If you saw the Javid interview at the time his whole body language/ expression pointed to more than just joining ISIS ,the UK hasn’t responded to Strasbourg yet so there’s no guarantee the ECHR courts will persue her case when the full facts are shared.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Body language doesn't mean much though, it can be interpreted any way and isn't factual evidence. It's just a waiting game now really and it's impossible to really know what way it'll go. Personally though I do think the UK will have to bring her back. I'd be happy to be wrong on this one though obviously
Well it was more than body language.Body language doesn't mean much though, it can be interpreted any way and isn't factual evidence. It's just a waiting game now really and it's impossible to really know what way it'll go. Personally though I do think the UK will have to bring her back. I'd be happy to be wrong on this one though obviously
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make sorry. An interview on tv still isn't any evidence for anything and it can be taken in any way. Javid is correct in saying he can't discuss the details of the case, that's just standard practice regardless of who is involved or what the case is about. If there was a larger reason to take away her citizenship other than her joining isis, that would likely have already been disclosed as, much like her joining isis, it would be in the publics interest to know.
At the end of the day, I'm not disagreeing with anything re her being a danger and I do agree that she shouldn't be allowed back to the UK. However, she was a UK citizen, she didn't follow the requirements to have a dual citizenship so although on one "page" the UK was right to withdraw her citizenship, they also on the "other page" were wrong as they made her stateless which goes against their own ruling. I'd like to think that she won't be allowed back but at the end of it all, facts and laws are in place and they can't be bent or have things covered up to allow certain circumstances.
It’s Article 4 they’re currently pushing as a means to get her back to the UK nothing to do with citizenship , that case was already defeated .
Yes that's true but the original comments I've been replying to were discussing her citizenship and more the legalities behind the Bangladeshi dual citizenship and we went down a rabbit hole from there
In response to article 4 though, the UK could still end up with her being brought back here although that is a slim chance. I do still think they may have to accept her back at some point though as she isn't going away.
As far as I remember, the security services (MI5/MI6/GCHQ?) presented compelling evidence to show she had done far more than simply 'joining ISIS', which in itself is pretty heinous. It has been kept secret for reasons we don't know - maybe it involves still living people. Maybe it is too awful for us to know about.
Maybe if this taken back through the courts and it is forced to be revealed, we will know but I do believe that there must be more to it than she joined ISIS. I personally don't believe that she would have been allowed to simply stay at home and make babies, I think she would have been part of the machine and complicit in crimes.
Of course there will always be doubts to her not doing anything other than joining isis and of course large security and goverments will know more than the average person on the street. We have no need to know absolutely everything regarding this case, some of the ways these people get their intelligence for a start could put people at risk so why would they tell us all their secrets. But if they had concrete proof that they were able to use against her in court, ie proof of acts of terrorism, we would know about it as that would have gave the UK more of a reason to revoke her citizenship. Another thing is, if there was proof of anything she would be tried for terrorism as well, and that's not happened at the time of her court hearing. Maybe in the future if proof was to be revealed but the courts act on evidence not people's feelings on someone.
According to the latest reports he's still there. Interesting though, he is a Dutch national and is a known terrorist (shamina is not a known terrorist) yet he has not be stripped of his citizenship. Although the Netherlands have said they will not help him and he will face jail time if he returns. He has also said he would want his wife to join him in the Netherlands...
It is interesting that she has not asked for a divorce. If they only had a religious marriage then she could ask an Iman to do it or ask her husband himself to divorce her. I don't think they're in contact but they know where each other are so it wouldn't be impossible to do.
Yep. Or an annulment if there are religious reasons why she would get divorced.
I doubt it. They don't even seem to want him back as they aren't assisting him.
Also, they had a religious wedding. Not a legal one so the Netherlands and even the UK (if she was allowed back) wouldn't legally recognise them as married. She was also 15 when they married so again, it wouldn't be legally accepted
Is the religious aspect not the more important though? Culturally.
Yeah but not in politics, especially regarding those two
SB husband has also confirmed that while he is jailed she collects his ISIS wages. I’m just not convinced she’s not waiting for him.
Those files will be classified for decades to protect their sources and families, courts will not be privy to them nor will her legal team if they’re gov protected.