|
Not much, but it does mean that the child is not able to automatically pass British citizenship onto his own children in the future whatever else happens.
|
Strangely I’m aligned with Rees-Mogg on this issue.
She was a 15 year old child when she left the U.K.
She was groomed by those about her
She was married under aged.
The above constitutes sexual abuse. To that she is a victim.
Deprivation of U.K. citizenship would be illegal under International Law
She should necallowed to return to the U.K. and questioned on her return
If she has broken any U.K. laws she should be tried in a U.K. court.
|
|
That does seem strangely reasonable.
|
Marriage age is as low as 13 in some Middle East states isn't it?
Edit- had a look at Wikipedia - ranges from 9 to 21 around the world, depending upon parental consent ir the courts.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 17 Feb 19 at 14:04
|
>> Strangely I’m aligned with Rees-Mogg on this issue.
>>
>> She was a 15 year old child when she left the U.K.
Voluntarily
>> She was groomed by those about her
Voluntarily not exactly "groomed"
>> She was married under aged.
Voluntarily
>> The above constitutes sexual abuse. To that she is a victim.
Not in the state she voluntarily traveled too.
>> Deprivation of U.K. citizenship would be illegal under International Law
She wasn't deprived of it, she gave it up, voluntarily.
>> She should necallowed to return to the U.K. and questioned on her return
She and her child should be left to rot in what ever hell hole she voluntarily chose. If her parents want to help the child, they can move out to hell hole central and contemplate their culpability in the whole sorry mess
Not our problem - Wipes hands.
|
It could I suppose come in useful if we can refuse to allow back homegrown criminals who just went for a fortnight's holiday in Benidorm, but all sorts of problems arise if we adopt the practice of making our own citizens stateless.
In any case, she was arguably brainwashed as a child, and probably still is; the fact that she is inured to heads in bins suggests she might be.
Maybe we don't pay her fare, but I suspect she will be coming back. Even if she does turn out to be just bad and stupid, as we already several tens of millions of dumb brutes here, I'm sure she'll fit right back in.
|
>> It could I suppose come in useful if we can refuse to allow back homegrown
>> criminals who just went for a fortnight's holiday in Benidorm,
Yeah but its usually blokes who did bad stuff here, and we want them back to kick their butts at the scene of the crime, and they have fled to escape.
but all sorts of problems
>> arise if we adopt the practice of making our own citizens stateless.
No-one made her stateless. It was a situation of her own choosing.
Not our problem.
|
You cannot make yourself stateless. She is a British national. If the British Government were to refuse her entry into the UK and remove her citizenship they would be in breach of International Law which forbids such action unless the person is also a citizen of another country.
What crime is this women and her baby supposed to have committed that she should draw such venom and hatred from so many? If she has committed a crime then she should be tried for it in court. Are we as a nation no longer committed to the rule of law and order or are we to descend to the level of those who would seek to destroy us?
|
>> You cannot make yourself stateless.
Of course you can. She did, she renounced her citizenship and fled to somewhere that was not a state in the accepted or legal sense.
>>
>>She is a British national. If the British Government were
>> to refuse her entry into the UK and remove her citizenship
They haven't - she renounced it, she is now living somewhere where International Law, and Geneva conventions do not exist or have any mandate, she chose such a place for such a reason,
>> What crime is this women and her baby supposed to have committed
Who knows, who cares, who can be bothered to find out she is no longer our problem or concern.
|
"Of course you can. She did,"
Talking rubbish again I'm afraid.
You can only give up your British citizenship or status if either of the following apply:
you already have another citizenship or nationality
you’re going to get another citizenship or nationality after giving up your British citizenship or status
You must also be:
aged 18 or over (unless you’re under 18 and married)
of sound mind (unless it’s decided that it’s in your best interest)
I think her "renunciation" would fail on all counts
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 17 Feb 19 at 18:50
|
>> You cannot make yourself stateless. She is a British national. If the British Government were
>> to refuse her entry into the UK and remove her citizenship
we can do the former and have in the past legally. I believe it's some form of control order. Not used very often, I'm sure it was something like a dozen times.
|
I can only quote Theresa May in her former role as Home Secretary
"Home Secretary Theresa May has said that the UK will not remove citizenship from IS fighters born in the UK as "it is illegal for any country to make its citizens stateless". ... The law says that the Home Secretary should have a "reasonable belief" that those being stripped of their nationality will not become stateless."
|
Apologies I didn't edit your post correctly. I meant to say we have refused entry to uk nationals.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47240100
temporary exclusion orders is what I was thinking of.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 17 Feb 19 at 19:16
|
>The law says that the Home Secretary should have a "reasonable belief" that those
>being stripped of their nationality will not become stateless."
Playing Devil's advocate, if her British citizenship was removed she wouldn't exactly be stateless.
She married a Dutch national so she is eligible for Dutch citizenship. I doubt she would be welcomed with open arms there though.
|
>> She married a Dutch national so she is eligible for Dutch citizenship. I doubt she
>> would be welcomed with open arms there though.
Is that right? Don't know about Netherlands but spousal visas/citizenship for people married to UK citizens involve some big time hoop jumping and proof of support.
Sajid Javid seems to think that her Mother being a citizen of Bangla Desh is relevant. I doubt a Judicial Review would agree were he to try to use that to deny her return to UK.
|
>>She married a Dutch national so she is eligible for Dutch citizenship.
Not just eligible. She *is* a Dutch citizen, by virtue of being married to one. That, at least, was the case of a friend, an Indonesian woman who was married to a Dutch engineer.
|
Not just eligible. She *is* a Dutch citizen, by virtue of being married to one.
>>
was the marriage recognised though?
|
|
I don't know but it would normally be automatic.
|
>> I don't know but it would normally be automatic.
>>
You still have to be married somewhere legally recognised. I'm not an isis cleric covers that?
|
>> I don't know but it would normally be automatic.
>>
A couple of minutes research on Google shows this simply not to be true. Citizenship is not granted automatically and would have to be applied for. She would also have to legally renounce her British citizenship
Here is the relevant bit showing the conditions required for application for Dutch citizenship under the Option route
"You are married to a Dutch citizen or you are the registered partner of a Dutch citizen for at least 3 years. This marriage or registered partnership is uninterrupted with the same Dutch citizen. And you have lived immediately prior to the confirmation of Dutch citizenship uninterruptedly in the Kingdom of the Netherlands for at least 15 years with a valid residence permit or as a citizen of the EU/EEA or Switzerland.
She would not therefore qualify for Dutch citizenship
here is the Dutch Government website
ind.nl/en/dutch-citizenship
She is a British citizen. Has no other nationality and as such the UK government cannot revoke her nationality and make her stateless under international law.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 18 Feb 19 at 12:04
|
>> barristerblogger.com/2019/02/17/can-the-home-secretary-prevent-shamina-begum-returning-to-the-uk/
So the Home Secretary (HS) cannot remove her citizenship. He can issue a Temporary Exclusion Order provided relevant legal test is met. The definition is almost certainly wide enough for an order to be made without a court finding it 'Wednesbury' unreasonable. But, ignoring possibility of her fetching up in country with a functioning government that deports her, she can apply for a Permit to Return. The HS cannot refuse this but can impose conditions, if she fails to comply she stays excluded.
Whether her actions cross the evidential boundary to secure a prosecution is moot. The one offence she might be successfully be prosecuted for may not, given mitigation of age, grooming etc result on a custodial sentence.
As Barristerblogger puts it:
In a different context, a 15 year old girl persuaded to leave home, travel to a war zone and marry an older man would be considered the victim of child sexual exploitation. Indeed, some of those demanding the harshest punishment for Ms Begum are those who have in the past expressed the most vociferous support for “white girls” groomed by “Muslim grooming gangs.” ISIS is itself a particularly nasty and sophisticated grooming gang.
Somebody on the radio this morning was questioning why a total of four girls being groomed into going to Syria didn't prompt Serious Case Reviews by the relevant London Borough Council (Newham).
|
she can
>> apply for a Permit to Return. The HS cannot refuse this but can impose conditions,
>> if she fails to comply she stays excluded.
I'm not she's likely to apply for a great deal in a refugee camp.
|
>> I'm not she's likely to apply for a great deal in a refugee camp.
She's been interviewed there by Times, BBC and Sky. Getting a letter out shouldn't be too difficult.
|
She's been interviewed there by Times, BBC and Sky. Getting a letter out shouldn't be
>> too difficult.
>>
She won't have to worry about filling that form in and sending it off any more.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47299907
|
>She is a British citizen. Has no other nationality and as such the UK government cannot revoke
>her nationality and make her stateless under international law.
Current news reports stating that she has had her citizenship revoked because she has dual British and Bangladeshi citizenship but has the right to appeal.
|
|
One wonders if she was ever really legally here. She didn't have a British passport, she stole her "sisters". One needs to dig deeper into the family circumstances to sort that mess out, and as their solicitor suddenly seems to have given up, one suspects they dont want that to happen.
|
>>One wonders if she was ever really legally here.
Really? I had heard someone insisting that they were speaking with knowledge stating that she had renounced her citizenship voluntarily and that anybody doubting it needed to do more research.
I wonder how she did that if she didn't actually hold citizenship in the first place?
Actually I suspect that she did hold British nationality, didn't renounce it voluntarily and used her sister's passport out of convenience.
But no doubt we will see in the fullness of time.
|
>Really? I had heard someone insisting that they were speaking with knowledge stating that she had renounced
>her citizenship voluntarily and that anybody doubting it needed to do more research.
Her British citizenship? Problem solved.
Curiouser and curiouser.
|
Duh! I've read the whole thread now.
Please use a sarcasm tag for some of us Mark.
|
|
Sorry Kevin. But thank you anyway.
|
Not sure the Dutch will accept Isis fighter camp no1, hell hole, syria, as a recognised location for legal marriage, that Amir Azwell Azzim formerly known in his slave life as as Dik Van Dijk is a legal entry on a birth certificate, or that Abu Muhammad al-Jazrawi, head of Hisbah is a registered religious clergy.
Thats a long was of saying the dutch will have nothing to do with her or the sprog.
|
>> formerly known in his slave life as as Dik Van Dijk is a legal entry on a birth certificate......
...and the criminal Cockney accent in Mary Poppins won't help, either.......
|
>> >> formerly known in his slave life as as Dik Van Dijk is a legal
>> entry on a birth certificate......
>>
>> ...and the criminal Cockney accent in Mary Poppins won't help, either.......
Actually, to be fair, in the film he did sound dutch.
|
|
Interesting thread this - we've got CGN agreeing with Rees-Mogg, and Zero displaying all the sympathy of D Trump.
|
>> Interesting thread this - we've got CGN agreeing with Rees-Mogg, and Zero displaying all the
>> sympathy of D Trump.
>>
Actually I think you will find that Mr Trump believes that the UK should take back their own nationals.
|
"Actually I think you will find that Mr Trump believes that the UK should take back their own nationals."
