FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Shamima Begum
Shamima Begum
Jump to: Newest in thread
Reports that her appeal against the English has failed inthe courts and she is now stateless. If she travels across the English Channel as a refugee and claims asylum them could she be back?
It's all over the news |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *angzMan 6 weeks ago
Manchester, London & sometimes Newcastle |
"Reports that her appeal against the English has failed inthe courts and she is now stateless. If she travels across the English Channel as a refugee and claims asylum them could she be back?
It's all over the news"
She's appealing against the English? Lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
"
Is it not a crime to join a terrorist organisation already? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
Is it not a crime to join a terrorist organisation already? "
Hence she should be charged and tried accordingly  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Reports that her appeal against the English has failed inthe courts and she is now stateless. If she travels across the English Channel as a refugee and claims asylum them could she be back?
It's all over the news
She's appealing against the English? Lol "
Yes but she lost this one..
More to come maybe |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
Is it not a crime to join a terrorist organisation already? "
Well this government will say that any protester is a terrorist it seems |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
Is it not a crime to join a terrorist organisation already?
Well this government will say that any protester is a terrorist it seems"
Let’s not get political, Tom. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
Is it not a crime to join a terrorist organisation already?
Hence she should be charged and tried accordingly "
I think they’ve got enough on her to bring her back and bang her up for a long time. Regardless of the circumstances, there are consequences to her actions and she should be held accountable for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 6 weeks ago
|
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
Is it not a crime to join a terrorist organisation already?
Hence she should be charged and tried accordingly
I think they’ve got enough on her to bring her back and bang her up for a long time. Regardless of the circumstances, there are consequences to her actions and she should be held accountable for them. "
Exactly this! She should be brought back, by stripping her of her nationality you open up a whole box of worms, with setting precedence for the future. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
"
Absolutely disagree with you. She knew what she was getting into at the time- her decision, keep her out- weve enough problems in this country |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eepmekeenWoman 6 weeks ago
liverpool/Manchester |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
"
Why waste taxpayers money on her?.
No. She made her choice years ago. Let her rot wherever she is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
Absolutely disagree with you. She knew what she was getting into at the time- her decision, keep her out- weve enough problems in this country "
Does doing something illegal make you less British? Does being born, raised and educated here suddenly become irrelevant to her Britishness? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I dont understand how or why someone is stripped of citizenship for joining a banned organisation abroad as a child, when we had adults doing it here in our own soil, openly travelling back and forth from trainings camps, for decades and didn't even arrest them .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
Absolutely disagree with you. She knew what she was getting into at the time- her decision, keep her out- weve enough problems in this country "
Do people not argue that foreign born criminals in the UK should be deported back to their country of birth?
Let’s remember that as things stand I do not believe she has actually ever been convicted of a crime. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *3nsesMan 6 weeks ago
Dublin |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
Absolutely disagree with you. She knew what she was getting into at the time- her decision, keep her out- weve enough problems in this country "
Why should another country be responsible for someone else's citizen? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
Is it not a crime to join a terrorist organisation already?
Well this government will say that any protester is a terrorist it seems"
What's your definition of a terrorist Tom? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
Is it not a crime to join a terrorist organisation already?
Well this government will say that any protester is a terrorist it seems
What's your definition of a terrorist Tom?"
Not Toms. Ask Keith Starmer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *reya73Woman 6 weeks ago
Whitley Bay |
"I dont understand how or why someone is stripped of citizenship for joining a banned organisation abroad as a child, when we had adults doing it here in our own soil, openly travelling back and forth from trainings camps, for decades and didn't even arrest them .
"
I always felt that there was something horribly wrong about the whole thing. She was a child.. Radicalised by an extreme organisation and then was used as an example. I kept thinking of myself as a teenager and my own children.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I may be mistaken but I thought it was not legal in the UK to strip someone of their citizenship if it made them stateless but that's what seems to have happened, as I said I may be mistaken "
I do need to read up on the actual legalities and the rulings because they’ve played a blinder and I’m not sure how  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
To add further complexity to it, there’s have been a few similar cases occurring children in the last few years, most notably that of a young lady called Rhianan Rudd.
Unfortunately Rudd took her own life in 2022, but her mum argued she should have been seen as a victim and not a terrorist after being groomed and sexually exploited by right wing extremists.
The Home Office agreed and dropped charges in late 2021, but less than 6 months later she took her own life.
Other reported cases include 13 and 14 years olds and it’s said theirs is a drastic increase in the number of children under surveillance for terrorism concerns.
I remember overhearing a parent at a football club I coached at telling someone they had a police at their door because their eight year old was searching (age appropriate) terror related content on YouTube and it was as flagged  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To add further complexity to it, there’s have been a few similar cases occurring children in the last few years, most notably that of a young lady called Rhianan Rudd.
Unfortunately Rudd took her own life in 2022, but her mum argued she should have been seen as a victim and not a terrorist after being groomed and sexually exploited by right wing extremists.
The Home Office agreed and dropped charges in late 2021, but less than 6 months later she took her own life.
Other reported cases include 13 and 14 years olds and it’s said theirs is a drastic increase in the number of children under surveillance for terrorism concerns.
I remember overhearing a parent at a football club I coached at telling someone they had a police at their door because their eight year old was searching (age appropriate) terror related content on YouTube and it was as flagged "
Muddying the waters. It's been ruled that she has no legal basis to appeal and that should be that...but it won't be. However, as far as I'm concerned, good riddance |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I may be mistaken but I thought it was not legal in the UK to strip someone of their citizenship if it made them stateless but that's what seems to have happened, as I said I may be mistaken
I do need to read up on the actual legalities and the rulings because they’ve played a blinder and I’m not sure how "
I believe that our Government argued that she had dual nationality having Bangladeshi parents,so wasn't stateless. But the Banladeshi government didn't want her either. So who then decides who is right?
National security concerns are the reasons our government refuses to have her back. We will never know what the reasons are but ISIS are pretty unpleasant routinely carrying out attrocities.
Begum has said she is happy to stand trial in the UK and accept her sentence.
The question is who pays? The UK taxpayer yet again? Perhaps if she crowd-funded and raised a couple of million pounds the public would be more accepting of her return? Some hope.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I may be mistaken but I thought it was not legal in the UK to strip someone of their citizenship if it made them stateless but that's what seems to have happened, as I said I may be mistaken
I do need to read up on the actual legalities and the rulings because they’ve played a blinder and I’m not sure how
I believe that our Government argued that she had dual nationality having Bangladeshi parents,so wasn't stateless. But the Banladeshi government didn't want her either. So who then decides who is right?
National security concerns are the reasons our government refuses to have her back. We will never know what the reasons are but ISIS are pretty unpleasant routinely carrying out attrocities.
Begum has said she is happy to stand trial in the UK and accept her sentence.
The question is who pays? The UK taxpayer yet again? Perhaps if she crowd-funded and raised a couple of million pounds the public would be more accepting of her return? Some hope...."
If the British Government can strip you of citizenship with no criminal conviction to your name it’s a worrying precedent….. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If the British Government can strip you of citizenship with no criminal conviction to your name it’s a worrying precedent….."
