Shamima Begum

[IngressUK]

Woah woah woah, lets not get it twisted.
Pretty much everyone in this thread disagrees with me and you will see I have not questioned anyone's mental health.

I read the story he sold to the Daily Mail. Why should I have to research further? He's an attention seeker that gets his kicks touring dangerous places that a lot of poor people have no choice but to call home.
Anyone that visits North Korea or a Syrian concentration camp to leer at the people trapped there and then sell stories to the Daily Mail need their head checked. Last I checked we do still have freedom of speech in the UK and I am as entitled to my opinion as you are.

You stated:

I'd say anyone that believes the DM danger tourist should also be seen my a mental health professional.

Who do you think you are making such a statement.

You are entitled to an opinion but not entitled to make unfounded remarks about people you don't even know, just because you don't agree with them. Saying that people who agree with that guy should be seen by mental health services. I happen (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) to agree with some of what he says, so by your own words I should be seen by mental health services. So you have attacked some on this thread.

We see this time after time with certain people.

Don't agree with something - then the other person is labeled a bigot, some kind of 'phobe'', or have mental health issues.

Not on.

I think you will also find that he - as a Journalist - originally went out to Syria to see Shamima because he was originally sympathetic to her plight. However as time went on he could see he was being used and manipulated by her, hence his opinion of her changed.

 

[Milliemoo99]

Aren't Bangladesh saying she isn't a citizen though and never was. She was born here, raised her and her parents paid tax here. I can't see how we (we bring the Uk) can argue that makes her a Bangladesh citizen.

Yes I dont think she ever had Bangladeshi citizenship, She was born in Britain, and had a British passport, but her parents had dual nationality! I think one of the worst things about this case, was she should never have had her British citizenship revoked. She wasnt Bangladeshi, she was British.

I havent seen a lot of the detail about her, But, she was still officially a child, only 15 when she left, I do think she was a victim of sexual trafficking, and whoever did this to her and her schoolmates deserves to be punished. I don't think you can blame a child for being sexually trafficked.
If you blame her for being trafficked then what happens to situations like the Huddersfield grooming gang, where a group of men deliberated targeted and sexually abused vulnerable girls?
I wonder if ISIS were deliberately targeting British Asian girls, to increase the number of brides available for ISIS men? And whether or not, the British secret service knew anything about this? Because if they did, why on earth was it allowed to happen?

I think the government are allowing a lot of the anger and hatred towards ISIS or whatever they call themselves, to be focussed on women like Shamima Begum. Shamima is a massive problem and a massive issue, because the issues around muslim extremism are very difficult to untangle.
Extremism and murder can never be excused, and the damage this causes is awful.
Sadly however, it does feel to me as if Shamima has been made into a scapegoat by the British public and by the British government, which doesn't feel completely fair on her.

As regards the secrecy and the official secrets act, I think the government and judicary need to be careful The official secrets act, should be at some level, be fair, not just used to cover up the embarrassment of Sajid Javid making a mistaken initial judgement on her, especially by pulling her British citizenship. I also think the British state would be safer to bring her back to the UK and keep her under house arrest or similar, to avoid all this media frenzy and confusion.

 

[Polythene Pam]

You stated:



Who do you think you are making such a statement.

You are entitled to an opinion but not entitled to make unfounded remarks about people you don't even know, just because you don't agree with them. Saying that people who agree with that guy should be seen by mental health services. I happen (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) to agree with some of what he says, so by your own words I should be seen by mental health services. So you have attacked some on this thread.

We see this time after time with certain people.

Don't agree with something - then the other person is labeled a bigot, some kind of 'phobe'', or have mental health issues.

Not on.

I think you will also find that he originally went out to Syria to see Shamima because he was originally sympathetic to her plight. However as time went on he could see he was being used and manipulated by her, hence his opinion of her changed.

Who do I think I am? A person expressing my opinion on an anonymous online discussion thread just like everyone else. Who do you think you are trying to moderate what I say?

I'll say it again - I have posted many things in this thread engaging in debate with the many people that disagree with me on this topic. I do not persistently label anyone that disagrees with me as crazy. It's just not true to insinuate I do.

I stand by my comments regarding the danger tourist and if you look back you'll see the wording I chose was in reference to a previous poster.

I couldn't care less what his motivations are. Selling sensationalist stories to the DM takes away any credibility he might have had.

 

[Warpaint]

Yes I dont think she ever had Bangladeshi citizenship, She was born in Britain, and had a British passport, but her parents had dual nationality! I think one of the worst things about this case, was she should never have had her British citizenship revoked. She wasnt Bangladeshi, she was British.

