Shemima Begum?

[Maggz]

Just now, docwra said:

This. However, its also pretty stupid that we would let her back in as long as she pretends to be sorry .........

It's called being brainwashed. Balkan wars were full of people who believed with all their heart they're fighting for the right cause, what ever that was. 

There were even more people who did not fight, but did not want to leave their houses, livelihood, heritage, and stayed put during the war.  Those people all became completely desensitised due to all the horrific stuff they saw and lived through. It doesn't matter if you're a soldier or a cook, PTSD is the same, and has to be treated. Any normal person watching an interview with such a person would be horrified, as we all were with this young lady. But it's a condition, and when combined with brainwashing it comes out as it did unfortunately.

 

This takes years to treat and we have several countries in Europe which were affected in recent times with the same thing.

 

[ilogikal1]

9 minutes ago, docwra said:

This. However, its also pretty stupid that we would let her back in as long as she pretends to be sorry .........

True, she shouldn't be allowed back until she is genuinely remorseful.

What I meant was that she is currently so unremorseful that she's not even prepared to pretend to be, she so utterly believes her actions are so completely justified.

[Ekona]

Which is why she should stay where she is for now. Doesn’t mean we can’t try and reach out to her at least, as decent human beings. 

[The G Man]

Some good discussion here.

 

for what it’s worth, it’s worth bearing in mind, she was radicalised in the U.K., not Syria, not IS controlled Iraq.  Maybe the UK has a responsibility to ‘de-radicalise” her?  

 

It is abundantly clear that this individual has PTSD.  As someone has already mentioned, what if it was your child?  For those that advocate that she should rot in that “refugee” camp, would you show the same lack of compassion to yours or a relatives child?  Hopefully not.

 

 

 

[Jetpilot]

2 minutes ago, The G Man said:

she was radicalised in the U.K

Genuine question, how do we know this, there was nothing at the time of her leaving that she was radicalised in this country, i.e friends, family members, teachers etc, by all accounts not on any watch list or associating with known extremists with links to isis.

 

So are we saying she is just radicalised in name only by her actions or for example she was radicalised on/by the internet and if that was/is the case, what difference does her location make?

[The G Man]

Widely reported, via all major U.K. news networks, including the BBC

[nissanman312]

Just a thought?

Do we know if her dad really was at those flag burning rallies ? Or is that fake news ? 

[Jetpilot]

1 minute ago, The G Man said:

Widely reported, via all major U.K. news networks, including the BBC

Any links, i cant see anything to that nature, quite the opposite, she was alleged to have self radicalised.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1089664/Shamima-begum-news-latest-syria-isis-bride-citizenship-revoked-Henry-Jackson-Society

 

OK, so if you believe she was radicalised i would presume they know who, why not find and prosecute them?

[GranTurismoEra]

2 hours ago, Jetpilot said:

As pointed out earlier, the LAW (according to the BBC not me) is she can claim citizenship up to the age of 21, nothing to do with being condescending and if they dont want her for grounds of terrorism why should we, talk about double standards.

 

Illokigal puts it well above, if she is defending the manchester bombings she still doesnt get it!

 

It is, if she was born in the UK. You cant tell a country that she hasnt lived in to take her. If Im the government minister. Id tell you to take a jog in the other direction. Why should the UK take her? She IS a british citizen. 

 

Yes You can play on the fact she can claim dual nationality. Problem is Bangladesh dont want her. So what next??

Edited February 22, 2019 by GranTurismoEra

[GranTurismoEra]

4 minutes ago, Jetpilot said:

Any links, i cant see anything to that nature, quite the opposite, she was alleged to have self radicalised.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1089664/Shamima-begum-news-latest-syria-isis-bride-citizenship-revoked-Henry-Jackson-Society

 

OK, so if you believe she was radicalised i would presume they know who, why not find and prosecute them?

May have been a teacher at the mosque, watching material on the net. Victims of the wars of recent years etc...Self radicalisation is realistic. You also need hard evidence to prosecute these hate preachers inside the mosques or places where they teach.

[ilogikal1]

It’s not telling the other country to take her though, it’s saying she’s nothing to do with us anymore as there is a potential alternative. So long as we get in there first..

[Adrian@TORQEN]

Interesting report about citizenship removal:

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518120/David_Anderson_QC_-_CITIZENSHIP_REMOVAL__web_.pdf

[Jetpilot]

26 minutes ago, GranTurismoEra said:

May have been a teacher at the mosque, watching material on the net. Victims of the wars of recent years etc...Self radicalisation is realistic. You also need hard evidence to prosecute these hate preachers inside the mosques or places where they teach.