Yes that's a fair point so she should ask the British Courts to review that decision, which she has - and the government's decision has been unheld.
So onward to the International Courts which SKS has said he respects, but will the ECHR support her? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Regardless of your feelings on the subject let's stick to the facts.
She was born in the UK and had a British passport
She was striped of her citizenship by the home Secretary (I didn't think this was possible to leave someone stateless but there you have it)
She tried to claim Bangladesh citizenship due to her patents but was refused (Bangladesh is considered a friendly country to the uk)
She tried to claim Dutch citizenship as her husband is Dutch (is currently in prison in the Netherlands) which was obviously refused as its a European country.
She is now appealing against the decision for I think the third time via the ECHR. Complete waste of time as they can present a case but have no power to overturn a decision made by the home Secretary.
The current home Secretary would not consider granting her citizenship back as it would not be in the public interest and would get voted down in Parliament anyway.
If she ever managed to set foot in the uk then the police have enough evidence to detain her under the terrorism act.
This story was nicely placed by the daily hiel today. Best comment of the article
"Her being let back into the country is another reason why people are rioting"
Christ on crutches! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Regardless of your feelings on the subject let's stick to the facts.
She was born in the UK and had a British passport
She was striped of her citizenship by the home Secretary (I didn't think this was possible to leave someone stateless but there you have it)
She tried to claim Bangladesh citizenship due to her patents but was refused (Bangladesh is considered a friendly country to the uk)
She tried to claim Dutch citizenship as her husband is Dutch (is currently in prison in the Netherlands) which was obviously refused as its a European country.
She is now appealing against the decision for I think the third time via the ECHR. Complete waste of time as they can present a case but have no power to overturn a decision made by the home Secretary.
The current home Secretary would not consider granting her citizenship back as it would not be in the public interest and would get voted down in Parliament anyway.
If she ever managed to set foot in the uk then the police have enough evidence to detain her under the terrorism act.
This story was nicely placed by the daily hiel today. Best comment of the article
"Her being let back into the country is another reason why people are rioting"
Christ on crutches! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 6 weeks ago
Brighton |
Not really sure of the best solution but she absolutely does need to be made an example of to hopefully be some degree of deterrent against any other silly little girl/boy doing the same.
Part of me thinks it is right to strip her of citizenship but another says reinstate it, bring her home, straight to court and hopefully into prison. But then taxpayers are picking up the bill for her for years! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan 6 weeks ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
" But then taxpayers are picking up the bill for her for years!"
Instead of foisting her onto another country where we rely on other people to pick up the bill.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Regardless of your feelings on the subject let's stick to the facts.
She was born in the UK and had a British passport
She was striped of her citizenship by the home Secretary (I didn't think this was possible to leave someone stateless but there you have it)
She tried to claim Bangladesh citizenship due to her patents but was refused (Bangladesh is considered a friendly country to the uk)
She tried to claim Dutch citizenship as her husband is Dutch (is currently in prison in the Netherlands) which was obviously refused as its a European country.
She is now appealing against the decision for I think the third time via the ECHR. Complete waste of time as they can present a case but have no power to overturn a decision made by the home Secretary.
The current home Secretary would not consider granting her citizenship back as it would not be in the public interest and would get voted down in Parliament anyway.
If she ever managed to set foot in the uk then the police have enough evidence to detain her under the terrorism act.
This story was nicely placed by the daily hiel today. Best comment of the article
"Her being let back into the country is another reason why people are rioting"
Christ on crutches!"
You can say that again.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
" But then taxpayers are picking up the bill for her for years!
Instead of foisting her onto another country where we rely on other people to pick up the bill.
Gbat "
Don’t worry, I’m sure Syria can cope with the cost of living expenses in her camp site, they can deduct it from the £63 million we sent them last year in aid.
However, happy to chip in a bit more if needed, let me know? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 6 weeks ago
Brighton |
" But then taxpayers are picking up the bill for her for years!
Instead of foisting her onto another country where we rely on other people to pick up the bill.
Gbat "
Are any other countries putting her on trial or in prison? If she is living in another country she is hopefully working? Although being stateless perhaps she can’t? But then that equally applies to claiming benefits. So not clear on how another country’s taxpayers are picking up the bill?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 6 weeks ago
Brighton |
" But then taxpayers are picking up the bill for her for years!
Instead of foisting her onto another country where we rely on other people to pick up the bill.
Gbat
Are any other countries putting her on trial or in prison? If she is living in another country she is hopefully working? Although being stateless perhaps she can’t? But then that equally applies to claiming benefits. So not clear on how another country’s taxpayers are picking up the bill?
"
P.S. I know she is in a camp in Syria, those question were rhetorical (just in case, having read my post, it was’t clear). I think she should stay there. Forever |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Reports that her appeal against the English has failed inthe courts and she is now stateless. If she travels across the English Channel as a refugee and claims asylum them could she be back?
It's all over the news"
Let her rot, she made her decision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man 6 weeks ago
NW London |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
"
I think the issue is that at the time she ran away and joined a murderous terror group, it wasn't technically a crime hence why the Home Office seems to be so keen to make an example out of her.
Regarding whether she should be allowed back or not, maybe it's a difficult question.
Should the decisions someone makes at 15 years old affect the rest of their life, whilst one is still a child legally they are old enough to know right from wrong?
On the other hand, if she is allowed back can society trust that she has changed and has rejected extremism. Is there a danger that she would reoffend or inspire others to commit to extremism? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
I think the issue is that at the time she ran away and joined a murderous terror group, it wasn't technically a crime hence why the Home Office seems to be so keen to make an example out of her.
Regarding whether she should be allowed back or not, maybe it's a difficult question.
Should the decisions someone makes at 15 years old affect the rest of their life, whilst one is still a child legally they are old enough to know right from wrong?
On the other hand, if she is allowed back can society trust that she has changed and has rejected extremism. Is there a danger that she would reoffend or inspire others to commit to extremism? "
Israel is in the process of sending quite a few extremists our way, so I wouldn't worry about her. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't doubt she did wrong, but let's face it hundreds of ISIS volunteers have been repatriated to the UK because the government had no choice. But with Begum they found a technicality to stop her return. It seems unjust to single-out an individual, but equally it's hard to have much sympathy either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan 6 weeks ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
" However, happy to chip in a bit more if needed, let me know? "
Here you go ….
https://donate.unrefugees.org.uk/generalv4/~my-donation?ns_ira_cr_arg=IyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyONIALhq73d64rI9yX6Yge%2FlLsrPagJy8bEq2%2FDct7gXWfP1bJyWh5h%2BdwIgNBLkteEtnGtqCsgGzjqmJ1ylVRPuhNNxqKWd3Bi601YeRqCLXw1YGNzSRE2O47Ou7uBZThQihB2wm%2B8raAeBa5beCM%2FW7gZtuWUZ0l2%2Bg%2FwvcYAz%2BM5BKhnZ5oaPF38fhWRH3%2ByL2cpeuauRLzSHZcIgSWa&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADNTRruymU2X9Ks1V18D-PMy-BNQO&gclsrc=aw.ds&_cv=1
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Reports that her appeal against the English has failed inthe courts and she is now stateless. If she travels across the English Channel as a refugee and claims asylum them could she be back?
