Shamima Begum

gordondaviesmoustache said:
Apparent lack of remorse in a TV interview, from a girl who is still relatively young, who was groomed and manipulated when she was 15, being the determining factor as to whether she comes back into the UK is about as Kangaroo Court as it gets.

The court of TV is a poor reflection on the age we live.
Click to expand...

Glad someone else gets it, Pointing out her age of 15 and being radicalised and groomed is totally irrelevant to the majority of folk , unbelievable.
 
Ban-jani said:
Not at all what I’m saying.

If her appeal stands up and the courts rule she can regain her citizenship then that’s fine.

I’m talking from a moral point of view about my personal feelings about her being there, and I couldn’t care less if she dies over there. The legal aspects of her being a dual national is contentious and this is now a game of who can win the legal process.

This constant reference to her being 15 is tedious. Do you do the same when there’s a 19 year old rapist? “Oh well he used to be 15”.

She was 18 and strapping people up with suicide vests and present, on the side of the executions, when innocent people were being brutally murdered.
Click to expand...
Since it became more civilised in the late 19th century, the law in this country has always recognised that young people can make mistakes, sometimes grave ones, and has punished less severely as a consequence. Look at the Derek Bentley case in the 1950’s as an example.

There are three principal public policy reasons for this: Firstly, it is recognised that people in their teens are less responsible for their actions than those in their their 20’s and beyond. Their minds, whilst understanding right from wrong, are less capable of appreciating the consequences of their actions. Secondly, it is also recognised that people of that age are more capable of change than older, more recidivistic individuals whose antisocial behaviour and habits are more ingrained. Thirdly, it is further recognised that a greater degree of understanding towards someone who is legally a child than an adult is a hallmark of a civilised society.

Some child criminals go on to become serious adult offenders, but others can change and contribute enormously to society, even some who were inveterate and serious offenders as children. A society that refuses to provide someone that young with the meaningful opportunity to learn from their mistakes, and try and atone for them, is not worthy of being called civilised in my view.

That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished, but any punishment should be less severe than for an adult, and the circumstances that gave rise to the offending should be more readily taken into account than an older person who should be held more accountable for their actions, without being afforded the opportunity to point the finger elsewhere.

Some people may see this as being soft, but that is either because they lack the mental acuity to appreciate the point I am advancing, or that if they do, they suffer from any discernible sign of humanity or compassion.
 
journolud said:
You’re a very sad person
Click to expand...

That is very harsh considering you don’t know my circumstances in full, maybe you should be trying to rehabilitate and understand me rather than hurt me. In a civilised society insults and retribution are no longer considered a correct way to deal with people.

I forgive you though. Hopefully you can grow from this interaction and refrain from insults in the future.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Since it became more civilised in the late 19th century, the law in this country has always recognised that young people can make mistakes, sometimes grave ones, and has punished less severely as a consequence. Look at the Derek Bentley case in the 1950’s as an example.

There are three principal public policy reasons for this: Firstly, it is recognised that people in their teens are less responsible for their actions than those in their their 20’s and beyond. Their minds, whilst understanding right from wrong, are less capable of appreciating the consequences of their actions. Secondly, it is also recognised that people of that age are more capable of change than older, more recidivistic individuals whose antisocial behaviour and habits are more ingrained. Thirdly, it is further recognised that a greater degree of understanding towards someone who is legally a child than an adult is a hallmark of a civilised society.

Some child criminals go on to become serious adult offenders, but others can change and contribute enormously to society, even some who were inveterate and serious offenders as children. A society that refuses to provide someone that young with the meaningful opportunity to learn from their mistakes, and try and atone for them, is not worthy of being called civilised in my view.

That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished, but any punishment should be less severe than for an adult, and the circumstances that gave rise to the offending should be more readily taken into account than an older person who should be held more accountable for their actions, without being afforded the opportunity to point the finger elsewhere.

Some people may see this as being soft, but that is either because they lack the mental acuity to appreciate the point I am advancing, or that if they do, they suffer from any discernible sign of humanity or compassion.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately mate that post while containing some things I would agree on is just a ideological cliche without much merit, especially the last parapgraph.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Since it became more civilised in the late 19th century, the law in this country has always recognised that young people can make mistakes, sometimes grave ones, and has punished less severely as a consequence. Look at the Derek Bentley case in the 1950’s as an example.