I havent seen a lot of the detail about her, But, she was still officially a child, only 15 when she left, I do think she was a victim of sexual trafficking, and whoever did this to her and her schoolmates deserves to be punished. I don't think you can blame a child for being sexually trafficked.
If you blame her for being trafficked then what happens to situations like the Huddersfield grooming gang, where a group of men deliberated targeted and sexually abused vulnerable girls?
I wonder if ISIS were deliberately targeting British Asian girls, to increase the number of brides available for ISIS men? And whether or not, the British secret service knew anything about this? Because if they did, why on earth was it allowed to happen?

I think the government are allowing a lot of the anger and hatred towards ISIS or whatever they call themselves, to be focussed on women like Shamima Begum. Shamima is a massive problem and a massive issue, because the issues around muslim extremism are very difficult to untangle.
Extremism and murder can never be excused, and the damage this causes is awful.
Sadly however, it does feel to me as if Shamima has been made into a scapegoat by the British public and by the British government, which doesn't feel completely fair on her.

As regards the secrecy and the official secrets act, I think the government and judicary need to be careful The official secrets act, should be at some level, be fair, not just used to cover up the embarrassment of Sajid Javid making a mistaken initial judgement on her, especially by pulling her British citizenship. I also think the British state would be safer to bring her back to the UK and keep her under house arrest or similar, to avoid all this media frenzy and confusion.

Shamima was unhappy with her home life and followed her friend over. There doesn't seem to be much grooming or coaxing involved. She details it all in her documentary.

 

[Merpedy]

Shamima was unhappy with her home life and followed her friend over. There doesn't seem to be much grooming or coaxing involved. She details it all in her documentary.

I’m a bit confused as to where the lawyers got the sex trafficking from. It was definitely that she was radicalised by the friend she had

I got the impression that she was aware she would have to marry - maybe not as quick as she did and under circumstances where it’s definitely forced. She even says that she was looking for someone between certain ages (I think her choice was between 20 and early 20s) when she was forced to start looking

 

[IngressUK]

Who do I think I am? A person expressing my opinion on an anonymous online discussion thread just like everyone else. Who do you think you are trying to moderate what I say?

I'll say it again - I have posted many things in this thread engaging in debate with the many people that disagree with me on this topic. I do not persistently label anyone that disagrees with me as crazy. It's just not true to insinuate I do.

I stand by my comments regarding the danger tourist and if you look back you'll see the wording I chose was in reference to a previous poster.

I couldn't care less what his motivations are. Selling sensationalist stories to the DM takes away any credibility he might have had.

I'll say my piece when you start accusing others of having mental health issues. Just because they believe the word of someone you don't happen to agree with.

That isn't moderating, it is calling out people who think their opinion is always correct and think that gives them a right to label or insinuate untruthful things about others for their 'wrong' opinion.

 

[Polythene Pam]

I’m a bit confused as to where the lawyers got the sex trafficking from. It was definitely that she was radicalised by the friend she had

I got the impression that she was aware she would have to marry - maybe not as quick as she did and under circumstances where it’s definitely forced. She even says that she was looking for someone between certain ages (I think her choice was between 20 and early 20s) when she was forced to start looking

I think the essence is that young girls like Shamima were only groomed and enticed over there to be jihadi wives and to make babies (future fighters). So it all falls under sex trafficking.
---

I’m a bit confused as to where the lawyers got the sex trafficking from. It was definitely that she was radicalised by the friend she had

I got the impression that she was aware she would have to marry - maybe not as quick as she did and under circumstances where it’s definitely forced. She even says that she was looking for someone between certain ages (I think her choice was between 20 and early 20s) when she was forced to start looking

Also, she was 15 when she "chose" her husband. Below the age of consent, so she legally can't have married by choice (under British law, anway)
---

I'll say my piece when you start accusing others of having mental health issues. Just because they believe the word of someone you don't happen to agree with.

That isn't moderating, it is calling out people who think their opinion is always correct and think that gives them a right to label or insinuate untruthful things about others for their 'wrong' opinion.

Putting in bold "not on" sure feels like a telling off to me

 

[Warpaint]

I think the essence is that young girls like Shamima were only groomed and enticed over there to be jihadi wives and to make babies (future fighters). So it all falls under sex trafficking.

Yet we already know she wasn't just a 'Jihadi wife' over there which is why she has resigned herself to the fact she'll be staying in the camp.

 

[monga]

I think the essence is that young girls like Shamima were only groomed and enticed over there to be jihadi wives and to make babies (future fighters). So it all falls under sex trafficking.
---

Also, she was 15 when she "chose" her husband. Below the age of consent, so she legally can't have married by choice (under British law, anway)
---

Putting in bold "not on" sure feels like a telling off to me

The age of consent in Syria is 15 isn’t that where she met her husband?

 

[Polythene Pam]

The age of consent in Syria is 15 isn’t that where she met her husband?

True!