It's all over the news
Let her rot, she made her decision. "
Totally agree we have enough problem without even thinking about her |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terrible decision to strip her of her citizenship IMO.
If it is felt she has committed a crime then she should be brought back to face the British justice system in a fair trial.
I think the issue is that at the time she ran away and joined a murderous terror group, it wasn't technically a crime hence why the Home Office seems to be so keen to make an example out of her.
Regarding whether she should be allowed back or not, maybe it's a difficult question.
Should the decisions someone makes at 15 years old affect the rest of their life, whilst one is still a child legally they are old enough to know right from wrong?
On the other hand, if she is allowed back can society trust that she has changed and has rejected extremism. Is there a danger that she would reoffend or inspire others to commit to extremism?
Israel is in the process of sending quite a few extremists our way, so I wouldn't worry about her."
Is this based on an actual fact or some inbred antisemitism? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 6 weeks ago
Brighton |
" So not clear on how another country’s taxpayers are picking up the bill?
She lives in a refugee camp. Who do you think is picking up the bill??
Gbat "
Tell me who? Do you think Syria is funding the refugee camp? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cool your beans Shawn, we heard you the first time! 🤡
Gbat "
Well that was an accident but now you mention it I shouldn't have to repeat myself but unfortunately recently I am finding people don't get it first time around |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"She went to the Middle East to become an ISIS bride and bear them children. She is anti west, anti democratic, and antisemite.
We don’t want nor do we need her here."
Was shee groomed or was she old enough to make that decision..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"She went to the Middle East to become an ISIS bride and bear them children. She is anti west, anti democratic, and antisemite.
We don’t want nor do we need her here."
It would be better if you said 'I' and owned your own statement instead of speaking for all.
I have no objection to her coming home. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Reports that her appeal against the English has failed inthe courts and she is now stateless. If she travels across the English Channel as a refugee and claims asylum them could she be back?
It's all over the news
Let her rot, she made her decision. "
That's an interesting viewpoint.
What about the young girls who drink alcohol , take drugs and believe they are loved by grooming gangs..
If we use the logic i'm reading here then we should have left those girls to rot.. after all they made their decision to be 'groomed' leave the bitches there |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Reports that her appeal against the English has failed inthe courts and she is now stateless. If she travels across the English Channel as a refugee and claims asylum them could she be back?
It's all over the news
Let her rot, she made her decision.
That's an interesting viewpoint.
What about the young girls who drink alcohol , take drugs and believe they are loved by grooming gangs..
If we use the logic i'm reading here then we should have left those girls to rot.. after all they made their decision to be 'groomed' leave the bitches there"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The only scandal is that she was allowed to appeal so many times, wasting our taxpayers money.
She knew what she was doing, let her rot in the refugee camp.
If my daughter did anything like that, I wouldn't count her as my daughter ever again, and would not support her being allowed back into the country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only scandal is that she was allowed to appeal so many times, wasting our taxpayers money.
She knew what she was doing, let her rot in the refugee camp.
If my daughter did anything like that, I wouldn't count her as my daughter ever again, and would not support her being allowed back into the country."
Wow, in your case I guess there is no such thing as unconditional love. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only scandal is that she was allowed to appeal so many times, wasting our taxpayers money.
She knew what she was doing, let her rot in the refugee camp.
If my daughter did anything like that, I wouldn't count her as my daughter ever again, and would not support her being allowed back into the country."
If your daughter was groomed by a sex trafficking gang, would you equally blame and disown her..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 6 weeks ago
|
"Who is finding all these legal challenges. Is she on legal aid? If so would the lawyers representing her continue to represent her without the funding"
I would assume a lot of her lawyers are from NGO’s like human rights watch etc…
If they manage to overturn something like this, they’ve made their career |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan 6 weeks ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"Who is finding all these legal challenges. Is she on legal aid? If so would the lawyers representing her continue to represent her without the funding"
Would many lawyers continue to represent clients without funding? There aren’t many working for free.
Gbat
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
These girls that are groomed, is groomed a fair word here? Well letss use it for want to a better one
They are shown pictures of luxury
mansions and told that as an insert
"Islamist terrorist group" bride they will be treated like a queen, be rich and want for nothing.
In reality its nothing like that and they are locked in a compound, surrounded by "soldiers" witnessing daily torture and executions.
As I said above it is 99% unlikely she will ever get her British citizenship back and if she did it would only be to arrest her and charge her under the terrorist act. ISIS seems to be yesterdays news and I doubt
she has any information that is now
relevant to SIS.
So it in not in the in the interest of national security or the public interest to give her back her citizenship.
I would hazard a guess that this will be her last appeal, which will fail. I'm sure she is now feeling very stupid and living in a refugee camp was not the life she envisioned but she will
remain there until, well how long is a piece of string?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is an interesting case. She was born and brought up here. So I think she is UK's responsibility.
At the same time, she seems to have no remorse on what she did. It's clear that if ISIS was successful, she would have stayed back. She wants to come back only because ISIS got fucked. So she is still a national threat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is an interesting case. She was born and brought up here. So I think she is UK's responsibility.
At the same time, she seems to have no remorse on what she did. It's clear that if ISIS was successful, she would have stayed back. She wants to come back only because ISIS got fucked. So she is still a national threat. "
Please read my post again! Her husband and his group are long gone so she would have no information that is now relevent to the SIS.
Wouldn't consider her a national threat and even if she was brought back and allowed to go home she would be under so much surveillance that she couldn't have a wee without them knowing.
This would be a waste of time, money and resources so she is NOT comming back end of!
All this really is a non story |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is an interesting case. She was born and brought up here. So I think she is UK's responsibility.
At the same time, she seems to have no remorse on what she did. It's clear that if ISIS was successful, she would have stayed back. She wants to come back only because ISIS got fucked. So she is still a national threat.
Please read my post again! Her husband and his group are long gone so she would have no information that is now relevent to the SIS.
Wouldn't consider her a national threat and even if she was brought back and allowed to go home she would be under so much surveillance that she couldn't have a wee without them knowing.
This would be a waste of time, money and resources so she is NOT comming back end of!
All this really is a non story"
Her husband and her group long gone doesn't mean she stops being a threat. She doesn't feel any remorse, which makes her a easy tool to be used. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If my daughter did anything like that, I wouldn't count her as my daughter ever again, and would not support her being allowed back into the country.
If your daughter was groomed by a sex trafficking gang, would you equally blame and disown her..?"
If she were groomed, but then became an enforcer for a pimp, snitching on and then holding down girls as they were beaten for trying to escape, getting them addicted to drugs and then forcing them to "work" for them... Then some parents might indeed blame and disown her. Especially if she appeared to enjoy it.
And the parents' actions would be understandable either way (accept our disown). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is an interesting case. She was born and brought up here. So I think she is UK's responsibility.
At the same time, she seems to have no remorse on what she did. It's clear that if ISIS was successful, she would have stayed back. She wants to come back only because ISIS got fucked. So she is still a national threat.
