-
not-a-medical-Dr Jessica Taylor monetising the Russell Brand and David Walliams news is disgusting. She forced her vulnerable employees to sign an NDA to stop them whistle blowing. She threatened survivors of sexual abuse to sue them for “every single one of their assets” if they spoke up. She is one of the most dangerous people in the VAWG sector and does so much harm to women and girls.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Well she alone chose to give an interview when discovered, and an absolute car crash it was, minimum remorse, maximum entitlement.
And at that point she became a media figure and public opinion split into two camps. Those that felt sorry for her and felt that she was “a victim too”. And sane people.
Unfortunately it is the victim too camp who will not let it lie. And let her rot. Because you can’t reason with people on a righteous crusade…..
Yeh, and with everything about Ukraine, economic crises etc I thought she would have just ended up forgotten about tbh
That's suspicious in itself imo...She also said in an interview that she was terrified of the other women in the camp, yet is giving interviews (from the camp ) where she's apparenly going against ISIS and all that they stand for
No way on this earth can she be terrified of the other woman in the camp the way she gives out interviews left right and centre. She’s scarier now she’s older then when she was 15. She’s older, seen more, experienced more, knows the wrong people ect. No way can she be allowed back into the UK.That's suspicious in itself imo...She also said in an interview that she was terrified of the other women in the camp, yet is giving interviews (from the camp ) where she's apparenly going against ISIS and all that they stand for
Correct me if I’m wrong but is going against the grain something you’d do if you were living in fear
Shamima Begum says she fears for her life in Syrian refugee camp
Begum said she is a target of frequent attacks for being ‘Westernised’ and ‘less Muslim’
Mentioning the family, did anyone see the news article a few months ago at some kind of money exchange station in camp where family/friends send money? A journalist caught her there. It said she walked off after she was spotted and denied she was there but the journalist already had the pictures. I can’t find it now (havnt really looked properly though), does anyone remember it? Makes you question who is sending her money. It’s illegal to actually send the money the journalist noted in the article which explains why she denied it
I believe she is one of a number of women who have abandoned the strict Islamic rules, for example they wear western clothes and use make-up. That group are subject to attack from the women who remain more 'faithful' to ISIS and are segregated and protected by the camp guards.That's suspicious in itself imo...She also said in an interview that she was terrified of the other women in the camp, yet is giving interviews (from the camp ) where she's apparenly going against ISIS and all that they stand for
In my opinion, it is an understandable that she gives interviews etc and that news about the possible death sentence is highlighted in the media because she has to try to elicit some degree of sympathy and public opinion that she should be allowed back into the UK while she continues her appeal. Almost certainly a lost cause, especially with this government but I think her legal team feel they have no other choice.
Who is paying her legal team I wonder?
Could be pro bono lawyers, though one article suggests it is legal aid which is controversial given she's not in the country and on the edge of losing her British citizenship
Shamima Begum, legal aid and access to justice - Free Movement
On 19 July 2020, Boris Johnson announced that the government would review legal aid rules in light of a Court of Appeal judgment requiring the government to
freemovement.org.uk
She has already lost her citizenship but she qualifies for legal aid to challenge the decision.Could be pro bono lawyers, though one article suggests it is legal aid which is controversial given she's not in the country and on the edge of losing her British citizenship
Shamima Begum, legal aid and access to justice - Free Movement
On 19 July 2020, Boris Johnson announced that the government would review legal aid rules in light of a Court of Appeal judgment requiring the government to
Historically when the government wanted to deprive someone of their British citizenship, the person involved was entitled to 'due process' i.e to be told the reasons why and have the opportunity to challenge them in a British court before the decision was confirmed.
When the government made changes to the immigration rules (I think in 2014 when Teresa May was Home Secretary), the individual lost that right. Instead the decision to deprive someone of their citizenship was entirely at the discretion of The Home Secretary without any involvement from a court. This made a number of people including Tory peers very uncomfortable. To pacify some of the objections about loss of 'due process' the government said that people who had lost their citizenship would be entitled to challenge the decision in a British court afterwards and receive legal aid to do so.
At the same time there was a concern that the government would use the new powers given to The Home Secretary to strip people of their citizenship while they were out of the country leaving them unable to return to challenge the decision. The government assured parliament that this would not happen or at least only on very rare occasions. In practice it has happened a lot including with Shamima Begum. A big part of her appeal has been been whether she can get a 'fair trial' without being able to return to the UK to conduct it.
It should be no surprise that the government has also since talked about removing the right to legal aid for people to challenge the decision to remove British citizenship.
Times behind paywall
Attachments
Last edited:
Shamima Begum: Spy for Canada smuggled schoolgirl to Syria
Mohammed Al Rasheed says he shared her passport details with Canada as UK police hunted for her.
www.bbc.co.uk
BBC now appear to be white knighting Begum.
You are a monster Shamima. And a religious bigot.
Do you think they could have a case if they play on the trafficked story, seems a bit suss that it’s appearing now.Shamima Begum: Spy for Canada smuggled schoolgirl to Syria
Mohammed Al Rasheed says he shared her passport details with Canada as UK police hunted for her.
BBC now appear to be white knighting Begum.
You are a monster Shamima. And a religious bigot.
The job of the barrister is to represent their client. They will be pursuing the “trafficked” angle like a Pitbull on a meaty leg. Of course it depends on the definition of trafficking. There can be little doubt she used intermediaries to get to Syria, but “trafficking” implies that she did not consent, didn’t know where she was going, for what purpose, and was held there against her will. None of these apply to Begum as far as I know the background of the case.
Denying Begum a trial in a British court is a win-win for the British government. Putting feelings about Begum and her crimes aside for a minute, consider this; we already have information (albeit limited) that the police were aware that students in Begum's school. And without a doubt, there was a litany of failures’ by the local council, police and school in the lead up to the Bethnal trio's departure for the Islamic State. If this case was heard a British court of law, it would be reasonable to presume that the defence would dig deeper into these failures, presenting indisputable evidence that the authorities failed to intervene on several occasions. It would put the actions (or lack there of) of British counter-terrorism policing into the spotlight, highlighting failures & incompetency whilst undermine any credibility that the unit has.
By denying Begum an opportunity to defend herself in a UK court, the Government has won the support of the British public who are (understandably) angry at Begum's actions AND they can also avoid having their own failures scrutinised in front of a wide audience.
By denying Begum an opportunity to defend herself in a UK court, the Government has won the support of the British public who are (understandably) angry at Begum's actions AND they can also avoid having their own failures scrutinised in front of a wide audience.
What “intervention” do you think was appropriate?
This is not news, it was reported in the Canadian media (at least) in 2015. And just to be clear this wasn't a Canadian citizen working undercover, it was a Syrian ISIS operative that claims that he was spying on behalf of Canada. There is a suggestion (probably more than a suggestion) that the British government agreed to cover this up after the event.
It's interesting that this was featured in The Times before being picked up by other media. I get the impression that The Times is "running interference", trying to distract attention on some of the government critical stories but maybe that's just me being cynical.
It's interesting that this was featured in The Times before being picked up by other media. I get the impression that The Times is "running interference", trying to distract attention on some of the government critical stories but maybe that's just me being cynical.
She hasn't been denied an opportunity to defend herself in a UK court. Through her lawyers she has and continues to mount an appeal against deprivation of her citizenship in UK courts. She has been denied the opportunity to return to the UK.
I’m watching BBC news coverage of this and I’m confused why it matters that a smuggler was used. Of course it was, that’s just common sense and I’m sure it’s been revealed already by anyone else who ran
- Status