Shamima Begum

Yes its an appalling situation for all involved.
A young naive girl manipulated / groomed to go an join an organisation that we and so much of the world find abhorrent.
Then surely we should all consider how we would react if she was one of our family. Would we take the same hard line then?
Do we as a country want to appear soft on terrorist (sympathisers) or should we follow natural justice and allow her a day in court? The the arguement over whether she actually needs to physically be in court to have that day.

As to her citizenship, that is indeed a gift to be given or taken away by a government so long as someone isnt rendered stateless. She did not automatically acquire B/Citizenship through birth in the UK as she was born after 1/1/81, but acquired it through her parents who were naturalised. Her parents beign Bangladeshi nationals would also have had the same opportunity and "right" to hand that nationality to her.

As unpalatable as it seems and a case of it beign a race to the bottom, it was the UK that revoked first, meaning that she would not be stateless.

I don't think anyone wins out of this really...save Once again...for the lawyers.
 
LGWIO said:
Yes its an appalling situation for all involved.
A young naive girl manipulated / groomed to go an join an organisation that we and so much of the world find abhorrent.
Then surely we should all consider how we would react if she was one of our family. Would we take the same hard line then?
Do we as a country want to appear soft on terrorist (sympathisers) or should we follow natural justice and allow her a day in court? The the arguement over whether she actually needs to physically be in court to have that day.

As to her citizenship, that is indeed a gift to be given or taken away by a government so long as someone isnt rendered stateless. She did not automatically acquire B/Citizenship through birth in the UK as she was born after 1/1/81, but acquired it through her parents who were naturalised. Her parents beign Bangladeshi nationals would also have had the same opportunity and "right" to hand that nationality to her.

As unpalatable as it seems and a case of it beign a race to the bottom, it was the UK that revoked first, meaning that she would not be stateless.

I don't think anyone wins out of this really...save Once again...for the lawyers.
Click to expand...
Reading this I thought to myself, this is something a Liverpool fan would post and lo and behold I was right. *

*Goes and lights a candle.
 
LGWIO said:
Yes its an appalling situation for all involved.
A young naive girl manipulated / groomed to go an join an organisation that we and so much of the world find abhorrent.
Then surely we should all consider how we would react if she was one of our family. Would we take the same hard line then?
Do we as a country want to appear soft on terrorist (sympathisers) or should we follow natural justice and allow her a day in court? The the arguement over whether she actually needs to physically be in court to have that day.

As to her citizenship, that is indeed a gift to be given or taken away by a government so long as someone isnt rendered stateless. She did not automatically acquire B/Citizenship through birth in the UK as she was born after 1/1/81, but acquired it through her parents who were naturalised. Her parents beign Bangladeshi nationals would also have had the same opportunity and "right" to hand that nationality to her.

As unpalatable as it seems and a case of it beign a race to the bottom, it was the UK that revoked first, meaning that she would not be stateless.

I don't think anyone wins out of this really...save Once again...for the lawyers.
Click to expand...

Sorry that's not quite correct. Naturalisation wouldn't have made a difference, she was automatically a citizen at the time of her birth because her mother's settled status.

https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-born-uk/uk-until-10

You were born after 31 December 1982 and before 1 July 2006​

You’re automatically a British citizen if, when you were born, either:

  • your mother was a British citizen or settled in the UK
  • your father was a British citizen or settled in the UK and was married to your mother
 
Oldham Exile said:
I am in the camp of - fuck her

And was her citizenship not revoked?

Anyway - fuck her.

You make your bed.......- absolutely zero care or sympathy from me
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware there is a UN Convention which forbids countries making anyone stateless.The convention does, though, give exemptions to states whose national laws, at the time of signing, gave them the right to make someone stateless. Britain has such an exemption, though until the Begum case is not known to have used it since 1973.

It normally applies to countries who don't grant nationality as a birth right (being born here) Most people who are stateless are so because of gaps in Nationality laws not because their Government have revoked citizenship. The UNHCR aims to stamp out statelessness by 2024.

(If Ive made a mistake forgive me... Its 00.32 am and Ive just got back from the match ... the M62 having been reduced to one lane for roadworks - not that anyone was actually doing any working)
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Sorry that's not quite correct. Naturalisation wouldn't have made a difference, she was automatically a citizen at the time of her birth because her mother's settled status.

https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-born-uk/uk-until-10

You were born after 31 December 1982 and before 1 July 2006​

You’re automatically a British citizen if, when you were born, either:

  • your mother was a British citizen or settled in the UK
  • your father was a British citizen or settled in the UK and was married to your mother
Click to expand...
Indeed, I was just guessing as I have no idea exactly what status her parents had at the time of her birth.
Its like so much of this is dependent on where you obtain your news/views. Information and PR, obviously the PR people she now appears to have around her, seem to just muddy the waters.
Is the way she looks or sounds important? Or is it more about the law, what can or cannot be proved? or whether the Uk are beign lawful or even human?
 
LGWIO said:
Indeed, I was just guessing as I have no idea exactly what status her parents had at the time of her birth.
Its like so much of this is dependent on where you obtain your news/views. Information and PR, obviously the PR people she now appears to have around her, seem to just muddy the waters.
Is the way she looks or sounds important? Or is it more about the law, what can or cannot be proved? or whether the Uk are beign lawful or even human?
Click to expand...
It’s dog whistling to the mouth foamers on Twitter. We’ve taken a fair few of these people back because they are British and have to deal with them.

She did a monumentally stupid interview on TV which made her face known. A “loophole” was then found and the government jumped on it as it was a cheap populist win.

When all is said and done, she’ll end up back here and tried. All that remains to be seen is how much we spend on lawyers before that happens.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.