We don't jail without trial and full consideration of all of the evidence.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Shamima Begum
- Thread starter SuperstarNeilC
- Start date
You listen to what you are saying. You are arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong in law. Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds?
I am not arguing anything. I am explaining that the reason why it was lawful to remove her UK citizenship. The 1981 Act says you can't remove someone's UK citizenship if that would make them stateless. Because she had the ability at the time to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, that was sufficient for the purposes of the 1981 Act.
That is not my opinion about what the law should be, that is what the Supreme Court said the law was.
Do you understand that you are not arguing with me, you are telling me that some of the most experienced judges in the country got the law wrong?
The Supreme Court did not decide whether she was made stateless or not.
So no, I’m not arguing against them.
Presumably you have confused the Supreme Court with the preliminary ruling of the SIAC which even as it was ruling against her, accepted that she was unable to effectively argue the appeal due to the circumstances she was in.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,832
The Supreme Court did not decide whether she was made stateless or not.
So no, I’m not arguing against them.
Presumably you have confused the Supreme Court with the preliminary ruling of the SIAC which even as it was ruling against her, accepted that she was unable to effectively argue the appeal due to the circumstances she was in.
Was it not the SC that confirmed the first instance decision that the capacity to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship brought the decision within the scope of the 1981 Act?
Which other judge was it that you are saying got the law wrong?
Because that's the nub of your argument, isn't it?
Was it not the SC that confirmed the first instance decision that the capacity to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship brought the decision within the scope of the 1981 Act?
Which other judge was it that you are saying got the law wrong?
Because that's the nub of your argument, isn't it?
It was a preliminary hearing of the SIAC, that sided with the government expert’s interpretation of the 1951 Bangladeshi citizenship act over Begum’s legal team.
However as I said before, even in the decision where they made this ruling, they accepted that the whole appeal was not fair or effective.
So she lost but the SIAC themselves accepted it wasn’t a fair process.
Nothing in this case is straightforward, none of the key arguments are black and white - if it was it would be over a long time ago.
Edit - but if we’re talking about arrogance of overruling legal minds - it’s worth pointing out that the Bangladeshi government has publicly said that the British governments interpretation of Bangladeshi law is wrong.
And it’s hard to think of things more arrogant than telling a country it’s own interpretation of its own law is wrong and we know better!
Last edited:
So she would be tried under Section 11, for being a member of a terrorist organisation. Then, as part of the evidence, we would consider that she was a schoolgirl at the time of making the decision to travel to Syria. Her future support of terrorist acts could then easily be argued against, just like it was in the case of Rhiann Rudd, outlined earlier. Under the rule of law, it is clear that this is not an open-and-shut case. The politicisation of it has turned it into such, for many, but the current political climate is not a basis for justice: we are too divided, too intransigent and too gullible for proper consideration of the 'offence'. The place for such consideration is the courtroom, not the Commons or the Bluemoon court.
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
The Supreme Court pfffffftYou listen to what you are saying. You are arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong in law. Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds?
I am not arguing anything. I am explaining the reason why it was lawful to remove her UK citizenship. The 1981 Act says you can't remove someone's UK citizenship if that would make them stateless. Because she had the ability at the time to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, that was sufficient for the purposes of the 1981 Act.
That is not my opinion about what the law should be, that is what the Supreme Court said the law was.
Do you understand that you are not arguing with me, you are telling me that some of the most experienced judges in the country got the law wrong?
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
You listen to what you are saying. You are arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong in law. Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds?
I am not arguing anything. I am explaining the reason why it was lawful to remove her UK citizenship. The 1981 Act says you can't remove someone's UK citizenship if that would make them stateless. Because she had the ability at the time to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, that was sufficient for the purposes of the 1981 Act.
That is not my opinion about what the law should be, that is what the Supreme Court said the law was.
Do you understand that you are not arguing with me, you are telling me that some of the most experienced judges in the country got the law wrong?
Has the supreme court never got the law wrong?
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,832
Has the supreme court never got the law wrong?