So if she was radicalised at Gman says, is that not hard evidence as presumably if that is accurate they must know where and when and who it happened?

 

This case aside and no directing at you gt, why cant we in the future make a law that if you go to support isis or any other terror organisation (not fussy about which) your citizenship will be revoked, we all abide by laws and know the penalties, seems ironic that i could do in excess of 100mph and possible face a prison sentence, yet someone who supports a terror organisation "could" get off with a stern questioning! 

[Ekona]

The trouble with radicalisation laws is that it’s very hard to write them to make it easy to prosecute, but without tarring too many people with the same brush and removing freedom of speech. That in turn means that they’re too narrow and actually gaining a conviction under them is difficult. 

[sipar69]

I’m not really fussed about her as an individual. I doubt she’s a threat to the UK in the real sense of the word.  From what I’ve seen and read she seems a bit thick and little more than a gullible hanger-on who was daft enough to believe she’d have a jolly old time over there and marry the man of her dreams.  I suspect the decision to keep her out is mostly about deterring others from doing this sort of thing in future.  If that works, it’s fine by me. 

Edited February 22, 2019 by sipar69

[TT350]

What concerns me most are those pie crimpers she calls teeth. 

 

The flintstones carved them out of, rock, for sure. 

 

But seriously, I don't want her back here. I concede that, when I was 15, I was even more daft than I am now. But, also, it's quite obvious that 'children' are much, much different now than at any other time in history. We've never been connected to this level at any point in history and things are no longer learned at a progressive rate in relation to age. It's all there, any time, anywhere. 

 

When I was 15 I had no Internet, no mobile phone. The most violence I was exposed to was Doom and Arnold schwarzenegger films. And late night films on C4 like Videodrome. 

 

That lass has been watching beheading videos. Lots of them. I saw one once. Ken Bigley. It was the most horrific thing I've ever seen. To see a person do that to another person just.... Well, it takes a certain kind of mind to be able to watch those and become desensitised to it and even more so to see it as justified. 

 

I've got a lot of Pakistani friends, obviously they're Muslims, and they don't want to see this bell end come back. They're sick of the extremists. One thing they all agree on is that, actually, the women in their community are more radical in their views.

 

If she does come back she should serve  an undefined sentence in solitary confinement on very basic rations, completely tasteless. In an acoustically lined cell that's so deafeningly quiet, with a high pressure sodium bulb light that humms and is on 24/7. No enrichment whatsoever. A screen in the room that comes on at random times with rehabilitation images and videos. Then begin to debrief her, de-rad her. Then be allowed photos of her son and family. Then visitation. Then assessed for release. 

[Jetpilot]

Jeez dude, i thought i was bad 

 

The above is pretty much called torture and i wouldnt subscribe to that, but frankly prison would possibly be an easy touch these days and a lot better than her current existence.

 

I am curious to hear the views from your Pakistani friends and whilst i appreciate they may not be the voice of all muslims, they as a race in the UK will be far more affected by her actions than i ever will be sadly for them.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Jetpilot

[Adrian@TORQEN]

It appears some of us here forget this country is governed by laws and the human rights are set in the common law. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

You can't strip anyone of his/her British Citizenship unless they did something stipulated in the law, no matter how right we feel this would be and unless he/she holds dual citizenship. She deserves a fair trial, but considering she was under 18 when she was groomed and left for Syria, I believe she deserves rehabilitation, a 2nd chance if you want, after she has been properly interrogated, debriefed and assessed while in custody.

 

Until we've changed the law, stripping her of her citizenship would be a serious and flagrant breach of human rights and the law/democracy. 

 

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick Ms Begum signalled she could be arrested and investigated if she returns to Britain.

When she left the UK, the then chief of counter-terror policing Sir Mark Rowley suggested that she might be treated as a victim of grooming.

International law forbids nations from making people stateless by revoking their only citizenship, but it is possible Ms Begum, who is of Bangladeshi heritage, held dual citizenship.

Ms Begum however, does not hold a Bangladeshi passport and has never lived there. 

A Home Office spokesperson said: "In order to protect this country, he [Mr Javid] has the power to deprive someone of their British citizenship where it would not render them stateless.

"We do not comment on individual cases, but any decisions to deprive individuals of their citizenship are based on all available evidence and not taken lightly." 