That's right - he doesn't want to have to pay for their incarceration.
|
Mr Trump doesn't seem to want people returning to the US
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47313657
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 21 Feb 19 at 10:23
|
>>>> She was a 15 year old child when she left the U.K.
>>
>>Voluntarily
So if it had been a paedophile explaining how there was no real offence because the girl was 15 and wanted to have sex with him, would you be comfortable with that? I expect not, because she is/was a minor.
>>She and her child should be left to rot in...……...
And the crime committed by that child you wish to leave to rot was????
Also, I am a little confused. I constantly hear the hard of living complaining that foreigners who commit crimes here should be sent back to their own country. But somehow that doesn't apply to British people who commits crime elsewhere?
>>She wasn't deprived of it, she gave it up, voluntarily.
Are you making that bit up? Because I haven't seen that 'fact' reported.
I hate what this country, and indeed the world, is becoming.
Hypocrisy, bigotry and hatred. It can't be long before that's an A-Level course offered in the UK.
|
>
>> Are you making that bit up? Because I haven't seen that 'fact' reported.
You need to do a bit more research then, go back to the beginning, not just jump in on your moral high horse ( a morality that seems at times to vary depending on the qty of gin consumed or maybe how much of a row you want)
No, I'm not going to do it for you because a: your high horse morality about the uk, given that you no longer live here is of no interest to me, and b: I care not a jot about the fate of the women (or her baby) at all.
Nor should any of us, they are history and no-one should waste any time pondering what to do next.
|
I think the next time you are dropping on the opinions of the likes of Roger proudly wearing your moral superiority you might like to do it with a mirror in front of you.
If those really are your opinions, they do you no favours at all.
Your post is just not worth responding to in any detail. Simply puerile.
|
>> Your post is just not worth responding to in any detail. Simply puerile.
I've green thumbed that but having been on receiving end of your ire after what I suspect is a gin too many I can see where Z is coming from.
Mind you I'm far from innocent of the posting while pi**ed charge.
|
> I've green thumbed that but having been on receiving end of your ire after what
>> I suspect is a gin too many I can see where Z is coming from.
>>
>> Mind you I'm far from innocent of the posting while pi**ed charge.
Just to clarify then, who exactly is drunk now?
|
>>Just to clarify then, who exactly is drunk now?
I am not. Chile has a zero tolerance law and I am about to go driving.
|
>>t having been on receiving end of your ire after what I suspect is a gin too many I can see where Z is coming from.
He's simply lashing out as he always does when he doesn't like being called on his own opinions.
I haven't been drinking, that bigoted, ignorant, hate driven drivel passes me off when totally sober.
And if I had been drinking, that would change what?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 17 Feb 19 at 20:13
|
Also, I am a little confused. I constantly hear the hard of living complaining that
>> foreigners who commit crimes here should be sent back to their own country. But somehow
>> that doesn't apply to British people who commits crime elsewhere?
Interesting point, I hadn't thought of that angle. Its not quite the same as the syrian gov isn't trying to get rid of her, but still.
|
>> She was a 15 year old child when she left the U.K.
>>
>> She was groomed by those about her
>>
>> She was married under aged.
>>
>> The above constitutes sexual abuse. To that she is a victim.
She's now adopted pretty much exactly the defence CGN suggested in 2019...
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/21/shamima-begum-may-have-been-a-victim-of-child-trafficking-court-told
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 21 Nov 22 at 14:34
|
>> She's now adopted pretty much exactly the defence CGN suggested in 2019...
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/21/shamima-begum-may-have-been-a-victim-of-child-trafficking-court-told
Its a cobblers defence.
|
>> Its a cobblers defence.
Still spouting the same bull shine you were at the start of this thread then...
|
I think it important to remind ourselves that she was 15 at the time and was probably encouraged to go when she was even younger.
Remembering back to when I was 14 / 15, I was very very naive.
|
What that she knew she was going to a war zone? And the fact she admitted in press 8nterviews aftwards she knew what she was doing?
|
>> What that she knew she was going to a war zone? And the fact she
>> admitted in press 8nterviews aftwards she knew what she was doing?
She may have known but was she, as her Counsel at today's hearing asserts:
persuaded, influenced and affected with her friends by a determined and effective [IS] propaganda machine
And/Or
recruited, transported, transferred, harboured and received in Syria for the purposes of sexual exploitation
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 21 Nov 22 at 15:46
|
|
You missed out the "may" part. Which as you know "may" is a speculative term used by counsel not factual. If it were fact, they would have said so.
|
>> You missed out the "may" part. Which as you know "may" is a speculative term
>> used by counsel not factual. If it were fact, they would have said so.
>>
Why would there be a may part?
The report seems to be covering what Ms Begum's counsel said in opening remarks.
Samantha Knights KC (I still can't quite adapt to the fact QC will not be used again in my lifetime) sets out her clients case which is that she WAS groomed and trafficked.
The court (or is the SIC a Tribunal?) will have to reach conclusions based on such facts as are known and the inferences to be drawn.
|
|
I wish them a happy life in sunny Syria.
|
I hope her parents are going to visit the newborn and do some babysitting.
For a very long time
|
Overheard in the tearooms in the park this afternoon:
Elderly gent spouting....
"Of course we should bring her back. Stop the plane on the tarmac at Bradford Airport, let lead her on to the tarmac and string her up on a waiting gibbet for all of her type to see". "Who needs the expense of a trial."
He couldn't see the irony.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 29 Jan 20 at 10:17
|
|
She went, packed up, shipped out, left, gone, and should be forgotten. Her fate should no longer raise an eyebrow of interest from anyone. Certainly not make a live martyr of her, trial or airport apron lynching.
|
My final word on the subject.
The only son of my best friend was murdered by ISIS whilst serving his country. I saw his life, and marriage, fall apart in front of my eyes. Myself and friends spent many hours with him just sitting at his place, not talking.
It still hurts me to see him now. A shadow of his former self.
Just show me any supporter of that lot and I’ll happily get my climbing rope out at a moments notice and use it again. Not very pc but I dont give a stuff.
|
|
Because ISIS support murder then ISIS supporters should be murdered? But then that would make you a murderer, should you then be murdered in turn? And those who support you?
|
I think we have to show some compassion otherwise we become no different from those that we despise.
I think there are mitigating circumstances. She was 15 when she went. When I was 15, I didn't know my backside from my elbow. I knew right from wrong; i.e. don't steal, don't hurt, don't bully, don't kill etc. There is a huge range of shades of grey though who knows what one can do if entices by so called friends.
If she does make it back then there does need to be an investigation in to what, if anything, she has done, and if she has committed any crimes she should be punished, though again, she was a child at the time and that should be taken in to consideration.
She should also be watched. We do the same with others (Venables and Thompson), or does her skin colour and religion make it different?
I think only John Amery was executed after WW2 for High Treason and whilst other UK citizens at the time fought for the Germans they tended to receive less final sentences.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 29 Jan 20 at 10:16
|
>>I think only John Amery was executed after WW2 for High Treason and whilst other UK >>citizens at the time fought for the Germans they tended to receive less final sentences.
To clarify, for being a member of the British Free Corps.
|
>>I think only John Amery was executed after WW2 for High Treason
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce
edit: clarification duly noted !
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 17 Feb 19 at 21:28
|
>> >>I think only John Amery was executed after WW2 for High Treason
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce
>>
>> edit: clarification duly noted !
Debatable whether Joyce was British.
|
|
My recollection is that he was Irish (and related as it happens to a friend of mine who doesn't often mention it) but what did for him was keeping a British passport too - otherwise he could not have been guilty of treason.
|
>> My recollection is that he was Irish
It's all in the Wiki link.
|
Not doing herself any favours is she, naming the child after an Islamic warlord who massacred infidels.
I wonder if she's not quite the ticket, or as Thora Hird once said: "would be at the back of the class with the raffia".
|
|
No I don't think she's the sharpest knife in the box. Her interviews would seem to confirm her naivety and the likelihood she was easily swayed by those about her.
|
|
I think it's a bit beyond naivety, she seems to be several sandwiches short of a picnic. Most of her family don't seem much better.
|
>> I think it's a bit beyond naivety, she seems to be several sandwiches short of
>> a picnic. Most of her family don't seem much better.
Presumably no formal education since age 14/15 and probably not at the top of the class then.
|
Presumably no formal education since age 14/15 and probably not at the top of the class then.
one of the reasons why the stream of abuse directed at her from the tabloid journalists and others seems so cheap. Just an easy target to whip up hatred.
|
>> ... as Thora Hird once said: "would
>> be at the back of the class with the raffia".
Written by the brilliant Victoria Wood.
"They didn't have dyslexia then, you were sat at the back with raffia".
|
>> >> My recollection is that he was Irish
>>
>> It's all in the Wiki link.
I could have sworn genes had something to do with it.
|
I like to think I am quite compassionate when it comes to those who need help or have fallen on bad times etc.
But this girl and baby are just too much baggage. I am not a racist and will defend people of all races. This is not about race.
This is about someone who made a conscious decision to go join ISIS. A mistake when you are 15 is being caught with a cigarette by your dad, it is not about running away to join the organisation that is responsible for the deaths of many of your own country's citizens.
Re forced marriage etc, she could have legally married in the UK at 16. Why do we allow that if we think they are not capable of making decisions?
We have got streets full of homeless humans, we have poverty on horrendous levels. If this girl comes back there will be a huge cost that will surround her from police, to counselling, therapists etc etc. She is one person. Not to mention the media circus.
If we have resources to bring her back and deal with her, then put these same resources into support for our own service personnel who return limbless, PTSD etc and end up on the streets because the support mechanism isn't there for them.
|
>> This is about someone who made a conscious decision to go join ISIS. A mistake
>> when you are 15 is being caught with a cigarette by your dad, it is
>> not about running away to join the organisation that is responsible for the deaths of
>> many of your own country's citizens.
Not sure about that; she was groomed. In a way yours is the same argument made by those who said girls groomed in Rotherham, Rochdale etc were willing participants.
>> Re forced marriage etc, she could have legally married in the UK at 16. Why
>> do we allow that if we think they are not capable of making decisions?
As I understand it 16 year olds still need parental consent.
>> We have got streets full of homeless humans, we have poverty on horrendous levels. If
>> this girl comes back there will be a huge cost that will surround her from
>> police, to counselling, therapists etc etc. She is one person. Not to mention the media
>> circus.
Dealing with returnees is something we have to do. It's not an alternative to providing for with those living in tents behind All Saints' Church in Northampton. We have to sort both.
|
www.bbc.com/news/uk-47299907
Going by this one video you'd have to say; not stupid, not badly educated, not a thug, not sorry.
In fact the way she speaks and some of the things she says suggest quite different things. She comes across as someone who has thought about this and is actually comfortable with her choices and does not feel like she was in the wrong.
