She was specifically not answering certain questions during the interview. She never gave any comments on the contradictions to her accounts. If she won't answer or keeps being vague then she will get nowhere.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Firstly, whatever information she shares will likely never be enough for absolutely everyone
Secondly, and more relevantly, these media interviews aren’t exactly legal proceedings where she has to share absolutely everything and pour her heart out. Especially as the concern is likely that it will be used against her by the government without her/her lawyers being able to answer to that in a legal setting. Personally I don’t think she can ever win this media thing she seems to be trying to kick up, probably to get public pressure on the government, because of her affiliation with ISIS so the government can happily skip along because the consensus is with them
Some people may be happy with that in general and that’s fine, but there’s still a problem with her human rights being undermined and potentially put at risk and I personally don’t think that’s okay just because she’s a bad person
Not defending her at all, but Venebles etc were not basically groomed online. I do not believe her at all, she knew lot of what she was going into. But either way, she was groomed in the same way young girls are to be sex workers etc
The legal route isn't working for her to be doing these interviews in the first place. Of course she'll never win with the media, once they sense a bit of a story they're relentless.
Her risk has been assessed and it is deemed not suitable for her return. She seems to have also accepted that herself somewhat.
Her friend who convinced her to go over in the first place escaped the camp she was in and went back to join ISIS. Some of the Women there are clearly unrepentant and still a risk.
Do you want to take a chance? I noticed those that are pro vaxx seem to trust the government until it comes to migration and Begum
There was one very good point made in the documentary. The camp she is in is in no way secure. In fact the first girl from her school that joined ISIS was in the camp but has since escaped and is back with ISIS. The point made was that at least if she was tried and convicted in the UK she would be imprisoned here and would ultimately be less risk to the people of this country.
The comment further up about documentaries glorifying evil people... this did not glorify her at all. She came across as untrustworthy, enjoying the attention and with a more than questionable idea of the truth.
There are documentaries shown every week about serial killers, terrorists and perpetrators of genocide. Why shouldn't there be a documentary about her?
The comment further up about documentaries glorifying evil people... this did not glorify her at all. She came across as untrustworthy, enjoying the attention and with a more than questionable idea of the truth.
There are documentaries shown every week about serial killers, terrorists and perpetrators of genocide. Why shouldn't there be a documentary about her?
Why should the UK tax payer pay for her? She took up arms, she’s a terrorist.She deserves to rot in the hole she’s dug for herself.
Attachments
Last edited:
Full article here…
www.independent.co.uk
Shamima Begum 'was member of feared Isis morality police'
Prime minister reportedly briefed on claims teenager sewed bombers into suicide vests
Specifically which section of the Human Rights Act has been infringed upon?
Human Rights Act 1998 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And what legal argument would you use which hasn’t already been considered?
And surprise surprise she can’t win with the media. The media are doing their job and asking the awkward questions that she has been spectacularly unable to answer. Do you expect it should be fawning around her and presenting her version as irrefutable fact? Because that isn’t journalism, that is advertising. And have you ever wondered why the ”consensus” is with the government?
Human rights in Islamic State-controlled territory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
“Consensus” in itself implies that there is an alternative opinion on the history, acts, and methods is available. What do you believe the “alternative facts” are?
Last edited:
The Shamima Begum story was high profile in the media from the start and there seems to be a continuing appetite for that to continue. I assume she is cooperating with it in the hope of garnering public support. I think that is a forlorn hope. However, it has little to do with her continuing legal case to appeal the decision by Sajid Javid to deprive her of British citizenship. That is the venue where independent judges will hear the full range of arguments. Based on what I have read, those arguments have gone way beyond anything she might say in a tv interview.
If she did return to the UK, with or without British citizenship it is far from certain that she would face prosecution and if she did that it would result in an significant sentence.
There has been many other people who have been deprived of their British citizenship in recent years. One recent case involves a woman who at the age of 22 travelled to Turkey with her husband and 2 children and then the ISIL controlled part of Syria where she had a third child. To cut a long story short, she was deprived of her British citizenship and now at the age of 30, her children have been repatriated to the UK but she is prevented from joining them. I am not saying that this is a good or bad thing just that as far as I am aware it has received no coverage in the media.
If she did return to the UK, with or without British citizenship it is far from certain that she would face prosecution and if she did that it would result in an significant sentence.
There has been many other people who have been deprived of their British citizenship in recent years. One recent case involves a woman who at the age of 22 travelled to Turkey with her husband and 2 children and then the ISIL controlled part of Syria where she had a third child. To cut a long story short, she was deprived of her British citizenship and now at the age of 30, her children have been repatriated to the UK but she is prevented from joining them. I am not saying that this is a good or bad thing just that as far as I am aware it has received no coverage in the media.
