Shamima Begum

[The blue phantom]

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.

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.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

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.

 

[hilts]

You’re a very sad person

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.

 

[hilts]

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.

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]

Unfortunately mate that post while containing some things I would agree on is just a ideological cliche without much merit, especially the last parapgraph.

It’s been an overarching principle of the English legal system for over a century, if that’s your idea of a cliché.

 

[Ban-jani]

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.

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.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

What are basing her lack of remorse upon?

 

[Ban-jani]

What are basing her lack of remorse upon?

My eyes and ears, her words and the fact she specifically said “no” to being asked if she regretted it.

 

[hilts]

It’s a principle that’s underscored the English legal system for over a century, if that’s your idea of a cliché.

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.

 

[hilts]

My eyes and ears, her words and the fact she specifically said “no” to being asked if she regretted it.

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:-)