Interesting, She doesn't seem like a very pleasant person. But hat might just be because she is young and immature.
I wonder what will happen now that the Daily Mail has revoked her citizenship. Will it teach her a lesson, will it show her "what for" or will it simply show her that her feelings had some basis and almost offer her some affirmation for that resentment?
I suspect that quite some spin can be put on it by ISIS recruiters.
I don't think we would have been able to prosecute her here, certainly not in any significant way.
And if removing her citizenship has been done legally, and provided we will accept it if it is every done in reverse to a foreign criminal on UK soil, then I guess it's probably the lesser of all the bad possibilities.
I know it is said in the media that she has dual nationality, has anyone seen any indication as to which one is hers by birth?
|
Well 'er indoors has just waltzed into my office whilst I was giving the secretary a good seei......OOPS!
Seriously, Madam has just said that the Home Sec' has said no. Watch this or some other space. I'm going up the wooden hill. Night.
|
Richard Madeley may puts the family solicitor in his place:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQixaaVZJRI
|
Much as I enjoyed the video, this was one of the comments added referring to the lawyer;
" A person of immigrant stock, sticking up for another immigrant wanting us to pay and look after them."
What a delightful crowd we get these days.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 19 Feb 19 at 21:31
|
>Much as I enjoyed the video, this was one of the comments added referring to the lawyer;
Over the top but let me ask you a question.
How do you think this lawyer has become involved in this case? Did she or her family contact him or did he inject himself into this case hoping to achieve publicity and make a bit of money?
Not sure I'd want a lawyer who loses his argument to a TV talk show host though. I'll take Cousin Vinny.
|
>>Did she or her family contact him or did he inject himself into this case hoping to achieve publicity and make a bit of money?
Without doubt he injected himself. He appeared to be fairly low level used to feeling superior to those around him. Madeley clearly came as somewhat of a shock to him
Now let me ask you a question;
As you start listing the things you potentially dislike or think are unpleasant or bad about this lawyer, how far down the list of comments which you thought were negative was...
"of immigrant stock"?
One can only imagine the type of person who wrote that.
Come the revolution......
|
>Now let me ask you a question;
Well, I don't have a "list" of things I dislike about him other than I believe that he's an opportunistic lawyer looking to gain publicity and make money out of the situation. There are plenty of those around so he's not alone in that regard. I lump Sajid Javid in the same opportunistic boat.
As for the comment about "immigrant stock", don't expect me to try and defend it. Racism isn't going to disappear in our lifetimes I'm afraid but I also recognise that neither you nor I moaning about it on a forum is going to change that. I'm not on a crusade, I just shrug my shoulders and treat it with the contempt it deserves.
The only place I've seen that comes close is Cuba.
|
>> How do you think this lawyer has become involved in this case? Did she or
>> her family contact him or did he inject himself into this case hoping to achieve
>> publicity and make a bit of money?
Wide of the mark I think.
He's a fairly high profile character in the field of criminal defence in terror related cases. Seems to have been involved with family since time she first went to Syria. Was critical of Council's failure to act on previous case of teenager defecting to ISIS; lost opportunity to alert other families.
Suspect he's well known in the Bengali community and like many lawyers in the immigration and criminal field he's not likely to be making pots of money.
I've not seen the Madeley interview but I'd be far more concerned about my lawyer's abilities in court then facing a TV interviewer who thrives on making himself look big at expense of others.
|
>>I've not seen the Madeley interview...
...but feel perfectly able to pass comment on what happened anyway.
|
>> ...but feel perfectly able to pass comment on what happened anyway.
I've seen enough kebabings by people like Madeley to have an educated guess as to what went on.
|
|
People "like" Madeley, not actually Madeley, but still feel able to comment anyway.
|
|
Actually can't say I like his usual style myself, but in this interview he was perfectly reasonable.
|
>> People "like" Madeley, not actually Madeley, but still feel able to comment anyway.
Point was about whether letting himself get caught out in a TV interview reflected on his ability as a lawyer. If he was as badly caught out as you suggest then one hopes he'll get some media training before putting himself in the bear-pit again.
I get mildly irritated by suggestion in any sort of high profile case like this where those advising or supporting family etc are always in it for the money and/or publicity. Same stuff came up when Keith Vaz spoke up for family of nurse who killed herself after being tricked by broadcaster over royal patient. Turned out their families were all known to each other as they were members of the Goan community in UK.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 21 Feb 19 at 16:31
|
>If he was as badly caught out as you suggest then one hopes he'll get some media training before
>putting himself in the bear-pit again.
Media training?!
He thought it would be a walk in the park for free publicity, but he doesn't understand that you don't bring court room tactics onto a talk show. Arrogant and confrontational behaviour isn't going to win you any friends especially in a case like this. He hadn't asked himself "How do I want to come across in this interview"? Even worse, he hadn't asked himself "How will it go down with the typical demographic of this show if I compare her to a WWI veteran"? That's not just unprofessional, it's plain dumb.
>Same stuff came up when Keith Vaz spoke up for family of nurse..
Keith Vaz will always attract criticism even if he manages to do something right, simply because he's such a shining example of truth and honesty. I think he's realised that now.
|
>> Media training?!
Media training would cover the issues/techniques you list including how to come across and what not to say. While some my understand the that in her own head she's like a shell shocked WW1 volunteer comparing 'villains' with 'heroes' rarely plays well in media. Same condemnation fell on those who pointed out that it might help understand IRA volunteers if were recognised that in their heads they were on endeavour like French resistance.
|
Err no, now you are trying to justify what she did. The reference to "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" is not valid in this case.
Tho I accept it may have some justification in the IRA cause - (if you manage to diverge some parts of the IRA from general gangsterism that occurred under the umbrella of the troubles)
|
>> Err no, now you are trying to justify what she did. The reference to "one
>> mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" is not valid in this case.
I'm certainly not trying to justify what she did though clearly there are (competing) explanations.
Not sure why circumstances make 'one man's terrorist notion' invalid. ISIS feeds off the Sunni/Shia schism and will undoubtedly be seen by some as being for their freedom.
|
"Not sure why circumstances make 'one man's terrorist notion' invalid."
That's right, Brompt, sawing people's heads off and massed rape are all in a day's work for some folk. All that's needed is a little more understanding.
|
|
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
|
Heavily paraphrased by time and my memory, but yes.
One doesn't have to like one's enemy, but one does have to understand them. When one understand them, then one has some idea of how to beat them.
The mindless "hang 'em in the airport" type emotion is ridiculous, futile and other than giving the impotent some illusion of relevance, will never achieve anything other than give the other side even more motivation and feelings of justification.
|
>> "Not sure why circumstances make 'one man's terrorist notion' invalid."
>>
>> That's right, Brompt, sawing people's heads off and massed rape are all in a day's
>> work for some folk. All that's needed is a little more understanding.
But she didnt, did she. Unless proven otherwise all she did was leave her "home"? country behind to go and live in another, renouncing all she left behind.
In my book thats permanent, good bye, good riddance, never darken our doorstep again, not missing you already. However, to attach any "terrorist" flag against her, especially false knee jerk hang em high crap, , means we have to drag her back, put her on trial, with all the martyrdom and infamy that infers.
She is meaningless, forget her.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 22 Feb 19 at 15:56
|
>>She is meaningless, forget her.
If she renounced her citizenship then I entirely agree, however, I can't find any statement one way or the other.
Without doubt we would have been better off if the media hadn't made so much of a storm about it. Which I guess they do because their reader/viewership likes it.
She was insignificant, whatever she did abroad. Until we made her both significant and a cause.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 22 Feb 19 at 16:23
|
>> But she didnt, did she. Unless proven otherwise all she did was leave her "home"?
>> country behind to go and live in another, renouncing all she left behind.
Sorry but I thought you were suggesting I was justifying her actions.
On the facts as we know them she went out there to be an ISIS brood-mare (or more prosaically to get laid). She did so after a period of indoctrination and grooming and is still very immature. I don't think you can fairly interpret that in the way you do. Different but an insight, I'm typing this on a slack day at work listening two 19 year old single girls discussing marriage, babies and houses etc. They're both bright articulate and well brought up lasses but I don't think they've got much of a handle on reality (although the one who started at 16 has come on in leaps and bounds in last three years).
She should be allowed back, tried for any offence that crosses the prosecution threshold and subject to whatever actions are necessary to undo the effects of grooming.
You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 22 Feb 19 at 16:41
|
>> You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
Mine was a specific response to sawing people's heads off and massed rape are all in a day's
>> work for some folk. All that's needed is a little more understanding.
|
>She should be allowed back, tried for any offence that crosses the prosecution threshold and subject
>to whatever actions are necessary to undo the effects of grooming.
Given social housing, monthly benefit payments and round the clock protection against potential revenge attacks.
Just like the care they give to our returning servicemen?
|
>> Just like the care they give to our returning servicemen?
It's not either or.
|
>It's not either or.
Tell that to the ex-squaddie sleeping outside Basingstoke railway station living off the sandwitches and coffee given to him by the manager of Costa when he closes up.
|
>> Tell that to the ex-squaddie sleeping outside Basingstoke railway station living off the sandwitches and
>> coffee given to him by the manager of Costa when he closes up.
Not sure I understand point you're making. In case anybody doesn't know I work in the advice sector. I'm well aware of the issues around ex-servicemen and their gross over representation amongst the street homeless.
There's probably help available, the Royal British Legion would be a good starting point and if someone in his position turned up at our drop in that would be where we'd look. I think for a lot of ex-service street homeless the issue is that they have multiple issues - physical, PTSD/Mental Health etc - and struggle to manage without the framework the military discipline provides.
There should be outreach but cash strapped councils don't see it as a priority. But excluding Ms Begum and a couple of other ex ISIS folks won't change the Treasury arithmetic.
|
>> Not sure I understand point you're making. In case anybody doesn't know I work in
>> the advice sector. I'm well aware of the issues around ex-servicemen and their gross over
>> representation amongst the street homeless.
Just one more reason, if any more reasons were needed, not to sign on.
|
>> Just one more reason, if any more reasons were needed, not to sign on.
Most people who leave the services do so fairly easily and find work within months of leaving. A lot of the issues are the handover in those who leave with mental health problems and the handover to the nhs, they fall through the cracks.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 24 Feb 19 at 20:02
|
>> Most people who leave the services do so fairly easily and find work within months
>> of leaving. A lot of the issues are the handover in those who leave with
>> mental health problems and the handover to the nhs, they fall through the cracks.
'They fall through the cracks' pretty much catches it.
|
At the end of the day we have to decide whether we want to live in a country governed by laws enforced by the courts with all the checks and balances that brings or whether we want a system where we are happy that politicians can arbitrarily decide on your guilt and decide on your punishment. We should be very very careful in thinking about where the latter course might lead.
|
>> At the end of the day we have to decide whether we want to live
>> in a country governed by laws enforced by the courts with all the checks and
>> balances that brings or whether we want a system where we are happy that politicians
>> can arbitrarily decide on your guilt and decide on your punishment. We should be very
>> very careful in thinking about where the latter course might lead.
