Shamima Begum

hilts said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think many are particularly concerned about the unflushable turd. More the fact that we are attempting to offload our responsibilities to a third country that has only a very tenuous connection to her. It might be technically legal in terms of UK law but it’s hardly a great example of conducting international relations.

Offshoring our responsibilities seems to be a theme with this government. At least with the Rwanda farce they’ve been consulted.
 
west didsblue said:
I don’t think many are particularly concerned about the unflushable turd. More the fact that we are attempting to offload our responsibilities to a third country that has only a very tenuous connection to her. It might be technically legal in terms of UK law but it’s hardly a great example of conducting international relations.

Offshoring our responsibilities seems to be a theme with this government. At least with the Rwanda farce they’ve been consulted.
Click to expand...

The Rwanda scheme is another debate but I agree its farcical.

I'm glad you agree it's going through a legal process which debunks plenty of posts we have seen so far from the highly gullible.

I'm also certain the international community aren't giving a single fuck. The one thing all sane people are aware of is countries will deal with any fucker if its in their interest.


China
Russia
Israel...........















Country not keen on terrorist sympathiser being in the country.




The only thing this will cost us is money. If she never returns we may have saved lives but we will never know.
 
hilts said:
The Rwanda scheme is another debate but I agree its farcical.

I'm glad you agree it's going through a legal process which debunks plenty of posts we have seen so far from the highly gullible.

I'm also certain the international community aren't giving a single fuck. The one thing all sane people are aware of is countries will deal with any fucker if its in their interest.


China
Russia
Israel...........















Country not keen on terrorist sympathiser being in the country.




The only thing this will cost us is money. If she never returns we may have saved lives but we will never know.
Click to expand...
It‘s a debate that comes down to accepting our responsibilities as a country and upholding our laws to our citizens versus people that just don’t want her back and are willing to ignore the methodology because they get their want.

I wonder if the same would happen if Grealish did something awful abroad and we Cleverley decided he was now Ireland’s problem.

It‘s not quite the same as he actually has dual citizenship, but still, I guess you can see the point.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
It‘s a debate that comes down to accepting our responsibilities as a country and upholding our laws to our citizens versus people that just don’t want her back and are willing to ignore the methodology because they get their want.

I wonder if the same would happen if Grealish did something awful abroad and we Cleverley decided he was now Ireland’s problem.

It‘s not quite the same as he actually has dual citizenship, but still, I guess you can see the point.
Click to expand...

Like I said it's been going through a legal process and will continue to do so.

Some seem to throw but it's the law into things when it suits their narrative. The legal process will take care of itself we have no control over it.

Like with politics we are not in control of the outcome we can only discuss what we would like to see happen.

Some see her as a victim, some don't.
 
What I can't quite get my head around is that 499 others did what she did (or worse) and are living here among us with few, if any, consequences. While I have no real sympathy for this stupid woman, I don't see what makes her worse than the rest.

Maybe the law needs to change so that British citizens who go abroad to take part in terrorism and support illegal regimes commit a definite offence just by going, and face heavy penalties.

Neither the Statute of Treason (1352) nor The Foreign Enlistment Act (1870) appear to be effective in these cases. However, to my mind, a clearer case of 'adhering to the King's enemies without the realm' can scarcely be imagined.
 
hilts said:
Like I said it's been going through a legal process and will continue to do so.

Some seem to throw but it's the law into things when it suits their narrative. The legal process will take care of itself we have no control over it.

Like with politics we are not in control of the outcome we can only discuss what we would like to see happen.

Some see her as a victim, some don't.
Click to expand...
The issue is the decision by the then Home Secretary, not the law so far.

It’s going through the process to see how much they can be held accountable as we’ve not had such people in office that flounce international law, so our legal system is having to learn how to deal with that.

The fact that people are happy to leave a citizen as de facto stateless to satisfy their want doesn’t sit right with me.

Saying that we can only say what we want to happen is false. We have a legal system that is there to try people who have broken the law, not leave them untried.

Due process doesn’t seem to be needed on social media these days. It’s just “bring back the noose” etc. Nuance is dead.

She isn’t a victim, she’s a criminal that needs bringing to justice.
 
hilts said:
Like I said it's been going through a legal process and will continue to do so.

Some seem to throw but it's the law into things when it suits their narrative. The legal process will take care of itself we have no control over it.

Like with politics we are not in control of the outcome we can only discuss what we would like to see happen.

Some see her as a victim, some don't.
Click to expand...

It can be both. As an underage teen she was a victim. This does not absolve her from any crimes she may have committed. We have washed our hands of her for expediency and because she was high profile. It has nothing to do with our safety because we have allowed others in similar circumstances to stay.

