ISI Fighter Shamima Begum Not allowed to return to the UK

Well, yes and no. She's not "just" a criminal. She's someone who actively wanted to help install an Islamic caliphate in a Muslim majority country. It's not at all clear that she doesn't still maintain some version of that belief even now.

Bangladesh of course have a (theoretically) secular constitution, so I can quite see why they don't want her though. And she's not Syrian, so again, I understand why they don't want her either. On the whole, I agree that she's Britain's problem. And that the fact that she was only 15 at the time is definitely a mitigating factor. I just think it's dangerously naive to present her as "just" a victim of trafficking. She was a lot more than that. Despite her age at the initial time of travel.

It's quite possible that she's still a genuine threat to people in the UK and elsewhere, and it's also hard to see what significant crime she can be tried for on UK territory. So it's quite likely that once she comes back into the UK jurisdiction, she will be let free for want of a legal alternative. There's a risk to the public there.

She hasn't been tried on this thread though, has she? Anyone can post anything on here. I'm talking about the law, not a discussion forum.

Wooosh.

It was the "law" that stripped her of her citizenship, not a court, not a jury of her peers.

Nobody on any side of the court proceedings has ever disputred that, as a child, she was groomed online, from about the age of 13, and this was what led to her going to Syria.

Nor has anybody suggested that this absolves her of any responsiblity for what happened afterwards. On the contrary, she is expressly willing to return to the UK and be tried in the UK courts for any offences she is alleged to have committed, either before or after she went to Syria.

In what way exactly does that disprove the point that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty?

Because it was some cockwomble who were trying to get the window lickers on side so he could have a go at the leadership race who decided her guilt.

Not a court or a jury of her peers.

So innocent until proven guilty clearly doesn't apply in this case.

That same cockwomble if a labour minister decided could when they get into power decide he needs to be stripped of his citizenship.

Of course they will now find it easier because we have recent precedent.

She won't go to Bangladesh because they'll put her to death: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48154781

She has never once expressed remorse for leaving to join a terrorist organisation, to my mind, only that it didn't work out. Or for what she did. Nobody even knows what she did over there. Wasn't there talk of her sewing bombs into clothes so the bombers couldn't change their minds, at one stage? Recruiting and radicalising others is the least of her crimes, one can only imagine. I mean, has she ever said she was lied to and deceived so that she'd do what she did

All this correlation with grooming and paedos is wide of the mark. She wasn't lured with the promise of some handsome, rich husband. She was lured with the promise of the destruction of Western society, the establishment of a caliphate and the extermination of those who opposed it. That's a different world than "he'll buy me alcohol if I let him feel me up". She was interested enough in all of that stuff on her own before she went looking for ISIS, it's how she got into it. Her own family have disowned her, her father even admitted she doesn't harbour any remorse for her actions.

I disagree with revoking citizenship. However, she should not be allowed to walk the streets. She has no problem with people being beheaded if they are enemies of Islam, which is everybody who isn't Muslim. She may have partaken in this sort of stuff, we'll probably never know. It's too dangerous to take that chance. We have jailed children before (Boy A and Boy B), and will do so in the future, when circumstances dictate. As have the UK (James Bulger's killers). This is no different. She should be locked up until it can be determined that she no longer poses a threat. If ever.

"She was brainwashed and groomed to think the way she does"..........You don't know that. Nobody does, except for herself, and she's demonstrated nothing but bad judgement calls from what I can see. She might have thought that way before she ever thought of joining that shower. She probably STILL THINKS THAT WAY, for all we know. She cannot be trusted. I certainly wouldn't be getting on a plane that I knew she was going to be on.

God help her poor kids also. All three born within the span of 4 years and all three dead in the same period. One thing's for certain, they never asked for anything of the sort.

You do realise that if a 15 year old was found to be in the IRA then they wouldn't have their citizenship revoked? No summary judgement from a politician. The rule of law would be followed. If they broke the law, there would be a trial where all evidence would be given.

And you realise that she was groomed as a child bride? The grooming started when she was 14. When this happens often the children are tasked with finding/recruiting other victims. They believe they are helping their groomer. It's something that lots of grooming victims are put through. They are thoroughly brainwashed by their groomers. Besides that they do other horrible things to win the approval of their groomer. That's the point of grooming. It's where a sick individual gets a child to do something they wouldn't normally do.

It's nuts that I'm arguing with someone who called me a paedophile because I'm anti grooming. And that I have to defend having a trial for a criminal and not just punishing them without giving them a fair trial.

BTW, point out where I mentioned the age of consent. I never once mentioned it.

technically the british home secretry could decide that taking a wrong turn is a threat to national security and remove someone's citizenship.

Yes but given syria was a warzone, it would not be in a position to enforce it's laws and check that the age of consent was being met.

britain caused that problem, hence it's laws apply because she was not in syria legally and syria was prevented from controlling it's borders.

islamic state is not a country or a state.

weak semantics ,

the decision was made by multiples of people with more information than you or me , you just dont like it regardless of not having all the information

no real laws eh

so by your " logic " she was the victim of nothing and no longer enjoys the protection of laws ,

fine by me , leave her to die in the desert lke the terrorist she is

You don't read the posts do you?

The Telegraph was supplied as the initial reference, so I simply did not follow it full stop. If Wikipedia goes on to cite the same stuff the Telegraph does and cites the Telegraph as the source, then the fact that Wikipedia becomes the conduit gives me no more confidence.

The other thing you obviously couldn't quite work out is that it makes no difference to my opinion. Whatever the woman did when abroad is totally irrelevant to my opinion of how she should be dealt with.

Do you know the money involved and years of work that the British went to to bring Ronnie Biggs home to justice? They didn't seem too keen on stripping him of his citizenship did they?

Look at the Nazi war criminals who were executed and imprisoned for atrocities that ISIS would no doubt be glad to stick on their list of popular punishments too, they were not stripped of their citizenship were they? They had trials and faced justice.

I have no idea, and frankly do not care one iota what the woman did as long as she is treated in the same way as any other citizen law abiding or criminal, it matters not one jot. She isn't though, she is being racially discriminated against, full stop.

The law should apply to all equally, but in Britain it does not. That's why Mone is sailing around in a luxury yacht when other less dishonest shysters languish in UK prisons.

the bhangladeshi government have said this is not the case.

that people born abroad to bhangladeshi parents are not entitled to citizenship at all.

the special immigration tribunal in the UK apparently ruled otherwise but ultimately what the bhangladeshi authorities say on the matter has to be the most important determination on the issue seeing as they are going to know their laws better then the best british minds.

the irony of your first line given that you then admit in your second line to not bothering to read the post lol

equating her to ronnie briggs ? 😂😂🤣

she s neither citizen nor law abiding , and trying to make it a racial issue is just a poor effort at playing your last "race" card in a lost argument .

once again leave her in the desert to die with the last remnants of the death cult that she is still a ardent fan of , she just never though she would have to live in a tent on food aid instead of in a big stolen house with her own slaves strutting around with a AK tormenting actual innocent victims.

actions have consequences , a phrase that seems to somehow have become taboo in some circles and is contributing in a very real way to some of the most negative aspects of the world today