Shamima Begum refused return to UK

jam69

Well-known member
It really amazes me that people are determined to stick up for the human rights of terrorists who think it ok to sew people into suicide vests that go on to kill people. I don't believe she was thinking of the human rights of anyone with her needle and thread in hands tbf. I think we should even pass a law that if anyones decides to join up with terrorist groups in future then they automatically lose their right to citizenship or where that is not possible, then they are tried, and if found guilty never see the light of day again in solitary confinement at best. I would go further but many on here would then lose it totally.
Where did you read about her sewing up suicide vests?
 

coluka

Well-known member
What's the definition of a terrorist?

Have you heard her account in a court of law to decide if she fits the definition?
No i wasn't present at the supreme court, sorry, but i think you know that. I do have faith in the supreme court itself though. She may yet win her appeal if it develops, that would cheer many on here up, we can then hang up the bunting and celebrate her safe return. As for the definition i would say any group of people who use extreme violence and harm against a law abiding state or its civilians that were not lawfully authorised. I dare say there are others.
 

Corco65

Well-known member
Who decided the definition of internationally recognised terrorist group?, What's the criteria applied by who to decide?

How would you describe members of the armed forces who sign up, travel to another country and go onto to kill on the say so of others?
 

Corco65

Well-known member
No i wasn't present at the supreme court, sorry, but i think you know that. I do have faith in the supreme court itself though. She may yet win her appeal if it develops, that would cheer many on here up, we can then hang up the bunting and celebrate her safe return. As for the definition i would say any group of people who use extreme violence and harm against a law abiding state or its civilians that were not lawfully authorised. I dare say there are others.
The supreme court have not decided on whether she is a terrorist or not, you seem to be indicating that it would be right and proper if they did.

So on that definition we need to prosecute a whole lot of people from the second Iraq war or remover their citizenship at least.
 

coluka

Well-known member
Who decided the definition of internationally recognised terrorist group?, What's the criteria applied by who to decide?

How would you describe members of the armed forces who sign up, travel to another country and go onto to kill on the say so of others?
The Governments and courts. If the soldiers are lawfully authorised then they are covered by the law, if they act on their own accord i would say they were terrorists.
 

coluka

Well-known member
The supreme court have not decided on whether she is a terrorist or not, you seem to be indicating that it would be right and proper if they did.

So on that definition we need to prosecute a whole lot of people from the second Iraq war or remover their citizenship at least.
No I have already said a few times that she may yet win her appeal. I argue she is a terrorist by her known actions. I agree the courts decide not me.
 

Corco65

Well-known member
So if another countries government and court declare our forces are terrorists then they are?

Numerous members of the armed forces have been found guilty of acting on their own accord to kill people unnecessarily, I assume you are aware of some of these from the press reports. Has they same thing happened to them have you been advocating it should?
 
Last edited:

Corco65

Well-known member
No I have already said a few times that she may yet win her appeal. I argue she is a terrorist by her known actions. I agree the courts decide not me.
But her actions are not know, only she travelled to a war Zone. I assume you would like her to win her appeal so the test of being a terrorist can be examined in a court of law and the appropriate verdict reached?

Is that the normal process we apply or should we change the way we do things just for a select few on the basis of hear say and testimony given under certain circumstances? Is that fair? Is that our system?
 

coluka

Well-known member
So just a allegation? This just shows why she should have been brought home to face British justice instead of just leaving another country with the problem
But she might yet be Jam, thats why we have the justice system is it not.
 

coluka

Well-known member
But her actions are not know, only she travelled to a war Zone. I assume you would like her to win her appeal so the test of being a terrorist can be examined in a court of law and the appropriate verdict reached?

Is that the normal process we apply or should we change the way we do things just for a select few on the basis of hear say and testimony given under certain circumstances? Is that fair? Is that our system?
We know she married a jihadi terrorist too. Of course i don’t want her to win her appeal, you know that, but if she does i will respect the courts decision.

