Shamima Begum refused return to UK

coluka

Well-known member
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.
Shame on anyone who does not trust Britain and its legal system to protect its people. This is about national security and protection of Britons in general. If i deserve shame for trusting our government for knowing more than the public and trusting in our legal system then i am again, lost for words.

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.
Cheers Nosmo 👍
 

Laughing

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.
Stupid, really. As a nation you don't think we have a responsability to protect our children?

It's not stupid at all it's the minimum you would expect from a government. With absolutely no respect, your response is stupid.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Shame on anyone who does not trust Britain and its legal system to protect its people. This is about national security and protection of Britons in general. If i deserve shame for trusting our government for knowing more than the public and trusting in our legal system then i am again, lost for words.


Cheers Nosmo 👍
That's the whole point the revokation of her passport was not a judicial decision. Its like talking to children
 

coluka

Well-known member
That's the whole point the revokation of her passport was not a judicial decision. Its like talking to children
The Home Secretary exercised his powers she is challenging it via the courts, I have said if she wins i will respect the decision. I understand your view, you feel i should be ashamed. Fine I get it, i understand, the courts say she must do that from her camp they backed up the Home Office. They looked at national security in doing so as well as her capacity etc. I think that aspect was a judicial decion made. She still has a right to appeal yet you know more than the Government and the Supreme Court It seems. Has it ever crossed your mind why the Supreme Court made their decision and that they may just have info that can not be released as it may endanger the lives of others? If you live a lawful life i am sure the Home Secretary wont strip you of your citizenship. Your last comment was uncalled for btw.
 

Primus84

Well-known member
The Home Secretary exercised his powers she is challenging it via the courts, I have said if she wins i will respect the decision. I understand your view, you feel i should be ashamed. Fine I get it, i understand, the courts say she must do that from her camp they backed up the Home Office. They looked at national security in doing so as well as her capacity etc. I think that aspect was a judicial decion made. She still has a right to appeal yet you know more than the Government and the Supreme Court It seems. Has it ever crossed your mind why the Supreme Court made their decision and that they may just have info that can not be released as it may endanger the lives of others? If you live a lawful life i am sure the Home Secretary wont strip you of your citizenship. Your last comment was uncalled for btw.
I think the question is: are some rights absolute?
 

coluka

Well-known member
I think the question is: are some rights absolute?
Some are some are obviously not. We all have the courts at our disposal if we lose rights, Begum has the right to appeal still. I accept it will be harder now, but our Judicial system has decided 5-0 she must do that from where she is too. They were persuaded on grounds of national security being relevant. Some things, we just have to trust, in order for them to protect the nation imho.
 

Primus84

Well-known member
Some are some are obviously not. We all have the courts at our disposal if we lose rights, Begum has the right to appeal still. I accept it will be harder now, but our Judicial system has decided 5-0 she must do that from where she is too. They were persuaded on grounds of national security being relevant. Some things, we just have to trust, in order to protect the nation imho.
Is the right to a fair trial an absolute right?
 

Laughing

Well-known member
You
The Home Secretary exercised his powers she is challenging it via the courts, I have said if she wins i will respect the decision. I understand your view, you feel i should be ashamed. Fine I get it, i understand, the courts say she must do that from her camp they backed up the Home Office. They looked at national security in doing so as well as her capacity etc. I think that aspect was a judicial decion made. She still has a right to appeal yet you know more than the Government and the Supreme Court It seems. Has it ever crossed your mind why the Supreme Court made their decision and that they may just have info that can not be released as it may endanger the lives of others? If you live a lawful life i am sure the Home Secretary wont strip you of your citizenship. Your last comment was uncalled for btw.
really need to go and read the whole ruling coluka, it may change your mind. I'll leave it there.
 

coluka

Well-known member
Is the right to a fair trial an absolute right?
Providing the safety of everyone can be guaranteed i would say yes, but it may have to be conditional. If it can not be so, then it is up to the courts to determine what is fair by balancing the evidence of the greater good. The courts have to consider all the evidence, including the safety of others i am sure it wasn’t done lightly by the supreme court.
 

Primus84

Well-known member
Providing the safety of everyone can be guaranteed i would say yes, but it may have to be conditional. If it can not be so, then it is up to the courts to determine what is fair by balancing the evidence of the greater good. The courts have to consider all the evidence, including the safety of others i am sure it wasn’t done lightly by the supreme court.
So your answer is that the right to a fair trial is, therefore, not absolute?
 

Train Guy

Well-known member
If she ever got back in we would never get her back out. Win, lose or draw. She is terrorist with terrorist beliefs. Not wanted or needed back in Britain.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Providing the safety of everyone can be guaranteed i would say yes, but it may have to be conditional. If it can not be so, then it is up to the courts to determine what is fair by balancing the evidence of the greater good. The courts have to consider all the evidence, including the safety of others i am sure it wasn’t done lightly by the supreme court.
They didn't balance the evidence for crying out loud, she couldn't take an active role in her defense, a fairly basic tenet of our judicial system.

If you cannot take part in your defense, it doesn't go to trial, that is a fact, one in which the supreme court mentioned in their ruling, and unequivocaly covered their asses. When you pass commentry and expect to be treated as an adult, know the facts.

read the ruling, read any commentry by any human rights lawyer and you will underrstand why the ruling is a joke.
 

coluka

Well-known member
They didn't balance the evidence for crying out loud, she couldn't take an active role in her defense, a fairly basic tenet of our judicial system.

If you cannot take part in your defense, it doesn't go to trial, that is a fact, one in which the supreme court mentioned in their ruling, and unequivocaly covered their asses. When you pass commentry and expect to be treated as an adult, know the facts.

read the ruling, read any commentry by any human rights lawyer and you will underrstand why the ruling is a joke.
I trust the courts to do the right thing regarding national security and keeping us safe. I am sorry you find my trust shameful, but i trust there is info we do not know and the courts have weighed up. We do not live in a banana republic.
 

Primus84

Well-known member
I trust the courts to do the right thing regarding national security and keeping us safe. I am sorry you find my trust shameful, but i trust there is info we do not know and the courts have weighed up. We do not live in a banana republic.
If there are no absolute rights then we are living in a fascist state.
 

coluka

Well-known member
I don’t think you understand what an absolute right is.

I think i have been clear, you can think what you like of me. Of course some rights are absolute in the UK. The law determines i have the right not to be blown up. It does not mean i wont be.
 
Top
X