ISI Fighter Shamima Begum Not allowed to return to the UK

No but the level of evidence required for adults is far higher because they are presumed to be able to give consent. SO it has to be proven they didn't. Indeed the crime of grooming only exists for adults when the person can be shown to be unusually vulnerable - that's kind of the whole point of being an adult.

The age of consent is something of a red herring - but I wasn't the one who brought it in: the poster was trying to use the UK age of consent as evidence that Shamima Begum should benefit from the presumption of statutory rape. That doesn't work for sexual activity abroad. Otherwise a girl with UK nationality who had sex in France, where the age of consent is 15, could go back to the UK and have her parents claim rape. Or an Irish girl, where the age of consent was 17 util recently (it may even still be), could have gone to Northern Ireland or England and claim to have been raped in Dublin.

Yes I agree with this. I actually think it's legally very questionable to remove her UK nationality, and it's interesting that few of the other EU countries have done the same. Most of them have taken or are taking their own nationals back.

It's obvious that after all she has gone through, she is not going to be the same person now she was when she left the country, and I feel sure there are ways to use that positively. However it would have to be done very carefully, with a long period of psychological follow-up before she was allowed to resume a normal life.

I don't know the law in enough detail to be certain, but I think it's unlikely that there will be enough evidence to try her for anything very serious in the UK. She could however be held under some mental health thing, if only because she is almost bound to be traumatised by her experiences, so that could be used as a safety measure (for the public).

Why didn't she take up her Bangladeshi citizenship so? Why wasn't Bangladesh obliged to rescue the poor wee girl, they seem to have done nothing for her, no ire for them? Why would she not go there instead of a nation she professes a deep hatered for and constitutes a threat to? Surely she'd be far more comfortable living a a 91% muslim nation that is more in tune with her ideology.

Again "mistake" she didn't steal a car or even break into or steal from a home, she joined fùcking ISIS.

92.5% of the world when they hear of ISIS think of the numerous snuff videos they market themselves on, generally beheading but they do sometimes push the boat out and go for a rocket launcher at a car with four handcuffed journalists, or burn a Jordanian pilot alive before crushing his corpse under a steam roller so they have range tbf.

Unless Begum has an undisclosed severe developmental disability then there is just no valid excuse for a 15 year old finding the idea of ISIS the least bit appealing or romantic, especially as a woman given how ISIS treats women which should be a red flag (along with the famous snuff marketing plan). Anyone that finds ISIS an appealing or reasonable ideal is a danger that has no place in civilization. The possible exception maybe for under 10's lets say who may think the snuff videos are just cartoons but any older gway ta fùck with playing the "child" card. They know what they are signing up to and are in agreement with it.

And on about the Irish examples (which I already mentioned)

Keane Mulready-Woods technically a child but in reality he was an especially vicious criminal, he shouldn't be allowed hide behind being a child to absolve him of what he really was and try and milk sympathy or victimhood, he wanted to be a gangster and he got the pension plan most gangsters do. His behaviours and actions were beyond that of a normal adult never mind child.

The 14 year old who set out to rob as many people as he possibly could before (and after) fatally stabbing Urantsetseg Tserendorj isn't a child, hes a psycho and brutish criminal (now murderer). Again his premeditation was not the behaviour of a child, he knew presumably (potential undisclosed developmental disability aside) that stabbing someone anywhere is a pretty serious thing let alone stabbing her neck.

Now Ana Kriegel was a child, her classmates who murdered her were not in my eyes children not by a long way, they (like Woods) were especially violent (going by Marie Cassidy's comments on the scene she found) murderers. They again went beyond what an adult would do and were instead just vicious psychotic criminals, child my hole.

Obviously grooming a child (under 18) for sexual purposes is wrong. But as much as people try to muddy the waters to make her seem like a victim she wasn't any more a child victim than the Irish examples (obviously not Kriegel who WAS a victim).

You forgot to mention having her citizenship removed from her in a game of Tory one-upmanship.

She lived in the UK her whole life. Besides, Bangladesh has the 2nd highest stateless population in the world.

I'm pretty sure that's already the case here, but would it happen? Once in a blue moon due to extreme public pressure that embarrassed the goverment sufficiently perhaps, but the reality is there is no shortage of creepy alleged 'human rights supporters' that would go to bat to ensure murderers and rapists remain in this country.

Well, no she didn't. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing her here. She actively rejected a secular western lifestyle and chose to go to an extremist muslim state. Bangladesh, while probably still being too westernised for her, would surely be a much better fit for the life she wanted than the UK.

Citizenship should never be revoked. In Ireland we had plenty of people in the IRA who refused to recognize the republic. For many years SF in the north said that Irish government had no legitimacy because it was formed during partition. Likewise there's many who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the NI Assembly.

And there's many criminals that completely ignore the laws of the country.

I think the only time citizenship should be revoked is if it was gained under false pretenses. So if someone claimed citizenship and they had no right to, then revoke it. Or if someone made a declaration when they were getting citizenship and it turned out to be grievously untrue, then revoke it.

You guys keep irrelevantly bringing Pedos and age of consent into it. To try and play her victim card.

Adults and children "consent" all the time to be trafficked.

Under UK law whether they consented or not is moot.

It doesn't negate the crime.

"“Trafficking in persons" shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control of another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or removal of organs.”

Human trafficking is an offence that covers the movement of a person or people from one place to another with the intent to exploit them.

Section 2 sets out the circumstances which amount to trafficking for the purposes of “exploitation”, defined in section 3 of the 2015 Act.

Importantly, section 2(2) states: it is irrelevant whether the victim (whether an adult or a child) consents to the travel. Thus evidence of consent, or an absence of victim evidence to rebut it, is irrelevant to this charge.

But you still actually need to prove that she was trafficked then.

Saying it doesn't make it so, or all travel that ends up badly would be trafficking.

Well no. The person or persons charged with trafficking would need to disprove it.

That's not how the law works. Nobody has to prove their innocence of something.

Bangladesh don't want her. I guess they had heeded the warning of the British authorities that she is still dangerous. It is pretty bad international relations for Britain to dump their criminals on poorer countries like Syria and Bangladesh.