We are still in the former, the government as far as I'm aware hasn't ignored any decision made by the courts in this case.
|
"But she didnt, did she. "
Of course she didn't or, at least, I don't think she sawed any heads off. I got the impression that she thought it might be a jolly good idea though, and went out there to give the lads her support.
|
>> Richard Madeley may puts the family solicitor in his place:
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQixaaVZJRI
>>
Give Richard a thumbs up. Unflinching, stood his ground and chopped matey boy off at the knees.
|
>> Richard Madeley may puts the family solicitor in his place:
Apparently he doesn't wear pants. It has been reported that he wanders around at parties asking people is they wear pants, or are going commando, like him.
I couldn't take a man seriously who told me that he wasn't wearing pants.
|
|
In answer to NoFM2R ,her mother is Bangladeshi so she is Bangladeshi by birth.
Last edited by: helicopter on Wed 20 Feb 19 at 09:57
|
I
I’m not sure that is the case. Assuming her mother was Bangladeshi that gives the woman the right to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship which is not at all the same thing as automatically being Bangladeshi citizen.
It would seem several similar attempts to deprive British citizens of their nationality have failed in the past so I expect this will turn into a long running and expensive legal issue
On the moral side is it right to for the U.K. to reject one of their citizenswho was radicalised in the UK and who many would argue should face the justice system here and effectively pass the problem to Bangladesh, a country where she has never lived?
|
>> On the moral side is it right to for the U.K. to reject one of
>> their citizenswho was radicalised in the UK and who many would argue should face the
>> justice system here and effectively pass the problem to Bangladesh, a country where she has
>> never lived?
Yes, it a wonderfully elegant and convenient solution.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 20 Feb 19 at 10:31
|
The Home Office position is that by revoking her UK nationality she is not rendered stateless as she can claim Bagladeshi nationality via her mother and also I understand Dutch nationality via her marriage.
Last edited by: helicopter on Wed 20 Feb 19 at 13:04
|
She doesn't have citizenship elsewhere it seems.
I expect this will go to court and the Govt will lose if this is the case.
Home Sec willy-waving.
Reminds me of Ed Balls sacking Sharon Shoesmith after the Baby P death - needless failure of following established legal process leading to a substantial payout, due to politicians trying to work beyond their competence.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 20 Feb 19 at 13:11
|
>> Home Sec willy-waving.
Exactly the conclusion I came to this morning. He signed the order late last night in a move doubtless timed to catch today's headlines.
If I understood what was said on radio this morning appeal/review in these cases is not, as I would have thought via Judicial Review but to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). SIAC is a court specifically created to deal with immigration cases that concern matters of national security. Cases are presented by a state approved Special Advocate vetted to handle secret evidence. Usually this would mean stuff obtained by the Security Services though it's far from clear why they would spend much time on somebody who joined ISIS to get laid. Not sure it's necessary to conduct case in that way when obvious line of attack, apart from whether decision is one which no reasonable Home Sec could have arrived at, is Miss Begum's human rights.
SIAC last came to prominence over the case of then MP Mike Hancock's researcher and lover Katia Zatuliveter. The government lost that one.
|
Usually this would mean stuff obtained by the Security Services though it's
>> far from clear why they would spend much time on somebody who joined ISIS to
>> get laid.
Sometimes people's connection with others who are of interest isn't always so obvious.
And as your last paragraph suggests it's no gimme for the gov going down this route.
|
>>Exactly the conclusion I came to this morning. He signed the order late last night in a move doubtless timed to catch today's headlines.
Exactly the point of my reference to her citizenship being removed by the Daily Mail.
|
>>On the moral side is it right to for the U.K. to reject one of their citizens who was radicalised in the UK and who many would argue should face the justice system here and effectively pass the problem to Bangladesh, a country where she has never lived?
Can you just imagine the reaction of the Daily Mail and it's loyal following if one was sent our way through such a manoeuvre?
|
>> Can you just imagine the reaction of the Daily Mail and it's loyal following if
>> one was sent our way through such a manoeuvre?
Can Bangla Desh make it clear now that any application for citizenship would be rejected. Also, some reports suggest her option to claim such citizenship ceases when she's 21.
|
“The government of Bangladesh is deeply concerned that [Begum] has been erroneously identified as a holder of dual citizenship,” Shahrial Alam, state minister of foreign affairs, said in a statement issued to the Guardian, adding that his government had learned of Britain’s move to cancel her citizenship rights from media reports.
“Bangladesh asserts that Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is a British citizen by birth and never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh … There is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh.”
|
So our ridiculous government has made another knee jerk and ill considered statement to the media and consequently has *£"&%^ the whole thing right up.
So now, the UK has to admit her, has to admit her child, her child will be British by descent, and the Government will scramble around puffing and blowing until they realise that they can't actually think of anything significant to prosecute her for.
And she will do it in triumph ahead of a proud and paid procession of lawyers, media and glory seekers trumpeting about how they defeated the British Government.
What an embarrassing shower.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 20 Feb 19 at 17:47
|
|
I bet the foreign office are having kittens about it all.
|
>> I bet the foreign office are having kittens about it all.
I'll bet they are. Wonder if Javid spoke with Jeremy Hunt or got his officials to speak to the FCO before making the order removing her citizenship?
Given he and Hunt are rivals for leadership I'd guess not.
OTOH you'd have though Bangladesh disowning her was a risk he'd have considered.
|
> OTOH you'd have though Bangladesh disowning her was a risk he'd have considered.
>>
No doubt did, but he'll be moved before this comes to a resolution
And I'm sure that if needs be the whole process can be slowed down as required in the meantime*.
*Oh you mean we forgot to tell you you didn't fill in paragraph 5, sub sections 3 and 4 correctly? How remiss of us. (slowly moves paperwork to the bottom of the pile)
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 21 Feb 19 at 05:28
|
>> *Oh you mean we forgot to tell you you didn't fill in paragraph 5, sub
>> sections 3 and 4 correctly? How remiss of us. (slowly moves paperwork to the bottom
>> of the pile)
It now seems she has and has never had a passport. Some form of travel document, authority or visa will need to be issued or military transport will be needed. could take forever,
|
".......... or military transport will be needed. could take forever,"
You mean like the helicopter that they used to ferry Mr Bin Laden when they accidentally dropped him into the sea?
|
|
He was dead before he fell out
|
"He was dead before he fell out"
You were there?
|
|
I read the navy seal account of the mission.
|
"I read the navy seal account of the mission."
OK, so they anaesthetised him with lead first.
|
|
They did, he wasn't going to give up his DNA and fingerprints willingly.
|
>>OK, so they anaesthetised him with lead first.
Helps to make sure he sinks - see my 'swallowed some shot thread'.
Last edited by: bathtub tom on Thu 21 Feb 19 at 19:39
|
>> It now seems she has and has never had a passport. Some form of travel
>> document, authority or visa will need to be issued or military transport will be needed.
>> could take forever,
Or she could hide in back of a lorry and just turn up in UK. Appreciate Syria/Turkey is a bit further way but I've heard of someone deported to Albania who arrived back in UK within a week by that method.
If she's a UK citizen can she enter the country illegally?
|
|
If she enters that way, can she prove who she is? The chances of her now disappearing in that manner are now pretty small. I wonder how much she was paid by the various journos?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 21 Feb 19 at 15:51
|
|
Jihadi Jack now wants to come home. He misses his Mum. He retains his British passport.
|
>> Jihadi Jack now wants to come home. He misses his Mum. He retains his British
>> passport.
What are the facts with regard to Jack Letts?
|
>>What are the facts with regard to Jack Letts?
Javid needs to de-citizen him before the Canadians?
|
>>Jihadi Jack
Oh dear God, are you really following the mindless media and giving him a nickname? Jesus, talk about glorifying scroats.
|
|
To all those who think she [or anybody else] shouldn't be let to come back to the UK, where do you stand on countries who refuse to take their criminals/terrorists back from us?
|
>> To all those who think she [or anybody else] shouldn't be let to come back
>> to the UK, where do you stand on countries who refuse to take their criminals/terrorists
>> back from us?
Precedence and law says you try and jail in the place where the crime is committed, as we do.. By those rules she should be tried in Syria.
Sounds a like a plan to me, think you have fixed the issue.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 22 Feb 19 at 20:39
|
>>Precedence and law says you try and jail in the place where the crime is committed
Fair enough.
But what about all the people that say foreigners who commit a crime in the UK should be sent back from whence they came? (to an extent a stance I agree with)
|
>> But what about all the people that say foreigners who commit a crime in the
>> UK should be sent back from whence they came? (to an extent a stance I
>> agree with)
>>
Aren't most deported after completing their sentence? I don't know myself.
|
|
Glorying Scroats, - famous punk band were they not?
|
|
They certainly should have been.
|
>> Jihadi Jack now wants to come home. He misses his Mum. He retains his British
>> passport.
Not now he doesn't!!
|
Sajid Javid's reasoning that he can strip Shamima Begum of her citizenship because of her parents' heritage is troubling for a significant group of UK citizens:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/22/shamima-begum-decision-risks-creating-second-class-of-citizenship
I have a much younger colleague born, as my two were, at Northampton General Hospital's Maternity Unit. She has an English surname and I've always thought of her as being as 'White British' as me or my kids.
She points out she could be stripped of her UK citizenship; her Mother has Italian heritage.
|
What typical Guardian carp.
What offences does your colleague think she's likley to commit that will result in her citizenship being revoked?
Parking on a double yellow?
|
>> What typical Guardian carp.
>>
>> What offences does your colleague think she's likley to commit that will result in her
>> citizenship being revoked?
>>
>> Parking on a double yellow?
>>
>>
Probably none at the moment, but one needs to be aware of "mission creep", a bit like the anti terrorist legislation used to arrest people taking photos or those involved in peaceful protest?
How long will it be before wearing a loud shirt in public will be enough to get one's citizenship revoked?
Asking at work, team of six, heritage: French, Maltese, Irish, Irish, British, British. All born here with British parents and white males.
|
>> Asking at work, team of six, heritage: French, Maltese, Irish, Irish, British, British. All born
>> here with British parents and white males.
In my team of 11 I think 6, including me, are wholly British on both sides though one other may have an Irush connection.
Apart from the one I mentioned who's mother has Italian citizenship rest comprise:
EU National from Czech Republic
Mixed British/Caribbean (Jamaica/St Lucia)
South African
Naturalised British with Indian citizenship via her husband and of Moroccan birth/heritage.
Northampton's not particularly noted for its diversity.
|
|
What a load of scare story nonsense, an article the Daily Mail would be proud of.
|
|
It seems the Dutch would arrest him on arrival in Holland.
|
>> It seems the Dutch would arrest him on arrival in Holland.