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg told ITV News the Home Secretary can revoke British citizenship if it is seen to be for the "public good."

He said: "Under the British Nationality act the Home Secretary is entitled to deprive a person of citizenship if the Home Secretary thinks that deprivation is conducive to the public good, that it's a good thing to do.

"Now the Home Secretary can't do that if that would render the person stateless, but he says Shamima Begum has Bangladeshi nationality and therefore he's entitled to take away her British nationality."

 

Source: https://www.itv.com/news/2019-02-19/shamima-begum-has-uk-citizenship-revoked-by-british-government-itv-news-learns/

[ilogikal1]

2 minutes ago, Adrian@TORQEN said:

Stuff about laws.

Laws that expressly prohibit taking someone into custody without suitable suspicion of breaking said laws, you mean? So...

3 minutes ago, Adrian@TORQEN said:

She deserves a fair trial, but considering she was under 18 when she was groomed and left for Syria, I believe she deserves rehabilitation, a 2nd chance if you want, after she has been properly interrogated, debriefed and assessed while in custody.

...under what law?

 

 

Annoyingly I actually agree with you (to an extent) but the law doesn't allow us to simply take her into custody without good reason. Currently, buggering off to Syria and being very blasé about seeing some horrific things isn't, to my knowledge, "good reason" in the eyes of the law.

[Adrian@TORQEN]

2 minutes ago, ilogikal1 said:

Laws that expressly prohibit taking someone into custody without suitable suspicion of breaking said laws, you mean? So...

11 minutes ago, Adrian@TORQEN said:

She can be taken into custody / temporarily arrested under the Terrorism Act:

 

"Anyone arrested under section 41 Terrorism Act 2000 is subject to a special regime for pre-charge detention under Schedule 8. This includes not only longer maximum periods of detention but also restrictions on obtaining legal advice in certain circumstances.

The maximum period of detention under Schedule 8 was originally set at seven days in 2000. However, this was amended by section 306 Criminal Justice Act 2003 to 14 days. Following the 7 July 2005 bombings in London the government announced proposals to extend this to 90 days. These were defeated in the House of Commons in late 2005, but an alternative measure was passed (section 23 Terrorism Act 2006) to extend the maximum to 28 days."

 

Source: https://justice.org.uk/pre-charge-detention-terrorism-cases/

 

5 minutes ago, ilogikal1 said:

...under what law?

Human Rights I quoted before. 

 

5 minutes ago, ilogikal1 said:

being very blasé about seeing some horrific

"Speaking to ITV News on Monday, the teenager insisted she was "not a threat" to the UK, despite having insisted she did not regret joining IS.

"I'm a 19-year-old girl with a newborn baby," she said..

"I don't have any weapons; I don't want to hurt anyone even if I did have weapons.
"He [Home Secretary Sajid Javid] has no proof that I'm a threat other than that I was in ISIS but that's it.

"I don't know how I would be seen as a danger.

"I'm not going to go back and provoke people to go to ISIS or anything, if anything I'm going to encourage them not to go because it's not all as it seems in their videos.""

 

Further read here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/631643/deprivation-nullity-Chapter-55.pdf

 

55.3.1.1

Under s.40 of the 1981 Act, as amended by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 from 1 April 2003 and by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 from 16 June 2006, anyBritish citizen, British overseas territories citizen, British Overseas citizen, British National (Overseas), British protected person or British subject may, by Order, be deprived of his or her citizenship or status if the Home Secretary is satisfied that:

a. it would be conducive to the public good to deprive the person of his or her British nationality, and that s/he would not become stateless as a result of the deprivation (ss.40(2) and (4)); or

b. where the person acquired the citizenship or status as a result of his registration or naturalisation on or after 1 January 1983, the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of:

• fraud; or

false representation; or

the concealment of any material fact

(s.40(3)); or

c. where the person acquired the citizenship or status on account of his registration or naturalisation before 1983, the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of:

fraud; or

false representation; or

the concealment of any material fact (s.40(6))

[TT350]

I knew that removing her citizenship was just a token jesture at best. Fully expected it to be overturned and Sajiid Javid to go "Ach well, at least I tried. You all saw me try. Right?" 

[GMballistic]

Having taken time to read through this thread in its entirety I feel it necessary to remind members that although healthy discussions are always welcome on here you must please do it with a modicum of decorum. 