Please read my post again! Her husband and his group are long gone so she would have no information that is now relevent to the SIS.
Wouldn't consider her a national threat and even if she was brought back and allowed to go home she would be under so much surveillance that she couldn't have a wee without them knowing.
This would be a waste of time, money and resources so she is NOT comming back end of!
All this really is a non story
Her husband and her group long gone doesn't mean she stops being a threat. She doesn't feel any remorse, which makes her a easy tool to be used."
Christ on Crutches!
shes hardly a threat to NS if she is in a camp in syria were she will be staying.
This is my last comment on this thread as I'm tired of repeating myself.
"Now go in peace, bring forth the best in humanity and share in your abundance of love"
Cafe Del Mar 1980 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With ISIS all but destroyed, a journalist discovered Begum in a refugee camp in Syria. Begum’s televised interview, where she expressed a wish to return to Britain, partly for the sake of her unborn child, did not go well.
Dressed head to foot in a black chador, she nonchalantly recalled the sight of an ISIS victim’s decapitated head in a bin, saying that ‘it didn’t faze me at all’. She appeared confident, not repentant. Even Renu Begum, her sister, remarked that this cold-hearted appearance ‘set fire to our nation’s emotions."
Which UK politician is going to welcome a monster like Begum back when this is how she presents herself? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If my daughter did anything like that, I wouldn't count her as my daughter ever again, and would not support her being allowed back into the country.
If your daughter was groomed by a sex trafficking gang, would you equally blame and disown her..?
If she were groomed, but then became an enforcer for a pimp, snitching on and then holding down girls as they were beaten for trying to escape, getting them addicted to drugs and then forcing them to "work" for them... Then some parents might indeed blame and disown her. Especially if she appeared to enjoy it.
And the parents' actions would be understandable either way (accept our disown)."
There are many cases where people doing that are doing so so because they have been violently beaten, threatened themselves with death, their children threatened with death.
Do we know that wasn't the case here. The truth would come out in a trial not trial by media.
I don't really follow her case closely, but even when the rights own poster boy JRM, says she was a child that was groomed. That she is a British citizen who should be brought up and tried here. It makes think it's not a black and white case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If my daughter did anything like that, I wouldn't count her as my daughter ever again, and would not support her being allowed back into the country.
If your daughter was groomed by a sex trafficking gang, would you equally blame and disown her..?
If she were groomed, but then became an enforcer for a pimp, snitching on and then holding down girls as they were beaten for trying to escape, getting them addicted to drugs and then forcing them to "work" for them... Then some parents might indeed blame and disown her. Especially if she appeared to enjoy it.
And the parents' actions would be understandable either way (accept our disown).
There are many cases where people doing that are doing so so because they have been violently beaten, threatened themselves with death, their children threatened with death.
Do we know that wasn't the case here. The truth would come out in a trial not trial by media.
I don't really follow her case closely, but even when the rights own poster boy JRM, says she was a child that was groomed. That she is a British citizen who should be brought up and tried here. It makes think it's not a black and white case."
Sure.
In that case, why blame anyone from ISIS? They were likely all indoctrinated as children (many were fighting as teenagers) and brainwashed with a horrible ideology.
Arguably the thugs currently rampaging in the UK may well have been brought up in hateful households.
The point above wasn't about where to try her, or whether she should have lost her citizenship. It was to point out that comparing her case with sexual grooming is disingenuous, or at least problematic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If my daughter did anything like that, I wouldn't count her as my daughter ever again, and would not support her being allowed back into the country.
If your daughter was groomed by a sex trafficking gang, would you equally blame and disown her..?
If she were groomed, but then became an enforcer for a pimp, snitching on and then holding down girls as they were beaten for trying to escape, getting them addicted to drugs and then forcing them to "work" for them... Then some parents might indeed blame and disown her. Especially if she appeared to enjoy it.
And the parents' actions would be understandable either way (accept our disown).
There are many cases where people doing that are doing so so because they have been violently beaten, threatened themselves with death, their children threatened with death.
Do we know that wasn't the case here. The truth would come out in a trial not trial by media.
I don't really follow her case closely, but even when the rights own poster boy JRM, says she was a child that was groomed. That she is a British citizen who should be brought up and tried here. It makes think it's not a black and white case.
Sure.
In that case, why blame anyone from ISIS? They were likely all indoctrinated as children (many were fighting as teenagers) and brainwashed with a horrible ideology.
Arguably the thugs currently rampaging in the UK may well have been brought up in hateful households.
The point above wasn't about where to try her, or whether she should have lost her citizenship. It was to point out that comparing her case with sexual grooming is disingenuous, or at least problematic."
I disagree, either a child's brain is vulnerable to being corrupted or it is not. What it is corrupted with depends on the person corrupting. I see similarities, maybe you don't fair enough. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is an interesting case. She was born and brought up here. So I think she is UK's responsibility.
At the same time, she seems to have no remorse on what she did. It's clear that if ISIS was successful, she would have stayed back. She wants to come back only because ISIS got fucked. So she is still a national threat.
Please read my post again! Her husband and his group are long gone so she would have no information that is now relevent to the SIS.
Wouldn't consider her a national threat and even if she was brought back and allowed to go home she would be under so much surveillance that she couldn't have a wee without them knowing.
This would be a waste of time, money and resources so she is NOT comming back end of!
All this really is a non story
Her husband and her group long gone doesn't mean she stops being a threat. She doesn't feel any remorse, which makes her a easy tool to be used.
Christ on Crutches!
shes hardly a threat to NS if she is in a camp in syria were she will be staying.
This is my last comment on this thread as I'm tired of repeating myself.
"Now go in peace, bring forth the best in humanity and share in your abundance of love"
Cafe Del Mar 1980"
I meant she is a threat if she is allowed into the country |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
From the UK government website:
For people who have naturalised as British, citizenship deprivation is permitted even if it would leave them stateless (ie without the citizenship of any country). Someone who was born British and has no other nationality cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances.
It would appear that they can |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The nationality law of Bangladesh governs the issues of citizenship and nationality of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. The law regulates the nationality and citizenship status of all people who live in Bangladesh as well as all people who are of Bangladeshi descent. It allows the children of expatriates, foreigners as well as residents in Bangladesh to examine their citizenship status and if necessary, apply for and obtain citizenship of Bangladesh.
Begum's parents are both Bangladeshi citizens. Bangladesh doesn't want her. Neither do we. Let her spend 20 years arguing her case in the international courts.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I disagree, either a child's brain is vulnerable to being corrupted or it is not. What it is corrupted with depends on the person corrupting. I see similarities, maybe you don't fair enough. "
Similarities end at the word "grooming". Equating a victim with a persecutor just doesn't sit right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this moment in time to my knowledge she has no other nationality, that would seem to mean the law she can't be made stateless is a sham"
She has challenged UK law all the way up to the Supreme Court and ultimately lost. Her next challenge is via the ECHR.
Does that make the law a sham as you suggest, or just something she and her supporters don't agree with? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this moment in time to my knowledge she has no other nationality, that would seem to mean the law she can't be made stateless is a sham
She has challenged UK law all the way up to the Supreme Court and ultimately lost. Her next challenge is via the ECHR.