The “radicalised people” are the people who flew the bleeping planes into the bleeping buildings, thus depriving 3000 people of the most basic of human rights, the right to life. Look closely at the argument you are making, you are comparing Islamaphobia (which is a made up word) to the premeditated mass slaughter of innocent civilians.Yes let’s blame the radicalised people to the point where they don’t deserve basic rights and excuse Islamophobia
No one seems to be saying she’s a 100% innocent, and the chance is that she would face some type of punishment on return for her actions during her time with ISIS
I know you will never answer a direct question, but exactly who was it that was oppressing and excluding Begum, and from what was she being excluded? My understanding was that right up until the day she left she was attending secondary school, just like any other teenager, she was free to follow whichever dictates of her religion she wished, was free to enter into any relationship she wanted to, had a stable secure home, food on the table, access to free healthcare, and didn’t appear to be under any sort of surveillance. And pretty much chose to exclude herself by running away to join the religious bigots in Syria. No human rights were removed from any Muslim citizens following 9/11, or 7/7, if I’m wrong can you (once again) explain which ones you think were. She might have FELT oppressed or excluded, but her feelings are frankly bleeping irrelevant. She wasn’t and is just using “the feels” as a bullshit excuse.
I'm not saying that all or any of these would be valid but potentially she could claim:Specifically which section of the Human Rights Act has been infringed upon?
Human Rights Act 1998 - Wikipedia
- Article 2, the right to life
- Article 3, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Article 6, which entitles her to a fair and public hearing in the determination of her civil rights
- Article 8, which requires respect for her private and family life. The human rights court has accepted that an arbitrary deprivation of citizenship may, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under article 8. There may be a breach if procedural safeguards were denied.
- Article 13, which says that everyone whose rights under the convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority
She has also tried the 'Article 3' argument i.e. that Sajid Javid should have known that depriving her of British citizenship would expose her to the risk of death or inhuman treatment. The SIAC Tribunal rejected this claim saying that the Home Secretary was only required to consider foreseeable risks and those that flowed as a direct consequence of his decision. The fact that she was in terrible conditions in the camp in Syria were a consequence of her choices not the Home Secretary's decision.
I think she might be too late to take her case to the ECHR but I'm not totally sure.
Yeh I read somewhere that the problem with prosecutions in these cases is the lack of evidence, obviously they have proof she went to Syria but there may not be enough evidence of what she did or did not do to give a strong sentence. I wonder what she would/will do back jn the UK, I cannot imagine she would easily be able to find a job
I’m sure they’ll provide her with her own Shamimamobile complete with panic button and 24 hr security.
I also think that the problem might also be what she could be charged with. Potentially she could be charged with being a member of a proscribed organisation but unless they can prove she was an 'active' member the punishment (particularly in her circumstances) could well be 'non-custodial'. There is also a law about moving to a proscribed area (i.e. ISIL controlled Syria) but that law did not come in until after she had gone there and can't be backdated.
I imagine life would be pretty awful for her back in the UK, especially at first but probably not as awful as it is now.
Yeh her life now must be hell, and God knows the state her mental health is in, losing 2 children in a normal situation must be traumatising let alone everything else. I have said before I do not agree with revoking her citizenship at all, but I almost think coming back here would possibly just radicalise her more because of the discrimination she would face. It's basically an impossible situation
What annoys me the most is the people who bang on about Shamina's (or any other serious criminal or Terrorist's) Human Rights.
Where at any stage did Shamina consider the Human Rights of anyone else when getting involved with ISIS.
Some people in this world are not fit to breathe the same air, let alone banging about what 'rights' they should have.
Shamina is one of those people.
If Putin was ever arrested for his war mongering in Ukraine, would people still be banging on about his Human Rights, despite he has overseen the slaughter of many Ukrainians in his stupid war?
Putin deserves to be hung in public for his atrocities.
I also question why some think we should take her back. She would be a lifelong burden on taxpayers, as she would spend a lengthy time in prison (at our expense) and would be unemployable for the rest of her life.
Last edited:
Yes they would be, he would have a trial at the Hague a lawyer etc. There is no point lowering ourselves to people like isis or putin
What Discrimination will she face? Will she not be able to practice her religion? She will likely face criminal charges, but that is pretty standard for the course if you commit criminal acts, and not discriminatory. Will she be denied services? Will she be denied human rights? She might have issues getting work, but frankly she didn’t finish her education and a noted religious Facist might not be the perfect fit in a company which operates a diverse recruitment policy. What on earth does she expect?
Can someone please explain what discrimination she will face, and indeed has faced, in her wasted life?
Well, for one, if she hadn't faced discrimination she likely wouldn't have seen ISIS as some sort of safe-haven
I don't even need to mention the Islamophobia which does often lead to discrimination, though some seem to think that's perfectly acceptable
- Status