Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK

SwansonsTache said:
https://news.yahoo.com/blood-knees-defeated-jihadists-still-defiant-160042423.html?guccounter=1

This, plus the audioclip today being shared by IS where they urge all returnees to Europe to organize attacks sure fills me with hope.

Them coming "home" shouldn't even be up for discussion. Sadly because of the bleeding heart liberals it is, and Europe will suffer as a result.
Click to expand...

The so-called "cubs of the caliphate" -- boys raised under IS rule and trained to fight from a young age -- are the reason the group will survive, another Iraqi woman says.
Click to expand...

This is why I feel nothing for her, and I'm a liberal. Some seem to forget exactly what they were doing out there, or at least put it to one side. She would have raised her kid as one of these fighters and watched him die young after killing innocent people. I only feel sorry for the poor child that had to be born to such a horrible family and pay the consequences.
 
Bit strange really. She has her UK citizenship taken away and yet she is able to get free legal aid in order to launch an appeal against the decision.
Not sure I understand that logic but what do I know.
 
Is she a woman or a Thanos-like super villain? Just take responsibility, she's a citizen, so bring her home, put her on trial and go from there. What a ridiculous soap opera this has become.
 
They're getting off easy, bring them back and try them for terrorism. Revoking their citizenship is such a cop out. If a citizen has committed any crime, then they should be punished according to that country's laws.
 
ThatsGreat said:
They're getting off easy, bring them back and try them for terrorism. Revoking their citizenship is such a cop out. If a citizen has committed any crime, then they should be punished according to that country's laws.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
ThatsGreat said:
They're getting off easy, bring them back and try them for terrorism. Revoking their citizenship is such a cop out. If a citizen has committed any crime, then they should be punished according to that country's laws.
Click to expand...

It also sets a really dangerous precedent if the government start revoking citizenship because of people’s political affiliations.
 
Kentonio said:
It also sets a really dangerous precedent if the government start revoking citizenship because of people’s political affiliations.
Click to expand...

Do we view IS as a legitimate political movement though? Would that be an actual political affiliation?

I would be all for the UK bringing them back and punishing them but I just don't trust our justice system to get it right.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Do we view IS as a legitimate political movement though? Would that be an actual political affiliation?

I would be all for the UK bringing them back and punishing them but I just don't trust our justice system to get it right.
Click to expand...

Who gets to decide what a legitimate political movement is? We could all probably agree that IS isn’t, but then what happens next time when the lines aren’t as clear, but the precedent is set that the government have the power to make that determination on their own?

How about people who are separatists? You could make a decent argument that they are working against the best interests of the country. People who support the political wing of radical organizations? The line could get very blurry in an age where popularism is on the rise.
 
ThatsGreat said:
They're getting off easy, bring them back and try them for terrorism. Revoking their citizenship is such a cop out. If a citizen has committed any crime, then they should be punished according to that country's laws.
Click to expand...

You try them and then you have to jail them. Do you really want these pricks sitting in your prisons, telling their stories to every young gobshite doing a couple of years for stealing cars or selling cocaine?

Radicalisation is a real and pertinent threat to modern Western societies. I disagree with a lot of stuff your government does but drawing a line in the sand and making a statement that anyone betraying their country for a terrorist outfit will be disowned is a good move. This feckwit made his way out there on his own and should be left to rot on his own. If his jailers don't want to keep him in prison they should open the cell door and let him walk out with the shirt on his back and nothing else. The issue would resolve itself within the day.
 
diarm said:
I disagree with a lot of stuff your government does but drawing a line in the sand and making a statement that anyone betraying their country for a terrorist outfit will be disowned is a good move.
Click to expand...

So basically a country washes its hands of the problem and pushes it to someone else.
 
maniak said:
So basically a country washes its hands of the problem and pushes it to someone else.
Click to expand...

Under these circumstances yes. This individual travelled to Syria to commit his crimes and was arrested and imprisoned in Syria. Britain has revoked his citizenship so he is no longer British. Syria doesn't have to keep him but Britain does not have an obligation to take him back that outweighs the obligation to keep the people who chose not to be terrorists safe.

He'll have less negative impact on the current safety of Syria than he could have on the safety of Britain should he return. Unless you are going to take him back and lock him up in solitary confinement until he dies of old age, he should stay where he is or be released unto his own devices.

Perhaps something could be worked out whereby Britain pays for the cost of imprisoning him in Syria.
 
diarm said:
Under these circumstances yes. This individual travelled to Syria to commit his crimes and was arrested and imprisoned in Syria. Britain has revoked his citizenship so he is no longer British. Syria doesn't have to keep him but Britain does not have an obligation to take him back that outweighs the obligation to keep the people who chose not to be terrorists safe.

He'll have less negative impact on the current safety of Syria than he could have on the safety of Britain should he return. Unless you are going to take him back and lock him up in solitary confinement until he dies of old age, he should stay where he is or be released unto his own devices.

