Shamima Begum | Page 19 | Vital Football

Shamima Begum

LancsGordoRoad

Vital 1st Team Regular
To add some context to the Ruling, this was basically a decision about whether or not the Court of Appeal was correct to put the Right to a Fair Trial ahead of Requirements of National Security.

The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the Court of Appeal, which had previously overturned a Home Office decision that Begum would not be allowed into the UK.

In doing so the Supreme Court effectively reaffirmed the principle that the right to a fair hearing did "not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public".

Whilst that decision will stick, and we are not likely to see Begum set foot in the UK, we may not have heard the last of the matter concerning Begum`s fight for citizenship.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
A new low for this board.
Thank you. I was disgusted. I went to post a reply but words failed me for once.

Far worse than anything Wayne said and worse even than anything the 3 I've blocked have come up with.

Franlly I felt a bit embarassed that I contribute to a board that has such stuff on it. They'd fiind plenty of support on the Millwall board so perhaps they could migrate there.

I won't report it as I've never asked for anyone on here to be censored but the poster may wish to delete it.

Ps. My objections are not the same as support for Begum. ISIS is vile.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
To add some context to the Ruling, this was basically a decision about whether or not the Court of Appeal was correct to put the Right to a Fair Trial ahead of Requirements of National Security.

The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the Court of Appeal, which had previously overturned a Home Office decision that Begum would not be allowed into the UK.

In doing so the Supreme Court effectively reaffirmed the principle that the right to a fair hearing did "not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public".

Whilst that decision will stick, and we are not likely to see Begum set foot in the UK, we may not have heard the last of the matter concerning Begum`s fight for citizenship.
Yes, correct. I think I heard that the Supreme Court said, amongst other things, that it is not for the CofA to decide what is a matter of national security but, at the time, Javid's as the relevant minister responsible. That is of course logical and I don't challenge the correctness of the court's interretation, of course. I do totally disagree with the Home Secretary's 'reasoning'.

It now seems that if you have a parent born in another country you are a second class citizen. I wonder if we will have people dumped on us.

To put it crudely, the Begum case is our country participating in fly tipping.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
She did not make herself stateless.
HMG did not make her stateless either. Legally we can not make someone stateless.
I think the position was she had another state she had rights to and HMG just revoked her UK citizenship making her someone elses problem.
Correct. Bangladesh say she doesn't have citizenship.
 

Jerryattrick

Vital 1st Team Regular
To add some context to the Ruling, this was basically a decision about whether or not the Court of Appeal was correct to put the Right to a Fair Trial ahead of Requirements of National Security.

The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the Court of Appeal, which had previously overturned a Home Office decision that Begum would not be allowed into the UK.

In doing so the Supreme Court effectively reaffirmed the principle that the right to a fair hearing did "not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public".

Whilst that decision will stick, and we are not likely to see Begum set foot in the UK, we may not have heard the last of the matter concerning Begum`s fight for citizenship.
Yes, having read the ruling all that has changed is that she will now still have the right to appeal but from abroad.

i think the real outstanding issues are around:
- why different rules for the 400 that were allowed to return?
- confidence that these rulings will not in the long run allow governments to remove citizenship for simple dissidence?
- why this is different to any other instance where a minor has been manipulated?
 

LancsGordoRoad

Vital 1st Team Regular
Yes, correct. I think I heard that the Supreme Court said, amongst other things, that it is not for the CofA to decide what is a matter of national security but, at the time, Javid's as the relevant minister responsible. That is of course logical and I don't challenge the correctness of the court's interretation, of course. I do totally disagree with the Home Secretary's 'reasoning'.

It now seems that if you have a parent born in another country you are a second class citizen. I wonder if we will have people dumped on us.

To put it crudely, the Begum case is our country participating in fly tipping.

Thing is, 58, neither of us know how concerning the actual core of the intelligence is surrounding Begum. I said way back that in essence, if all there is to know is what we know already, then i saw no real issue with trying her in a UK court, partly in recognition that young people can make mistakes. But the fact is that we, the public, rarely know all there is to know about a case such as this and if we had access to secret intelligence (which won`t happen) available to the Home Office (and Judiciary), we might have a different take. I`m sure the Home Secretary`s reasoning, in camera, consisted of much more than the citizenship aspect you allude to.
 

LancsGordoRoad

Vital 1st Team Regular
Yes, having read the ruling all that has changed is that she will now still have the right to appeal but from abroad.

i think the real outstanding issues are around:
- why different rules for the 400 that were allowed to return?
- confidence that these rulings will not in the long run allow governments to remove citizenship for simple dissidence?
- why this is different to any other instance where a minor has been manipulated?

Good points, Jerry. Perhaps .....
1 a) there was intelligence up scale from the other 400. b) HMG felt that a strong message needed to be given c) A combination of a and b.
2. The court system, which is separate from government, provides and affords many layers for deciding fairness.
3. Because this case is extraordinary, in that it`s related directly to terrorism and mass murder
 

jokerman

Vital 1st Team Regular
I'm with 58. She's our problem, although I take on board Nobby's previous point that when I say "our," that does not mean mine, but somebody else's problem with all the knock on consequences which might flow from that. And I have to add that, as jo might say, I do not find the SC's decision to the contrary high on my list of things about which to get upset.

The Guardian ran an article on her today in which on a least three occasions, it described her as "fleeing" Britain. You can see why people's backs get up at that bloody newspaper! But I digest. She is ours and she should be subjected to our due process. Given this sort of thing will occur again, I dare say some thought as to what our due process in these sorts of cases should be is in order. I am thinking in terms of deterrence.
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
Thank you. I was disgusted. I went to post a reply but words failed me for once.
Far worse than anything Wayne said and worse even than anything the 3 I've blocked have come up with.
Strange that. Wayne wished death on another poster on this board, I didn't.

