The Student Room Group

Shamima Begum Loses 1st Stage of Appeal over Citizenship

Scroll to see replies

Original post by CoolCavy
What a shame


A shame?
Original post by 999tigger
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.


Tell that to the families of the 40 Bangladeshis killed by an IS suicide bomber in South Surma in 2017.
Original post by Occitanie
A shame?

A dreadful shame

/Sarcasm
Original post by CoolCavy
A dreadful shame

/Sarcasm

Aha!
Original post by 999tigger
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.


She wouldn’t be walking the streets if brought back to the UK. She’d be in prison.
Reply 25
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by CoolCavy
A dreadful shame

/Sarcasm

frightful indeed :wink:
I can see how this can wet a dodgy precedent, but whatever we do it’s not going to be perfect.

Let’s be frank here, she’s not getting back into the country anyway, regardless of if she has citizenship. She’s in Syria where she is a prisoner not of the official Syria, government I believe, but the Kurds which complicates matter. One imagines with all the things ISIS did the Kurds and Syrian government may have a thing or two to do with IS prisoners.

Also we have no embassy or consulate in Syria, the nearest being Turkey. She can try thr journey alone, sure (because we aren’t sending people in) but that would probably end in death. Or if she gets herself a Kurdish escelrt to Turkey that won’t end well.

Then how does she get home, a commercial flight? Or do we fly her home? I’m not sure many airlines would want her on a plane. Then we have the issue of what to do with her at home, terrorist acirives will be hard to prove beyond supporting the group. We can have her bang to rights for fraud however. Then she will need to be watched/protected will not in prison. She can’t just go back to her family. This will cost money and many won’t want her next door and some may even try to take a pop.
Original post by Andrew97
I can see how this can wet a dodgy precedent, but whatever we do it’s not going to be perfect.

What we can do is improve the range of offences at our disposal.

Both the Treason Act and the Foreign Enlistment Act are not fit for purpose.

We need offences that don't rely on proving acts committed in flyblown parts of the world without functioning governments or proving the political intentions of mixed up kids.

We need an offence that is complete the moment she boarded a plane to foreign parts.
Reply 28
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by nulli tertius
What we can do is improve the range of offences at our disposal.

Both the Treason Act and the Foreign Enlistment Act are not fit for purpose.

We need offences that don't rely on proving acts committed in flyblown parts of the world without functioning governments or proving the political intentions of mixed up kids.

We need an offence that is complete the moment she boarded a plane to foreign parts.

A rather slippery slope to start on down given that in no rationale mind can hopping on a plane ever be considered a criminal offence, nor should it.
Original post by Napp
A rather slippery slope to start on down given that in no rationale mind can hopping on a plane ever be considered a criminal offence, nor should it.

Hardly.

There were a number of successful prosecutions under the Foreign Enlistment Acts for people attempting to catch boats to participate in the Franco-Prussian War and South American conflicts. The Acts failed when prosecutions were tried against people going to fight in the Spanish Civil War. It was found that the Acts only covered inter-state conflict. That is really only a technicality.

You need the crime to be complete at Dover or Heathrow where there will be a body of admissible evidence.
Reply 30
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by nulli tertius
Hardly.

There were a number of successful prosecutions under the Foreign Enlistment Acts for people attempting to catch boats to participate in the Franco-Prussian War and South American conflicts. The Acts failed when prosecutions were tried against people going to fight in the Spanish Civil War. It was found that the Acts only covered inter-state conflict. That is really only a technicality.

You need the crime to be complete at Dover or Heathrow where there will be a body of admissible evidence.

Err are you using examples from almost a century ago to try and back up this specious claim? By that logic every single war correspondent should be banged up as a terrorist..
Original post by Napp
Err are you using examples from almost a century ago to try and back up this specious claim? By that logic every single war correspondent should be banged up as a terrorist..

No

This is the legislation in force today:-

"If any person, without the license of Her Majesty, being a British subject, quits or goes on board any ship with a view of quitting Her Majesty’s dominions, with intent to accept any commission or engagement in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with a friendly state, or, whether a British subject or not, within Her Majesty’s dominions, induces any other person to quit or to go on board any ship with a view of quitting Her Majesty’s dominions with the like intent"

If you look at the problems, they are:-

(a) it doesn't cover aircraft, the NI land border and the Channel Tunnel
(b) IS isn't a state and the people who IS is fighting are not in some cases a state
(c) the way one joins IS is not by accepting a Commission or enlistment as a Victorian recruiting sergeant would have understood it.

The Act doesn't catch journalists and plenty of British journalists were present during the Franco-Prussian War.

The equivalent legislation for joining one of our enemies is the Treason Act but it is difficult to see that anyone has committed treason by leaving the country to "adhere to the Queen's enemies" since the the 1740s. Casement, Amery and Joyce were all abroad when war with Germany broke out.

Both pieces of legislation need modernising. Boris has promised (but he has promised so many things) to review the Treason Act.

The key, as I said previously, is that the evidence of the crime needs to be in the UK, not the middle east.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by JICMB77
She wouldn’t be walking the streets if brought back to the UK. She’d be in prison.


At the expense of the UK tax payer, thats £50,000 a year and when released (they couldnt hold her forever) even more as she would be under constant monitor and you cant guarantee what she would discuss with any children or anyone she met. She isnt wanted.
Original post by 999tigger
At the expense of the UK tax payer, thats £50,000 a year and when released (they couldnt hold her forever) even more as she would be under constant monitor and you cant guarantee what she would discuss with any children or anyone she met. She isnt wanted.

Indeed she isn’t
And look how well monitoring worked recently
why doesnt she understand lol, no one wants her here
Original post by endergirl123
why doesnt she understand lol, no one wants her here

She does, but choice of living in a refugee camp with no future or with family where you get food, bed and internet plus its safe is a no brainer. Understandable she realises how much better off she was. Her family want her back.
In other words, UK trying to wash its hands of its criminals rather than taking responsiblity for them.
It's a scary thought that the British govt would be able to remove the citizenship of any Jew by virtue of the fact that they're entitled to Israeli citizenship. I don't think those of you who support this have thought through what the ramifications could be.
Original post by Snufkin
It's a scary thought that the British govt would be able to remove the citizenship of any Jew by virtue of the fact that they're entitled to Israeli citizenship. I don't think those of you who support this have thought through what the ramifications could be.

Are we talking about terrorist Jews or normal ones? :confused:
Her name sucks.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you