Shamima Begum Loses 1st Stage of Appeal over Citizenship

Good, she shouldn't be allowed back. She made her bed and now she has to lie in it.

Agreed. Nothing else to say. She left. She shouldn’t be allowed back.
How much is this costing?

I hear this word "radicalised" a lot thrown about on the news. If that's what caused her to join this group ( being radicalised in Britain), then why shouldn't Britain deal with the problem? Rather than throwing her away to Bangladesh I think it was? She wasn't "radicalised" (if that's even a thing in the sense that it's used in the news) in Bangladesh, now they have to deal with her; yeah good for us, but it's unscrupulous to dump your problems on another country.
It's easy to feel emotion and I initially thought good leave the ***** there, but actions taken in these circumstances aren't supposed to determined by emotions but by austere, rigid rules.
On the other hand, with the lack of security in British prisons, I fear that her returning will create devastating consequences, with years in the failed Daesh, her connections to terrorists who exist in this country can cost lives. But there should be measures to prevent that, however I have little confidence that this country will prevent that with how they've treated terrorists in the past; it's almost always someone who was under surveillance or let out early or something.

Exactly; wanting to ‘leave’ her elsewhere is arrogant and ignorant. The responsibility shouldn’t be passed on to another country.

Tbf I dont believe she supported an organisation that wanted to bomb and murder Bangladeshis. so not really a risk to them.
The only bit she is unlucky about are the thousands of those posing a greater risk who are walking the streets having returned from their holiday with ISIS.

The UK invests in Bangladesh in terms of counter terrorism defence and the UK has historic ties with Bangladesh, with the United kingdom making up a chunk of the Bangla diaspora. Anyone cooperating with the UK is an enemy in the eyes of that "organisation". Bangladesh aren't just going to say well she didn't try to bomb us did she? We need to sustain the relationship and solidarity with Bangladesh.

The UK invests in Bangladesh in terms of counter terrorism defence and the UK has historic ties with Bangladesh, with the United kingdom making up a chunk of the Bangla diaspora. Anyone cooperating with the UK is an enemy in the eyes of that "organisation". Bangladesh aren't just going to say well she didn't try to bomb us did she? We need to sustain the relationship and solidarity with Bangladesh.

Not seeing your point.
ISIS arent sending or trying to send terrorists to blow up Bangladesh because apart from Bangladesh nobody cares much
Blow up 100 in London though and they hit the jackpot and are on the news.

? Many attacks in Bangladesh by ISIS have happened.
Bangladesh have experienced threats from Islamists since they split from Pakistan.
Doesn't matter what they think is more important, a country that has been trying to crack down on Islamists since its inception is not going to consider what is important in the eyes of ISIS, but they're own country and the radicalisation didn't happen in their country.

Enough that it makes droning her seem like a preferable option for the tax payer i imagine.

Exactly; wanting to ‘leave’ her elsewhere is arrogant and ignorant. The responsibility shouldn’t be passed on to another country.

I would say the overwhelming public opinion is for her not to return to the UK if they can keep her out.
Up to the courts to decide if its legal.

Public opinion from the UK?
Yes, probably, I wouldn't want her to return either. But I question the moral quality of the course of action. And no I'm not showing her any sympathy at all, in fact I'm the country Bangladesh.

I hear this word "radicalised" a lot thrown about on the news. If that's what caused her to join this group ( being radicalised in Britain), then why shouldn't Britain deal with the problem? Rather than throwing her away to Bangladesh I think it was? She wasn't "radicalised" (if that's even a thing in the sense that it's used in the news) in Bangladesh, now they have to deal with her; yeah good for us, but it's unscrupulous to dump your problems on another country.
It's easy to feel emotion and I initially thought good leave the ***** there, but actions taken in these circumstances aren't supposed to determined by emotions but by austere, rigid rules.
On the other hand, with the lack of security in British prisons, I fear that her returning will create devastating consequences, with years in the failed Daesh, her connections to terrorists who exist in this country can cost lives. But there should be measures to prevent that, however I have little confidence that this country will prevent that with how they've treated terrorists in the past; it's almost always someone who was under surveillance or let out early or something.

Because whatever the legality of her being banned from ever returning it would be political suicide for any politician to not be seen to be doing their all to keep her away.
I will grant you it was a damn shabby and scurrilous move to try and dump her on the Bengalis (especially after they said there wasnt a hope in hell they would ever take her) with that being said i imagine the person whose idea it was to make the banglas the quasi scape goat here know full well its deeply unlikely she'll ever leave Syria anyway.