denislawsbackheel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 27,426
- Team supported
- We went to Rotherham…
Being born in the UK does not give you UK citizenship and hasn’t done for decades.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Shamima Begum
- Thread starter SuperstarNeilC
- Start date
MaineDAWG2008
Well-Known Member
Don't buy her BS. She's a double agent.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
Being born in the UK does not give you UK citizenship and hasn’t done for decades.
That’s true. But if one of your parents is settled in the UK then you have citizenship by birth rather than by later application or acquisition. Her father obviously wasn’t settled because he spent long periods back in Bangladesh but her mother appears to have met that criteria.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
I just find it as odd that at 15 she knew what she was doing yet the likes of Desmond Swayne will tell you a 15 year old kid is not mature enough to decide on whether or not to have a vaccine...... its surely one or the other?
I just find it as odd that at 15 she knew what she was doing yet the likes of Desmond Swayne will tell you a 15 year old kid is not mature enough to decide on whether or not to have a vaccine...... its surely one or the other?
Bit of a difference between making a decision at 15 to go and murder people and plot mass deaths from the country you are from (and now want to return) and making a decision at 15 on whether or not to get a vaccine.
journolud
Well-Known Member
Who did she murder?Bit of a difference between making a decision at 15 to go and murder people and plot mass deaths from the country you are from (and now want to return) and making a decision at 15 on whether or not to get a vaccine.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Bit of a difference between making a decision at 15 to go and murder people and plot mass deaths from the country you are from (and now want to return) and making a decision at 15 on whether or not to get a vaccine.
a lot to unpack there. As far as I am aware she didn't go to ISIS to murder people and plot mass deaths - unless you know something that even our intelligence agencies haven't even suggested - and the vaccination decision whether to have or not is often based on erroneous or misleading information about possible harm of death from having it.
Who did she murder?
“go to murder”
She joined ISIS, a terrorist organisation hell bent and installing an Islamic caliphate on the western world and they do that by murdering people, many innocent people.
a lot to unpack there. As far as I am aware she didn't go to ISIS to murder people and plot mass deaths - unless you know something that even our intelligence agencies haven't even suggested - and the vaccination decision whether to have or not is often based on erroneous or misleading information about possible harm of death from having it.
Please. She was 15, The going’s on of ISIS were headline news every week around the time she went. She didn’t go for a research project for her history GCSE. She knew was she was doing and she knows what she’s doing now.
True, bring it back here by hot air balloon unmanned, hopefully it will crash land somewhere and we can all say "Oh no! Anyway"As far as I can work out she was born here and therefore a British citizen so should stand trial here , don’t see as a country how we can expect other countries to accept their citizens when we deport them but won’t accept one of our own .
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.
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.
L
L
lazerblue
Guest
as long as you torch her after then crack onWas anybody else looking at that interview and thinking I'd smash her back doors in? Asking for a friend
Reading this I thought to myself, this is something a Liverpool fan would post and lo and behold I was right. *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.
*Goes and lights a candle.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Please. She was 15, The going’s on of ISIS were headline news every week around the time she went. She didn’t go for a research project for her history GCSE. She knew was she was doing and she knows what she’s doing now.
swo do 15 year old who want to het vaccinated. whats the issue ?
swo do 15 year old who want to het vaccinated. whats the issue ?
There’s no issue. If they want to get vaccinated then that’s up to them. They’re 15 and old enough to make a decision.
L
L
lazerblue
Guest
are you pissed?swo do 15 year old who want to het vaccinated. whats the issue ?
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
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.
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
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
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
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)
Indeed, I was just guessing as I have no idea exactly what status her parents had at the time of her birth.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
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?
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 70,413
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.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?
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.