Shamima Begum allowed back to the UK

Possibly not the most apt choice of words, given the subject matter?

:)
Sorry - 'wear a cape' - is that ok? ;)

Image-appears-to-show-a-person-wearing-an-ISIS-flag-in-Westminster.jpg
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
A very solid result for the Home Sec in that ruling, and in that we can raise a cheer and a half, but it relates only to the specific appeal that she made to be allowed to attend the court in person to hear her case against the Home Sec's revocation of her citizenship.

That case (against the revocation of citizenship) continues at the SC in her absence and, as others have said, it's almost certain that she will win it (happy to be proved wrong later). In which case she gets her British citizenship back and she is free to return to the UK.
What's with this "we", you provo-loving reptile? Surely Begum, as a "formerly" devoted enemy of the hated British, should be on your Christmas card list.

Away with you.
 
A very solid result for the Home Sec in that ruling, and in that we can raise a cheer and a half, but it relates only to the specific appeal that she made to be allowed to attend the court in person to hear her case against the Home Sec's revocation of her citizenship.

That case (against the revocation of citizenship) continues at the SC in her absence and, as others have said, it's almost certain that she will win it (happy to be proved wrong later). In which case she gets her British citizenship back and she is free to return to the UK.
Forgive me for quoting myself, but reading further it appears that in fact the effect of the ruling is that her appeal against the citizenship revocation is now on hold until such times as she is able to plead her case, so I am wrong that she will be getting home soon as the case now appears to be in abeyance. Seems to be an odd state of affairs.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Forgive me for quoting myself, but reading further it appears that in fact the effect of the ruling is that her appeal against the citizenship revocation is now on hold until such times as she is able to plead her case, so I am wrong that she will be getting home soon as the case now appears to be in abeyance. Seems to be an odd state of affairs.
She doesn’t need to be in the UK to have her case out before the courts. Whilst the government mustn’t put artificial barriers in her way it doesn’t have to go out of its way to facilitate her.

Getting her into the country to appear in court was always a device to get around the law. Had she returned to the country it would have been impossible to remove her.
 
But - also - law is about intent. She was fully on-board with what she was doing. Also, whether she rendered herself stateless in preference of an unrecognised state or merely rendered herself stateless should also be moot.

She rejected this country and would continue to do so if things were still going well for ISIS.

She's a turd.

She can intend what she likes. If there was no legal basis for her becoming a part of a 'state' that did not exist and she was therefore unable to fulfill the legal formalities required to renounce her existing citizenship and to adopt the citizenship of another state, she is still a British citizen, no matter how much we may wish otherwise.

Unless I am hopelessly wrong, she will get back. There may be a considerable delay, but I think she will probably get back. In that event, the best that we can hope for is that she will receive an impossibly lengthy prison sentence for her treasonous activities. And yes, we will have to stump up for it.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
She can intend what she likes. If there was no legal basis for her becoming a part of a 'state' that did not exist and she was therefore unable to fulfill the legal formalities required to renounce her existing citizenship and to adopt the citizenship of another state, she is still a British citizen, no matter how much we may wish otherwise.

Unless I am hopelessly wrong, she will get back. There may be a considerable delay, but I think she will probably get back. In that event, the best that we can hope for is that she will receive an impossibly lengthy prison sentence for her treasonous activities. And yes, we will have to stump up for it.
I hope and trust that you are wrong.
 
The criticism of the Court of Appeals was pretty strong:

Announcing the ruling, Lord Reed said: "The Supreme Court unanimously allows all of the home secretary's appeals and dismisses Ms Begum's cross-appeal."
He said the Court of Appeal's judgment had been wrong and failed to take proper account of the home secretary's case.
"It did not give the home secretary's assessment the respect which it should have received, given that it is the home secretary who has been charged by Parliament with responsibility for making such assessments, and who is democratically accountable to Parliament for the discharge of that responsibility," Lord Reed said.
"The Court of Appeal mistakenly believed that, when an individual's right to have a fair hearing... came into conflict with the requirements of national security, her right to a fair hearing must prevail."
He added: "But the right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public."


While it's a separate issue from her right to return, it does make two solid points:

The Home Secretary has responsibility for decisions, and
National Security can trump individuals rights.
I was scanning the page too fast and read that as Lou Reed. Bound to get good decisions with Lou Reed.
 
That's how it appears to me. She has only been refused leave to return to the UK to attend her appeal against the Home Secretary's decision to revoke her citizenship.

It is not a ruling on that decision, I think people's celebrations are a bit premature, if the SC over-rules the Home Sec's decision (which I predict it will) on her citizenship, she is free to return then.

I am happy to stand corrected.
I think you are correct. There will be a queue of legal eagles attempting to establish their credentials by taking on the case pro-bono. The ruling does not prevent her from appealing on her citizenship - I believe the SC ruling makes it clear that it is up to her to get to a place from which she can safely make the appeal and participate via video or other acceptable link. All that has been decided is that she cannot currently enter the Uk to participate in that Appeal. It is going to drag on for years...............but then, she is taking on the best 'kickers into the long grass' on the planet.
 
I've personally met with Yazidi's who suffered at the hands of those animals and I can assure you, that the tales of horror are truly beyond comprehension.

The piece of filth being discussed here (for that is what she is) was fully supportive of ISIS, its aims and its actions; and has shown not an ounce of remorse. F*** her, f*** everything about her warped mindset and the sooner the wider world acknowledge that the better (wishful thinking I know....)
 
Last edited:

Chef

LE
she is still a British citizen, no matter how much we may wish otherwise.
Far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more intelligent people than you appear to be saying otherwise.
 

Latest Threads

Top