Shamima Begum refused return to UK

Laughing

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Whereas when one of our own has committed crimes abroad we have simply rescinded her citizenship effectively saying “ you’ll have to deal with her, we’re not having her back”.

Imagine the uproar if whenever foreigners committed crimes in the UK their home countries rescinded their citizenship and we were left to deal with them for the rest of their days.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!
Heam whilst I agree with you I don't think anyone has overlooked it. Some agree with that sentiment, some just don't care about the legality or responsability, or believe the government were correct because she may be considered a danger to national security. Take your pick which.
 

Heam44

Well-known member
Heam whilst I agree with you I don't think anyone has overlooked it. Some agree with that sentiment, some just don't care about the legality or responsability, or believe the government were correct because she may be considered a danger to national security. Take your pick which.
Whilst it’s certainly not been completely ignored I feel it’s the main if not the only point that needs to be discussed. As surely there can only be on answer.

Regards to whether the decision is legal or not - I have no idea. And I believe the vast majority of us don’t have an idea.

Regards to her age and culpability etc I can understand both sides of the argument.

However when it comes to my point regarding whether we as a country SHOULD simply wash our hands of her and the moral and ethical implications of that decision, then surely there can only be one answer, that being “No we shouldn’t”. And upon realising that all the other points with regards to legalities, age, culpability and future threat etc are largely irrelevant.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
I agree Heam. There is also a wider context and that is why the legality of the decision is being discussed. The home office think this is OK. They could then do this to you or me with little or no backlash from the public.
 

HarryVegas

Well-known member
It's the same English arrogance that led us to think that deporting prisoners to America and Australia was perfectly normal and fine. All these years and we have learned nothing. Another shameful episode.
 

bear66

Well-known member
I agree Heam. There is also a wider context and that is why the legality of the decision is being discussed. The home office think this is OK. They could then do this to you or me with little or no backlash from the public.
Lucky Johnson gave up dual citizenship in 2017 . . . or perhaps it wasn't luck.
 

boroboy6872

Well-known member
Security Services have deemed her a risk to National Security and whilst the courts have deemed that she must receive a fair trial this will never happen as long as she is deemed a danger to the UK.

Rightly or wrongly that`s where we are as a country.

I don`t know how she goes about convincing the Security Services that she isn`t a threat, given her beliefs and where she currently is being held.

I do believe that she will never step foot on our glorious shores again and that should be fair warning to anyone else who has like minded support of who your home country deem as terrorists
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
Security Services have deemed her a risk to National Security and whilst the courts have deemed that she must receive a fair trial this will never happen as long as she is deemed a danger to the UK.
Surely all potential terrorists are deemed as a danger to the country, so does that mean we will never try a terrorist? Seems a pretty dangerous stance to take.
 

boroboy6872

Well-known member
Surely all potential terrorists are deemed as a danger to the country, so does that mean we will never try a terrorist? Seems a pretty dangerous stance to take.
Agreed that all potential terrorists are a danger to the country. Those that currently reside within the UK and are British citizens are put on a watch list (I`ll be honest I`m not sure what actually happens so have guessed there).
For those classed as British Citizens that are not within this country it looks likely that they will never be tried on these shores.
I think they should be tried but other than bringing them to this country in chains with no connection to the outside, I don`t see how we go about it.

As for Begrum, she is guilty of being a terrorist even if she hasn`t killed anyone, simply the definition and association puts her in that bracket.
It`s a messy one that will not sit right with all.
 

boroboy6872

Well-known member
I don`t think being in that camp is going to help her either
I really do think getting away from the risk of being killed in that camp will see her back track on her belief that ISIL have justifications
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Agreed that all potential terrorists are a danger to the country. Those that currently reside within the UK and are British citizens are put on a watch list (I`ll be honest I`m not sure what actually happens so have guessed there).
For those classed as British Citizens that are not within this country it looks likely that they will never be tried on these shores.
I think they should be tried but other than bringing them to this country in chains with no connection to the outside, I don`t see how we go about it.

As for Begrum, she is guilty of being a terrorist even if she hasn`t killed anyone, simply the definition and association puts her in that bracket.
It`s a messy one that will not sit right with all.
She isn't guilty of anything until tried and found guilty.
 

boroboy6872

Well-known member
She isn't guilty of anything until tried and found guilty.
Agreed Laughing, bad choice of word by me should read

"She will be classed as a terrorist even if she hasn`t killed anyone, simply the definition and association puts her in that bracket".
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Agreed Laughing, bad choice of word by me should read

"She will be classed as a terrorist even if she hasn`t killed anyone, simply the definition and association puts her in that bracket".
That's true enough. I am not sure who classified her a danger to security. You would assume mi5 or more likely 6,but I don't know. The home office have refused to release the basis for their decision to revoke her citizenship.
 

boroboy6872

Well-known member
That's true enough. I am not sure who classified her a danger to security. You would assume mi5 or more likely 6,but I don't know. The home office have refused to release the basis for their decision to revoke her citizenship.
Not sure either Laughing.
That court judgment you linked is not specific and there seems to be a lot of redaction as well which the courts don`t seem to be concerned about

We aren`t going to get a thorough look at this I`m afraid, beyond the court judgment so can only cast opinions based on that.

People should take the time to read it though.
 

bear66

Well-known member
The simple issue I cannot get my head around is when Syria clears the camps. What physically happens?
The USA urged us to take responsibility for our citizens in Turkish camps in 2019 as the number of ISIS supporters was bringing unrest in the middle East.
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
I am not the brightest, but if Syria sends her to a border, the country on the border does not want her, what does our Government do?

She is British, she should be here, she should have her day in court, if she gets life she gets life, if she is found not guilty let her move into a private life.
 

boroboy6872

Well-known member
Is it easy to say that if we actively seek to deport a foreign national to his home nation when he/she commits a crime then the same should happen to British Citizens who commit crimes on foreign soil?

What if we want to deport someone from the UK but their home country says they are a risk to them, what happens?
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
The USA urged us to take responsibility for our citizens in Turkish camps in 2019 as the number of ISIS supporters was bringing unrest in the middle East.
You mean, we are there lapdogs again, now that we are out of the EU we have to do as they say.
 

boroboy6872

Well-known member
"They are reluctant to try such foreign fighters at home, fearing a public backlash, difficulties in collating evidence against them, and the risk of renewed attacks by militants on European soil."

Is this a reason why she isn`t being allowed back?
 
Top
X