He's been sentenced to six years in his absence. May be other charges to be added to sheet if further/more serious offending comes to light.
|
|
Do you know what offences? 6 years seems a strange term.
|
>> Do you know what offences? 6 years seems a strange term.
>>
For being a member of isis, I assume it's a listed terrorist group in Holland.
|
|
What a desperately sad situation this woman now finds herself in. Whatever she is guilty of to have lost three children at her ages is truly awful.
|
|
Time to misquote an Oscar Wilde quote methinks
|
Latest seems to be that Syrians, or whoever is in charge of refugee camp, won't let her solicitor in to get appeal papers signed. A bit rum considering best part of half a dozen journalists have been and spoken with her.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/17/shamima-begum-lawyer-held-back-by-syrian-forces
|
>> Latest seems to be that Syrians, or whoever is in charge of refugee camp, won't
>> let her solicitor in to get appeal papers signed. A bit rum considering best part
>> of half a dozen journalists have been and spoken with her.
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/17/shamima-begum-lawyer-held-back-by-syrian-forces
>>
I guess the journalists possessed special green passes that are totally illegal and punishable by fines and or prison.
The solicitors know the rules about the special green passes and will not want to risk their reputation or liberty by using them.
|
|
She has no value to anyone back in the UK, she has a shed load for many parties in the region in many ways.
|
From that article:
...fleeing the UK to join Isis, and reaffirming her commitment to the terrorist group after surrendering to Kurdish forces in eastern Syria.
|
According to reports on the radio she's been granted legal aid.
The Mail on Sunday reported yesterday 'leaked' information that her housewife duties included sewing explosive vests onto suicide bombers.
I suspect the latter is a consequence of thew former....
|
Shamima Begum has lost the initial round of her attempt to challenge Home Secretary's decision to strip her of UK Citizenship:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/07/shamima-begum-loses-appeal-against-removal-of-citizenship
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission has found, after hearing expert evidence, that she has Bangladeshi Citizenship by descent. She is not therefore stateless.
An appeal will of course follow.
|
Mmm, bit of a dodgy precedent there, I think.
If I recall the woman was born in the UK? We should be able to take citizenship from people to whom we have granted it. We should not be able to take it way to those with British citizenship by birth.
What I think we *should* do, even though it would harm my own family, is make citizenship of more than one country unacceptable. To take British citizenship one should have to renounce any others.
|
|
I think her original actual citizenship has always been a grey area
|
No. Only in your head.
She was born here. There is no suggestion anywhere in the SIAC judgement that she did not have UK Citizenship. The question was whether she was also a citizen of Bangladesh.
|
>> No. Only in your head.
>>
Go stick you head down the toilet as ole
If they consider she had Bangladeshi citzenship as well its not hard and dried is it diked Plenty of people born here who are NOT citizens
opne of the parent is NOT a uk citizen but Bangladeshi with right to stay
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 7 Feb 20 at 18:06
|
Since the case is all about the UK Government stripping her of her UK citizenship it is obvious and clear that the Government accepts that she is (or was) a UK citizen.
As Bromptonaut says this case is all about whether she is a Bangladeshi Citizen.
She was born in Bethnal Green
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 7 Feb 20 at 18:25
|
>> is a Bangladeshi Citizen.
It seems pretty clear that she is not. It seems that it is the fact that she could claim citizenship by descent which seems to be the point.
Does the fact that she could claim citizenship count as having it, bearing in mind that it would appear she would have to fight the Bangladeshi Government in court to get it.
That to one side; British by birth, legally so, we should deal with it. If we're not prepared to deal with it, then we need to change the law about the criteria for citizenship.
What next? You can kick out anybody whose Grandfather was born elsewhere? Because typically that entitles them to citizenship.
|
>> opne of the parent is NOT a uk citizen but Bangladeshi with right to stay
Para 12 of the SIAC Judgement is crystal clear on her UK citizenship.
She is a British Citizen by birth because at the time of her birth one of her parents (her father) had ILR
ILR = Indefinite Leave to Remain.
|
|
To automatically be a British Citizen by birth you have to be born in the UK to a parent who was living/settled here legally. I think "settled" means more than 5 years living in the UK.
|
Denying citizenship of someone who is British by birth is just the political washing of hands.
If she is guilty of breaking the law about something, then try her and punish her.
If she's not, then WTF?
If, on the other hand, if the person was not British by birth then they should absolutely be dumped and dealt with by the country where they were born..
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 7 Feb 20 at 18:17
|
>>Does the fact that she could claim citizenship count as having it, bearing in mind that it would >>appear she would have to fight the Bangladeshi Government in court to get it.
Not in my book!
Apparently it is against international law for a state to remove someone's citizenship if that makes them stateless.
This is posturing by the Govt.
As No FM2R states, bring her back, try her and if she is guilty punish her. Don't do it the wrong way around, it makes us look like some of the totalitarian states that we are trying to be better than.
Bangladesh have said that if she goes there she will be tried as a terrorist and if found guilty likely executed.
Has the UK changed its stance on extraditing people to countries with the death penalties - if there is no undertaking not to withhold that penalty?
With Patel as Home Secretary, I suspect so.
|
>> Bangladesh have said that if she goes there she will be tried as a terrorist
>> and if found guilty likely executed.
>>
>> Has the UK changed its stance on extraditing people to countries with the death penalties
>> - if there is no undertaking not to withhold that penalty?
As she is not in the UK she is not being extradited, as a Bangladeshi she would be tried according to the laws of her country, so no policy change.
|
The lawyers will have a much better grasp of the legalities and international protocols than I.
But seems clear that she went there in defiance of the UK government to support a terrorist organisation that claimed at the time to be a "state" and whose actions included torture and beheading of both British and other nationalities.
She has sought to return as she realises she is on the losing side and perhaps sees the UK as an easy touch. We should do all we can to ensure that she does not return - in the event we have no choice to meet international obligations she should be locked away for a very long time.
|
>> But seems clear that she went there in defiance of the UK government to support
>> a terrorist organisation that claimed at the time to be a "state" and whose actions
>> included torture and beheading of both British and other nationalities.
She went there as a fifteen year old. She's almost certainly been groomed by, brown skinned Muslim men, to accept the role of 'ISIS bride' and everything that went with it.
Plenty other instances of young women being groomed by brown skinned Muslim men to accept all sorts of stuff but those women elicit nothing but sympathy (and quite rightly so).
I'm struggling to see the difference between them and Miss Begum.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 7 Feb 20 at 19:58
|
>>brown skinned
Why is their colour material?
|
>> >>brown skinned
>>
>> Why is their colour material?
Only in relation to way in which Rochdale, Rotherham etc cases were reported.
The flip side is that girls there were white.
|
It still seems a strange thing to focus on.
However, you might want to be a whole lot clearer in future, especially when mentioning such a thing twice, because that did not come across well.
With some other people I would have reacted considerably more strongly.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 7 Feb 20 at 20:28
|
"Groomed" is one of these silly terms used to explain so much now. In the case of sex it has replaced "Seduction", a practice as old as the hills and carried out by people of all ages and genders on other people of all ages and genders. It is a bit different from coercion as it involves instilling a genuine desire in someone rather than forcing them against their will.
I am not without sympathy for this girl, but at fifteen she was old enough to know right from wrong and was well above the age of criminal responsibility. She may have been fed a load of religious crap about her place in Paradise and what her particular sky fairy expected of her to get there but she certainly knew that murder, torture, rape and enslavement just because someone did not subscribe to that belief themselves was well outside the law in any civilised society and would be punished. The practices of ISIS were well documented and she went along willingly.
She may have seen the error of her ways and be full of regret, but she was no younger than I was when I started working for a living and I was regarded as a young adult, not a child and neither was she. Immature maybe, but that is not an excuse in law.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Fri 7 Feb 20 at 20:24
|
I entirely agree with you R O'R, but we should deal with it appropriately, not in a way that suits our politicians grandstanding.
And her punishment should probably be considerable, but not execution, not manipulating the law and not without trial.
|
|
p.s. I think "groomed" is a ridiculous term.
|
>> p.s. I think "groomed" is a ridiculous term.
Genuine question.
What term would you use instead.?
Grooming, in the specific context of setting up youngsters or other vulnerable individuals for sex or other activities that would normally be beyond the pale is a form of coercion.
It's meaning is well understood.
|
I said nothing about it's meaning, I said it was a ridiculous term to use.
Too late now, but you would have though something better could have been used. I suspect it was used as part of the act of putting a tabloid headline into law.
|
>> Too late now, but you would have though something better could have been used. I
>> suspect it was used as part of the act of putting a tabloid headline into
>> law.
I think it probably does have a legal meaning albeit perhaps rooted in newspaper headlines. It's certainly well used in context of protection of children.
It seems to me a perfectly satisfactory word unless/until something better is coined.
|
|
Who on earth gave you a frownie face for that? I thought we'd largely left that level of petulant immaturity behind us.
|
>> "Groomed" is one of these silly terms used to explain so much now. In the
>> case of sex it has replaced "Seduction", a practice as old as the hills and
>> carried out by people of all ages and genders on other people of all ages
>> and genders. It is a bit different from coercion as it involves instilling a genuine
>> desire in someone rather than forcing them against their will.
I'm sorry but there is no comparison between grooming and seduction.
End Of.
|
What does putting "End of" at the end of a post mean? Nobody is allowed to discuss it? Is it some magic incantation?
I think you'd struggle to draw a definitive line between the two, there is considerable overlap. Though obviously not complete.
|
>> What does putting "End of" at the end of a post mean? Nobody is allowed
>> to discuss it? Is it some magic incantation?
>>
>> I think you'd struggle to draw a definitive line between the two, there is considerable
>> overlap. Though obviously not complete.
I don't think there is any overlap and was rather shocked that RR thought there was.
Seduction is one thing and with a legitimate 'target' good fun with a long and distinguished history and giving rise to much bawdy humour about Sir Jasper et al.
Inveigling your way into the life of an underage and/or vulnerable person, usually a child, whether with alcohol and drugs, clever words or promises of a 'Valhalla' (mixed metaphors I know) in the Middle East is a different kettle of fish.
|
"Seduced" is not a term I would use to describe the practice of getting a 13 year old girl into bed, "Corrupted" would be the correct term in that case. But when it comes to a relationship between a teacher and a seventeen year old it is a different matter because the great and good are immediately condemning the older person for having "Groomed" the younger, even when the attraction between them was mutual and sometimes instigated by the younger party.
In the case of Miss Begum she was fifteen and well educated when she left Britain and went of to join ISIS. Despite having lived all her life in a country where we are taught to respect the views of others whether political, religious or whatever she chose to join an organisation who were the polar opposite of tolerant - something she should have despised as I have no doubt she and her family suffered discrimination because of their colour at least some of the time.