Does that make the law a sham as you suggest, or just something she and her supporters don't agree with?"
If the ECHR agree with her and rule against the UK government, does that mean the UK has no choice but to allow her back. If that were to happen it could play into the hands of those that want the UK to withdraw from the ECHR |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 6 weeks ago
|
"
Cafe Del Mar 1980
I meant she is a threat if she is allowed into the country "
I mean how much of a threat can someone be on a life sentance, residing in prison? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 6 weeks ago
|
"From the UK government website:
For people who have naturalised as British, citizenship deprivation is permitted even if it would leave them stateless (ie without the citizenship of any country). Someone who was born British and has no other nationality cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances.
It would appear that they can "
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Shamima Begum born here? Also she never held Bangladeshi nationality |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this moment in time to my knowledge she has no other nationality, that would seem to mean the law she can't be made stateless is a sham
She has challenged UK law all the way up to the Supreme Court and ultimately lost. Her next challenge is via the ECHR.
Does that make the law a sham as you suggest, or just something she and her supporters don't agree with?
If the ECHR agree with her and rule against the UK government, does that mean the UK has no choice but to allow her back. If that were to happen it could play into the hands of those that want the UK to withdraw from the ECHR"
Yes indeed especially as SKS has said he respects international law. Would be interesting if it happens.
The ECHR would need to establish whether she is a threat to UK national security or not, as I believe this is the basis of the government's case. Will take years though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 6 weeks ago
|
"The nationality law of Bangladesh governs the issues of citizenship and nationality of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. The law regulates the nationality and citizenship status of all people who live in Bangladesh as well as all people who are of Bangladeshi descent. It allows the children of expatriates, foreigners as well as residents in Bangladesh to examine their citizenship status and if necessary, apply for and obtain citizenship of Bangladesh.
Begum's parents are both Bangladeshi citizens. Bangladesh doesn't want her. Neither do we. Let her spend 20 years arguing her case in the international courts...."
.
But as above, she was born here, she’s never held or investigated her Bangladeshi nationality, so by removing her British nationality she is now stateless, which is against the law |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this moment in time to my knowledge she has no other nationality, that would seem to mean the law she can't be made stateless is a sham
She has challenged UK law all the way up to the Supreme Court and ultimately lost. Her next challenge is via the ECHR.
Does that make the law a sham as you suggest, or just something she and her supporters don't agree with?"
Well I suppose if the law says a UK citizen by by birth who has no other nationality cannot be made stateless under any circumstances and she has been then regardless of what she or her lawyers argued that law is a sham |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"From the UK government website:
For people who have naturalised as British, citizenship deprivation is permitted even if it would leave them stateless (ie without the citizenship of any country). Someone who was born British and has no other nationality cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances.
It would appear that they can
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Shamima Begum born here? Also she never held Bangladeshi nationality"
Yes she was born here. It's not been reported whether or not she had Bangladeshi nationality, but I think the UK government took the view that she is eligible for Bangladeshi nationality and therefore isn't stateless. I think it's a reasonable position to take.
She has never had a UK passport. She stole her sister's to get to Syria so I guess that might be a technical obstacle to getting back, as we don't issue passports to terrorists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"From the UK government website:
For people who have naturalised as British, citizenship deprivation is permitted even if it would leave them stateless (ie without the citizenship of any country). Someone who was born British and has no other nationality cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances.
It would appear that they can
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Shamima Begum born here? Also she never held Bangladeshi nationality
Yes she was born here. It's not been reported whether or not she had Bangladeshi nationality, but I think the UK government took the view that she is eligible for Bangladeshi nationality and therefore isn't stateless. I think it's a reasonable position to take.
She has never had a UK passport. She stole her sister's to get to Syria so I guess that might be a technical obstacle to getting back, as we don't issue passports to terrorists."
She might be eligible for outer Mongolia citizenship but she ain't a citizen of there, she is or was born a British citizen, the law says she can't be made stateless if she isn't a citizen of another country. I'm not arguing her case but the law seems to say she can't be made stateless but the law seems to not apply, any way I don't really care what happens to her plenty will of course and that's fine with me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan 6 weeks ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
I don’t really care what happens to her, but I do care about the rule of law.
It needs to be followed and followed for everyone. No one is above it, but that goes both ways.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
OK I said I was out but been catching up on current affairs on youtube.
Suggest you watch blackbelt barrister who has done a video giving you legal facts regarding the begum girl, the labour MP and how some of the riotors were sentananced so quickly.
These are 100% facts and no opinions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t really care what happens to her, but I do care about the rule of law.
It needs to be followed and followed for everyone. No one is above it, but that goes both ways.
Gbat "
The Rule of Law has been applied Batty |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I disagree, either a child's brain is vulnerable to being corrupted or it is not. What it is corrupted with depends on the person corrupting. I see similarities, maybe you don't fair enough.
Similarities end at the word "grooming". Equating a victim with a persecutor just doesn't sit right."
The dictionary definition of grooming is
"the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity". It doesn't say specific activities only.
A person can be both a victim and perpetrator. Many historical child abuse cases where a child abuser themselves were victims of child abuse.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I disagree, either a child's brain is vulnerable to being corrupted or it is not. What it is corrupted with depends on the person corrupting. I see similarities, maybe you don't fair enough.
Similarities end at the word "grooming". Equating a victim with a persecutor just doesn't sit right."
The dictionary definition of grooming is
"the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity". It doesn't say specific activities only.
A person can be both a victim and perpetrator. Many historical child abuse cases where a child abuser themselves were victims of child abuse. "
Agreed as to the definition. But the similarities end there.
One can be a victim and not an abuser. One can be an abuser but not relish the prospect. One can relish the abuse, but eventually be remorseful.
Or one can be Shamima Begum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I disagree, either a child's brain is vulnerable to being corrupted or it is not. What it is corrupted with depends on the person corrupting. I see similarities, maybe you don't fair enough.
Similarities end at the word "grooming". Equating a victim with a persecutor just doesn't sit right."
The dictionary definition of grooming is
"the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity". It doesn't say specific activities only.
A person can be both a victim and perpetrator. Many historical child abuse cases where a child abuser themselves were victims of child abuse.
Agreed as to the definition. But the similarities end there.
One can be a victim and not an abuser. One can be an abuser but not relish the prospect. One can relish the abuse, but eventually be remorseful.
Or one can be Shamima Begum."
In fact, we could call these level 1, level 2, level 3 and level 4.
Trying to equate a level 1 with a level 4 is not a compelling argument.
It was this direct equation that was being addressed above. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t really care what happens to her, but I do care about the rule of law.
It needs to be followed and followed for everyone. No one is above it, but that goes both ways.
Gbat "
British Law HAS been followed and this was upheld by our Supreme Court a couple of days ago. Posters who suggest otherwise are simply wrong based on the facts.
Her UK citizenship was removed in 2019 by the Home Secretary under powers established in the 1981 British Nationality Act. (Margaret Thatcher was PM). She was deemed a threat to National Security.