Perhaps something could be worked out whereby Britain pays for the cost of imprisoning him in Syria.
Click to expand...
Isn't that ridiculous? So hypothetically, say an idiot from a country signs up to become a terrorist and then makes his way to London, en route to somewhere else. And his home country cancels his citizenship. So England should be stuck with a brain washed guy because he is stateless?
 
diarm said:
Under these circumstances yes. This individual travelled to Syria to commit his crimes and was arrested and imprisoned in Syria. Britain has revoked his citizenship so he is no longer British. Syria doesn't have to keep him but Britain does not have an obligation to take him back that outweighs the obligation to keep the people who chose not to be terrorists safe.

He'll have less negative impact on the current safety of Syria than he could have on the safety of Britain should he return. Unless you are going to take him back and lock him up in solitary confinement until he dies of old age, he should stay where he is or be released unto his own devices.

Perhaps something could be worked out whereby Britain pays for the cost of imprisoning him in Syria.
Click to expand...

So what if nobody grants her citizenship? Do we ship her to the moon?
 
ThatsGreat said:
They're getting off easy, bring them back and try them for terrorism. Revoking their citizenship is such a cop out. If a citizen has committed any crime, then they should be punished according to that country's laws.
Click to expand...
Being tried in UK is pure bliss compared to being judged locally and risk either the death sentence or literally rot for the rest of their (short) life in an Iraqi or Syrian cell or even worse.
 
BBRBB said:
Being tried in UK is pure bliss compared to being judged locally and risk either the death sentence or literally rot for the rest of their (short) life in an Iraqi or Syrian cell or even worse.
Click to expand...
But at least you'll see them getting punished. Punishments are more for setting an example to people who'd like to commit the same crime.
 
ThatsGreat said:
But at least you'll see them getting punished. Punishments are more for setting an example to people who'd like to commit the same crime.
Click to expand...


The sentence she receives won’t be a deterrent to others at all because it will be nothing. That works for all crimes though. The sentences handed down are pathetic in the uk.

Only reason these Vermin want to come back to the uk is because it’s easy for them they will get such a lenient sentence then be protected and paid out for the rest of their lives.

In this case she can feck off to Bangladesh and be hung or she can stay where she is and deal with her miserable existence.
 
ThatsGreat said:
But at least you'll see them getting punished. Punishments are more for setting an example to people who'd like to commit the same crime.
Click to expand...
They mostly committed crimes in the middle east, I'm not sure why example is needed here. There will hardly be any witnesses and the sentence will be accordingly light, 10 years max.

In the meantime they'll be in a perfect environment to radicalize and recruit terrorists while serving their time and be completely free much sooner than you expect.

I understand where you're coming from but unless the terrorists abandon their ideology when they're arrested, repatriating them amounts to releasing the wolf in the sheepfold.
 
The opportunity to spend a few years radicalising others at her majesty's pleasure on taxpayer dime isn't just not a good punishment, it's what a lot of them would actively opt to do.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Do we view IS as a legitimate political movement though? Would that be an actual political affiliation?

I would be all for the UK bringing them back and punishing them but I just don't trust our justice system to get it right.
Click to expand...

Whether or not depriving someone of their citizenship is right/wrong, I don't believe it should be a government minister who decides this without recourse to the courts. It should be a legal tool not a political one.
 
hobbers said:
The opportunity to spend a few years radicalising others at her majesty's pleasure on taxpayer dime isn't just not a good punishment, it's what a lot of them would actively opt to do.
Click to expand...
So the right thing to do is letting a British radical loose, for the rest of the world to deal with?
 
Buster15 said:
Bit strange really. She has her UK citizenship taken away and yet she is able to get free legal aid in order to launch an appeal against the decision.
Not sure I understand that logic but what do I know.
Click to expand...

Legal Aid isn't exactly free. It sometimes requires a contribution if the party is (relatively) well off, and if damages are recovered against the opposing party then the Legal Aid Agency will need to be paid back. Either from the opposing party if costs are recovered or from the damages if a Legal Aid Claim is made.
If she caused her case or funding to be ended due to being unreasonable she could also be pursued for the costs back (though good luck with that).

Anyone seeking Legal Aid should be aware of what they are signing up for.

Assuming that the proceedings are a Judicial Review into the legality of the decision to revoke her citizenship then of course she should be entitled to that.. we dont live in a country where the state can do 100% what it wants without challenge. To get around the 'unpersoning' problem it may be the parents who are issuing the challenge.

That said, due to the rules regarding Judicial Reviews, the Legal Aid would be dependent on permissions to bring the review being granted - so the solicitors and counsel could lose funding retrospectively if the court refuses the case at the permissions stage.
 
Was thinking about what’s going on with her the other day. So what’s gonna happen? Are they gonna keep her in Syria? Send her to Bangladesh?
 
Sara125 said:
Was thinking about what’s going on with her the other day. So what’s gonna happen? Are they gonna keep her in Syria? Send her to Bangladesh?
Click to expand...
Bangladesh?

They don’t want her! They’ve stated quite clearly that she won’t be admitted. She’s our problem and we should deal with it
 
Sara125 said:
Was thinking about what’s going on with her the other day. So what’s gonna happen? Are they gonna keep her in Syria? Send her to Bangladesh?
Click to expand...

She may face trial in Syria:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.