Shamima Begum

[Thetruth123]

Every time I see her interviewed it’s just her bratty , entitled, unsympathetic, stuck up attitude I think that makes people just not warm to her! She has been now brainwashed for so long she has been trained to deceive ….and that’s what makes her a danger , I agree 100% she was probably groomed to an extent & at 15 you are easily influenced…but now as an adult she should be showing way more remorse and just show she wants to come home ….from what I see if her it’s almost like she is being told to say she does ….

 

[Lazarus]

No matter how much remorse she shows, that itself is no grounds to be allowed to return, though.

 

[L3moning]

What would she be charged with and what do you think would be the sentence if found guilty? I ask because there seems to be an expectation in some quarters that she would be charged and inevitably receive a long prison sentence. I don't think either is necessarily correct. Very few people that returned from Syria were charged with any offence.

Realistically "Membership of a proscribed organisation" and whatever the actual wording of spreading terrorist propaganda is. IIRC the max sentence in both cases is 10 years.

In practice her age and the alleged grooming would be a defence and or mitigation. But it should in the end be up to a court, not the government.

Highly theoretically you could make an argument for Treason, but I think the CPS would tell you to get lost.

 

[stunrw]

Why would it cost £1 million a year?

The surveillance/monitoring by the Security Services would not be cheap. The figures quoted are utter guesswork as without access to the exact threat assessment nobody, other than Box (even her lawyers) would know what the level of monitoring would be.

The position is now, SIAC have denied the appeal. Her lawyers will obviously appeal it to the higher court.

Much will be written/said/foamed at the mouth about the rights and wrongs, but its up to the judiciary to rule on the law as its written. By the UK parliament. If Jay J has erred in his decision making (and its a lengthy judgement which I havent had the time to slog through) then it goes on. If Jay J hasn't, then appeal is dismissed and it goes from there as ive said in an earlier post.

Bottom line: Still in Syria for the foreseeable future.

 

[Honeytheonions]

She made her bed....

She's disgusting.

 

[sensibility]

F R E E S H A M I M A B E G U M

 

[Run 101]

Keep her where she is - or mebbe her backers can campaign for her to be allowed back to Bangladesh where she also had citizenship - She should never be allowed back here

 

[IngressUK]

But that one million isn't going to be spent on social care and NHS payrises is it. It's like the Brexit bus all over again. And maybe you would prefer it to be spent that way, but maybe I don't want my taxes spent on NHS payrises?! I don't know why people say this like we have any choice in how tax payer money is spent.

Well maybe I don't want my money funding legal cases for Shamima Begum, nor paying for her upkeep if she came back. Paying our hard working NHS staff a bit more, is a FAR MORE deserving cause than Shamima.

She is a great example of what is wrong with Legal Aid in the UK. A Non citizen, or no legal right to be here, you get access to it no questions asked. Legally live in the UK, you have to jump through many hoops to get it, if at all.

However, some people on this thread are more than happy for endless public money to be be continually wasted on this shyster - Whilst having the bloody cheek to bemoan about the state of public services on the other hand.

At the end of the day, any money wasted on Shamima Begum, her legal fees, etc, etc, etc, is money that could be better spent on other things in society.

 

[monga]

I believe him.

 

[thegirlscout]

Legally she had Bangladeshi citizenship until 21 so she could have claimed it ages ago instead of staying in a refugee camp.

 

[Ensay]

It's the right decision. What message would it send to others if we just let her back, as though joining ISIS didn't really matter?

She made her choice and has to deal with the consequences.

 

[IngressUK]

Keep her where she is - or mebbe her backers can campaign for her to be allowed back to Bangladesh where she also had citizenship - She should never be allowed back here

You are making a sensible point against a backdrop of one or two FMs whom advocate no border controls at all - an utterly batshit and bonkers thing to believe in.

Such a policy would allow any terrorist in the world to freely enter and leave the UK with no questions, or checks whatsoever. It would be a security nightmare waiting to happen. Not to mention the depopulation of some countries and overpopulation of others that would occur.

Just because the loony tunes rag known as The Guardian and some of its readers think it is a great idea, doesn't mean it would be in reality.

 

[Pipsy]

Off-topic but I was surprised to learn Gareth is 82. So very odd to change her name to Gareth lol.

 

[lilyannrose]

The platforming the media is continuing to give to this woman really horrifies me. She's going to get back in the UK, isn't she? I just know it.

 

[Django]

The platforming the media is continuing to give to this woman really horrifies me. She's going to get back in the UK, isn't she? I just know it.

It's one of the top threads on here now. So much vitriol, money and discussion about a young woman who hasn't committed a crime that we know of. Not so much about actual male terrorists...

 

[Moth]

Here we go again...

You really don't like hearing things you don't agree with.

Where do you think the costs involved with providing housing, benefits, security services monitoring, rehabilitation, etc, etc comes from? No doubt some form of Police protection too as she would be a sitting target for some. All this doesn't come for free. Unfortunately some still don't seem to grasp that...

I'm pretty sure it was when responding to another of your posts that I made clear that I don't much care whether she comes back to the UK or not. So it's not about 'not agreeing', it's about wondering whether the figure was based on anything substantive or just something that you pulled out of your a. I see it's the latter. I guess you're happy with the UK paying £20 million to have a prison built in Syria though.

 

[thegirlscout]

It's one of the top threads on here now. So much vitriol, money and discussion about a young woman who hasn't committed a crime that we know of. Not so much about actual male terrorists...

It’s a thread about Shamima herself and it’s a hot topic so of course it’s going to be a top thread here.

 

[lilyannrose]

It's one of the top threads on here now. So much vitriol, money and discussion about a young woman who hasn't committed a crime that we know of. Not so much about actual male terrorists...

Where is vitriol in my post? I am terrified of her! I think she is incredibly dangerous. People should be allowed to say that without being made to feel guilt when you consider what she's done. I do agree with those who believe she was groomed but it does not make her any less of a threat, I feel.

 

[emm]

Is anyone listening to the podcast? Saying she had never felt loved before... obviously we cannot know as this is her view, but not a great indictment on her family

 

[Moth]

I’m not sure of the answer to most of this but as for the bit in bold, it isn’t Shamima’s choice. The UK won’t accept her back, neither will Bangladesh. She has no valid passport therefore cannot travel to any country legally. She is stuck there for now. I don’t think the UK should have made her stateless and that is/was an early part of the legal challenge. Bangladesh haven’t offered her citizenship on the basis of her fathers heritage therefore she has nowhere to go so for as much as she can say she wants to leave or plans to leave, she can’t go far.
A consequence of her actions.

SIAC found that as a matter of fact, Bangladesh didn't have to offer her citizenship, she automatically became a Bangladeshi citizen at birth by descent. She was still a Bangladeshi citizen when her British citizenship was revoked so the decision of The Home Secretary did not make her stateless.

It was argued in her appeal that The Home Secretary should have known and taken into account that although she might not be made stateless de jure, she was de facto because irrespective of what Bangladeshi law says, the Bangladeshi government would instruct a Bangladeshi court to say that she wasn't a Bangladeshi citizen. SIAC rejected that argument.

It's also an interesting (at least to me) but entirely academic point (because it will never be tested) that Bangladeshi law says that citizenship must be renewed at 21 if a citizen holds dual nationality. However as she had been deprived of her British citizenship by the time she reached 21 she did not hold dual citizenship and therefore is arguably still in law, a Bangladeshi citizen.