It is wrongly claimed that that decision made her stateless because she was a Bangladeshi Citizen at the time. She has never refuted this, nor has her family, and she has never argued to any court that she was made stateless.
If Bangladesh barred entry to one of their citizens that is not a matter for the UK as she wasn't in the UK at the time. She was in Syria and has been since 2015.
The OP raises the point in the first post, that if Begrum did make it on to UK soil could she claim asylum? Yes she could but whether she would be successful is another question.
All Begrum's court challenges since 2019 are not about whether the original decision to strip her of UK nationality was lawful, but that in making that decision the HS failed to take into account other (later) legislation, such as the Equalities Act and also the Human Rights Act. All these court challenges have now been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
In 2019 when she was stripped of her UK citizenship she was 19 so an adult in the UK's eyes responsible for her own actions. At the time she was affiliated to ISIL, a terrorist organisation, living in Syria, married to a Dutch citizen.
She can take her case to the EHCR, but our Supreme Court, in hearing her Appeal under the Human Rights Act has looked at previous ECHR decisions and concluded she would lose, but are happy for her try.
And so it goes on, but to say UK law hasn't been followed is simply wrong. Also the Supreme Court has made a costs order against her legal team so the UK taxpayer will get some money back.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I always find it amusing when someone posts "the facts", but can't even manage to spell the affected person's name correctly.
Begum does not have Bangladeshi citizenship, and never has had. She is eligible for it, through her parentage, but she has never applied for it.
The 2 sides of the argument are using different definitions of 'stateless'. One side means 'unable to be recognised by any state', and the other side means 'not currently recognised by any state'. The UK government use the first definition and are correct in saying that she has a route to Bangladeshi citizenship, so is not stateless. Opponents use the second definition, and are correct in that she doesn't currently have citizenship of any state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Begum does not have Bangladeshi citizenship, and never has had. She is eligible for it, through her parentage, but she has never applied for it.
"
Not sure about Bangladesh specifically, but for most countries, citizenship by descent is not something for which you apply. Typically you "register", but, by virtue of birth, you already ARE a citizen. Bangladesh seems to have laws where you are provisionally a citizen, but you need to accept it before turning 21, or you lose it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So who is correct our Supreme Court or some random poster on a swinging site?
Supreme Court Judgement issued on 7th August: Begum is a Bangladeshi Citizen according to UK law. See below:
The fourth ground of appeal concerns the fact that the deprivation decision resulted in the Appellant's becoming de facto stateless, as there was no reasonable prospect of her being admitted into Bangladesh, of which she was a citizen. In this regard, it is argued that the Secretary of State failed to have regard to all material considerations.
Both courts below found on the evidence that the Secretary of State had taken into account the fact that the deprivation decision would render the Appellant de facto stateless. There is nothing to indicate that that conclusion is vitiated by any error of law. The Appellant's submission that the Court of Appeal failed to distinguish between the fact of de facto statelessness and the significance of that fact (the latter, rather than the former, being argued to be the mandatory relevant consideration) does not appear to the panel to raise an arguable point of law.
The panel notes that the Appellant does not challenge the existing law that the prohibition, under section 40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981, on making a deprivation decision which would render a person stateless, refers to de jure rather than de facto statelessness. Nor is it argued that the Secretary of State's decision to make the deprivation decision, notwithstanding that its effect would be to render the Appellant de facto stateless, was unlawful because it was perverse.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this moment in time to my knowledge she has no other nationality, that would seem to mean the law she can't be made stateless is a sham
She has challenged UK law all the way up to the Supreme Court and ultimately lost. Her next challenge is via the ECHR.
Does that make the law a sham as you suggest, or just something she and her supporters don't agree with?
If the ECHR agree with her and rule against the UK government, does that mean the UK has no choice but to allow her back. If that were to happen it could play into the hands of those that want the UK to withdraw from the ECHR
Yes indeed especially as SKS has said he respects international law. Would be interesting if it happens.
The ECHR would need to establish whether she is a threat to UK national security or not, as I believe this is the basis of the government's case. Will take years though."
Interesting indeed. If he is PM if this actually happens he will have little choice, unless he flip flops, but that's not his style  it maybe as some have said that her only course of action left if she keeps losing court cases is to try and join the small boat cross people and claim asylum. Even if asylum is refused, where do you deport her to as she has no official country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this moment in time to my knowledge she has no other nationality, that would seem to mean the law she can't be made stateless is a sham
She has challenged UK law all the way up to the Supreme Court and ultimately lost. Her next challenge is via the ECHR.
Does that make the law a sham as you suggest, or just something she and her supporters don't agree with?
If the ECHR agree with her and rule against the UK government, does that mean the UK has no choice but to allow her back. If that were to happen it could play into the hands of those that want the UK to withdraw from the ECHR
Yes indeed especially as SKS has said he respects international law. Would be interesting if it happens.
The ECHR would need to establish whether she is a threat to UK national security or not, as I believe this is the basis of the government's case. Will take years though.
Interesting indeed. If he is PM if this actually happens he will have little choice, unless he flip flops, but that's not his style it maybe as some have said that her only course of action left if she keeps losing court cases is to try and join the small boat cross people and claim asylum. Even if asylum is refused, where do you deport her to as she has no official country."
She chose to go to Syria, she can rot there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As I posted above check out blackbeltbarrister on youtube a he has made a video regarding the legal facts on the Begam girl
As for her making her way to ther UK via dighy, that would not be an easy task.
Think how many european countries she would would have to cross through without being noticed? The UK as with all European Countries are all members of interpol so she would be arrested under the terorism act.
No she wouldn't be able to be deported as she is stateless but most likely extradited to the UK and imprisoned.
I'm sure in her years of being in that camp its probably crossed her mind! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So who is correct our Supreme Court or some random poster on a swinging site?"
The Supreme Court, obviously.
And all that stuff you posted above backs up what I said earlier in this thread.
However, in your 'facts' post you said "she has never argued to any court that she was made stateless". Then in your latest post you quote a decision by the Supreme Court on exactly that claim. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So who is correct our Supreme Court or some random poster on a swinging site?
The Supreme Court, obviously.
And all that stuff you posted above backs up what I said earlier in this thread.
However, in your 'facts' post you said "she has never argued to any court that she was made stateless". Then in your latest post you quote a decision by the Supreme Court on exactly that claim."
I quote directly from your post:
"Begum does not have Bangladeshi citizenship, and never has had. She is eligible for it, through her parentage, but she has never applied for it."
Which directly contradicts the Supreme Court decision "..into Bangladesh of which she is a citizen.."
So you are incorrect, and my 'facts' stand.
On the second point her legal team were trying to argue that because the Bangladesh government had refused entry to Begum, even though they accepted she was a Bangladesh citizen, that made her stateless. That argument failed and her appeal on that point was dismissed.
Once you understand the legal decisions then the OPs original post is a very interesting question which others have expressed their opinions, but the Supreme Court has upheld our government's decision to strip this Bangladeshi Citizen living in Syria of her UK citizenship on the grounds of national security. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If the ECHR agree with her and rule against the UK government, does that mean the UK has no choice but to allow her back. If that were to happen it could play into the hands of those that want the UK to withdraw from the ECHR
Yes indeed especially as SKS has said he respects international law. Would be interesting if it happens.