We took the easy route and the cowards route and created a precedent that will be misused in the future.
 
meltonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...
"She's never wanted to go there" irrelevant argument.

"they’ve said all along she wasn’t a citizen" They're own law states otherwise

Like I said go and research the law before making incorrect statements
 
The UK Government have banned an individual for being a terrorist before they have been convicted of being a terrorist. One of our guiding principles is that all people are ‘’innocent until proven guilty’’

See the problem yet?
 
hilts said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone is saying to have it both ways? Like I said, I’ve agreed with the legal position of the judges all the way through, where I disagree is with the decision of the Home Secretary.

I don’t care about her personally, I think too many people on both sides of the argument are too concerned about her individually.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
"She's never wanted to go there" irrelevant argument.

"they’ve said all along she wasn’t a citizen" They're own law states otherwise

Like I said go and research the law before making incorrect statements
Click to expand...

I did, that’s why I put what the judges found rather than my own statement…
 
BerkshireBlue said:
"She's never wanted to go there" irrelevant argument.

"they’ve said all along she wasn’t a citizen" They're own law states otherwise

Like I said go and research the law before making incorrect statements
Click to expand...

If the UK can strip her of citizenship then Bangladesh can also deny her citizenship.

If Bangladesh is legally bound to honour her citizenship and abide by that then what does that say about us? What value is your or my citizenship if it can be removed or denied by the whim of one individual?
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
The issue is the decision by the then Home Secretary, not the law so far.

It’s going through the process to see how much they can be held accountable as we’ve not had such people in office that flounce international law, so our legal system is having to learn how to deal with that.

The fact that people are happy to leave a citizen as de facto stateless to satisfy their want doesn’t sit right with me.

Saying that we can only say what we want to happen is false. We have a legal system that is there to try people who have broken the law, not leave them untried.

Due process doesn’t seem to be needed on social media these days. It’s just “bring back the noose” etc. Nuance is dead.

She isn’t a victim, she’s a criminal that needs bringing to justice.
Click to expand...

I meant you, me and others can only say what we want. We have no control of the outcome.

I know it doesn't sit right with you, I would be fine with it. It's a difference of opinion.

We have this opinion but ain't in charge. This is pretty much exactly what I wrote. Unless you're about to hold some government position my point cannot be argued against.
 
BobKowalski said:
It can be both. As an underage teen she was a victim. This does not absolve her from any crimes she may have committed. We have washed our hands of her for expediency and because she was high profile. It has nothing to do with our safety because we have allowed others in similar circumstances to stay.

We took the easy route and the cowards route and created a precedent that will be misused in the future.
Click to expand...

Opinion.

Having let others stay is not a valid enough reason. I would have been happy for them not to come back either.

Two wrongs don't make a right we just dont agree on what the wrong is.

The home secretary has made a decision, that is part of the process, as law lovers just let the process take its course.

I'm just happy some posters will forever argue for the law even in morally dubious cases. Thank god we don't have hypocrites on here:-)
 
hilts said:
Opinion.

Having let others stay is not a valid enough reason. I would have been happy for them not to come back either.

Two wrongs don't make a right we just dont agree on what the wrong is.

The home secretary has made a decision, that is part of the process, as law lovers just let the process take its course.

I'm just happy some posters will forever argue for the law even in morally dubious cases. Thank god we don't have hypocrites on here:-)
Click to expand...

Not sure I get your point here, are you saying anyone that believes in the law has to agree with every government decision?

I’ve not seen anyone argue the judges findings.
 
hilts said:
Opinion.

Having let others stay is not a valid enough reason. I would have been happy for them not to come back either.

Two wrongs don't make a right we just dont agree on what the wrong is.

The home secretary has made a decision, that is part of the process, as law lovers just let the process take its course.

I'm just happy some posters will forever argue for the law even in morally dubious cases. Thank god we don't have hypocrites on here:-)
Click to expand...

Yes. As is yours. As was the Home Secretary’s. In your opinion removing citizenship on an arbitrary and subjective basis is correct. I do not as the scope for misuse of that power is too great.

The courts will determine whether the HS had the legal right to make that decision; not whether the decision was the correct one to make. The first point is a matter of law as it stands. The second point is for the Government to ponder the wisdom of placing too much power over every citizens right to citizenship in the hands of one individual.
 
BobKowalski said:
If the UK can strip her of citizenship then Bangladesh can also deny her citizenship.

If Bangladesh is legally bound to honour her citizenship and abide by that then what does that say about us? What value is your or my citizenship if it can be removed or denied by the whim of one individual?
Click to expand...

wrong I'm afraid, you can't be left without a citizenship as that's illegal, UK stripped her at the time she had dual citizenship therefore still had a citizenship in a different country. That different country can't now strip it away I'm afraid.
 
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