Shamima Begum

[Wayne.Kerr]

I don’t think she can be legally exiled as she has no second citizenship. We could ship her off somewhere but what better way to create another recruiting sergeant for the likes of IS? That’s a practical view of the situation.

 

[Wayne.Kerr]

She left of her own free will and now it's gone tits up she wants to return. Tough shit IMO. If it hadn't gone tits up would she be trying to come back? Like fuck she would.

And to use legal aid, jeez.

The only responsibility fell on her to make the right decision of whether to go or not, she made the wrong decision. I don't expect my country or fellow taxpayer to be responsible for decisions I make.

To many make excuses for individuals making the wrong decisions in this country, and that's why this country is so fucked up.

She was a minor and in law deemed incapable of making an adult decision.

 

[ThreeSixes]

I don’t think she can be legally exiled as she has no second citizenship. We could ship her off somewhere but what better way to create another recruiting sergeant for the likes of IS? That’s a practical view of the situation.

I will defer to your greater knowledge as you are always right, but wasn't stripping her of her British Nationality legal, as she was eligible to apply for citizenship of another country (Bangladesh)? The fact that they has said they wouldn't take her isn't relevant. But I imagine you know that this isn't correct (but won't post proof).

Don't see how her treatment can act as a recruitment for IS though? She has lost her child, lost her liberty, has no future, and is facing prison (although she would still rather come back to Britain than go somewhere else Islamic). She (and 20,000 other Muslims) went there of their own accord, and IS has been defeated.

Again, I'm sure you know different (but also wont deem is worth your time explaining why to a racist like me).

 

[ThreeSixes]

She was a minor and in law deemed incapable of making an adult decision.

I agree with this bit - other people should be taking the blame for what she did, but I'm sure they wont.

 

[jogills]

As I understand it she has no right to Bangladeshi citizenship. If she did and she went there she would be arrested on arrival and served with charges carrying punitive sentences.

I understand the distate people have for IS volunteers but think a couple of years down the line. Large, overcrowded and disease ridden camps full of disaffected young people have produced a new generation of closed minds and twisted ideologies. Will we then consider it was a job well done? First we have legal and moral duties to our citizens and second fertilising the ground for a new wave of extremism makes us less not more safe.

 

[Wayne.Kerr]

will defer to your greater knowledge as you are always right, but wasn't stripping her of her British Nationality legal, as she was eligible to apply for citizenship of another country (Bangladesh)? The fact that they has said they wouldn't take her isn't relevant. But I imagine you know that this isn't correct (but won't post proof).

Being asked to apply for citizenship elsewhere is not the same as being stripped of citizenship/ otherwise, look it up yourself.

Don't see how her treatment can act as a recruitment for IS though? She has lost her child, lost her liberty, has no future, and is facing prison (although she would still rather come back to Britain than go somewhere else Islamic). She (and 20,000 other Muslims) went there of their own accord, and IS has been defeated.

Think a bit harder

Again, I'm sure you know different (but also wont deem is worth your time explaining why to a racist like me).

You said it

 

[ThreeSixes]

As I understand it she has no right to Bangladeshi citizenship. If she did and she went there she would be arrested on arrival and served with charges carrying punitive sentences.

That's not my understanding (the first sentence). Bangladesh law says that there is a right to "citizenship by descent" for anyone born to a Bangladeshi parent. I think I read that someone can apply for this until they are 21 (Ms Begum is 19).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javid

International law said a person can't be stripped of nationality if an individual would be left stateless - the assumption is the the UK govt took legal advice that the Bangladeshi law means that this isn't applicable - the fact that Bangladesh is unwilling to adhere to their law in this instance presumably wasn't relevant (waits for WayneKerr to advise..)

I'm sure the 2nd part of the paragraph is correct, but she would (or has been) arrested here also.

 

[ThreeSixes]

I understand the distate people have for IS volunteers but think a couple of years down the line. Large, overcrowded and disease ridden camps full of disaffected young people have produced a new generation of closed minds and twisted ideologies. .

What about the "much larger" refugee camps of people displaced by IS?

It isn't the treatment of IS that will cause people to have "closed minds and twisted ideologies", people would have need to have had that already to be a member of IS, surely?

 

[jogills]

Any idea that she has dual citizenship is at best contentious. She has never held dual nationality, or a Bangladeshi passport. She was born and raised in the UK. There is no evidence that Bangladesh would accept her. I believe that public opinion is being played by a government scared of its own shadow, incapable of effective action and reduced to gestures and signalling. I predict that she will eventually return to live in the UK and I think the government believes so too.

Of course those that actually signed up for the IS road trip were in the grip of a twisted ideology. Lock the rag tag group of ex partners and children in camps of hopelessness and you will guarantee that we raise hundreds of potentially dangerous enemies. You don't have to be a liberal to believe that most of them would grow up relatively normal in the UK. I see little benefit and still less justice in condemning minors to a life without hope or prospect.

The onl;y realistic hope of bringing any IS survivors to justice is to repatriate and interrogate our own.

 

[Wayne.Kerr]

International law said a person can't be stripped of nationality if an individual would be left stateless - the assumption is the the UK govt took legal advice that the Bangladeshi law means that this isn't applicable - the fact that Bangladesh is unwilling to adhere to their law in this instance presumably wasn't relevant (waits for WayneKerr to advise..)