Yes
But the only people who are qualified to say the Supreme Court got it wrong is the Supreme Court
Kinkybyname
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 4,150
- Team supported
- Manchester City
are you sure, there'a few on here who would give it a good goYes
But the only people who are qualified to say the Supreme Court got it wrong is the Supreme Court
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
Therefore no one would be qualified to apply for a vacancy in the supreme court without already sitting as a judge in the supreme court.Yes
But the only people who are qualified to say the Supreme Court got it wrong is the Supreme Court
I worry that people are reacting on emotions without considering the legal ramifications of this case. I don't have one shred of sympathy for her no one will convince me that she didn't know what she was doing and getting involved with but I do believe she should be brought back and face trial here. Even if you believe she deserves this decision what about the next person it happens too who may be innocent. I admit I don't understand the legal in's and outs of this case but to deny someone a fair trial is not right to me and the minute politicians sticky fingers are involved then that is scary.
G
G
ganganvince
Guest
Surely her fiest trial should be in Syria that's were her most serious crimes are alleged to have been committed and were she currently is.I worry that people are reacting on emotions without considering the legal ramifications of this case. I don't have one shred of sympathy for her no one will convince me that she didn't know what she was doing and getting involved with but I do believe she should be brought back and face trial here. Even if you believe she deserves this decision what about the next person it happens too who may be innocent. I admit I don't understand the legal in's and outs of this case but to deny someone a fair trial is not right to me and the minute politicians sticky fingers are involved then that is scary.
Rascal
El Presidente
Even cunts of the highest order deserve due process.She should be brought back here and jailed for her participation in supporting a Terrorist group and for her shocking comments about the Arena attack, to put it bluntly, she’s a **** of the highest order.
And I have to add, as shocking as her comments were, I do not want people jailed for making comments. That really would be an authoritarian step in the wrong direction and my biggest concern with this Government is uses this case to push for more authoritarian measures in order to appease the crackpots who read the Mail
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 33,237
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I worry that people are reacting on emotions without considering the legal ramifications of this case. I don't have one shred of sympathy for her no one will convince me that she didn't know what she was doing and getting involved with but I do believe she should be brought back and face trial here. Even if you believe she deserves this decision what about the next person it happens too who may be innocent. I admit I don't understand the legal in's and outs of this case but to deny someone a fair trial is not right to me and the minute politicians sticky fingers are involved then that is scary.
Somebody on here wanted us to pay her money for the rest of her life for the inconvenience we have caused her, that's where some of the warped allegiances lie.
We didn't make the decision the government and the supreme court did. What most people are saying is that they wont lose sleep over her, that obviously offends some people.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,832
Well we’re fucked when they all die thenTherefore no one would be qualified to apply for a vacancy in the supreme court without already sitting as a judge in the supreme court.
I would agree with the people who wouldn't lose sleep over her but I do worry about the bigger picture and the next person who the government decides to not give a fair trial it could be a dangerous slippery slope. We give the lowest of the low a fair trial in the UK to break that rule is worrying to me.Somebody on here wanted us to pay her money for the rest of her life for the inconvenience we have caused her, that's where some of the warped allegiances lie.
We didn't make the decision the government and the supreme court did. What most people are saying is that they wont lose sleep over her, that obviously offends some people.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 33,237
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I would agree with the people who wouldn't lose sleep over her but I do worry about the bigger picture and the next person who the government decides to not give a fair trial it could be a dangerous slippery slope. We give the lowest of the low a fair trial in the UK to break that rule is worrying to me.
She isn't the first to be "Excommunicated" though is she mate? She should be tried in the country where she committed the crimes and we should try our best to facilitate for that to happen.
If she gets away from the hangman there then we should put her on trial here for crimes committed here.
I admit I am only going off the media etc which isn't always a good idea granted but the general agreement between countries seems to be that they take these people back and try them which I agree with.Surely her fiest trial should be in Syria that's were her most serious crimes are alleged to have been committed and were she currently is.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,667
She isn't the first to be "Excommunicated" though is she mate? She should be tried in the country where she committed the crimes and we should try our best to facilitate for that to happen.
If she gets away from the hangman there then we should put her on trial here for crimes committed here.
If we really think we should be trying our best to make sure she’s tried in Syria, that’s essentially saying we want to be less like every other western country and more like Bahrain.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 33,237
- Team supported
- Manchester City
If we really think we should be trying our best to make sure she’s tried in Syria, that’s essentially saying we want to be less like every other western country and more like Bahrain.
She committed the crimes there not here, there shouldn't be a problem with her being punished there. Oh BTW, we are nothing like Bahrain.