Shamima Begum refused return to UK

Randy

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?

Behave.
 

Laughing

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.
Coluka, if you don't read the judgement your comments are meaningless about trusting the courts ruling, you don't even know what the ruling was. Let me try and explain. The supreme court ruled that they would uphold the home office ruling due to lack of a defense because the defendent could not adequately instruct her solicitors. They went as far as to say they would re-hear the appeal in the event she would ever be in the position to return to the country and adequately instruct her defense team.

They upheld the home office finding because there was no counter argument and they covered their asses by allowing a re-appeal, hoping they don't have to re-hear the case. In the event they do have to, they would have no choice but to re-instate herr citizenship.

Your blind trust in the judiciary here is unfounded, and they said as much themselves.

Any unbiased lawyer would tell you the ruling is a sham, and should not have been allowed to go ahead, and the court themselves said as much, but their hands were tied. They begged out of making a decision becaus it was the path of least resistance. They covered themselves by saying they are prepared to re-consider their finding should the defendants circumstances change.

There is nothing hidden and nothing redacted in the ruling. She was denied a defense by the home office. It is shameful. The home office used a loosely worded clause in nationality law that states they can remove citizenship if it is "deemed to be conducive to the public good". Not that they are terrrorists, not that they have even committed a crime, just that the home office thinks its ok to do so.

Everyone on this thread has an opinion and no one has read the court ruling, just newspaper headlines.

The government have done this to garner votes with little risk of loosing any.

As I said, shame on anyone who reads a newspaper headline and thinks this is OK, you are being led by an unlawful bunch of self serving opportunists and letting them get away with it.
 

coluka

Well-known member
Coluka, if you don't read the judgement your comments are meaningless about trusting the courts ruling, you don't even know what the ruling was. Let me try and explain. The supreme court ruled that they would uphold the home office ruling due to lack of a defense because the defendent could not adequately instruct her solicitors. They went as far as to say they would re-hear the appeal in the event she would ever be in the position to return to the country and adequately instruct her defense team.

They upheld the home office finding because there was no counter argument and they covered their asses by allowing a re-appeal, hoping they don't have to re-hear the case. In the event they do have to, they would have no choice but to re-instate herr citizenship.

Your blind trust in the judiciary here is unfounded, and they said as much themselves.

Any unbiased lawyer would tell you the ruling is a sham, and should not have been allowed to go ahead, and the court themselves said as much, but their hands were tied. They begged out of making a decision becaus it was the path of least resistance. They covered themselves by saying they are prepared to re-consider their finding should the defendants circumstances change.

There is nothing hidden and nothing redacted in the ruling. She was denied a defense by the home office. It is shameful. The home office used a loosely worded clause in nationality law that states they can remove citizenship if it is "deemed to be conducive to the public good". Not that they are terrrorists, not that they have even committed a crime, just that the home office thinks its ok to do so.

Everyone on this thread has an opinion and no one has read the court ruling, just newspaper headlines.

The government have done this to garner votes with little risk of loosing any.

As I said, shame on anyone who reads a newspaper headline and thinks this is OK, you are being led by an unlawful bunch of self serving opportunists and letting them get away with it.
I suggest you read the meaning of the word condescending before making assumptions about me, a few other words i could sadly say too, but i wont be pushed in that direction. You have no idea what i have read, what i have not read or who i am. I give in, no doubt you have me as a Daily Mail or Sun reader (if i am lucky). I have been polite and tried to be respectful to most people. My first comment acknowledged i knew my view would be unpopular on here, but i am comfortable in my own skin even when the pack wolves attack. I realise it is not a level playing field on here and my centrist views are frowned upon as right wing. I think that speaks less about me as it does about others. Freedom of speech is not just shot down but belittled at times, very odd for a democracy.

Yours Shamefully
Coluka
 

FatCat

Well-known member
What I found interesting above what’s already been mentioned is that she wanted access to the uk but was unwilling to provide her fingerprints and photograph of her face.the latter is standard for anyone wishing to travel I don’t accept that she should be a special case in that regard.

I agree that she shouldn’t win her appeal against having her citizenship deprived just because she cannot adequately appeal it based on her current circumstances.
 