The ECHR would need to establish whether she is a threat to UK national security or not, as I believe this is the basis of the government's case. Will take years though.
Interesting indeed. If he is PM if this actually happens he will have little choice, unless he flip flops, but that's not his style it maybe as some have said that her only course of action left if she keeps losing court cases is to try and join the small boat cross people and claim asylum. Even if asylum is refused, where do you deport her to as she has no official country."
Exactly. The OPs question raises very interesting dialemmas for our politicians if Begum ever got to the UK.
Firstly the Supreme Court in making their decision did look at past ECHR judgements and concluded that the ECHR would not support Begum. There are at least three witness statements, which formed the evidence to allow the HS to strip her of her UK citizenship. These are sealed and secret but presumably the ECHR would see them.
I suppose if she made it to the UK and the Bangladesh government refused her entry, we could put her on trial and imprison her for a longtime? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why can't she catch a dingie ,?"
Because she is probably watched more closely than we could imagine and any move from her current location would be impeded by any jurisdiction between here and there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 5 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"but I think the UK government took the view that she is eligible for Bangladeshi nationality and therefore isn't stateless. I think it's a reasonable position to take."
I don't think it's reasonable at all.
"She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country".
That's what Prospect Magazine has said.
The Guardian added in February last year,
"And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction. Today, it is not even that. She is 23. As a result of the home secretary’s decision, she is stuck in a camp in Syria, with no citizenship anywhere and no prospect of one. Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable. But statelessness is for ever". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 5 weeks ago
Brighton |
"but I think the UK government took the view that she is eligible for Bangladeshi nationality and therefore isn't stateless. I think it's a reasonable position to take.
I don't think it's reasonable at all.
"She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country".
That's what Prospect Magazine has said.
The Guardian added in February last year,
"And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction. Today, it is not even that. She is 23. As a result of the home secretary’s decision, she is stuck in a camp in Syria, with no citizenship anywhere and no prospect of one. Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable. But statelessness is for ever"."
Of course some children make terrible mistakes, although simply using the word children implies someone younger, she was 15 I believe? That is old enough to understand right from wrong. She is a traitor to her country and complicit by her actions in the death of many people. Sometimes you need to set an example and she is well placed to fulfil that to discourage anyone else from doing the same in future. Let her rot in the refugee camp in Syria. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"but I think the UK government took the view that she is eligible for Bangladeshi nationality and therefore isn't stateless. I think it's a reasonable position to take.
I don't think it's reasonable at all.
"She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country".
That's what Prospect Magazine has said.
The Guardian added in February last year,
"And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction. Today, it is not even that. She is 23. As a result of the home secretary’s decision, she is stuck in a camp in Syria, with no citizenship anywhere and no prospect of one. Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable. But statelessness is for ever".
Of course some children make terrible mistakes, although simply using the word children implies someone younger, she was 15 I believe? That is old enough to understand right from wrong. She is a traitor to her country and complicit by her actions in the death of many people. Sometimes you need to set an example and she is well placed to fulfil that to discourage anyone else from doing the same in future. Let her rot in the refugee camp in Syria."
So what about our Christian principles of forgiveness and the opportunity for redemption? Does it do us any moral credit to throw this young lady to the wolves? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"but I think the UK government took the view that she is eligible for Bangladeshi nationality and therefore isn't stateless. I think it's a reasonable position to take.
I don't think it's reasonable at all.
"She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country".
That's what Prospect Magazine has said.
The Guardian added in February last year,
"And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction. Today, it is not even that. She is 23. As a result of the home secretary’s decision, she is stuck in a camp in Syria, with no citizenship anywhere and no prospect of one. Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable. But statelessness is for ever".
Of course some children make terrible mistakes, although simply using the word children implies someone younger, she was 15 I believe? That is old enough to understand right from wrong. She is a traitor to her country and complicit by her actions in the death of many people. Sometimes you need to set an example and she is well placed to fulfil that to discourage anyone else from doing the same in future. Let her rot in the refugee camp in Syria.
So what about our Christian principles of forgiveness and the opportunity for redemption? Does it do us any moral credit to throw this young lady to the wolves?"
do you actually think she wants redemption she definitely wants forgiveness she through herself to the wolves pity they didn’t eat her |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 5 weeks ago
Brighton |
"but I think the UK government took the view that she is eligible for Bangladeshi nationality and therefore isn't stateless. I think it's a reasonable position to take.
I don't think it's reasonable at all.
"She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country".
That's what Prospect Magazine has said.
The Guardian added in February last year,
"And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction. Today, it is not even that. She is 23. As a result of the home secretary’s decision, she is stuck in a camp in Syria, with no citizenship anywhere and no prospect of one. Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable. But statelessness is for ever".
Of course some children make terrible mistakes, although simply using the word children implies someone younger, she was 15 I believe? That is old enough to understand right from wrong. She is a traitor to her country and complicit by her actions in the death of many people. Sometimes you need to set an example and she is well placed to fulfil that to discourage anyone else from doing the same in future. Let her rot in the refugee camp in Syria.
So what about our Christian principles of forgiveness and the opportunity for redemption? Does it do us any moral credit to throw this young lady to the wolves?"
I’m not Christian. I don’t forgive her. And many are watching for signs of weakness. Make an example of her. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Regardless of anything she was, and in my opinion remains, a British citizen. Removing her citizenship was populist bullshit and that’s the sort of thing we need to steer clear of.
Restore her citizenship, bring her back and put her on trial for what she’s done; if she’s guilty let her rot in prison. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Regardless of anything she was, and in my opinion remains, a British citizen. Removing her citizenship was populist bullshit and that’s the sort of thing we need to steer clear of.
Restore her citizenship, bring her back and put her on trial for what she’s done; if she’s guilty let her rot in prison."
Two problems with that:
If she was in prison here we (as taxpayers) have to pay for that, and it isn't cheap.
She is unlikely to be given a whole life term with no chance of parole so is likely to be released sometime.
She knew what she was doing, both when she went and when she then actively participated in the regime. No crocodile tears and dressing as a westerner will mitigate that.
Let her rot where she is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Regardless of anything she was, and in my opinion remains, a British citizen. Removing her citizenship was populist bullshit and that’s the sort of thing we need to steer clear of.
Restore her citizenship, bring her back and put her on trial for what she’s done; if she’s guilty let her rot in prison.
Two problems with that:
If she was in prison here we (as taxpayers) have to pay for that, and it isn't cheap.
She is unlikely to be given a whole life term with no chance of parole so is likely to be released sometime.
She knew what she was doing, both when she went and when she then actively participated in the regime. No crocodile tears and dressing as a westerner will mitigate that.
Let her rot where she is."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Regardless of anything she was, and in my opinion remains, a British citizen. Removing her citizenship was populist bullshit and that’s the sort of thing we need to steer clear of.
Restore her citizenship, bring her back and put her on trial for what she’s done; if she’s guilty let her rot in prison."
