Shamima Begum refused return to UK

FatCat said:
And you would welcome the press camped outside your home 24/7, the noise and congestion?
Click to expand...
That wasn't the question, the question was would I feel safe and the answer is yes.

As for the press, no


But this is so simple to me. A British citizen in a foreign country under duress has the fundamental right to our laws. I still do not understand the logistics on how she defends herself.
 
Same_as_before said:
That wasn't the question, the question was would I feel safe and the answer is yes.

As for the press, no


But this is so simple to me. A British citizen in a foreign country under duress has the fundamental right to our laws. I still do not understand the logistics on how she defends herself.
Click to expand...
No this was the question- “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.”

So who should she live next door to if not you?

with regard the logistics on how she defends herself this is in much the same way as she uses the press when she sees fit - it really isn’t the barrier that they are making it out to be.
 
I answered it. I would not like the media storm .

if that is the legal threshold for not accepting her back in the country it stands well with North Korea.
 
FatCat said:
And you would welcome the press camped outside your home 24/7, the noise and congestion?
Click to expand...
No of course not, but that shouldn't preclude her being given a fair chance to live a normal life. I would have zero concerns about her being my neighbour either.
 
BaronSmoggie said:
No of course not, but that shouldn't preclude her being given a fair chance to live a normal life. I would have zero concerns about her being my neighbour either.
Click to expand...
If you say “of course not”then I go back to my question where does she go because if not next to you it has to be next to someone?
 
FatCat said:
If you say “of course not”then I go back to my question where does she go because if not next to you it has to be next to someone?
Click to expand...
By of course not, I mean I wouldn't like the press camped out, but I wouldn't stop her being my neighbour because of that.
 
CTC - I tell you where my compassion is. With the relatives and loved onesof the 450 odd service personnel who lost their lives. With the relatives and loved ones seeing the execution on video. That’s where my compassion is - not wasted on a woman who to the best of my knowledge has not renounced the evil terrorist organisation.

And I am more than comfortable with this stance
 
Londons_Moggie said:
In the age of the internet knowing what she looks like is not that relevant. You can orchestrate a terror attack and detonate a bomb from your iPhone.

I can see both sides of the argument. It's every emotive subject and way too complex for me to take a clear side either way
Click to expand...

GCHQ are not the boobs you paint them as. They're actually v good at their jobs!
 
BaronSmoggie said:
By of course not, I mean I wouldn't like the press camped out, but I wouldn't stop her being my neighbour because of that.
Click to expand...
Really - like I say I’m split on this case but I certainly wouldn’t want her next door to me. Ideals are one thing but the reality would be a nightmare.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
You have to agree that this is of a different order though, right? She is quite literally one if the famous terrorists in the world.

And do we worry about other criminals like this? Is recidivism that much of a worry for say - Jeffrey Archer or Chef Evans?
Click to expand...
One of the workds most famous terrorists? What acts of terror has she carried out?
Worth remembering her grooming would have started long before she left the UK, so maybe when she was 13-14?
 
What you do with unsavoury citizens isn't really the point here though its it. You don't personalise a legal process for obvious reasons.
 
Primus84 said:
That in order for someone to be happy with her living next to them they also have to accept huge press intrusion into their life.
Click to expand...
How is that false that’s exactly what would happen, it would be 24/7 you would have people knocking on your door asking for info asking to use your garden and so on. That’s the reality of it - I don’t see anything false in that.
 
FatCat said:
How is that false that’s exactly what would happen, it would be 24/7 you would have people knocking on your door asking for info asking to use your garden and so on. That’s the reality of it - I don’t see anything false in that.
Click to expand...
It's a false narrative, to say that someone should be deprived of their citizenship because for them to come home we need to find people happy to have them live next to them and be subject to press intrusion.

Do you have any empathy for people at all FatCat? Do you not see the potential for her to have been a victim of coercion, grooming and radicalisation?
 
Londons_Moggie said:
They could have overturned the decision and let her back in, so ultimately it's the Supreme Courts ruling.
Click to expand...
That's not quite what I was saying though its difficult on a message board. The ruling was not on citizenship it was whether she had to be in the country to help in her case, not whether she should be allowed to keep her citizenship. The court found her being out of the country didn't impede her defense. Not quite the same as upholding the decision to not allow her to return due to revoked citizenship. Its subtle but important.
 
Laughing said:
That's not quite what I was saying though its difficult on a message board. The ruling was not on citizenship it was whether she had to be in the country to help in her case, not whether she should be allowed to keep her citizenship. The court found her being out of the country didn't impede her defense. Not quite the same as upholding the decision to not allow her to return due to revoked citizenship. Its subtle but important.
Click to expand...
It is, to be fair I'm not sure what the Supremes must have been smoking to come to this ruling mind.
 
Primus84 said:
It is, to be fair I'm not sure what the Supremes must have been smoking to come to this ruling mind.
Click to expand...
Whilst it's all we have, and I may be wrong, but I imagine the supreme Court is filled with old white men a bit out of touch with the real world. Bear will be along in a minute with the average age of supreme justices being 23 or some such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top