 

[Merpedy]

Also, she was 15 when she "chose" her husband. Below the age of consent, so she legally can't have married by choice (under British law, anway)

It's all very icky whichever way you cut it really

Even if she went with the knowledge that she would marry someone older... just hard to think how it all worked and I wouldn't be surprised if it has had lasting trauma

 

[Polythene Pam]

It's all very icky whichever way you cut it really

Even if she went with the knowledge that she would marry someone older... just hard to think how it all worked and I wouldn't be surprised if it has had lasting trauma

Yes I agree. Her husband on the BBC documentary acknowledged she was underage. He comes across as controlling.
I find it hard to show her sympathy but it's hard to believe she's not traumatised.

 

[Milliemoo99]

The age of consent in Syria is 15 isn’t that where she met her husband?

So why on earth did Prince Andrew get into so much trouble with Virginia Guiffre? She was 17, over the British age of consent, in London, when the alleged sex between them took place?
How can Virginia Guiffre say she was sex trafficked and get an enormous payout, for events that allegedly happened when she was 17, And Prince Andrew was disgraced. yet a naïve and ignorant 15 year old, Shamima isnt allowed the same defence?

 

[monga]

So why on earth did Prince Andrew get into so much trouble with Virginia Guiffre? She was 17, over the British age of consent, in London, when the alleged sex between them took place?
How can Virginia Guiffre say she was sex trafficked and get an enormous payout, for events that allegedly happened when she was 17, And Prince Andrew was disgraced. yet a naïve and ignorant 15 year old, Shamima isnt allowed the same defence?

I assumed her pay off was to keep her mouth shut about what went on, not that she was underage?
Otherwise he would’ve been facing a police inquiry and possible charges. There’s some countries where child brides are the norm yet these men face no charges because it’s a cultural thing.

 

[steste]

She was 15 at the time and she is British. That is our problem. If this situation had happened earlier in time, she would have been back by now. Unfortunately, this situation fits too well into the far right ideology of the Tory government and gives them at least some support from the general public.

 

[Milliemoo99]

I assumed her pay off was to keep her mouth shut about what went on, not that she was underage?

Why would you pay anyone off, if you hadn't done anything illegal though? I d imagine the pay off was to make the case go away, but wasnt the whole case built around Virginia being a sex victim of Epstein and sexually exploited when she was too naive to know any better? She didnt realise until she was older that she had been used as a sex victim by Prince Andrew?

 

[ohannie]

So why on earth did Prince Andrew get into so much trouble with Virginia Guiffre? She was 17, over the British age of consent, in London, when the alleged sex between them took place?
How can Virginia Guiffre say she was sex trafficked and get an enormous payout, for events that allegedly happened when she was 17, And Prince Andrew was disgraced. yet a naïve and ignorant 15 year old, Shamima isnt allowed the same defence?

You do realise that human trafficking is illegal whatever the person's age, right?

 

[Polythene Pam]

You don't have to be underage to be sex trafficked.
---

You do realise that human trafficking is illegal whatever the person's age, right?

Snap!

 

[monga]

Why would you pay anyone off, if you hadn't done anything illegal though? I d imagine the pay off was to make the case go away, but wasnt the whole case built around Virginia being a sex victim of Epstein and sexually exploited when she was too naive to know any better? She didnt realise until she was older that she had been used as a sex victim by Prince Andrew?

It would depend on what age Epstein was pimping her out from? The payout from the Queen was to protect the jubilee celebrations ,apparently she’s free to speak from next week as her year of silence has come to an end, I saw she’s finding it hard to get a publisher because of legal implications around her recollection of events.

 

[Moth]

I’m a bit confused as to where the lawyers got the sex trafficking from. It was definitely that she was radicalised by the friend she had

I got the impression that she was aware she would have to marry - maybe not as quick as she did and under circumstances where it’s definitely forced. She even says that she was looking for someone between certain ages (I think her choice was between 20 and early 20s) when she was forced to start looking

As I understand it, the evidence is that she was directly radicalised by her friend Sharmeena who was in turn radicalised by Asqa Mahmoud who had travelled to Syria in 2014. In December 2014 Sharmeena with encouragement from Asqa Mahmoud travelled to Istanbul and then on to Syria. It is believed that Sharmeena then encouraged Shamima and her two friends to make the same journey.

SIAC reached the opinion that Shamima and the other girls could not have made the journey without support and crucially encouragement from other parties. Their judgement is that there is credible evidence that Shamima was 'trafficked' to Syria in order to be married to and bear the children of ISIS fighters. This is considered sexual exploitation.

I understand that the law is that whether or not Shamima knew what was in store for her and was happy to go along with it is irrelevant. As a minor she is not legally able to give consent and that again in legal terms her decision to travel to Syria cannot be considered voluntary.

Her lawyers argued that the Home Secretary should have taken this into account when making the deprivation decision. In fact he gave it no consideration at all. SIAC rejected this argument but it seems likely that this will be challenged in higher courts.