Shamima Begum

[Manc in London]

Not sure why anyone would want to come back here ;)

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

The only way I’d let this twat back into the country would be in the back of an unmarked MI6 extradition plane where she was being transported to some remote black site never to see the light of day again like the other terrorist cunts.

You seem to be fine example of someone with British values.

No sense of English irony...

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Mate of mine reckons she's made for Only Fans. Whatever that is.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Well you've obviously been led astray, if you think this foolish idiot is public enemy number one or evil personified.

The fact that bigger threats wonder around unstopped is testament to the fact it was a politically motivated decision to stir up populists who delegate their thinking to others. It can't be true that this Begum is a greater threat to national security than the other Begum.

Next you'll be saying that the people you disagree with think she should be given a four bed council house and massive telly.

Bigger threats wandering around unstopped you say?
Bigger than this juvenile, dim- witted unsophisticated idiot?
I mean, it’s not as if say, someone reached the heights of government seniority like …perhaps….oh…..foreign secretary for example, and deliberately lost his security guards and jetted off to attend a drunken party (possibly orgy- who knows) hosted by ….i don’t know....maybe a KGB officer and close friend of the leader of a hostile state with whom we are currently fighting a proxy war, and was spotted next day, unable to remember to whom he had spoken and about what topics, at the airport looking like a bag of old washing and returning to be promoted to PM ( I know - this is getting silly and a bit far-fetched) and then promoting the son of said KGB agent into the House Of Lords, where he can make decisions on our country’s governance, not to mention him being awash with money from said hostile state.
I‘ve deliberately exaggerated this scenario to make a point about national security because we all know you couldn’t make this up and nothing as ludicrous as this could ever really happen, as we are so vigilant of risks.

 

[chesterbells]

Mate of mine reckons she's made for Only Fans. Whatever that is.

What else does your mate say?

 

[BerkshireBlue]

She hasn’t got Bangali (whatever that is) or Bangladeshi citizenship unless you disbelieve the Bangladeshi government.

Why do you think you’re better informed on who has Bangladeshi citizenship than the government and courts of Bangladesh?

you two need to go and check the law. Anyone born under jus sanguinis automatically has citizenship to that country.
This is why the UK could remove her dual citizenship without any legal ramifications. Judges are happy with it which tells you everything all you need to know. The fact is Bangladesh weren't quick enough to remove her citizenship and now they're moaning about it. Tough shit if you ask me

 

[1961_vintage]

Mate of mine reckons she's made for Only Fans. Whatever that is.

City Square.

 

[lloydie]

Apologies if inappropriate or wrong thread...

 

[Metal Biker]

Mate of mine reckons she's made for Only Fans. Whatever that is.

It's like Skillshare

 

[meltonblue]

you two need to go and check the law. Anyone born under jus sanguinis automatically has citizenship to that country.
This is why the UK could remove her dual citizenship without any legal ramifications. Judges are happy with it which tells you everything all you need to know. The fact is Bangladesh weren't quick enough to remove her citizenship and now they're moaning about it. Tough shit if you ask me

They’re not moaning about it, they’ve said all along she wasn’t a citizen and she’s never wanted to go there, it’s never been or going to be a realistic option - the judges found that too.

Why aren’t you thinking it should be tough shit on us? It’s an absurdly arrogant position to think tough shit on Bangladesh and horrendous in terms of international relations.

 

[hilts]

Well you've obviously been led astray, if you think this foolish idiot is public enemy number one or evil personified.

The fact that bigger threats wonder around unstopped is testament to the fact it was a politically motivated decision to stir up populists who delegate their thinking to others. It can't be true that this Begum is a greater threat to national security than the other Begum.

Next you'll be saying that the people you disagree with think she should be given a four bed council house and massive telly.

Never said or thought she is public enemy number one so didn't bother with the rest. Can't be arsed with made up fairy tales tbh.

 

[hilts]

It’s not about letting her in to me, it’s more why should we leave someone else to deal with it? Not only was she born here, she was radicalised here and travelled to Syria from here. Given all countries are repatriating people from Syria, where do you think she should end up? Bangladesh?

Who radicalised her ? I don't care where she ends up.

 

[meltonblue]

Who radicalised her ? I don't care where she ends up.

People based in the UK. You might not care where she ends up, I get that, but she has to end up somewhere and everyone internationally agreed to not leave them in Syria but to repatriate them and then hold them to justice in the countries they were citizens of. By saying she’s not a British citizen, we reliquinshed our duty in that so either we’re happy she remains in Syria or put the onus on Bangladesh, despite her not being born there or even visiting there.

I don’t overly care about Begum individually. I do about our inability to fulfil our international obligations though and us saying we won’t allow her back due to her being a security threat is more damning on us than it is on her, it’s basically our Home Secretary saying he doesn’t trust our own judicial system or security services and also not giving a toss about our international obligations.

 

[mexico1970]

People based in the UK. You might not care where she ends up, I get that, but she has to end up somewhere and everyone internationally agreed to not leave them in Syria but to repatriate them and then hold them to justice in the countries they were citizens of. By saying she’s not a British citizen, we reliquinshed our duty in that so either we’re happy she remains in Syria or put the onus on Bangladesh, despite her not being born there or even visiting there.

I don’t overly care about Begum individually. I do about our inability to fulfil our international obligations though and us saying we won’t allow her back due to her being a security threat is more damning on us than it is on her, it’s basically our Home Secretary saying he doesn’t trust our own judicial system or security services and also not giving a toss about our international obligations.

We should be leaving that decision with our judges though shouldn't we? Not all laws or the interpretation of them are moral.

