Shamima Begum allowed back to the UK

BBC News website has the same image. Trying to project a less 'jihadi bride' image, perhaps?
So has the Mail, so has the Mirror and I imagine every news outlet that gets the image and footage from one of the press agencies.
 
Whether they could or could not they had a better opportunity to deal with any problem than had Bangladesh.

Two points:

1. No, they (UK Govt?) had no opportunity to deal with any 'problem' as she and her friends did not become a problem until they left the country.

2. I thank you for deploying a strawman into the debate by suggesting that Bangladesh would have any cause or remit to observe her and her friends for intelligence reasons.

Incidentally, my concerns are not for Begum rather that in in order to deal with a problem we have demonstrated our willingness to dispense with it by making it the problem of another nation.

But it isn't a problem for another nation: Bangladesh has denied her claim to citizenship and the UK have revoked it.

That she may wish to apply for citizenship elsewhere is a matter for her.


My attitude towards wholesale immigration into the UK could hardly be described as Liberal (pseudo or otherwise). This and similar problems have been perpetuated by successive governments of both shades, yet when the resultant problems manifest themselves, they just want to foist the problem elsewhere.

I repeat - they (UK Govt?) have not foisted the problem elsewhere. This woman, because of her actions, was assessed as being a threat to the citizens of this country should she return. Thus, her citizenship was revoked.

As a part of her challenge to that decision her position was that she be allowed to return to the UK to better present her case.

The highest appeal court in the land has denied that challenge and any other appeal can be made outwith the borders of the UK.
 
The legality has yet to be established, principally because the case for revoking her citizenship (by claiming domewhat dubiously that she has not been rendered a stateless person) rests solely upon her suddenly becoming the unwanted responsibility of another country. We don't want her, why on earth should Bangladesh want her?

I know as a monkey you’ll be adept at making shít up and providing arbitary decisions, but that’s just kicking the arse out of it.
 
Yes but she was only a kid who couldn't be expected to make a well informed sensible decision.
SNP, what's that you say? Obvs votes for 16 year olds is in no way compromised because they're kids who can't be expected to make a well informed sensible decision.
Only a kid you say. Like the kid that half the world treats as some kind of environmental guru?
 
Only a kid you say. Like the kid that half the world treats as some kind of environmental guru?
Yep. Amazing that isn't it? Begum was too young to understand what she was getting involved in but Greta is treated like some sort of oracle!
Go figure as the septics say.
 
Only a kid you say. Like the kid that half the world treats as some kind of environmental guru?
I think your sarcasm monitor needs calibrating
 
The matter of british citizenship could be a double edged weapon, against her. If Britain were restore her british citizenship it would then be possible to follow the same route as Germany, where returning ex IS members are prosecuted for membership of a terrorist organisation among other offences. If on the other hand citizenship were not to be restored then in would presumably be off to Bangladesh for her. Lose lose situation.
 
Just watched the Channel four news item on this issue, very one sided, they interviewed several people who think she should come back, and nobody from the other side of the argument, it seems that the passage of time has dulled opinions out there in the media, if there's a bomb, an outrage in this country with her involved, the finger will point to Police, Government, anyone but those involved in encouraging her return.
 
Just watched the Channel four news item on this issue, very one sided, they interviewed several people who think she should come back, and nobody from the other side of the argument, it seems that the passage of time has dulled opinions out there in the media, if there's a bomb, an outrage in this country with her involved, the finger will point to Police, Government, anyone but those involved in encouraging her return.
She should be allowed back and given a safe Labour seat pdq. If not I shall be outraged.
 
Just watched the Channel four news item on this issue, very one sided, they interviewed several people who think she should come back, and nobody from the other side of the argument, it seems that the passage of time has dulled opinions out there in the media, if there's a bomb, an outrage in this country with her involved, the finger will point to Police, Government, anyone but those involved in encouraging her return.
Absofuckinglutely bang on. Just like with the peace loving Provos.
 
1614369252731.png
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
I don’t see the problem, really. If the Home Secretary’s ruling stands, it goes away and never returns; not a problem. If the ruling is eventually overturned, it comes back. Should that happen, then there would be a case to answer under this little bit of legislation:


ITEM, Whereas divers Opinions have been before this Time [X1in what Case Treason shall be said, and in what not;] the King, at the Request of the Lords and of the Commons, hath made a Declaration in the Manner as hereafter followeth, that is to say; When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his [X2Queen] or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s [X2Companion,] or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife (X3) the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be [X4probably] attainted of open Deed by [X5the People] of their Condition: . . . F1, and if a Man slea the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, [X6that] ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty: . . . F2

It’s been like that since 1351, so hardly a new thing. So if it comes back, stick it on in the Old Bailey to answer the above. Life imprisonment, pour encourager les autres.
There is more relevant legislation, alas, than the Treason Act 1351 to use against the likes of Begum; there are no sentencing guidelines either (before 1998, the penalty for treason was always fixed by law) meaning that a court might be very harsh or very lenient.

The final obstacle is that indictments for High Treason (other than killing of the Sovereign) must be brought within three years of their alleged date, under section 5 of the Treason Act 1695 (Treason Act 1695). Her crimes are, one assumes, already out of time given that no indictment has been brought.
 

Pete Cozy

Clanker
Well done the Supreme Court, can we now start locking up the MILLIONS like her?, that have bred an army of jihadists on the back of our taxes, well done Mr Blair (I still have this vision of Blair being hung, in public), you and your People are guilty of treason Mr Blair.
 
Well done the Supreme Court, can we now start locking up the MILLIONS like her?, that have bred an army of jihadists on the back of our taxes, well done Mr Blair (I still have this vision of Blair being hung, in public), you and your People are guilty of treason Mr Blair.
Millions? Really?
 

Latest Threads

Top