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 19, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Option 3 is already carried out on no doubt hundreds of people around the country already[/QUOQUOTE
Absolutely. You wouldn't want to add to the cost and labour burden unless you had to though.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 19, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If she is allowed to return there is no doubt one of the red tops will pay for her to return
		
Click to expand...

Will they pay for her Prison costs. Not a chance.

I thought it was the Red Tops that were suggesting she never comes back.  More likely to be the Guardian.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 19, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Will they pay for her Prison costs. Not a chance.

I thought it was the Red Tops that were suggesting she never comes back.  More likely to be the Guardian.
		
Click to expand...

That’s the justice system - prison costs come from the government. 

And there is no doubt that red tops will trip over themselves to “get the story” - Daily Mail will prob win


----------



## Ethan (Jun 19, 2021)

ColchesterFC said:



			If she's committed crimes then they will have been in Syria, aside from possibly joining a banned/terrorist organisation. Shouldn't she be prosecuted under Syrian law where the offences took place? And then if she is convicted and serves her sentence there she should return to the UK to be prosecuted for any crimes under UK law.
		
Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



			Why should the UK have to cover the cost of her returning and any subsequent imprisonment.  She made her decision to be a part of an organisation who created genocide, we don't need that type of person here.
		
Click to expand...

Crimes under UK law.


----------



## GuyInLyon (Jun 20, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The Supreme court in the UK rejected her appeal. I don't think we are part of the European system any more so I don't know where she goes to next.
		
Click to expand...

Probably the European Court of Human Rights. That's a non-EU body and the UK was one of the original treaty signers.

Now this is funny...


----------



## GuyInLyon (Jun 20, 2021)

Imurg said:



			Ref..#4
Do you see a possibility of her meeting, shall we say, a sticky end if she's let loose and not watched..?
Does she need to be under surveillance for her own safety?
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure that she would be followed and surveilled by photographers and reporters from the British tabloids, 24/7.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 20, 2021)

GuyInLyon said:



			I'm sure that she would be followed and surveilled by photographers and reporters from the British tabloids, 24/7.
		
Click to expand...

Probably best she stays away then.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 20, 2021)




----------

