The GMB interview was clear demonstration she isn't the big bad wolf she has been made out to be. Naive, uninformed and unintelligent, if she was anything else she wouldn't have agreed to go on there and been so ill prepared.
Samantha Laithwaite, she is not.
There are over 40,000 potential terrorists on the MI5 watchlist, and 3,000 or so under active investigation. The governments treatment of them is limited by the law, not by who made statements as a mouthy teen. If the government could remove any of them I’m sure they’d love to because the resources that go in to this are massive so I’m not sure what the point is you’re making there.There's a lots of words there that have already been answered previously but, as for confirmation, I believe the Gov are in the wrong. Why? Because they are well aware of, at least, SOME legitimately questionable citizens that plot atrocities on this land (as we often hear how certain people were "on their radar" before tragedy strikes) that remain 'citizens' because they've not used silly words as a mouthy teen.
But, let me just finish with, I didn't know there were bad Nazis that deserved death and good Nazis that deserved life.
Oh and the "parallel" would be that the Gov decides who is a political asset and who is not.
You learn something new every day on BM...
There are over 40,000 potential terrorists on the MI5 watchlist, and 3,000 or so under active investigation. The governments treatment of them is limited by the law, not by who made statements as a mouthy teen. If the government could remove any of them I’m sure they’d love to because the resources that go in to this are massive so I’m not sure what the point is you’re making there.
I feel like you’re misrepresenting what I’ve said. I’ve never said she was just a mouthy teen. There are numerous reports that she was actively involved with ISIS (that she was an armed member of the morality police, that she sew people into suicide vests), I doubt they could be proven in court, but that’s the basis on which I make my judgement of her.You've made the point for me.
You've gone from calling her "this woman" as if she's actively involved with Isis to agreeing that, by default, she WAS a mouthy teen making silly statements. Didn't make her fully knowledgeable on the consequences of her actions until she became the adult that has openly apologised and offered to face a court of law.
What kind of person, who could have relative 'freedom' on another land prefer to spend, hypothetically, a large portion of her life behind bars?
But, this has become circular, because you 'don't believe in forgiveness' (which is bollocks because you would forgive people you know if they apologised for errors or you'd have no friends or family around you) and you're, essentially, happy to charge a mouthy brat the label of "terrorist".
That very fact, in itself, should make anyone think less harshly on a stupid girl who has lost everything in friends and family.
What happens next is that she will apply formally for Bangladeshi citizenship, get rejected and then will go to the court of appeal here to prevent her becoming stateless.I feel like you’re misrepresenting what I’ve said. I’ve never said she was just a mouthy teen. There are numerous reports that she was actively involved with ISIS (that she was an armed member of the morality police, that she sew people into suicide vests), I doubt they could be proven in court, but that’s the basis on which I make my judgement of her.
She has already faced a court of law though, albeit from a distance. The court found the decision to remove her citizenship was lawful. What you are suggesting is that the government should actively give her citizenship, fly her back here, to then try her in the UK… just because she has said sorry and asked for it?
No, she has made her decisions and has to live with them.
You keep going on about forgiveness - I never said I don’t believe in forgiveness but it’s not my place to forgive this woman, she’s done nothing to me. I’d leave the question of forgiveness up to those who’ve suffered because of her actions.
She’s already had an appeal, which she won, it then went to the supreme court where she lost.What happens next is that she will apply formally for Bangladeshi citizenship, get rejected and then will go to the court of appeal here to prevent her becoming stateless.
Lots of lawyers make lots of money and she returns here.
Why was the verdict upheld at the Supreme Court?She’s already had an appeal, which she won, it then went to the supreme court where she lost.
As for Bangladesh - they’ve said they’ll execute her if she sets foot there. Not sure she could apply for citizenship from outside the country.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2020-0158.htmlWhy was the verdict upheld at the Supreme Court?
A quick scan of that shows no appeal against being stateless.
It’s in there: “…her application for judicial review of SIAC’s preliminary determination in her appeal against the deprivation decision is dismissed.”A quick scan of that shows no appeal against being stateless.
I’d need to see the reasoning as to why it was dismissed. There is n mention of statelessness, that I can see.It’s in there: “…her application for judicial review of SIAC’s preliminary determination in her appeal against the deprivation decision is dismissed.”
It's not about what she deserves, it's about Britains responsibility to the rest of the world.Does she deserve to be allowed back?
I feel like you’re misrepresenting what I’ve said. I’ve never said she was just a mouthy teen. There are numerous reports that she was actively involved with ISIS (that she was an armed member of the morality police, that she sew people into suicide vests), I doubt they could be proven in court, but that’s the basis on which I make my judgement of her.
She has already faced a court of law though, albeit from a distance. The court found the decision to remove her citizenship was lawful. What you are suggesting is that the government should actively give her citizenship, fly her back here, to then try her in the UK… just because she has said sorry and asked for it?
No, she has made her decisions and has to live with them.
You keep going on about forgiveness - I never said I don’t believe in forgiveness but it’s not my place to forgive this woman, she’s done nothing to me. I’d leave the question of forgiveness up to those who’ve suffered because of her actions.
Well, you didn’t think I’d actually been to Syria myself do you? Or spoken directly with her, and various eyewitnesses? Obviously I rely to an extent on the reporting of events to form a view. Again, you misrepresent what I said. I never said I was inclined to believe the reports, on the contrary I am inclined to think there’s a great deal of misreporting, misidentification and disinformation - including from her. None the less, there’s little else to go on, so I form my own views based on that.There's so much wrong with this reply.
You're inclined to believe "reports" that hold stories of what Begum was 'involved with' without actual evidence and yet are willing to dismiss her very own words of denial...??
Classy contribution to the discussionI reckon people would be a lot more sympathetic to her plight if she wasn't so ugly
Not known for my class mate, but I think it's a fair point..Classy contribution to the discussion
Well, you didn’t think I’d actually been to Syria myself do you? Or spoken directly with her, and various eyewitnesses? Obviously I rely to an extent on the reporting of events to form a view. Again, you misrepresent what I said. I never said I was inclined to believe the reports, on the contrary I am inclined to think there’s a great deal of misreporting, misidentification and disinformation - including from her. None the less, there’s little else to go on, so I form my own views based on that.
All her actions in Syria were when she was above the age of criminal responsibility. She is now 19, hence I called her a woman. What would you called her - a child, at 19 years of age? I don’t consider the term woman an insult or any form of castigation so I can only imagine we’re taking at cross purposes on that point.
I’m not sure why you’d expect me to provide any evidence. I’ve stated there probably isn’t any of a standard that could be put before a court. The government has the duty to make a judgement on the basis of national security, and the Supreme Court has agreed they’ve undertaken that correctly. That’s a thorough enough process for me, as a disinterested party, to be satisfied it’s best that she isn’t permitted to enter the UK.
I do agree it’s best if we bring this to a close now. You seem a lot more emotionally invested in this than me and I get the distinct impression you’re getting pissed off with it.
I never said I was inclined to believe the reports, on the contrary I am inclined to think there’s a great deal of misreporting, misidentification and disinformation - including from her. None the less, there’s little else to go on, so I form my own views based on that.
I’ve stated there probably isn’t any of a standard that could be put before a court. The government has the duty to make a judgement on the basis of national security