Shamima Begum | Page 17 | Vital Football

Shamima Begum

Trev_GFC said:
You didn’t. You implied that she may still be radicalised and may be “allowed to plan”. I couldn’t conclude from the last paragraph whether you think she committed crimes through her speech but that this Government will intentionally give her the slip (I noted the speech marks around lose track earlier, as well as the quote above). Otherwise you think she hasn’t committed crimes but in a perfect world her speech etc would count as crimes.
Click to expand...
I have seen no evidence that she is deradicalised and heard no believable apology for what she has said.

If left unmonitored, it is more than feasible that she could plan an attack.

I believe she has committed crimes (inciting hatred or even terrorism)

I'm not saying the Government will "give her the slip", purely that no trial will take place due to some legal loophole.

Your last sentence is pretty much what I was getting at.
 
jogills said:
I share your feelings about her words regarding those atrocities but that's the second issue. The first is one of citizenship, which will be decided by the courts. I think she is our responsibility and that she should be admitted back into her country. I believe that she will then face the courts a second time for any crimes committed but we need to accept that words are less serious than actions and that evidence is essential.

Leave her in a camp and she and others will raise another generation of haters radicalised by camp life. She or they could one day come back to haunt us, or others. There is no simple FU answer to this but emptying the camps and putting as many as possible through a legal process is essential for the victims and to deter future recruits.
Click to expand...
I agree, if the law says she can come back, doesn't mean I have to like it. The problems that can be caused by someone with her beliefs living among us are potentially catastrophic.
Many don't seem bothered by that.
 
A question for Nobby, is there not a charge of conspiracy? if someone harbour's a known terrorist fighter, feeds him, cloths him, caters for his needs, whilst all the time supporting him in his views as he murders men, women, and child civilians, is she not equally guilty?
 
nitram77 said:
A question for Nobby, is there not a charge of conspiracy? if someone harbour's a known terrorist fighter, feeds him, cloths him, caters for his needs, whilst all the time supporting him in his views as he murders men, women, and child civilians, is she not equally guilty?
Click to expand...
Possibly but that would have been committed in Syria. I get a feeling there is no appetite for a court case over there.
Also, little known fact, you cannot be found guilty of conspiracy with your spouse (in this country anyway). Weird eh?
 
Last edited:
jogills said:
I share your feelings about her words regarding those atrocities but that's the second issue. The first is one of citizenship, which will be decided by the courts. I think she is our responsibility and that she should be admitted back into her country. I believe that she will then face the courts a second time for any crimes committed but we need to accept that words are less serious than actions and that evidence is essential.

Leave her in a camp and she and others will raise another generation of haters radicalised by camp life. She or they could one day come back to haunt us, or others. There is no simple FU answer to this but emptying the camps and putting as many as possible through a legal process is essential for the victims and to deter future recruits.
Click to expand...
Wisdom.
 
There's a potential 150 other cases that could be appealed.
These are people who hate us and show no alleigance to our country.
 
nitram77 said:
She shunned her British citizenship in favour of becoming a citizen of the Islamic state, as I said earlier, once every other citizen suffering any sort of hardship in the country finds a resolution, then we can consider wasting time and money on looking at the case of someone who hold our country in contempt.
Click to expand...
You clearly don't understand the issues that are under discussion in this legal matter. It is nothing to do with helping the more "deserving " first. Sad, but I suppose in this day of social media we can all spout off no matter what our understanding. Re read what jogills has been saying. Observing a well thought out legal process that makes our jurisdiction civilised, in my opinion, is never a waste of money. Thank goodness the Courts are not kow towing to those with pitchforks.

Ps, as a devout Atheist I have no doubt that ISIS would like to slaughter me on day one if they got to power. This isn't about ISIS or their aims.
 
Nobby_66 said:
I have seen no evidence that she is deradicalised and heard no believable apology for what she has said.

If left unmonitored, it is more than feasible that she could plan an attack.

I believe she has committed crimes (inciting hatred or even terrorism)

I'm not saying the Government will "give her the slip", purely that no trial will take place due to some legal loophole.

Your last sentence is pretty much what I was getting at.
Click to expand...

Then the question we should all be asking is what are the government doing about the 400 odd that have returned without the media or social media attention that only one person is getting.
 
Jerryattrick said:
Then the question we should all be asking is what are the government doing about the 400 odd that have returned without the media or social media attention that only one person is getting.
Click to expand...
I feel the same about every one of them and, to be fair, plenty of others have attracted media attention. I think the reasons Begam has attracted more are
1. She has been more vocal than most about her feelings towards our country and the West in general.
2. A close association with active ISIS members.
3. She was very young when she went and, after giving birth to a number of children has a very newsworthy "family" element to her case.

As I said, nothing will come of criminal charges (IMO), cynical I know but based on past experiences rather than any specific information, and she will win her appeal to stay.
My thoughts above are not a presumption of guilt, more an expression of fear for the danger she and many others pose to our safety.
Like I said, I agree she is our responsibility, doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it.
 
wxgill said:
Why cant she go to Bangladesh to be with her father? He's made some comments that suggest he supports her and her past.
Click to expand...

She doesn't want to go to Bangladesh, and they don't want her. This is another occasion where you shouldn't try and use logic to work it all out, it will drive you mad
 
Jerryattrick said:
Then the question we should all be asking is what are the government doing about the 400 odd that have returned without the media or social media attention that only one person is getting.
Click to expand...

What can they do? Pay for their benefits and housing, and keep fingers crossed that they don't stab people.
 
Nobby_66 said:
I agree, if the law says she can come back, doesn't mean I have to like it. The problems that can be caused by someone with her beliefs living among us are potentially catastrophic.
Many don't seem bothered by that.
Click to expand...

I agree that you are absolutely entitled not to like the outcome of the law in this matter. I can't say I actively like it despite supporting it. I am certainly bothered about the threat that she and others might present, wherever they end up.

It's my opinion that her case has attracted more attention because of her gender, ditto the halfwit, who planned to blow up St Paul's Cathedral.
 
I would use the Death Penalty for these type of offenders. There is no chance of her being deradacalised.

It's a shame the last gallows in plymouth were removed by Blair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.