Shamima Begum

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I like most things that involve a pun.

I’ve noticed!

 

[Chris in London]

It was actually the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 I was thinking of. I think the problem with the legislation you’ve highlighted is proving membership of a group, especially when that happened in Syria. She may have had online exchanges with people in this country but her legal team would argue that didn’t constitute membership of ISIS. Obvs, the 2019 Act couldn’t be retrospectively applied to Begum.

The below is from the HoC library:

In addition to using TEOs, the Government has said repeatedly that it would seek to prosecute anyone who has travelled abroad to engage in terrorism related activity. There are a number of terrorist offences that might be relevant, including belonging to a proscribed organisation, or attendance at a place used for terrorism training. However, there may be difficulties in obtaining evidence of conduct that has taken place abroad, in territory without a functioning criminal justice system that UK authorities could cooperate with.

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 introduced a new offence of “entering or remaining in a designated area” aimed at addressing this difficulty. The new offence would apply to those simply travelling to certain designated parts of the world, without the need to provide evidence of terrorism-related activity whilst there.

Granted ISIS probably has not got a written constitution that she has signed, but whether she was a member would be a matter for a jury.

Evidence such as the media interviews she has given in which she has admitted membership of ISIS might give her a problem.

 

[Bigga]

He is agreeing with you Bigga.

I’m not saying that at all. But a youth should definitely face less severe punishment than an adult for the same offence. On that basis, your first paragraph is misconceived.

Not quite sure what your last paragraph is about because that echoes what I was saying.

Think you might have misunderstood what I was saying because your response is confusing.

To be honest, chaps, I've been pretty ill with whatever in the last 36 hours.

I'd written two responses and the first one recognised the post was echoing what I said, but for some reason I went with the second and went back to bed!

Just had a quick look om phone and realised the eroor, so apologies.

Off back to sleep to swaet this crap out...

 

[Bigga]

Collecting evidence would be impossible. The alleged crimes took place in a chaotic war zone hundreds of miles away. And to cap that, all women were required to wear face coverings while outside. It is hard to imagine a court in London managing to arrange a set of reliable eye witnesses isn’t it?

^^^

I'm dipping in and out og this thraed but I wanted to highlight this bit as 'm coughing my guts up.

For some reason logic doesn't seem to smack yo in the face about the 'whispers of guilt' for Begum. Both scenarios you put forward for hearsay would include a supposed witness that would see Begum commit such acts... whilst wearing a niqab by your own wording above.

No female is allowed to reveal her face to anotherman, regardless in or out door if said man is not her husband. So, you would have to ask the logical question 'what evidence do the UK have that Begum was guilty of any ACTUAL involvement besides being a mouthy Isis bride at 15?'... Maybe fingerprints or hand recognition software...?

I will let you cobble that logic together. I'm going back to bed...

 

[hammocity]

Indeed it does.. it shouldn't matter one iota how unattractive she is, she's still a human being that needs love and understanding

Ask the majority of Syrians, victims of terror and non believers (even different sects of Muslims) affected by ISIS if she deserves love and understanding, those are the last things she will get and quite rightly. She's lucky to still be alive, bring her back, send her to prison and keep her there beyond her senior years, that will send a punitive message to anyone thinking of doing the same in the future.

 

[Chris B]

^^^

I'm dipping in and out og this thraed but I wanted to highlight this bit as 'm coughing my guts up.

For some reason logic doesn't seem to smack yo in the face about the 'whispers of guilt' for Begum. Both scenarios you put forward for hearsay would include a supposed witness that would see Begum commit such acts... whilst wearing a niqab by your own wording above.

No female is allowed to reveal her face to anotherman, regardless in or out door if said man is not her husband. So, you would have to ask the logical question 'what evidence do the UK have that Begum was guilty of any ACTUAL involvement besides being a mouthy Isis bride at 15?'... Maybe fingerprints or hand recognition software...?

I will let you cobble that logic together. I'm going back to bed...

That’s my point: they’d never get the evidence together to try her for any past offences - if there is any, so best to keep her away. I doubt a strong enough case could be put before a court regardless of statements she has made that would seem to incriminate herself to an extent. All too easy for defence team to cloud that with alternative interpretations. If she comes here she’ll be free.

However, there’s plenty enough evidence of potential involvement with ISIS, which is the basis I think she shouldn’t be allowed to enter the UK. Thankfully, the government has a right to make a judgement to keep her out on the basis of national security, which it has in a legal manner as found by the Supreme Court. She’ll never face proper punishment for any crimes she’s been involved in but I can live with that.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That’s my point: they’d never get the evidence together to try her for any past offences - if there is any, so best to keep her away. I doubt a strong enough case could be put before a court regardless of statements she has made that would seem to incriminate herself to an extent. All too easy for defence team to cloud that with alternative interpretations. If she comes here she’ll be free.

However, there’s plenty enough evidence of potential involvement with ISIS, which is the basis I think she shouldn’t be allowed to enter the UK. Thankfully, the government has a right to make a judgement to keep her out on the basis of national security, which it has in a legal manner as found by the Supreme Court. She’ll never face proper punishment for any crimes she’s been involved in but I can live with that.

Are you a lawyer?

 

[Chris B]

Are you a lawyer?

No, although I’m starting to feel like it having these arguments on here. All my opinions are just mine as an uninformed member of the public.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

No, although I’m starting to feel like it having these arguments on here. All my opinions are just mine as an uninformed member of the public.

Not trying to start a fight. Chris in London is one, which is why I tend to listen to his opinion more on this.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

No, although I’m starting to feel like it having these arguments on here. All my opinions are just mine as an uninformed member of the public.

Probably best you aren't. If you were, I could see you defending a client against a CCJ claim and them ending up with capital punishment.

:)