She was not groomed because it was she who made the initial contact with ISIS and it was not to tell them they were wrong and they should stop what they were doing, but to support them. A bit different from a dirty old man waiting at the school gate with a packet of sweets for some innocent little thing from a broken home looking for friendship.
|
I'd agree about corrupted and girls under the age of consent (as Ms Begum was of course).
I think the 17yo and teacher is a real grey area. There were several instances when I was at school, mostly male teachers not long qualified (early twenties) and female students. Several ended up married. My daughter's in laws met when she was his teacher - age gap about six years.
They've been married for 31 years and still happily together.
In other cases I think it was dodgy; experienced man and infatuated girl. A teacher who was in same lodgings as me when I first started work was probably on that game. She was besotted and thought they'd marry. He was seeing other women and IMHO screwing her opportunistically.
I don't think the full facts about Ms Begum are yet known. One reason she should be brought home and investigated then, if offences proved and threshold met, prosecuted.
The redacted version of the SIAC judgement is available:
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf
Not yet had time to read, never mind mark/inwardly digest.
|
>> I
>>
>> I don't think the full facts about Ms Begum are yet known. One reason she
>> should be brought home and investigated then, if offences proved and threshold met, prosecuted.
>>
>>
>>
I'll agree with that, which is why in my original post I said I was not without sympathy for the girl. She should be tried under the laws of this country and both punished and given a chance of redemption if she can show she has changed her views.
The reason I hate the term "Grooming" is that it is used as a catch all to often demonise people who are engaged in something to which there is no long term harm. Teenage girls have been attracted to older men since the dawn of time, and engaged in relationships which have either become permanent or run their course with time - just like most relationships people have.
If you think that view means I have any time for the organised gangs in Rochdale or other places you couldn't be more wrong, that comes under the heading of criminal exploitation and corruption.
|
>>I think the 17yo and teacher is a real grey area.
Not now it isn't - it is illegal and has been for almost 20 years
thesexualoffenceshandbook.com/2013/10/08/teachers-and-sexual-relationships-with-students-aged-16/
|
>> Not now it isn't - it is illegal and has been for almost 20 years
>>
>> thesexualoffenceshandbook.com/2013/10/08/teachers-and-sexual-relationships-with-students-aged-16/
I meant morally rather than legally and focused on my own youth.
The law has since intervened and I think rightly.
OTOH a man who taught both my kids in upper school/sixth form and who both of them thought an excellent teacher got 'sent down' for having had sex with a sixth former in a previous post in Rugby.
He was actually one of the teachers who went to Ecuador with my daughter on World Challenge. I met him on preparations for that and when helping out with stuff for kids DofE. In no way, shape, or form was he a kiddy fiddler.
At worst he was a berk who couldn't keep it in his pants.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 7 Feb 20 at 23:50
|
There is a difference between paedophilia and breach of trust.
I don't recall ever receiving explicit guidance about doctor-patient relationships during my training, and neither does my wife (a teacher) re teacher-pupil although we both trained in mid-late 90s.
No idea if current trainees have the law explained to them.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 8 Feb 20 at 09:15
|
I think grooming is a dumb a*** term and that there is an overlap between grooming and seducing.
I cannot help you deal with your shock. I guess you'll just have to get over it.
I will say that you might want to revisit "Seduction is one thing and with a legitimate 'target' good fun ". Aside from being a ridiculously simplistic and archaic point of view, it is also wrong and could be taken as offensive.
There's a fair few females who'd take your head off for the words 'target' and 'good fun' within the context of such a general word as seduction.
My sister for one.
Seduction *is* manipulation and not necessarily good.
"Perhaps one of the most insidious ways to favorably manage the impression of others while simultaneously trying to get something you want from them is seduction."
Dr George Simon PhD
Clinical Psychology
However, I shall leave it there. It's too ridiculous to be worthy of further time.
|
MArk,
As often we view the world through different prisms.
That's life.
|
Having read the SIAC judgment, which is only on preliminary issues, a couple of points emerge.
A decision as to whether or not Bangladesh law gave her citizenship, or on the practical issues following that is made based on expert evidence. Both sides had experts, albeit hers was anonymous. There was much debate as to difference between de jure (or de iure as used in the judgement) and de facto citizenship.
Bottom line is that she is found to have citizenship and that there was no convincing evidence that the Bangladesh government could corrupt its courts so as to deny that (as she suggested).
My particular take away is that the Home Office expert wiped the floor with hers.
There will of course be an appeal.
There are also separate proceedings in the High Court challenging the Home Sec's refusal of Leave to Enter outside the rules so as to pursue this case. There is, as yet, no outcome from that.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 8 Feb 20 at 09:47
|
Seduction perhaps relates to a 'target' that while perhaps leads to a morally abhorrent outcome (depending on your compass!) does not break the law.
Grooming leads to an illegal act.
I can't think of a better phrase to discriminate between the two - perhaps "predatory sexual interest" or some such?
|
I don't buy the "she was groomed" crap. You groom people by the promise of something nice, you don't groom them by the promise of a war zone and killing kafirs. There is no way it could have been dressed up .
She knew what she was doing and why. And the subterfuge and means of getting there backs that up.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 8 Feb 20 at 10:39
|
>> I don't buy the "she was groomed" crap. You groom people by the promise of
>> something nice, you don't groom them by the promise of a war zone and killing
>> kafirs. There is no way it could have been dressed up .
She and her friends were offered a home in the caliphate together with a husband. They were groomed into believing the caliphate would be an Islamic refuge. She travelled with two others, a fourth from same circle had gone before.
The school and the council should have been on the case after the first.
>> She knew what she was doing and why. And the subterfuge and means of getting
>> there backs that up.
Whatever.
Repeating something over again does not make it true.
Whatever she's done she should be returned to UK to 'face the music'. That would involve de-radicalisation and a thorough investigation into the whole affair - including why (see above and posts last year) they were not stopped.
If she's proven to have done something criminal and the charging threshold is met than a court at the Old Bailey awaits.
|
>>
>> Repeating something over again does not make it true.
True so stop doing it.
|
>> True so stop doing it.
It's you who is banging the drum about her nationality and that she should be left to rot, both now and 50 weeks ago when thread started. And in doing so you're using 'facts' you've made up eg that she never had UK citizenship or that she abandoned it.
Do that and you get challenged, and not just by me.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 8 Feb 20 at 12:36
|
|
You need to learn to read, my last post said nothing about her nationality, so I wasn't repeating anything about that, in fact that was the first time I mentioned "grooming". So READ don't just jump around on your high horse spouting righteously. IE dont keep saying the same thing, as you said it does not make it right.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 8 Feb 20 at 12:50
|
>> You need to learn to read, my last post said nothing about her nationality, so
>> I wasn't repeating anything about that, in fact that was the first time I mentioned
>> "grooming".
You were denying she was groomed 50 weeks ago. Sixth or seventh post at top of thread.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 8 Feb 20 at 13:11
|
I don't think you can de-radicalise a person who is said to be radicalised, their beliefs are instilled in them from birth, but most managed to keep their beliefs under control. Sometimes certain individuals lose this control and revert back to what they were brought up to believe, which sometimes involves extremely violent behavior. the Islamists are a different culture to what we are, it shows in the state of their countries, they are always fighting, arguing amongst their selves and with their neighbors. they do not appear to see or fear death, infact they see it more as a badge of honour , We have different views, beliefs and culture, thats why UK is not in the same state of destruction as some middle-eastern counties (although we have our share of bad apples).
Personally regarding ms whatsername I don,t think we should have her back, even to try her and then pay for and protect her for years in our prisons! and that goes for ALL non UK persons convicted of terrorism in this country - we should automatically deport and ban them from return. the only one we should jail are our home-grown ones and they should be never released.
|
>> the only one we should jail are our home-grown ones
That's the point. She was born in the UK and is British by birth.
|
|
yep, should have been a bit clearer,. I meant home-grown ones that commit terrorist crimes in this Country, not abroad. Those that commit crimes aboard should be treated just like Begum is.If by chance they have no other citizenship to fall back on they should be tried and imprisoned by the Country they are in at the time
|
>>She knew what she was doing and why.
I think that is true. The interviews with her don't seem to show a remorseful or lost girl, simply someone trying to get back to the UK with the idea that she did nothing much wrong and it's not her fault anyway.
She clearly needs severe punishment.
It is by whom where the question lies, I think.
|
>> End Of.
On re-reading this exchange 'end of' was an over reaction for which I apologise.
I know from previous discussions (eg Damian Green's downfall and his advances to Kate Maltby) that RR and I are on different pages here as to what we regard as acceptable. I remain though concerned that grooming might be seen as synonymous with seduction or that terms should be conflated.
Based on Marks' comments and inference his sister might have strong views I accept that there is a dark end of seduction that is coercive/abusive.
The way the concept of seduction is used in ordinary English and how it's portrayed in culture from Shakespeare, through Carry On and numerous sitcoms about 'Jack the Lad', put the word in a very different frame to grooming as latter is used in Child Protection etc.
Best not to mix them up.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 8 Feb 20 at 12:19
|
It's often worth looking at a reputable dictionary. A bit of online research:
Grooming - can be related to animals (eg a horse), personal grooming (appearance), or to paedophilia through persuasion and usually over the internet
Seduction - the act of persuading people to have sex with you, or the attractive quality of something (eg a view)
Neither relates to the persuasion of people to either support or engage in terrorist acts, although both contain elements of what is being done (persuasion?). Probably fair to say the outcome of grooming in this context is always is negative, whereas usually the outcome of seduction is consensual (there may be regrets later)!
The academics in Oxford and Cambridge clearly need to update their dictionaries to reflect current common usage appropriately.
|
>> The academics in Oxford and Cambridge clearly need to update their dictionaries to reflect current
>> common usage appropriately.
You're right about usage. In terms of sex it's used to describe activity beyond paedophilia, even if you stretch that definition to include youngsters who are post pubescent. It's been argued that the women allegedly procured for Epstein, even if over age of consent, were vulnerable. Made to feel wanted and given stuff then having to have sex with unknown men as a payoff.
It's also now being used in respect of kids inveigled into 'county lines' drug trafficking.
|
>>
>> And it's getting messier.
And then messier again.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/24/shamima-begum-cannot-communicate-with-legal-team-court-told
I cannot see any outcome other than one that gives her the right to return. Good for her but grist to the Government's mill in it's project to clip the wings of the Supreme Court.
|
I agree, but of more concern is any floodgates that may be opened....
I'd hope they'd find some way of tying the decision into the fact that she was a minor when it began to avoid granting any rights to the more scumbag-ish types.
As I understand it there are another 90ish people who have suffered the same sanction and who are no doubt watching with interest.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 24 Nov 20 at 18:42
|
|
I think it's nearer 150 since 2010 that have had UK citizenship removed.
|
>> As I understand it there are another 90ish people who have suffered the same sanction
>> and who are no doubt watching with interest.