There are three principal public policy reasons for this: Firstly, it is recognised that people in their teens are less responsible for their actions than those in their their 20’s and beyond. Their minds, whilst understanding right from wrong, are less capable of appreciating the consequences of their actions. Secondly, it is also recognised that people of that age are more capable of change than older, more recidivistic individuals whose antisocial behaviour and habits are more ingrained. Thirdly, it is further recognised that a greater degree of understanding towards someone who is legally a child than an adult is a hallmark of a civilised society.

Some child criminals go on to become serious adult offenders, but others can change and contribute enormously to society, even some who were inveterate and serious offenders as children. A society that refuses to provide someone that young with the meaningful opportunity to learn from their mistakes, and try and atone for them, is not worthy of being called civilised in my view.

That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished, but any punishment should be less severe than for an adult, and the circumstances that gave rise to the offending should be more readily taken into account than an older person who should be held more accountable for their actions, without being afforded the opportunity to point the finger elsewhere.

Some people may see this as being soft, but that is either because they lack the mental acuity to appreciate the point I am advancing, or that if they do, they suffer from any discernible sign of humanity or compassion.
Click to expand...

And that is all very well and good and I agree with it to some extent but we’re not talking about a shop lifter or football hooligan here.

As I’ve said, had she gone at 15, realised the error of her ways as she became an adult and shown remorse, I’d support bringing her back and helping her. The fact is she was assisting in suicide bombings at 18, she was there when innocent people were executed and her only regrets are that her husband and children died, well that and ISIS losing Raqqa.

Ask yourself this, what would you feel for a Nazi youth, who went to work in a concentration camp in their early adult years and showed no remorse afterwards? My guess is everyone on this forum wouldn’t care less if the allies shot him.

That’s my view here. She’s old enough to know right from wrong and I’d be more forgiving if her crime wasn’t joining the bloody caliphate.
 
Ban-jani said:
And that is all very well and good and I agree with it to some extent but we’re not talking about a shop lifter or football hooligan here.

As I’ve said, had she gone at 15, realised the error of her ways as she became an adult and shown remorse, I’d support bringing her back and helping her. The fact is she was assisting in suicide bombings at 18, she was there when innocent people were executed and her only regrets are that her husband and children died, well that and ISIS losing Raqqa.

Ask yourself this, what would you feel for a Nazi youth, who went to work in a concentration camp in their early adult years and showed no remorse afterwards? My guess is everyone on this forum wouldn’t care less if the allies shot him.

That’s my view here. She’s old enough to know right from wrong and I’d be more forgiving if her crime wasn’t joining the bloody caliphate.
Click to expand...
What are basing her lack of remorse upon?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s a principle that’s underscored the English legal system for over a century, if that’s your idea of a cliché.
Click to expand...

The legal system? So any person wanting a stronger punishment than this so called society(I would like someone to define society to me) must suffer from a lack of compassion? I don’t believe in the death penalty strangely enough but for a long time in this country the majority were in favour. By your argument millions of people must be incapable of compassion or humanity.

There are 2 main problems with both our way of seeing things. Yours would be that even though you know that innocent people will suffer the most dire consequences of this civilised society you accept this. In this respect you are showing less humanity than me. Possible future victims are your collateral damage and a price worth paying.
 
Ban-jani said:
My eyes and ears, her words and the fact she specifically said “no” to being asked if she regretted it.
Click to expand...

You can’t base anything on an interview with someone’s own words mate. You must know by now people always lie on camera for no reason whatsoever but as soon as they get in a court room the George Washington gene kicks in. No one ever lies in court to save their own bacon, never happened:-)
 
hilts said:
The legal system? So any person wanting a stronger punishment than this so called society(I would like someone to define society to me) must suffer from a lack of compassion? I don’t believe in the death penalty strangely enough but for a long time in this country the majority were in favour. By your argument millions of people must be incapable of compassion or humanity.

There are 2 main problems with both our way of seeing things. Yours would be that even though you know that innocent people will suffer the most dire consequences of this civilised society you accept this. In this respect you are showing less humanity than me. Possible future victims are your collateral damage and a price worth paying.
Click to expand...

People and society evolves. Our attitudes towards a great many things have become less punitive, although our justice system is still partly stuck in the dark ages. Countries where the emphasis is on non custodial sentences and rehabilitation have lower crime rates. People sometimes resent this because they want offenders to ‘suffer’ even if this leads to higher crime rates. The wish for revenge or inflict suffering on those that bring suffering is a natural instinct but it is counter productive.