 

This is obviously an invoking topic that most, including myself, have strong views regarding but it must be remembered that although we may not always agree with another persons thoughts and opinions personal insults against one another is not the way to go about discussing this or putting an opinion across. 

 

For the most part though I've read some very reasoned arguments and opinions so please do try to keep it civil everyone. Thank you   

[marzman]

8 hours ago, nissanman312 said:

Just a thought?

Do we know if her dad really was at those flag burning rallies ? Or is that fake news ? 

 

7 hours ago, Jetpilot said:

Any links, i cant see anything to that nature, quite the opposite, she was alleged to have self radicalised.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1089664/Shamima-begum-news-latest-syria-isis-bride-citizenship-revoked-Henry-Jackson-Society

 

OK, so if you believe she was radicalised i would presume they know who, why not find and prosecute them?

 

I've heard this from a couple of sources, but can only find the below link.

 

https://www.politicalite.com/latest/updated-revealed-father-of-isis-three-attended-rally-with-anjem-choudary-and-lee-rigby-killer/

 

This suggests the father of one of her two friends attended a rally and is photographed with Anjem Choudary - Lee Rigby's killer.  If this is true and not fake news as suggested, it points to systemic radicalisation from the family home, which is not going to be something that you can de-radicalise from someone if they've grown up with it in the family since birth.

[GranTurismoEra]

12 hours ago, TT350 said:

What concerns me most are those pie crimpers she calls teeth. 

 

The flintstones carved them out of, rock, for sure. 

 

But seriously, I don't want her back here. I concede that, when I was 15, I was even more daft than I am now. But, also, it's quite obvious that 'children' are much, much different now than at any other time in history. We've never been connected to this level at any point in history and things are no longer learned at a progressive rate in relation to age. It's all there, any time, anywhere. 

 

When I was 15 I had no Internet, no mobile phone. The most violence I was exposed to was Doom and Arnold schwarzenegger films. And late night films on C4 like Videodrome. 

 

That lass has been watching beheading videos. Lots of them. I saw one once. Ken Bigley. It was the most horrific thing I've ever seen. To see a person do that to another person just.... Well, it takes a certain kind of mind to be able to watch those and become desensitised to it and even more so to see it as justified. 

 

I've got a lot of Pakistani friends, obviously they're Muslims, and they don't want to see this bell end come back. They're sick of the extremists. One thing they all agree on is that, actually, the women in their community are more radical in their views.

 

If she does come back she should serve  an undefined sentence in solitary confinement on very basic rations, completely tasteless. In an acoustically lined cell that's so deafeningly quiet, with a high pressure sodium bulb light that humms and is on 24/7. No enrichment whatsoever. A screen in the room that comes on at random times with rehabilitation images and videos. Then begin to debrief her, de-rad her. Then be allowed photos of her son and family. Then visitation. Then assessed for release. 

That will never happen here. Even stonecold serial killers are afforded a certain level of comfort. That sounds like third world jail.

 

Thats why people are happy to reoffend if it gets them off the streets, 3 meals a day, free gym, a bed and increased criminal and law knowledge is a plus. You also make links in jail sometimes of the religious kind. 

[Jetpilot]

6 hours ago, marzman said:

 

 

I've heard this from a couple of sources, but can only find the below link.

 

https://www.politicalite.com/latest/updated-revealed-father-of-isis-three-attended-rally-with-anjem-choudary-and-lee-rigby-killer/

 

This suggests the father of one of her two friends attended a rally and is photographed with Anjem Choudary - Lee Rigby's killer.  If this is true and not fake news as suggested, it points to systemic radicalisation from the family home, which is not going to be something that you can de-radicalise from someone if they've grown up with it in the family since birth.

A rather tenuous and weak link to radicalisation imho, one of the girls fathers once attended a rally a long time ago and I wouldnt suggest he was photo'd "with" Choudrary.

 

On the other hand in support, if she was radicalised at home which as Ekona points out is very difficult to prove and prosecute, why not just be clear on the consequences.  If you support extreme terror organisations and leave the country to support or fight for them, you will have your citizenship revoked? If said parents then knew their children may never come "home", would they still risk radicalising them? 

 

We all have boundaries in life, some push those boundaries not being afraid of the consequences. So why not make the consequence something that may make them think twice or longer and harder for all concerned, this situation is just too easy, trip off to Syria, do what ever she wants and come back to a stern talking too and a debrief. She clearly has zero regard for life, why should we have regard for hers?