 

[meltonblue]

We should be leaving that decision with our judges though shouldn't we? Not all laws or the interpretation of them are moral.

Ideally yes but we can’t, we don’t have joint jurisdiction, that’s why the judges have (rightly in my view) agreed that the decision was up to the Secretary of State. What I don’t agree with is the decision that he made, it would have been not even considered even a decade ago, it wasn’t for the majority at the same time as Begum or even after.

I get people thinking she deserves retribution for her actions, I agree with it to an extent although I’d like to see it properly judged in a court of law. We should be the country to do that though. By not repratriating her, all we’re doing is washing our hands of it and putting it on someone else. We’re better than that and personally I think our security services should be able to cope with any threat she could pose by repatriating her. If it can’t, then it’s a damning indictment on them.

If you really want to trust our judges or our judicial system to hold her to account (which I do too) then the right answer to that is to treat her as a British citizen, which is what I believe we should have done all along.

 

[mexico1970]

Ideally yes but we can’t, we don’t have joint jurisdiction, that’s why the judges have (rightly in my view) agreed that the decision was up to the Secretary of State. What I don’t agree with is the decision that he made, it would have been not even considered even a decade ago, it wasn’t for the majority at the same time as Begum or even after.

I get people thinking she deserves retribution for her actions, I agree with it to an extent although I’d like to see it properly judged in a court of law. We should be the country to do that though. By not repratriating her, all we’re doing is washing our hands of it and putting it on someone else. We’re better than that and personally I think our security services should be able to cope with any threat she could pose by repatriating her. If it can’t, then it’s a damning indictment on them.

If you really want to trust our judges or our judicial system to hold her to account (which I do too) then the right answer to that is to treat her as a British citizen, which is what I believe we should have done all along.

That's your opinion and I respect that mate, but it's just one opinion of many. If judges have agreed that Javid acted lawfully and they did unanimously then we are left with only a moral argument.

And morals are a difficult metric to judge, I say leave her over there and you think differently.

So we remove morals and leave it to the law, not the law that people want but the law that we have, exercised by 3 judges sat on a panel hearing the case for and against.

 

[meltonblue]

That's your opinion and I respect that mate, but it's just one opinion of many. If judges have agreed that Javid acted lawfully and they did unanimously then we are left with only a moral argument.

And morals are a difficult metric to judge, I say leave her over there and you think differently.

So we remove morals and leave it to the law, not the law that people want but the law that we have, exercised by 3 judges sat on a panel hearing the case for and against.

I get it mate, we’re only left with a moral argument due to the decision Javid made though, which is why I disagree with it. I’d also caveat it with we’re left with a moral argument on different levels - one with how we treat her has an individual, one with how much we care about the situation in Syria and one with how we deal with both individuals and their citizenship with either ourselves and other countries. Javid’s decision to me was only based on the first one of those, and even that I’d strongly disagree with. I get some don’t but even if they didn’t I’m not sure their position on the others can make
it justified holistically. I’d be very worried if it did.

All the law has said so far is he was entitled to make a decision based on his own answer and opinion on those questions. That’s completely fine, I agree with the judges on that.

What I want is to see her tried in our courts
and by our laws, which would be the morally right thing to do on all of those counts I said, and also what I think you want too judging by your last paragraph. The only way we can do that is by repatriating her.

I mean, even Peter Hitchens gets it and I’d never thought I’d agree with him!

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

What else does your mate say?

Not a great deal. Stays in his room, most days.

 

[KS55]

I get it mate, we’re only left with a moral argument due to the decision Javid made though, which is why I disagree with it. I’d also caveat it with we’re left with a moral argument on different levels - one with how we treat her has an individual, one with how much we care about the situation in Syria and one with how we deal with both individuals and their citizenship with either ourselves and other countries. Javid’s decision to me was only based on the first one of those, and even that I’d strongly disagree with. I get some don’t but even if they didn’t I’m not sure their position on the others can make
it justified holistically. I’d be very worried if it did.

All the law has said so far is he was entitled to make a decision based on his own answer and opinion on those questions. That’s completely fine, I agree with the judges on that.

What I want is to see her tried in our courts
and by our laws, which would be the morally right thing to do on all of those counts I said, and also what I think you want too judging by your last paragraph. The only way we can do that is by repatriating her.

I mean, even Peter Hitchens gets it and I’d never thought I’d agree with him!

I agree that unless she is given a fair trial here, we are not obeying the imperatives of the rule of law.
I have an uncomfortable feeling that her treatment is driven by the political desire “pour encourager les autres.”

 

[hilts]

People based in the UK. You might not care where she ends up, I get that, but she has to end up somewhere and everyone internationally agreed to not leave them in Syria but to repatriate them and then hold them to justice in the countries they were citizens of. By saying she’s not a British citizen, we reliquinshed our duty in that so either we’re happy she remains in Syria or put the onus on Bangladesh, despite her not being born there or even visiting there.

I don’t overly care about Begum individually. I do about our inability to fulfil our international obligations though and us saying we won’t allow her back due to her being a security threat is more damning on us than it is on her, it’s basically our Home Secretary saying he doesn’t trust our own judicial system or security services and also not giving a toss about our international obligations.

We are following the system though, like I said I think she may well end up here. But you can't have it both ways and say we must follow the legalities until you disagree with someone in that process.

BTW every country play fast and loose with international obligations and my main disagreement is those that bleat she was some dopey kid and was somehow conned into being an evil little shit.
We can argue forever and a day but if she were never to return I wouldn't lose a wink.

There are far more deserving people we should be concerned about rather than this turd that we can't flush.