Bangladesh was under no obligation to adopt the woman as you wrongly suggest

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/shamima-begum-not-bangladesh-citizen-15862231

 

[Wayne.Kerr]

Any idea that she has dual citizenship is at best contentious. She has never held dual nationality, or a Bangladeshi passport.

She never applied for dual citizenship and hasn't visited Bangladesh either

 

[ThreeSixes]

Any idea that she has dual citizenship is at best contentious. She has never held dual nationality, or a Bangladeshi passport. She was born and raised in the UK. There is no evidence that Bangladesh would accept her..

I'm not saying I disagree with that, I'm just saying that I don't think that the UK Govt believed that the fact she doesn't have dual citizenship was an issue (who does have dual citizenship?). It was the fact that she "could" (under Bangladesh Law) apply for dual citizenship that led to her having UK citizenship removed, so a statement "I don’t think she can be legally exiled as she has no second citizenship" doesn't (or didn't) appear to be correct.

 

[Captainreblue]

She was a minor and in law deemed incapable of making an adult decision.

See my last sentence.

 

[Trashbat]

Our systems are predicated on a principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I know this is an especially emotive subject, but it is a dangerous precedent to assume ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and particularly worrying that a policeman seemingly takes this stance.

Second, justice requires a fair trial. That means that everyone is entitled to legal representation. There should be no question of legal aid. To deny legal aid would again be setting a dangerous precedent.

Third, we have a principle that children don’t have the cognitive ability to make informed decisions. As others have mentioned, she was a child when she left the UK and so this should be considered.

 

[Buddha]

Our systems are predicated on a principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I know this is an especially emotive subject, but it is a dangerous precedent to assume ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and particularly worrying that a policeman seemingly takes this stance.

Second, justice requires a fair trial. That means that everyone is entitled to legal representation. There should be no question of legal aid. To deny legal aid would again be setting a dangerous precedent.

Third, we have a principle that children don’t have the cognitive ability to make informed decisions. As others have mentioned, she was a child when she left the UK and so this should be considered.

3 very good points, very well made, Trashbat. I couldn't agree more with you.

 

[Nobby_66]

Our systems are predicated on a principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I know this is an especially emotive subject, but it is a dangerous precedent to assume ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and particularly worrying that a policeman seemingly takes this stance.

Second, justice requires a fair trial. That means that everyone is entitled to legal representation. There should be no question of legal aid. To deny legal aid would again be setting a dangerous precedent.

Third, we have a principle that children don’t have the cognitive ability to make informed decisions. As others have mentioned, she was a child when she left the UK and so this should be considered.

Please highlight for me where I have said she is guilty. I have pointed out that there is intelligence about her actions whilst in Syria and I have alluded to comments she has made about justifying the Manchester bombing. I believe she is a danger to us purely based on this. Please do not misquote me to justify your mock "worry" about my "stance".

Also, to deny legal aid may set a dangerous precedent and it should be noted that the family of Keith Palmer were, in fact denied access to it to help represent their interests during the inquiry into the Westminster attack. All getting a little skewed don't you think?

 

[Trashbat]

Please highlight for me where I have said she is guilty.

I can’t.

It was my inference based on the tone of your comments and the line of your argument. Hence why I carefully caveatted my comment with the word ‘seemingly’. I wouldn’t want to speak for you!

 

[Nobby_66]

And that's why I carefully stated in my first post that my views were based on the intelligence that has been published and the comments that she has made in tv interviews.

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

Our systems are predicated on a principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I know this is an especially emotive subject, but it is a dangerous precedent to assume ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and particularly worrying that a policeman seemingly takes this stance.

Second, justice requires a fair trial. That means that everyone is entitled to legal representation. There should be no question of legal aid. To deny legal aid would again be setting a dangerous precedent.

Third, we have a principle that children don’t have the cognitive ability to make informed decisions. As others have mentioned, she was a child when she left the UK and so this should be considered.

This matter isn`t all about a trial. In fact, that side of the matter isn`t very complicated at all. I don`t think that anyone is contesting that if this issue went before a court, then it should be done so fairly and with no disadvantage to the accused person; that includes affording Legal Aid. I haven`t seen anything that Nobby`s written suggesting he`s not an advocate of fair trial.

But, when it comes to protecting the public, Security/Police attention to the many terrorist suspects/persons of interest on a so called Watch List is not allocated on the basis of a trial. It`s allocated on the basis of constantly reviewed risk assessment. Nobby is alluding to the risks and resource required to monitor persons deemed to be a credible threat to public safety. That resource is huge and undoubtedly negatively impacts on other types of crime prevention.

BTW, there are cases that go to court where there is a reverse presumption or burden of proof, such as proceeds of crime etc.

 

[Gills 58]

Nobby, I am in general an admirer of your posts. This is the first time imo that you have resorted to classic tabloid style stuff, hence my comment about being "better than that". I was quite surprised at the tone tbh. Until now I've always found your arguments well measured and reasonable (even on some rare occasions when I disagree).

One last point and it can't be proven I know. I don't think we necessarily end up with a "safe" society by "cracking down". An unfair society can create more danger and violence.