The home secretary has acted in the interests of us all in its duties of care and national security. I trust them to have done so, i dont think she went for a holiday. So far, the supreme court has not had a problem as of yet. She can still appeal and if she does and wins so be it. I respect the courts to do the right thing based on the law of our land. I get you don’t agree or like my view. At least i have the guts to be open and honest with it despite some not respecting it. Our system is what it is, we vote in our law makers and the courts develop the law and i feel the majority of the country would support the home secretaries actions. If he acted unlawfully then the courts are there to deal with it.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
We know she married a jihadi terrorist too. Of course i don’t want her to win her appeal, you know that, but if she does i will respect the courts decision.

The home secretary has acted in the interests of us all in its duties of care and national security. I trust them to have done so, i dont think she went for a holiday. So far, the supreme court has not had a problem as of yet. She can still appeal and if she does and wins so be it. I respect the courts to do the right thing based on the law of our land. I get you don’t agree or like my view. At least i have the guts to be open and honest with it despite some not respecting it. Our system is what it is, we vote in our law makers and the courts develop the law and i feel the majority of the country would support the home secretaries actions. If he acted unlawfully then the courts are there to deal with it.
Do you believe thar Coluka or does it just fit with your agenda? I have no idea. As far as I am aware, she was born here, and I, personally don't want a unilateral system where one person can decide my fate.

This thread has turned on a tuppence. The truth doesn't matter to lots of posters here.

Fucke her I don't care about the circumstances nor her passport, I only want vengence... for what! Jeeze
 

Corco65

Well-known member
We know she married a jihadi terrorist too. Of course i don’t want her to win her appeal, you know that, but if she does i will respect the courts decision.

The home secretary has acted in the interests of us all in its duties of care and national security. I trust them to have done so, i dont think she went for a holiday. So far, the supreme court has not had a problem as of yet. She can still appeal and if she does and wins so be it. I respect the courts to do the right thing based on the law of our land. I get you don’t agree or like my view. At least i have the guts to be open and honest with it despite some not respecting it. Our system is what it is, we vote in our law makers and the courts develop the law and i feel the majority of the country would support the home secretaries actions. If he acted unlawfully then the courts are there to deal with it.
Being married to a terrorist if she was is not an offence.

Why wouldn't you want her treated like so many have in the past regarding alleged acts of terrorism? Has our justice system been so wrong in the past in letting people accused of an offence having a trail? Is that not the cornerstone of the great British justice system?

I don't agree with what she did or what the people she went to join do, but I don't see why the rules should applied differently to her unlike so many before her.
 

coluka

Well-known member
you trust the governments definition of anything?
Do you believe thar Coluka or does it just fit with your agenda? I have no idea. As far as I am aware, she was born here, and I, personally don't want a unilateral system where one person can decide my fate.

This thread has turned on a tuppence. The truth doesn't matter to lots of posters here.

Fucke her I don't care about the circumstances nor her passport, I only want vengence... for what! Jeeze
Being married to a terrorist if she was is not an offence.

Why wouldn't you want her treated like so many have in the past regarding alleged acts of terrorism? Has our justice system been so wrong in the past in letting people accused of an offence having a trail? Is that not the cornerstone of the great British justice system?

I don't agree with what she did or what the people she went to join do, but I don't see why the rules should applied differently to her unlike so many before her.
BoroMart, I trust Governments to uphold the law and protect the British people. If they don’t then the courts and legal system come to play. I understand they do not always get it right and sometimes, like Matt H has, knowingly break the law, which i find appalling. I trust them more than IS and its followers to protect us all.

Laughing, Jeez, I have views not agendas, we disagree on it, please don’t try to make more of it than me being just a bloke with a view. I believe the Home secretary put the safety of its people before the interests of Begum, yes. If the courts say otherwise so be it.

Corco65 I want her to be dealt with as our laws permit, so far it appears the Government has acted within its powers. Their actions don’t bother me and should not bother law abiding British people. As for the rules, I suspect the Government may know a little more than you or I about her and her actions with IS don’t you. I doubt Javid, the Home Secretary acted on a personal whim. If you don’t have faith in British justice then well i am lost for words. I trust our system more than any in the Middle East. I think they look after its people better than IS looked after those Yazidi women for instance.

