Shamima Begum would face a short drop and a sudden stop in Bangladesh

IS bride Shamima Begum would "face the death penalty" for terrorism if she came to Bangladesh, the country's foreign minister has said.
Abdul Momen told the BBC that Ms Begum has "nothing to do" with his country.
The 19-year-old, who left east London to join the Islamic State group in 2015, was stripped of her British citizenship in February.
Her claim to Bangladeshi nationality through her mother is believed to have informed the Home Office's decision.
Under international law, it is illegal to deprive a person of citizenship if to do so would leave them stateless.
Speaking to the BBC, Ms Begum's lawyer, Tasnime Akunjee, told the BBC "in no way is she Bangladesh's problem".
Ms Begum is appealing against the Home Office's decision.

Mr Momen said there was "no question" of giving Ms Begum Bangladeshi citizenship or allowing her into the country, piling pressure on Home Secretary Sajid Javid to settle her status.
"She has never sought Bangladeshi citizenship and her parents are also British citizens," he told the BBC.
"The British government is responsible for her. They'll have to deal with her."
He added that, if she did end up coming to Bangladesh, she would fall foul of the country's "zero tolerance policy" towards terrorism.
"Bangladeshi law is very clear. Terrorists will have to face the death penalty," he said.
Although Ms Begum travelled to Syria to join the IS group, she has not admitted any terror offences.

The Home Office could reverse its decision "at any time" and doing so would "save British taxpayers a lot of money" in court costs and legal aid, Mr Akunjee said.
"What Sajid Javid did in stripping Shamima of her citizenship is human fly tipping - taking our problems and dumping them on other countries," he said.
The Home Office told the BBC it would not respond to Mr Momen's comments and had nothing further to add to its previous statement.

Ms Begum left the UK with two school friends at the age of 15 before being found by a journalist from the Times in a Syrian refugee camp in mid-February this year.
Heavily pregnant with her third child, she pleaded to return to the UK, claiming she had been "brainwashed" by Islamic State and now "regrets everything".
She said she did not regret travelling to Syria but did not agree with everything the IS group had done.
Mr Javid did not acquiesce to her pleas, telling MPs he "won't hesitate" to revoke her citizenship in the interests of national security.
"If you back terror, there must be consequences," he said.


Soon afterwards, she gave birth to a boy called Jarrah. He died of pneumonia in March at less than three weeks of age. She had two other children who also died.
In the wake of the boy's death, Mr Javid was criticised over the decision to strip Ms Begum of her British citizenship.
Three weeks prior to the death, Ms Begum's sister, Renu Begum, had written to Mr Javid asking him to help her bring the baby to the UK.
Under the 1981 British Nationality Act, a person can be deprived of their citizenship if the home secretary is satisfied it would be "conducive to the public good" and they would not become stateless as a result.

I’m sick of hearing about her.

I don't really understand your title or post. What exactly is your point?

So you’re saying she wouldn’t be safe in Bangladesh?
Surely an argument could be made that unless her name and location get changed, then she won’t be safe in the U.K

I might have punched up the title a little.. but you've got to love some of the official quotes in this article such as; 'She's not our problem'
Although more to the point though this should be giving a rather fun legal headache to Number 10 as if we ignore the legal dubiousness of making someone stateless, if memory serves is there not a piece of legislation quite explicitly forbidding Britain from sending it's citizens to be executed?
Although not being a lawyer I might be slightly wrong on that one so feel free to correct me if so.

As a slightly flippant point though; possession is 9/10th of the law and currently the Kurds have her. I imagine they'd find it more than slightly tricky to send her to either Britain or Bangladesh and one can only assume if she is left there she will eventually meet a rather certain fate which make everyone, well all the governments at least, happy... no?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48154781

Sounds like a rather nice death.Much preferable to being dissolved in nitric acid for instance or being burned alive.Both of which Isis has done.I don't really care tbh.Good riddance to bad rubbish as they say.

This rather gives the lie to the attempt to deny her right to Bangladeshi citizenship. If that were true there would be no need for the Bangladeshis to play this trump card. Of course, she has not been convicted of a capital offence so cannot be executed anyway.

Begum's only chance of capitalising on it would be to confess to having been a terrrorist then she can spend twenty years in gaol in Britain.

One does have to wonder how someone who married four years ago, and has since had several children, can sensibly be called a bride.

Title: Slightly more pithy variation on the BBC's one.
Post: Somewhat self explanatory, no?

I wish that your post (and title) were, at the very least, somewhat self-explanatory... It just makes no sense and there's absolutely no coherent point.

@Napp, there is a solution but it would involve Syrian Kurdistan becoming de jure independent - she gains Kurdistani citizenship by residency and the Kurds try her, meaning that the British taxpayer doesn't have to pay for her legal aid, appeals, Channel 4 interviews etc.

Umm remind me how its my problem/fault that you don't seem to be able to read?