Perhaps they can take that up with Uk gov if it bothers them.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The right decision was made today by the Supreme Court.
Had she of come back, it would have cost taxpayers over £1 million a year to keep her. I'd rather that money was spent on more important things like Social Care, money towards pay rises for NHS workers, helping the less well off in society, or other more deserving causes.
Not wasted supporting one person who decided to run off and join ISIS and wants to come back.
Had she of come back, it would have cost taxpayers over £1 million a year to keep her. I'd rather that money was spent on more important things like Social Care, money towards pay rises for NHS workers, helping the less well off in society, or other more deserving causes.
Not wasted supporting one person who decided to run off and join ISIS and wants to come back.
Maybe her family should start a GFM if they want to persue her case till the end of days .I don’t think the taxpayer should be funding anymore appeals.
---
---
I’m not sure how far the ECHR would go when it involves matters of national security.
Why would it cost £1 million a year?
When will a line be drawn under it, so to speak? Will there be a point where the decision is final so no more appeals?
Agreed 100%
But i would expect it to end up there
---
Begum loses - Appeals
Govt loses - Appeals that judgement
Govt/Begum loses that - Party appeals to high court
Govt/Begum loses that appeal - Appeals that
Magic roundabout……….
The only people that should want Shamima Begum home are her family. Anyone else saying allow her back here should stand in front of the families that lost their loved ones in the Manchester Arena Attack. Don,t forget she lives in a camp full of Isis women and putting a pair of leggings on and a shirt for the media means very little in my opinion!
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...
Someone made a good point about the lack of transparency around this case and how she is a danger to national security. Realistically, anyone could be labelled a danger to national security - the fact that she joined a terror group doesn't necessarily mean that she still has those beliefs
I listened to the latest podcast episode and is it known what happened to the friendship between the girls? It seems that Shamima wasn't as close to them as the others were given that she wasn't told about the plans one of them had to leave until much later after she had passed
I listened to the latest podcast episode and is it known what happened to the friendship between the girls? It seems that Shamima wasn't as close to them as the others were given that she wasn't told about the plans one of them had to leave until much later after she had passed
Hopefully act as a deterrent
I’m in two minds on this case: in one, I think she should not be allowed to come back. She made a decision to join a terror group. I accept she was radicalised, probably groomed too, but she left and she should have to deal with the consequences of this.
that said, in the time her case has gone on, I am quite confident there have been dozens of others who have come back to the UK from Syria. Her case, like all matters of national security, is heard in SIAC, so most people will never know the true numbers, but there have been precedents set previously.
Her case is probably being funded by Legal Aid, which is infuriating. It will have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds so far, and if Gareth Pierce (she is an formidable lawyer) feels there is merit in pursuing to ECHR, then Legal Aid will have to make an assessment about whether they choose to fund the next stage. It is very expensive for the tax payer.
The other side:
Why shouldn’t the UK take her back? She is a British citizen, albeit not by birth. Why should Bangladesh, a country which she has never lived in, have to take her because the UK where she was raised won’t? I don’t think it is for us to say we simply don’t want her. If she had been a British citizen by birth, as many are who have gone to Syria, she would be here now.
---
it’s a massive drain on tax payers. Don’t ask me how I know about this
that said, in the time her case has gone on, I am quite confident there have been dozens of others who have come back to the UK from Syria. Her case, like all matters of national security, is heard in SIAC, so most people will never know the true numbers, but there have been precedents set previously.
Her case is probably being funded by Legal Aid, which is infuriating. It will have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds so far, and if Gareth Pierce (she is an formidable lawyer) feels there is merit in pursuing to ECHR, then Legal Aid will have to make an assessment about whether they choose to fund the next stage. It is very expensive for the tax payer.
The other side:
Why shouldn’t the UK take her back? She is a British citizen, albeit not by birth. Why should Bangladesh, a country which she has never lived in, have to take her because the UK where she was raised won’t? I don’t think it is for us to say we simply don’t want her. If she had been a British citizen by birth, as many are who have gone to Syria, she would be here now.
---
Yes this is partly true. If a case is heard in SIAC, only special advocates are allowed to go (so not every lawyer). The person who is the subject of the hearing will not find out all of the information which is held on them - for reasons of national security. If someone is being heard at SIAC, they will almost certainly qualify for legal aid (tax payer funded legal representation) because the legal aid agency don’t have enough information to determine that the person shouldn’t be funded.
it’s a massive drain on tax payers. Don’t ask me how I know about this
Last edited:
The podcast sort of discussed this today. One of the girls was planning to leave and her family and someone else (I think he's a lawyer?) was helping to organise it, working with a group of people inside Syria. She chose not to leave because she was so terrified and had she been caught it would have been a death sentence for her
People clearly left and returned to their home countries but very little is heard about them. What distinguishes them from those who chose not to leave because they did not wish to risk their life further? Would the reaction be any different had Shamima came out and said she did plan to leave or would it make no difference?
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.
@Lazarus I'm also in two minds. Mostly, I'm glad that she's lost the appeal, I don't want her here, I don't think taxpayers should be funding her appeals and/or her future life. Nor do I want people in the UK put at more risk by the poster girl for ISIS.
BUT why should Syria have to put up with her? does it make her less of a poster girl? I dont know.
BUT why should Syria have to put up with her? does it make her less of a poster girl? I dont know.
I think Syria is on its arse and probably one person in the middle of those detention camps isn’t really that much of an issue for them. If it was, however, and if they were mindful of international law, they can’t remove her anyway as she’s currently stateless so has no home country to be returned to.
There’s some irony that she’s not a British citizen but still has access to legal aid
Personally I don’t care much about it as I’m of the opinion that everyone should have access to the courts, but it’s very twisted
Personally I don’t care much about it as I’m of the opinion that everyone should have access to the courts, but it’s very twisted
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.
- Status