Shamima Begum refused return to UK

red_harrington said:
Yes but she reneged on her citizenship the moment she left the country and joined the other side.

Once you join the other side - especially an illegal terrorist group - you waive all rights that were assigned to you by the country of your birth.
Click to expand...
How can you renege on citizenship when it's effectively your primary citizenship? I can't go to Australia and decide I'm not English anymore, so get to stay, they wouldn't let me even if I wanted to. She's not even Syrian, you can't just lose citizenship of your home country and then decide you're a citizen of Syria, a country in turmoil, which is effectively being invaded by ISIS.

I suppose the only person who could renege their citizenship, is the person, if they had a legal right to another citizenship which could replace it. But I suppose they would always have the right to de-renege it, and come back. People born here are always allowed back, just like ex-pats who move to Spain, or the tax dodgers in the Caymans.

Who is she a citizen of, if not the UK? Syria? Syria want ISIS about as much as we do.

What about the white lad in Thailand selling drugs, has he reneged his citizenship too then? He's left the UK, and working with the Thai underworld, lets just leave him to get the chair huh?

What about the white lads working in Saudi on the oil rigs or for their armed forces, they no longer British either?
 
Last edited:
Londons_Moggie said:
I didn’t say her phone. Re read it.

Just for clarity I haven’t suggested GCHQ are idiots as u have wrongly accused me of. I think they do a remarkable job. The number of terror attacks they foil each year is both astonishing and disturbing.
Click to expand...

I think you're grossly underestimating the sophistication of GCHQ's surveillance or the latitude they're provided by legislation to keep us safe. It's exactly the same reason you should never visit Russia/China/Ukraine and expect to have a private device after.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
I think you're grossly underestimating the sophistication of GCHQ's surveillance or the latitude they're provided by legislation to keep us safe. It's exactly the same reason you should never visit Russia/China/Ukraine and expect to have a private device after.
Click to expand...
I’m not underestimating anything. You’re just making up things in your head for some reason unbeknownst to me
 
red_harrington said:
Yes but she reneged on her citizenship the moment she left the country and joined the other side.

Once you join the other side - especially an illegal terrorist group - you waive all rights that were assigned to you by the country of your birth.
Click to expand...
Yes but the "other side" wasn't another nation, that would be a different story.
 
She should face trial here. She is a British Citizen. British people go aborad and a few commit serious crimes we don't act by taking away their citizenship.

In WW2 some British Citizens joined the Waffen SS, a couple I believe were hung by us, but the majority received moderate prison sentences for fighting for the other side. OK they were over 16 when they joined. We gave them a chance to redeem themselves. It seemed fair to me. They were punished but the bridges were not blown up. This young women did behave as an adult by travelling to Syria to fight for an extremist group and she married and had children acting again as an adult. She can't be absolved of her actions because she was 15 when she left.

Some of the actions of ISIS were on a par with the Nazis of WW2, such as throwing people off high buildings, mass beheadings, confinement in tiny cages, mass rapes, activities from the middle ages. If someone accepts this activities as OK for so called non believers to be given, I do worry about their ability to live a normal life in modern Britain. But I would still allow her a chance to change her views.

History has shown when we as British act very toughly it can come at us later e.g. execution of Irish Republicans in 1916 after the Easter Rising, Treaty of Versailles in 1919. These events were used to fight against us later.
 
Same_as_before said:
Back to the law: a government who said, for the first time in my Lifetime. 'we will break international law' can be trusted with a young girl is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I believe it was a negotiating tool and that they never did intended to break it. And was a result of two sides on the edge of negotiation and one side decided to pull the pin then put it back in.
Begum has not been allowed to return to appeal her case, her lawyers can do it for her. She is still considered high risk if she was allowed back. Well sorry, she was and still is our responsibility so try her in her absence and lock her up if guilty of terrorism as a minor.
 
r00fie1 said:
With a Prime Minister who has expressed racist oppinions, supported section 28, defended the "hostile environment", interns legitimate refugees and asylum-seekers in secure Concentration Centres - and keeps Julian Assange locked up in a top security prison for telling the truth........what we have seen today is no surprise.
Click to expand...
I would keep Julian Assange in jail until the coffin nails. He has a had a significant effect on a lot ( including someone close to me) of people who are in the business of protecting you and I. I would spit on him now.
 
No he threatened to break international law, if he was bluffing that is a first time any leader of this country has ever said it. I was ashamed, I have had many arguments with CtC on wether this country is corrupt. Our PM made his argument for him .
 
MoggasDog said:
If we are going to start looking at people who have committed crimes against the country then there are a lot of people who should be looked at before we get to this daft cow.

Being a fu.cking idiot doesnt mean that that gives the government the right to ban you from your country. If that was the case, we would have a population of about 500,000.
If she has committed a crime then she should be tried like the rest of us would be.

She is obviously a moron. A very ugly one, too.
Click to expand...

And you say this is a board that children read, “daft cow, ‘kin idiot, ugly moron”
 
FatCat said:
It’s a very interesting debate this one and seems to have split the board.

I’ll be perfectly honest I’m not sure what the right thing to do is - I can see both sides to what is a very complex issue.

I have a question for those advocating to bring her back - would you be happy if we was housed next door to you - the media storm, the perceived threat ( is she still a danger and so on) Honestly would you be happy? And if not then where should she go because if it’s not next door to you it will be next door to somebody else.
Click to expand...
I could make the same argument about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
 
Out of curiosity why do people automatically believe she was groomed? What if for example she's in the same category of person as poor Jamie Bulger's killers?
 
Same_as_before said:
I even agree on arms: I would lose no sleep if the British arms industry closed tomorrow, I don't think it would save one life.
Click to expand...
It's not just about saving lives, it's a profiteering of death, I'm not happy with that, I want us to be better than that. I want my country to truly stand for the basic human right to life.
 
r00fie1 said:
For my six pennorth - I dont agree that the Minister of State has the right to strip anyone of their citizenship - that includes the Windrush Generation and foreign nationals who have served in our armed forces and denied a passport at the end of service.
Click to expand...
In this is where same_as_before would agree with you.....if it was a Labour Minister making the decision.

Personally I don't care what colour rosette they wear, I care about the morals and what it says about our nation and our values. It doesn't say anything good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top