Anyway, hope I have answered your questions, I appreciate you disagree, if my views offend, sorry, I believe national security comes first, but i agree it has to be lawful, and so far it appears to be, but her appeal if it happens will ultimately decide. Enjoy your evenings
 

Laughing

Well-known member
BoroMart, I trust Governments to uphold the law and protect the British people. If they don’t then the courts and legal system come to play. I understand they do not always get it right and sometimes, like Matt H has, knowingly break the law, which i find appalling. I trust them more than IS and its followers to protect us all.

Laughing, Jeez, I have views not agendas, we disagree on it, please don’t try to make more of it than me being just a bloke with a view. I believe the Home secretary put the safety of its people before the interests of Begum, yes. If the courts say otherwise so be it.

Corco65 I want her to be dealt with as our laws permit, so far it appears the Government has acted within its powers. Their actions don’t bother me and should not bother law abiding British people. As for the rules, I suspect the Government may know a little more than you or I about her and her actions with IS don’t you. I doubt Javid, the Home Secretary acted on a personal whim. If you don’t have faith in British justice then well i am lost for words. I trust our system more than any in the Middle East. I think they look after its people better than IS looked after those Yazidi women for instance.

Anyway, hope I have answered your questions, I appreciate you disagree, if my views offend, sorry, I believe national security comes first, but i agree it has to be lawful, and so far it appears to be, but her appeal if it happens will ultimately decide. Enjoy your evenings
Its not just you Coluka the comment was aimed at several posters. That said you don't address a single point. She has a british passport, was born here. She is british whether we like it or not. The home office refused her entry back to the UK, where she was bor where she grew up, unilaterally. Hmm. Because, the position wins votes, and loses none. Simple as that. Stop being manipulated and look beyond the headline.

The whole episode is shameful for the UK. We allowed her to be groomed, we failed to protect her, we created an atmosphere where it is allowed to flourish. We have a PM who described muslim women as letter boxes. Then we wonder why a child can be recruited by an organization that rails against the western world.

Then to top it all, the despotic government rejects her birth right. And some on here lap it up.

Shame on you all.
 

Corco65

Well-known member
BoroMart, I trust Governments to uphold the law and protect the British people. If they don’t then the courts and legal system come to play. I understand they do not always get it right and sometimes, like Matt H has, knowingly break the law, which i find appalling. I trust them more than IS and its followers to protect us all.

Laughing, Jeez, I have views not agendas, we disagree on it, please don’t try to make more of it than me being just a bloke with a view. I believe the Home secretary put the safety of its people before the interests of Begum, yes. If the courts say otherwise so be it.

Corco65 I want her to be dealt with as our laws permit, so far it appears the Government has acted within its powers. Their actions don’t bother me and should not bother law abiding British people. As for the rules, I suspect the Government may know a little more than you or I about her and her actions with IS don’t you. I doubt Javid, the Home Secretary acted on a personal whim. If you don’t have faith in British justice then well i am lost for words. I trust our system more than any in the Middle East. I think they look after its people better than IS looked after those Yazidi women for instance.

Anyway, hope I have answered your questions, I appreciate you disagree, if my views offend, sorry, I believe national security comes first, but i agree it has to be lawful, and so far it appears to be, but her appeal if it happens will ultimately decide. Enjoy your evenings
Politicians often act to please the populace not necessarily to do the right thing or to follow the law as we found out with Johnson and crew when the very recently decided to prorogue parliament.

Yes a interesting debate with many different views and perspectives.

Have a good evening too.
 

Nosmo-King

Well-known member
Allowed her to be groomed - with respect that comment is downright stupid. I hope you lot would chip in for the surveillance bill for her.
And Coluka, sewing terrorist bombers up was reported again today in The Times - so you are correct.
 
Top
X