WX mentioned death penalty and gallows in this thread. I suggested setting her free so she could take her own chances, and then only if she wanted to.

We are talking a piece of worthless scum who was supposedly easily brainwashed and groomed and yet received A grades at school and was "mature" enough to get straight on with breeding three times.

We are talking about a piece of worthless scum who watched beheadings and still does not describe them as wrong or horrific.

More importantly, the Supreme Court have ruled that she is a danger to National Security. Why exactly is that, if she is such a changed person?

If you want to be a bleeding heart liberal on her behalf, I suggest that you make that clear to the families of aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning. Would your opinion have been different if one of those had been your sibling?

Go ahead and report me if you wish. If the Fear seriously thinks that my comments are worse than those of WX and bans me, it will still have been worth it to express my loathing of that woman.
 
Last edited:

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
Strange that. Wayne wished death on another poster on this board, I didn't.

WX mentioned death penalty and gallows in this thread. I suggested setting her free so she could take her own chances, and then only if she wanted to.

We are talking a piece of worthless scum who was supposedly easily brainwashed and groomed and yet received A grades at school and was "mature" enough to get straight on with breeding three times.

We are talking about a piece of worthless scum who watched beheadings and still does not describe them as wrong or horrific.

More importantly, the Supreme Court have ruled that she is a danger to National Security. Why exactly is that, if she is such a changed person?

If you want to be a bleeding heart liberal on her behalf, I suggest that you make that clear to the families of aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning. Would your opinion have been different if one of those had been your sibling?

Go ahead and report me if you wish. If the Fear seriously thinks that my comments are worse than those of WX and bans me, it will still have been worth it to express my loathing of that woman.
Read the first line and gave up.
 

jogills

Vital 1st Team Regular
I don't know if I qualify as a bleeding heart liberal but I find this question difficult and troubling. I don't feel the need to detail my revulsion at the ideology and actions that Shamima Begum supported and refuses to condemn. I really do take it as read that we all feel that revulsion and don't need to compete for superlatives of evil to describe her. I take jokerman's point about deterrence and some might think a long and difficult appeal process from Northern Syria might be a start. I remain convinced of the principle that she is our citizen and I don't understand the theory of trying to reject that citizenship where no other exists.

I completely understand the worry that Begum and others like her might present a danger on returning to nthe UK. The danger from Syria might not be as apparent but those camps are almost certainly a breeding ground for extremism. The presence of ex British citizens with a grievance rearing a new generation of maniacs doesn't make me feel safer, or better.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
I'm not banning anyone and specifically stated that I don't go for censorship, particularly on this board.

Are you suggesting we should all be forced to read stuff (and excuses) we find vile?

I'll assume your comment was meant tongue in cheek. At least, I certainly hope so.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
I don't know if I qualify as a bleeding heart liberal but I find this question difficult and troubling. I don't feel the need to detail my revulsion at the ideology and actions that Shamima Begum supported and refuses to condemn. I really do take it as read that we all feel that revulsion and don't need to compete for superlatives of evil to describe her. I take jokerman's point about deterrence and some might think a long and difficult appeal process from Northern Syria might be a start. I remain convinced of the principle that she is our citizen and I don't understand the theory of trying to reject that citizenship where no other exists.

I completely understand the worry that Begum and others like her might present a danger on returning to nthe UK. The danger from Syria might not be as apparent but those camps are almost certainly a breeding ground for extremism. The presence of ex British citizens with a grievance rearing a new generation of maniacs doesn't make me feel safer, or better.
Well said (as usual). Basically the same as Andrew Mitchell MP was saying on LBC today (no do-gooder liberal leftie btw).
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
I'm not banning anyone and specifically stated that I don't go for censorship, particularly on this board.

Are you suggesting we should all be forced to read stuff (and excuses) we find vile?

I'll assume your comment was meant tongue in cheek. At least, I certainly hope so.
Very much so 😉
 

ThreeSixes

Vital 1st Team Regular
I'm not banning anyone and specifically stated that I don't go for censorship, particularly on this board.

Are you suggesting we should all be forced to read stuff (and excuses) we find vile?

I'll assume your comment was meant tongue in cheek. At least, I certainly hope so.
Oh this is so frustrating. I want to tell him he can block other posters so he doesn't have to read vile stuff (and excuses) but he has blocked me so he won't read it! Can someone else tell him?
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
I don't know if I qualify as a bleeding heart liberal but I find this question difficult and troubling. I don't feel the need to detail my revulsion at the ideology and actions that Shamima Begum supported and refuses to condemn. I really do take it as read that we all feel that revulsion and don't need to compete for superlatives of evil to describe her. I take jokerman's point about deterrence and some might think a long and difficult appeal process from Northern Syria might be a start. I remain convinced of the principle that she is our citizen and I don't understand the theory of trying to reject that citizenship where no other exists.

I completely understand the worry that Begum and others like her might present a danger on returning to nthe UK. The danger from Syria might not be as apparent but those camps are almost certainly a breeding ground for extremism. The presence of ex British citizens with a grievance rearing a new generation of maniacs doesn't make me feel safer, or better.
Spot on, from a legal and international point of view. We are effectively not picking up the you-know-what in our metaphoric doggy bag, so even I am surprised at today's verdict.

The revulsion is from the moral point of view and, of course, either giving her a long prison sentence or having to put under 24-7 surveillance is pretty costly.