I don't think 90, or even the greater figure Sooty quotes, would overwhelm our capacity to cope with them on remand or whatever form of 'house arrest' is Human Rights Act compliant.
If they were groomed as minors then there's a route. If they're scumbags with a record of other crimes before going abroad to rape/murder/pillage grabbed them there are other routes.
If they are Brits they are, at least in part, our problem.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 24 Nov 20 at 22:00
|
She should be allowed back. And there should be strict conditions as to her ongoing behaviour and the monitoring that will occur.
Not letting her back out of outrage is a typical Tabloid Lemming cry.
|
|
Not letting her back because she rogered off out of a conviction this country is evil, is actually not a British citizen, and upon return she will contribute nowt, probably insist on some form of welfare benefits, is a far better response in my book. Thats not outrage is it?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 19 Feb 21 at 17:31
|
Look, I don't give a crap if she gets hit by a truck, but you cannot use the law subjectively because of media outrage.
If she has committed a crime then try and punish her. That's what the law is for.
|
>actually not a British citizen
She is British by birth. As you are and as my children are.
|
>> She is British by birth. As you are and as my children are.
Was about to post same; you beat me to it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 19 Feb 21 at 17:39
|
I agree with NoFM2R and Bromptonaut here.
I didn't think it was possible to make someone stateless.
So the Govt said, when they stripped her of citizenship, that she was a citizen of Bangladesh.
I think at the time Bangladesh said she wasn't, but if she was, and went to Bangladesh then she would face trial and execution for being part of ISIS.
|
>> >actually not a British citizen
>>
>> She is British by birth. As you are and as my children are.
Seems you cant argue the rest tho.
|
>> Seems you cant argue the rest tho.
As I said, if she has committed a crime then try her and punish appropriately and within the law. I don't need to argue anything else because that is how it should be.
|
>> probably insist on some form of welfare benefits
As a British Citizen she'd have a Right to Reside so more than halfway there. Given she's been abroad proving she's Habitually Resident could involve time and hoop jumping, just as it would for any returnee, but she'd qualify inside 3 months.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 19 Feb 21 at 17:45
|
|
Its a pity you cant hypothecate taxes, you could pay for her benefits. And it seems she expects you to pay for her repatriation.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 19 Feb 21 at 17:46
|
>> Its a pity you cant hypothecate taxes, you could pay for her benefits. And it
>> seems she expects you to pay for her repatriation.
If we're effectively extraditing her to face possible charges after defending herself against removal of citizenship then paying her fare is expected.
What do you think she'd get on benefits?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 19 Feb 21 at 17:52
|
>> What do you think she'd get on benefits?
Given her contribution to society to date, anything is too much.
|
I entirely agree with your assessment of the girl, even though neither of us know here. I also agree with your opinion of how much support and welfare that she deserves.
But none of that is relevant. The law is not there to be used emotionally and inconsistently depending on your personal feelings about the subject person. That way there be dragons. And Trump.
If you don't like the law then try to get it changed, but don't try to emotionally flout it.
|
|
If she had won the right to come back to the UK there were 150 others ready to join the queue apparently
|
I don’t want to see her return, but believed it was right to allow her to do so.
The ruling worries me. It means the state can name anyone a threat to national security and stop them returning. That has the potential to be mis-used.
|
It seems it's way out of line with how many others have been treated. And she was, after all, a child when she made a very bad decision. Teenagers rebel. Most repent.
There probably isn't a good solution to this.
|
>> I don’t want to see her return, but believed it was right to allow her
>> to do so.
>>
>> The ruling worries me. It means the state can name anyone a threat to national
>> security and stop them returning. That has the potential to be mis-used.
Legally a country can not make you stateless. She was in theory entitled to dual nationality. And someone who sneaks out of the UK with no passport to join a terrorist organisation at the end of the day is not "anyone"
Its a perfectly sound judgement by an unbiased supreme court.
|
Let's not misunderstand I think some are getting two things mixed up.
She has been denied the right to come to the UK to appeal. That's all. The decision today was not related to the original decision to remove her citizenship. She has not been denied the right to appeal.
Was the decision to remove her citizenship right? I don't think so. And I suspect that the appeal to this will still come at some point.
But they have said that appeal must wait until she can take part in the appeal. Nobody seems clear how that might be done. I am not sure what I think about that decision, but it's done now.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 26 Feb 21 at 13:11
|
With all of the 'Zoom' type court hearing happening right now what's to stop the appeal being heard electronically?
|
|
Maybe not the best WiFi signal in a refugee camp.
|
|
The article says the camp won't even allow her lawyer in. I'm guessing it isn't a holiday camp then...
|
|
At least the weather is better there.
|
"At least the weather is better there."
Cue for a song .....
'Always look on the bright side of life' da de da de da de da de da
|
|
ECHR - appeals there are possible?
|
>> ECHR - appeals there are possible?
Yup, Convention Rights are part of her argument.
|
>> news.sky.com/story/shamima-begum-loses-legal-case-over-british-citizenship-and-return-to-uk-12816584
>>
>> Looks like it's a (final) no.
Is it final?
AIUI decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission can be challenged in the Court of Appeal and on to the Supreme Court.
|
|
I thought it was the last hurdle, clearly not. Probably years more of legal work.
|
It is difficult to see what sort of threat she would pose if she returned to the UK, though it is always possible the spooks know something we don't.
I would think the biggest danger would be to herself. She wouldn't be able to step outside the front door without an army of paps behind her and she would be a prime target for every nutter going.
|
|
She was briefly interviewed on the news tonight. I was surprised how she seemed to have visually transitioned into adulthood and hardly recognisable as I remember her. She presented herself in more western fashion.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Wed 22 Feb 23 at 20:52
|
>> She was briefly interviewed on the news tonight. I was surprised how she seemed to
>> have visually transitioned into adulthood and hardly recognisable as I remember her. She presented herself
>> in more western fashion.
She popped back into our consciousness four years ago at age 19. She's now 23. She's borne three children all of whom died.
Think about how our own offspring, living in much more sheltered circumstances. How did they change between their Fresher year at Uni and a year or so after graduating?
If we think that way then what we've seen of her recently is life as lived. She may have been advised to behave more western, it may be her own way or some perm of those two things.
|
|
Let's not forget the wife of that London, suicide bomber from Aylesbury who claimed she knew nothing about his activities. She disappeared off to Syria with her kids and became one of the most feared members of ISIS.
|
This case reveals that we have a rather odd position regarding British citizenship. The Government cannot deprive you of your citizenship if your parents were born in the U.K. but they can if one of your parents was born abroad even if you were born in the U.K.
That is a very odd state of affairs.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 23 Feb 23 at 09:02
|
>> This case reveals that we have a rather odd position regarding British citizenship. The Government
>> cannot deprive you of your citizenship if your parents were born in the U.K. but
>> they can if one of your parents was born abroad even if you were born
>> in the U.K.
That is very odd indeed. We touched on it upthread. At the time about half of my colleagues, including at least one who was contemporary of my own two kids, might have been susceptible to losing citizenship.
|
I don't think it's odd, more a matter for the government in terms of moving/keeping people out of the country. This law allows the government to do that to a greater number of people.
Whether it's right or not is another matter.
|
>> Whether it's right or not is another matter.
That's the point, it's not right.
If my son and my ex-colleague had run off together to join ISIS he could not have had his citizenship removed. As her Mum was an Italian National of South American heritage the colleague could.
They were in Nursery together before either could talk and followed near identical paths through school and Uni.
|
|
People in different circumstances, of their own choosing or otherwise, find them treated differently. This is one of those circumstances.
|
>> People in different circumstances, of their own choosing or otherwise, find them treated differently. This
>> is one of those circumstances.
>>
If UK citizenship is to mean anything it must mean that all citizens are equal before the law and It is patently inequitable to have your rights as a UK citizen dependant on where your parents were born
|
>
>> If UK citizenship is to mean anything it must mean that all citizens are equal
>> before the law and It is patently inequitable to have your rights as a UK
>> citizen dependant on where your parents were born
>>
Her legal team may have made that argument, they aren't too successful so far though.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 23 Feb 23 at 18:29
|
|
Doesn’t mean it isn’t correct though does it? As has been said the appeal process has far to go.
|
>> Doesn’t mean it isn’t correct though does it? As has been said the appeal process
>> has far to go.
>>
Well it's upto the judges to decide what's correct legally speaking and they haven't been convinced at all so far. Her last case went to the supreme court and lost. This case isn't going particularly well so far. But who knows her luck might change.
|
I make no comment about the accuracy of an internet source or bias of a right wing newspaper, but some of it might explain the relectance to have her back in the UK for security reasons.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum
|
>> I make no comment about the accuracy of an internet source or bias of a
>> right wing newspaper, but some of it might explain the relectance to have her back
>> in the UK for security reasons.
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum
Do you mean the paragraph beginning with the words "The Daily Telegraph reported"?
|
>> Do you mean the paragraph beginning with the words "The Daily Telegraph reported"?
Well I did add the warning and the proviso "might"
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 23 Feb 23 at 16:35
|
A chap on Question Time last night commented about where this could lead to.
His parents were Windrush immigrants I think. Whilst he is British, it is possible, going down the route of these cases, that he too could be deported if he has dual citizenship and committed a crime.
So, who else do we know that has dual citizenship and is guilty of crimes...
Seat belt and parties - Rishi Sunak (Indian Parents).
Parties - Boris Johnson (American by birth)
OK, not as serious, but where do you draw the line?
|
>> Seat belt and parties - Rishi Sunak (Indian Parents).
>> Parties - Boris Johnson (American by birth)
We can deport Boris? Wow! why we waiting?
|
|
He renounced his US citizenship before becoming P.M.
|
>> He renounced his US citizenship before becoming P.M.
>>
Mere technicality.
Bangladesh says Begum isn't a citizen but it doesn't stop our Government claiming she has dual citizenship.
|
|
The courts say she has Bangladeshi citizenship, otherwise her UK citizenship could not be revoked. The rule of law and all that.
|
>> The courts say she has Bangladeshi citizenship, otherwise her UK citizenship could not be revoked.
>> The rule of law and all that.
>>
tinyurl.com/2vypwppw
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission found in 2020 that the removal of her UK Citizenship did not make her stateless. Both Ms Begum and the UK government had experts on the law of Bangladesh. Unfortunately for Ms Begum the government's expert wiped the floor with hers.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 24 Feb 23 at 22:06
|
|
Has she permission to do so?
|
>> Has she permission to do so?
I cannot see anything either way in the Judgement or the summary.
Given the circs I doubt that permission would be refused and if it were then she'd have a good chance of convincing the SC that there's an arguable case.
|
|
I think i read on the bbc it said the chance was low as all 3 judges agreed all 5 points of appeal were rejected.
|
I must say I'm surprised, regardless of personal feelings. She was a minor IIRC when she went and clearly subject to indoctrination after that. Was she even a Bangladeshi citizen? Wasn't the justification that she was just eligible for it?