Alzi

Well-known member
Can you imagine the outcry if this was a Bangladeshi national who Bangladesh decided they weren’t going to bother with as there was a tenuous chance they could claim British citizenship on account of a family member?

Quite a dangerous precedent.
 

Emmersons_BrazillianDong

Well-known member
Radicalisation is very real. PREVENT does a lot of good work and this case in particular shows the importance of early intervention. Every Local Authority and Police Force have dedicated resources and procedures.

My work brings me into regular contact with this field. A lot of recent PREVENT referrals I've been involved are also to do with adolescents being in contact with White Supremacists / Far Right Groups, not just ISIS etc.
Me too mate. A lot of my work is in this area and what people sometimes don't understand is the vulnerability faced by children and young people.

I don't know the details of this individuals vulnerabilities but I know that very rarely is any individual acting in a way of their own volition.

I'm not going to get into arguments on this.

It's easy to wash your hands of an incredibly difficult case like this but it's not what we should be doing.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
I suggest you read the meaning of the word condescending before making assumptions about me, a few other words i could sadly say too, but i wont be pushed in that direction. You have no idea what i have read, what i have not read or who i am. I give in, no doubt you have me as a Daily Mail or Sun reader (if i am lucky). I have been polite and tried to be respectful to most people. My first comment acknowledged i knew my view would be unpopular on here, but i am comfortable in my own skin even when the pack wolves attack. I realise it is not a level playing field on here and my centrist views are frowned upon as right wing. I think that speaks less about me as it does about others. Freedom of speech is not just shot down but belittled at times, very odd for a democracy.

Yours Shamefully
Coluka
I don't have you as a daily mail readerr, nor are any of my comments political, outside of the rights and wrongs of this particular case, which is clearly political.

My issue, Coluka, was not necessarily with you alone, and not even mainly you. It was the number of people drawing conclusions based on headlines in newspapers. I would assume you did not read the judgement because of your comments. If you read it and came to those conclusions, then I apologize.

if you haven't read the judgement please do. The Supreme court were used as patsies and they recognized that in their ruling by qualifying that they would re-hear the case on appeal in the event the defendent could return to the UK to mount an effective appeal.

The wording and ruling make it clear that the ruling had very little to do with justice.

Let me put it another way, I don't think I have ever seen a judicial ruling that invited appeal, ever. In fact, as a generalization, an appeal would need to go to a higher court by definition, the court has made a ruling. The supreme court say they are willing to reconsiderr their ruling on appeal if the defendants circumstances change, i.e. she can get back in to the UK.

They admit their ruling is flawed.
 

Blf

Well-known member
I was a bit conflicted with this due to her being 15 at the time .
However I saw an interview with her in 2019 where she still said she was fine with IS beheading people. She was asked twice and gave the same answer twice . I think it would be a mistake to let her come back.
Also people saying she hasn't been able to access her lawyer , when asked what her thoughts were on the ruling she said she couldnt answer for 24 hrs on advice of her lawyer.
 

Muttley

Well-known member
However I saw an interview with her in 2019 where she still said she was fine with IS beheading people.
And where was she when she said this?

In a camp in Syria where criticism of ISIS might be inadvisable?
 

Heam44

Well-known member
I’m quite surprised that people seem to be overlooking what I’d consider the main issue.

Which is the UK deciding to wash our hands off her and simply leaving others to the deal with her”.

I understand people wouldn’t want her living next door to them or sat next to her on a bus, but I’d imagine many of the people in other countries also feel the same.

We have thousands of people held in deportation centres throughout the UK full of people who have committed crimes in the UK, therefore we have understandably decided that they are no longer welcome in our country and must return to their home nation.

Whereas when one of our own has committed crimes abroad we have simply rescinded her citizenship effectively saying “ you’ll have to deal with her, we’re not having her back”.

Imagine the uproar if whenever foreigners committed crimes in the UK their home countries rescinded their citizenship and we were left to deal with them for the rest of their days.

IMO it’s a sh1thouse decision and cnuts trick to wash our hands of her and leave others to deal with her!
 
Top
X