Shamima Begums son, a death that brittish government could have prevented

I believe that if it had been any other form of underage sex and grooming, they would be helped. So why is it any different when the terrorists are doing the grooming? Surely if anything it’s worse?
An already traumatised girl has now lost her third child. If you say the government couldn’t have done anything for the baby then I think you underestimate the power that the government has.
She was a product of this society, she was failed and not properly protected. There is definitely more this country can do to stop young people from being influenced by terrorism.
Regardless of her past choices, the government had a moral responsibility to both her and her child. She is a brittish citizen and when she appeals she will get citizenship because the government cannot break international law.
She needs help which this country can provide.
Lastly, to the person that was sick of hearing my views on the subject, I suggest that the student room is not for you. Everyone is entitled an opinion. Or better still just don’t read or get involved in my threads.

If D.Abbott was so upset about Ms Begum how come she did not go over there & help her ?

I believe that if it had been any other form of underage sex and grooming, they would be helped. So why is it any different when the terrorists are doing the grooming? Surely if anything it’s worse?
An already traumatised girl has now lost her third child. If you say the government couldn’t have done anything for the baby then I think you underestimate the power that the government has.
She was a product of this society, she was failed and not properly protected. There is definitely more this country can do to stop young people from being influenced by terrorism.
Regardless of her past choices, the government had a moral responsibility to both her and her child. She is a brittish citizen and when she appeals she will get citizenship because the government cannot break international law.
She needs help which this country can provide.
Lastly, to the person that was sick of hearing my views on the subject, I suggest that the student room is not for you. Everyone is entitled an opinion. Or better still just don’t read or get involved in my threads.

Javid: “ok lads, so what I’m proposing today is that we go to a refugee camp in a war zone and find 2 people, one of which is too young to fly and the other will not be given a seat by any self-respecting airline. We will then bring these people back to the country, somehow. Any volunteers? No?

"Traumatised" She clearly isn't even sorry for what she's done, said from her own mouth that she has no regrets, and wanted to come back to the UK when she realised ISIS don't do child benefits. 15 year olds have their heads screwed on enough to map out their futures, so they're wise enough to know right from wrong. She's not a victim, stop making her out to be one.
Nobody's saying the government didn't have the power to bring the son back - we're saying they weren't under any obligation to do so. Huge difference.

You clearly know nothing about psychiatry.. she is in denial to her exploitation and thinks that what she did what what her god wanted her to do. She has been radicalised to the most extreme degree . Of course she does not show regret.

You clearly know nothing about psychiatry.. she is in denial to her exploitation and thinks that what she did what what her god wanted her to do. She has been radicalised to the most extreme degree . Of course she does not show regret.

It is more of a reflection of the horrific living conditions of the camps than anything. Why don't they have better funding and medical care?

It is against international law to make someone stateless, and now an innocent child has died as a result of a British woman being stripped of her citizenship. This is callous and inhumane.

Obviously Samima Begum holds abhorrent views and to want to join Islamic State is beyond all comprehension, but she was a child, a product of our society.
I think we had a moral responsibility to her and indeed to her baby. That is why at the time I was just troubled by the decision.

It seemed driven by a sort of populism, not any principle I recognise.

It is against international law to make someone stateless, and now an innocent child has died as a result of a British woman being stripped of her citizenship. This is callous and inhumane

...

It seemed driven by a sort of populism, not any principle I recognise.

There are exceptions and exemptions to this law. Britain was technically within its right to strip her of citizenship.

You keep ignoring the fact that even if Britain didn't strip her of citizenship, it's not like the government could have just flown her back from a war zone the following day. It's a little more complicated than that, especially when there's a very pregnant woman involved. I think the child would probably have died either way.

And stripping her of citizenship and wasn't driven by populism. It was driven by the fact this woman left the country to join ISIS and is an enemy of the state.

You clearly know nothing about psychiatry.. she is in denial to her exploitation and thinks that what she did what what her god wanted her to do. She has been radicalised to the most extreme degree . Of course she does not show regret.

So if she was a white British terrorist, you would be in favour of wanting her back?