Stripping people of citizenship is always going to be controversial and rightly so.
|
'regardless of personal feelings'
Legally, technically or as a possible danger to the nation - I've no idea.
Morally (and my personal feelings), I really want that kid back.
She's a couple of years older than my girl who has also gone awry several times (not on that scale, obvs). But with my persistent and (probably not very good) guidance she's turning out to be a cracking young lass and I hate every second when she's not in my house. I don't even want to image what Begum's parents have been going through.
|
I am fortunate to have UK citizenship. I have the right to live in a relatively stable and prosperous country. Many around the world aspire to UK citizenship. It is a privilege to be protected.
Her actions in actively supporting terrorism and barbarism were unacceptable. She did not go slightly awry, or even seriously wrong - her behaviour was utterly unacceptable.
The age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old in the UK - there is some discussion about increasing this as it does seem too young. Were she (say) 25 (not 15) when she left I wonder whether there be any real sympathy for her predicament.
I accept and understand why some would feel sympathetic were their own (or my) children in a similar position with citizenship withdrawn.
On balance I think the courts have come to the right conclusion. She did very wrong, she was old enough to understand what she was doing, it acts as a warning to others doing similar, and reinforces parental responsibility for the actions of children.
|
I see both BiggerBadderDave's and Terry's points.
I know at 15, I didn't know my a*** from my elbow and would have probably been easily led.
I also wonder if she was groomed? I suspect it would have been very difficult to arrange all the transportation, pay for the fares etc. alone and probably received help from parties that persuaded her that grass was greener (speculation of course).
To suggest that she's a risk to this country is crazy. She's a single woman who would likely be tried and likely imprisoned on her return and if ever released then closely monitored.
I also dislike the precedence it sets. If they can remove her citizenship, they can remove anyone's.
|
Apparently citizenship has been removed from around 1000 since 2010.
I don't know individual circumstances - it may be that many had dual nationality and were unconcerned by its removal.
The option to deny citizenship is important, but given the consequences it should be a last resort, with the right of appeal to a senior court.
|
|
British citizenship can only be removed if the person will not be left stateless, i.e. they have dual citizenship.
|
>> To suggest that she's a risk to this country is crazy. She's a single woman
>> who would likely be tried and likely imprisoned on her return and if ever released
>> then closely monitored.
>>
>>
Why is it crazy to suggest she could be a threat ?
I also dislike the precedence it sets. If they can remove her citizenship, they can
>> remove anyone's.
Is she the first?
|
"I also dislike the precedence it sets. If they can remove her citizenship, they can
>> remove anyone's."
Also I guess they'd still have to go through a fairly long and expensive process, not sure it would become a major problem.
I'd guess there are plenty who maybe did something bad once, got caught and got time, despite there being no obvious threat of repeating the crime, but are still inside serving their sentence.
The age bit is the only one I might concede as being a possible mitigation.
|
The 'sentence' is presumably intended to be permanent and is in a sense one of life. She has not, to the best of my knowledge, been tried.
Bangladesh said in 2019 that if she went there she could face a death sentence for terrorism. I don't doubt it. She is not a Bangladeshi citizen, she is de facto stateless.
She has never been to Bangladesh, having been born in the UK. She should IMO be facing trial here, as a British citizen. Instead she is in a detention camp (not a refugee camp) in Syria. The SC accepted that she cannot have a fair trial while in detention in Syria. Its decision AIUI is based on the rationale that as Javid's ruling was procedurally correct they should not challenge it, rather than the merit of that original decision.
Actually she isn't the only one detained there. There are up to possibly 50 other mothers and children of British nationality (i.e. they have not been d-citizenised) in the Kurdish-run camps that Britain has so far declined to repatriate, so simply reversing the citizenship decision would not necessarily mean she would or could come here.
The right and wrong of the situation is moot. Truth is that it's become a purely political decision so there is no chance of a reversal, especially with an election imminent. The Conservatives characteristically have not missed the opportunity to say Keir Starmer would bring her back even though that is a lie, as he has also supported the SC's decision having originally opposed the citizenship removal IIRC back in 2019.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 24 Feb 24 at 19:41
|
|
She was a Bangladeshi citizen when her British citizenship was revoked. That Bangladesh has indicated that they would not let her enter the country is a matter between her and Bangladesh.
|
>> >>forum.mx5oc.co.uk/t/wiper-blade-replacement/142163
>>
>> I stand corrected.
Still using the original wipers, 6 years old now. Still good. As far as begum goes, she wanted to go to wherever, she can stay there.
|
Also I guess they'd still have to go through a fairly long and expensive process,
>> not sure it would become a major problem.
>
About 20-30 a year lose British citizenship per year I'm not sure how many are dual nationals though.
|
£5 million pounds of our money has been spent by the UK in keeping this woman from coming back to the UK - Legal aid + Government Lawyers + Court Fees ..................
Surely this has to stop
|
|
How can it be a legal aid when she's not a uk citizen?
|
All the illegal immigrants in hotels have Legal Aid Lawyers!
It's a booming legal market.
|
>> All the illegal immigrants in hotels have Legal Aid Lawyers!
>> It's a booming legal market.
Are all the people in hotels 'illegal immigrants'?
I think though a lot of those in hotels and the wider Asylum Seeker estate - housing in deprived areas run by Clearsprings etc - have legitimately claimed Asylum in the UK and are waiting for HMG to decide their cases. One reason for the legal aid bill being high is that cases hang around too long and 'low hanging fruit', whether slam dunks from Syria or probable try ons from Albania, are being messed around rather than sorted into sheep and goats.
The legislation around it is a mess becuase the government prefer performative politics to what can practically be made to work on the ground.
|
|
Yes I must admit to looking forward to a time after the next election when all of these things are fixed, the whole country runs smoothly again with no queues for ambulances or hospital beds, no inflation or strikes and all of our problems are solved. :-)
|
>> Yes I must admit to looking forward to a time after the next election when
>> all of these things are fixed, the whole country runs smoothly again with no queues
>> for ambulances or hospital beds, no inflation or strikes and all of our problems are
>> solved. :-)
Could it get worserer?
|
> The legislation around it is a mess becuase the government prefer performative politics to what
>> can practically be made to work on the ground.
>>
What can practically done that this or any gov could do unblock this whole situation?
|
>> What can practically done that this or any gov could do unblock this whole situation?
Safe routes from conflict hotspots.
Issue paperwork in France so that those who have case to enter the UK to seek Asylum can do so.
|
>> >> What can practically done that this or any gov could do unblock this whole
>> situation?
>>
>> Safe routes from conflict hotspots.
How do we do that? Say Afghanistan, mali, iran etc.
>> Issue paperwork in France so that those who have case to enter the UK to
>> seek Asylum can do so.
>>
I'm not quite sure they'd help. Wouldn't that make it easier to try and claim asylum?
|
>> >> Safe routes from conflict hotspots.
>>
>> How do we do that? Say Afghanistan, mali, iran etc.
Not sure what you mean. Afghanistan is clearly not safe, neither is Iran. Plenty other places too.
Afghans seem to end up in Pakistan. Sort out their cases there and if they're eligible for protection in the UK then fly them from Islamabad or wherever.
>> I'm not quite sure they'd help. Wouldn't that make it easier to try and claim
>> asylum?
Is making it easier for people who have a respectable case a bad thing?
|
Not sure what you mean. Afghanistan is clearly not safe, neither is Iran. Plenty other
>> places too.
I'm not sure what a safe route means.
>> Afghans seem to end up in Pakistan. Sort out their cases there and if they're
>> eligible for protection in the UK then fly them from Islamabad or wherever.
>> >> I'm not quite sure they'd help. Wouldn't that make it easier to try and
>> claim
>> >> asylum?
>>
>> Is making it easier for people who have a respectable case a bad thing?
>>
The main political problem is the system is struggling with the numbers. I don't see how adding more is going to be a good thing. The public shows little interest in having more asylum seekers here.
|
"Issue paperwork in France so that those who have case to enter the UK to seek Asylum can do so."
And those that bypass that process and come across in a dingy would be returned forthwith to French shores?
Doubt that very much. As i see it they would still be allowed to stay because there are so many different interests, processes and legalities involved that work against each other with the legal profession doing nicely and all funded by the taxpayer.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 25 Feb 24 at 16:51
|
>> "Issue paperwork in France so that those who have case to enter the UK to
>> seek Asylum can do so."
>>
>> And those that bypass that process and come across in a dingy would be returned
>> forthwith to French shores?
>>
What might France agree to as a quid pro quo for taking a few tens of thousands from the Calais area?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 25 Feb 24 at 17:19
|
France will not want them back and would almost certainly refuse them entry - not a solution.
There are sound and decent reasons why some asylum claims should be granted. Others take risks associated with crossing the channel possibly because the UK is seen as an easy touch.
They will continue to arrive in significant numbers until we have policies which needs to be (a) balanced and fair, and (b) deal rapidly and firmly with those claims which do not stand scrutiny.
If fleeing in great fear from their home country, I would expect asylum seekers to seek asylum in the first stable, decent country they enter. EU countries should meet this basic threshold.
Very clear criteria defining the circumstances in which a UK asylum claim will likely be successful are required. No party has had the courage to do so thus far.
Claims should be processed rapidly - say within 3 months. The current average delay is ~2 years with some cases taking far longer. This is wholly within UK control.
Those refused asylum on initial scrutiny should have a basic but limited right of appeal. My impression is that multiple appeals are common on ever more marginal grounds.
Those claims failing after appeal should be deported back to their country of origin within (say) a month.
This is somewhat unsympathetic, but mean asylum claims would rapidly fall to those who can meet the clear criteria set, and deter those who simply see the UK as an easy touch.
Rwanda is a contrived and high cost ineffectual attempt at deterrence - a waste of effort.
Will any of this happen - I don't hold out much hope - so the UK taxpayer will continue to fund high legal and support costs rather than spending the money on the more socially useful.
|
|
European Court of Human Rights next I think.
|
|
Then if that fails, appeal within the same court?
|
My understanding is that under international law, you cannot make a person stateless.
I understand that we are relying on her parents being of Bangladeshi origin and Bangladesh have said that she is not a citizen.
I suspect that this has further to run.
|
>> My understanding is that under international law, you cannot make a person stateless.
>>
>> I understand that we are relying on her parents being of Bangladeshi origin and Bangladesh
>> have said that she is not a citizen.
Ah but under international law, they cant make her stateless.
|
|
With whats going on over here ATM, she might think herself safer in a refugee camp.....
|
>> Ah but under international law, they cant make her stateless.
The courts here found she did have the option of obtaining citizenship in Bangladesh.
Her problem at that point was that, for whatever reason, her expert witness was a choccy fireguard.
|
It's a boy! - No FM2R