People on here refuse to show Begum compassion or empathy in part because she shows no compassion or empathy. How much this is due to her shutting down psychologically or a feature of her natural personality or whatever I have no idea but most people in horrorfic situations tend to cauterise themselves emotionally in order to survive.
 
hilts said:
That is very harsh considering you don’t know my circumstances in full, maybe you should be trying to rehabilitate and understand me rather than hurt me. In a civilised society insults and retribution are no longer considered a correct way to deal with people.

I forgive you though. Hopefully you can grow from this interaction and refrain from insults in the future.
Click to expand...

You're right of course, I shouldn't have rushed to judgement based on such little evidence, I have should have tried to consider the context of such a shitty post. I was guilty of black and white thinking and if I'd given it a little more thought I would have reflected on some of your posts in the Greta Thurnberg thread for example which would tell me that you're not all bad.

I'm glad to hear you are open to the idea of being rehabilitated. I'll amend my view to say that while I think some of your posts on here demean you I think that with the right care and attention you might be able to become a more rounded human being.
 
BobKowalski said:
People and society evolves. Our attitudes towards a great many things have become less punitive, although our justice system is still partly stuck in the dark ages. Countries where the emphasis is on non custodial sentences and rehabilitation have lower crime rates. People sometimes resent this because they want offenders to ‘suffer’ even if this leads to higher crime rates. The wish for revenge or inflict suffering on those that bring suffering is a natural instinct but it is counter productive.

People on here refuse to show Begum compassion or empathy in part because she shows no compassion or empathy. How much this is due to her shutting down psychologically or a feature of her natural personality or whatever I have no idea but most people in horrorfic situations tend to cauterise themselves emotionally in order to survive.
Click to expand...

Like I said you would have to define society to me otherwise it’s a cliche trotted out by soft saps who don’t have to live with the consequences of their views.
 
Ban-jani said:
What do you think is a fair sentence then and when should she be up for parole?

Sometimes something requires clear thinking and leaving caliphate members to die in the ditch where they are is one of them.
Click to expand...

Not for me to recommend an appropriate sentence and when she should be up for parole. I think that would be the job of the legal system who might be privy to more information than can be gleaned from a sky tv interview.

Sometimes something requires objective thinking. Your knee jerking isn't an example of it.
 
journolud said:
You're right of course, I shouldn't have rushed to judgement based on such little evidence, I have should have tried to consider the context of such a shitty post. I was guilty of black and white thinking and if I'd given it a little more thought I would have reflected on some of your posts in the Greta Thurnberg thread for example which would tell me that you're not all bad.

I'm glad to hear you are open to the idea of being rehabilitated. I'll amend my view to say that while I think some of your posts on here demean you I think that with the right care and attention you might be able to become a more rounded human being.
Click to expand...

I’m walking an inch taller already fella, bounding down the street head held high whispering to myself don’t kick her out don’t kick her out :-)
 
hilts said:
Like I said you would have to define society to me otherwise it’s a cliche trotted out by soft saps who don’t have to live with the consequences of their views.
Click to expand...

I don’t have to define anything. I’m just pointing out empirical evidence that people reject because they don’t want other people to think they are ‘soft saps’.
 
journolud said:
Not for me to recommend an appropriate sentence and when she should be up for parole. I think that would be the job of the legal system who might be privy to more information than can be gleaned from a sky tv interview.

Sometimes something requires objective thinking. Your knee jerking isn't an example of it.
Click to expand...

Believe me I was objective. I went into the footage expecting to see a 19 year old who was at least pretending to be sorry and regretful, I was actually on the side of bringing her back before I listened to what she said.

I’m not sure why you’re trivialising the fact it’s a Sky interview, it doesn’t matter if it’s Sky or not, this was her chance to have her say to the British public and authorities.

My whole position on this is allowing the legalities to take their natural course, as ever there’s wrestling from both sides and whatever the legal findings of her appeal decides, I shall support it as it’s the law. It’s quite clear there’s a case to argue about this dual nationality and it will be decided.

What I’m arguing is what she deserves and whether or not we should have sympathy and I’m sorry but for all I really care, she can die there today.
 
She went of her own free will, she went to support a terrorist state, she witnessed at the very least and did fuck all about it horrific crimes against humanity and at worst possibly participated, she was responsible for the untimely and extremely sad deaths of her children because she refused to take them out of the environment that resulted in their sad deaths and she refused when asked to say she had any regrets or remorse about what she had done.

Let her fucking rot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top