Exactly this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Regardless of anything she was, and in my opinion remains, a British citizen. Removing her citizenship was populist bullshit and that’s the sort of thing we need to steer clear of.
Restore her citizenship, bring her back and put her on trial for what she’s done; if she’s guilty let her rot in prison.
Two problems with that:
If she was in prison here we (as taxpayers) have to pay for that, and it isn't cheap.
She is unlikely to be given a whole life term with no chance of parole so is likely to be released sometime.
She knew what she was doing, both when she went and when she then actively participated in the regime. No crocodile tears and dressing as a westerner will mitigate that.
Let her rot where she is."
Three problems with that:
We need to take responsibility as a country for our issues, farming them out to someone else is not what a mature society does.
She was legally a child when she was groomed and left the country, if we start saying that children are as responsible for their actions as adults when do we start giving children the vote, allow them to drive, join the army etc?
Once a government starts removing citizenship from people it sets a dangerous precedent, the same as changing the law to say a country is safe when it is unable to prove it in court. If a government can strip a British born person of their citizenship, and bring in a law to declare black is white, where does it end? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"but I think the UK government took the view that she is eligible for Bangladeshi nationality and therefore isn't stateless. I think it's a reasonable position to take.
I don't think it's reasonable at all.
"She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country".
That's what Prospect Magazine has said.
The Guardian added in February last year,
"And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction. Today, it is not even that. She is 23. As a result of the home secretary’s decision, she is stuck in a camp in Syria, with no citizenship anywhere and no prospect of one. Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable. But statelessness is for ever".
Of course some children make terrible mistakes, although simply using the word children implies someone younger, she was 15 I believe? That is old enough to understand right from wrong. She is a traitor to her country and complicit by her actions in the death of many people. Sometimes you need to set an example and she is well placed to fulfil that to discourage anyone else from doing the same in future. Let her rot in the refugee camp in Syria.
So what about our Christian principles of forgiveness and the opportunity for redemption? Does it do us any moral credit to throw this young lady to the wolves? do you actually think she wants redemption she definitely wants forgiveness she through herself to the wolves pity they didn’t eat her "
Of course I can't be sure if she seeks redemption, but shouldn't we be merciful and give her the benefit of the doubt? Mob mentality has no place in a civilised society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Three problems with that:
We need to take responsibility as a country for our issues, farming them out to someone else is not what a mature society does.
"
Why? It sounds nice, but why? That sounds like a platitude.
"
She was legally a child when she was groomed and left the country, if we start saying that children are as responsible for their actions as adults when do we start giving children the vote, allow them to drive, join the army etc?
"
She was 19 when stripped off citizenship. At what age do you cut off responsibility? Would a 45 year old fighter who abused 150 woman after being groomed for Isis at age 15 be any different? Where is the line? Is there a line?
"
Once a government starts removing citizenship from people it sets a dangerous precedent, the same as changing the law to say a country is safe when it is unable to prove it in court. If a government can strip a British born person of their citizenship, and bring in a law to declare black is white, where does it end?"
It doesn't end until law or a constitution determines. Parliament is supreme. Legally, there needs to be a final arbiter of truth. Better that it goes to elected representatives than some other alternatives. Parliament must be held to rules, yes. Parliament has enacted laws to strip citizenship in certain scenarios. If you don't like it, lobby your MP then vote accordingly.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What bothers me a bit about all this. Is that Britain’s prisons are so easy (some say cushy,) that someone would rather live the rest of their days in one of them, than a refugee camp in Syria!
Simply put: Rather prison here than refuge over there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 5 weeks ago
|
"What bothers me a bit about all this. Is that Britain’s prisons are so easy (some say cushy,) that someone would rather live the rest of their days in one of them, than a refugee camp in Syria!
Simply put: Rather prison here than refuge over there. "
Or potentially both are very difficult to live, but one is less difficult to live in than the other |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Regardless of anything she was, and in my opinion remains, a British citizen. Removing her citizenship was populist bullshit and that’s the sort of thing we need to steer clear of.
Restore her citizenship, bring her back and put her on trial for what she’s done; if she’s guilty let her rot in prison."
Seems the obvious route to me. Anything else is just grandstanding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What bothers me a bit about all this. Is that Britain’s prisons are so easy (some say cushy,) that someone would rather live the rest of their days in one of them, than a refugee camp in Syria!
Simply put: Rather prison here than refuge over there. "
Do you think British prisons are some sort of holiday camp? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"She should be tried and sentenced in the country where she committed her crimes especially if there is substance in the alleged heinous acts as a jihadi bride. "
That's an interesting point about being tried in the country where the offence is committed but possibly her age at the time changes things. I suppose if I were to travel to say Iraq and commit a serious offense, would I be able to return to the UK for trial and punishment or would that happen in Iraq only |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Once a government starts removing citizenship from people it sets a dangerous precedent, the same as changing the law to say a country is safe when it is unable to prove it in court. If a government can strip a British born person of their citizenship, and bring in a law to declare black is white, where does it end?
It doesn't end until law or a constitution determines. Parliament is supreme. Legally, there needs to be a final arbiter of truth. Better that it goes to elected representatives than some other alternatives. Parliament must be held to rules, yes. Parliament has enacted laws to strip citizenship in certain scenarios. If you don't like it, lobby your MP then vote accordingly.
"
Exactly. The law used to strip Begum of her UK citizenship was enacted in 1981, over 40 years ago. It has been used hundreds of times. The UK has also repatriated hundreds of "freedom fighters" from Syria.
Perhaps the question should be why does it appear Begum has been singled out and expelled with no possible return? As I previously posted she was still full of hate aged 19 when the HS acted. We shall never know why, but our parliament and the UK courts have consistently upheld the original decision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I dont think the public care about this isis lover / enabler remotely ...
if she rots in a prison in wherever she is I doubt anyone bar family/friends really thinks anything .
tbh I thought she was dead already until I saw this article
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What bothers me a bit about all this. Is that Britain’s prisons are so easy (some say cushy,) that someone would rather live the rest of their days in one of them, than a refugee camp in Syria!
Simply put: Rather prison here than refuge over there.
Do you think British prisons are some sort of holiday camp? "
No but some Holiday Camps are like prisons ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan 5 weeks ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"Restore her citizenship, bring her back and put her on trial for what she’s done; if she’s guilty let her rot in prison.
Exactly this "
I don’t know enough about what she’s alleged to have done, but has she actually broken any laws in the UK that would attract a long prison sentence?
It’s a serious question, I genuinely don’t know.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple 5 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club Stoke |
****Javid stated that Begum would never be allowed to return to the United Kingdom. In July 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that Begum should be permitted to return to the UK in order to fairly contest the Home Secretary’s decision by instructing lawyers properly. This ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which, on 26 February 2021, ruled unanimously against her, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal and preventing her return. In February 2020, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission further ruled that Javid's decision to revoke Begum's British citizenship had been lawful, on grounds of national security. Begum also appealed against this decision. In February 2024, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.****
Nuff' said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
. It seems wrong that she's blocked from appearing. I hope she manages to get peace and her life ends up better 