The Student Room Group

IS Bride can return to U.K. to challenge removal of british citizenship

https://news.sky.com/story/shamima-begum-court-rules-is-bride-can-return-to-uk-to-challenge-removal-of-british-citizenship-12029526

I’ll write the summary in a bit.

Very unsure about this.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Andrew97

Good, it's been clear from the start that countries cannot just leave people stateless because we don't want to deal with them anymore. We have to clean up our own mess, just as we would expect of any other nation if we had people we wanted to deport back to them.

Bring her back, sort out the citizenship nonsense, and try her for the criminal acts she can be proven to have committed.
Absolutely ridiculous. She decided to leave, to become a wife to a member of a terrorist organisation. She should not be allowed back in this country. Given that it’s now past this; the sensible course of action would be to get her in the courts, lock her up for life and throw away the key. In reality though, given our excuse for law courts, she’ll probably get a lollipop and a ‘don’t do it again.’
She’ll be off scot free by the end of next year.
Reply 4
Avatar for DSilva
DSilva
12
This is a legal decision, not a political or moral one.

If you are going to argue against it, fine, but you need to explain why, as a matter of law, this decision was wrong.
Original post by Occitanie
She’ll be off scot free by the end of next year.

You think the same government that wanted to leave her in Syria for being a terrorist is going to decline to pursue a severe criminal sentence against her for the same reasons if she comes back?
(edited 3 years ago)
Reply 6
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Aside from running off to join a prescribed court, none of them can realistically be proved though..
Reply 7
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by DSilva
This is a legal decision, not a political or moral one.

If you are going to argue against it, fine, but you need to explain why, as a matter of law, this decision was wrong.

Not being a lawyer or such but is there actually any statute that says she has to be here to challenge the removal? I mean, which ever way it goes, this does rather come across as her getting back into the country permanently. As even if her case is tossed the odds of her being allowed to be deported to a war zone are not high..
Original post by DSilva
This is a legal decision, not a political or moral one.

If you are going to argue against it, fine, but you need to explain why, as a matter of law, this decision was wrong.

Decisions like this though are why the people of this country were conned into voting to leave the EU. Massively about immigration, and part of that is deporting people who have fled this country to join Islamic state.

While your here, since you refuse to answer my question I’ll ask again. Are you suggesting that Brexit won’t make the poor poorer? Do you have anything to back this up?
If the UK government can't mitigate the risk of one ISIS housewife then they are even more ****ing useless than I had already thought.
Original post by imlikeahermit
Absolutely ridiculous. She decided to leave, to become a wife to a member of a terrorist organisation. She should not be allowed back in this country. Given that it’s now past this; the sensible course of action would be to get her in the courts, lock her up for life and throw away the key. In reality though, given our excuse for law courts, she’ll probably get a lollipop and a ‘don’t do it again.’

So making a terrorist go off the radar is a better option
Original post by IbeIC123
So making a terrorist go off the radar is a better option

She’s reformed, apparently.... Send her back to Syria, or Bangladesh. Just not here. She’s had her time here, and she blew it by choosing to join Islamic state.
Reply 12
Avatar for tan030
tan030
18
welcome to broken Britain - where u will be fined £50 for not wearing a face mask in a shop but are allowed back into a country, if you join a terrorist organisation
(edited 3 years ago)
Reply 13
Avatar for DSilva
DSilva
12
Original post by Napp
Not being a lawyer or such but is there actually any statute that says she has to be here to challenge the removal? I mean, which ever way it goes, this does rather come across as her getting back into the country permanently. As even if her case is tossed the odds of her being allowed to be deported to a war zone are not high..


No, out of country appeals are a thing. However, the court decided in this case, having viewed the available evidence, that she could not have a fair and effective hearing from outside the UK.

It's vitally important that our courts make what they consider to be correct legal judgments no matter how unpopular they may be with large swathes of the general public.

Again, I'm no expert on this subject area. But any criticism of the decision must explain why the court has legally got this wrong.
(edited 3 years ago)
Reply 14
Avatar for DSilva
DSilva
12
Original post by imlikeahermit
Decisions like this though are why the people of this country were conned into voting to leave the EU. Massively about immigration, and part of that is deporting people who have fled this country to join Islamic state.

While your here, since you refuse to answer my question I’ll ask again. Are you suggesting that Brexit won’t make the poor poorer? Do you have anything to back this up?

This decision has nothing to do with the EU.
Reply 15
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by DSilva
No, out of country appeals are a thing. However, the court decided having viewed the available evidence, that she could not have a fair and effective hearing from outside the UK.

It's vitally important that our courts make what they consider to be correct legal judgments no matter how unpopular they may be with large swathes of the general public.

Again, I'm no expert on this subject area. But any criticism of the decision must explain why the court has legally got this wrong.

Ah interesting. I'd be interested to read their reasoning on that, do you know if they publish such things?
Oh of course, i'm a firm believer in the separation of the judiciary from the executive. However, legal rationale aside it does still seem to present itself as a fait acompli - if she finds a way to make it back that is. An unfortunate side effect.
Indeed, i agree.
Reply 16
Avatar for DSilva
DSilva
12
Original post by Napp
Ah interesting. I'd be interested to read their reasoning on that, do you know if they publish such things?
Oh of course, i'm a firm believer in the separation of the judiciary from the executive. However, legal rationale aside it does still seem to present itself as a fait acompli - if she finds a way to make it back that is. An unfortunate side effect.
Indeed, i agree.

Yup, judgement and summary here https://mobile.twitter.com/JudiciaryUK/status/1283697157233680385

I'm planning on reading it later.
Reply 17
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by DSilva
Yup, judgement and summary here https://mobile.twitter.com/JudiciaryUK/status/1283697157233680385

I'm planning on reading it later.

Thanks! :smile:
Ha, i was about to say perhaps i should actually use Twitter again... then i saw the comments under it and remembered why i left :rolleyes:
Original post by imlikeahermit
She’s reformed, apparently.... Send her back to Syria, or Bangladesh. Just not here. She’s had her time here, and she blew it by choosing to join Islamic state.

The Kurds and Bangladeshis don’t deserve our little ****, the kurds have been through genocide by ISIS and she didn’t grow up in Bangladesh
Original post by Napp

Oh of course, i'm a firm believer in the separation of the judiciary from the executive.

We must consider the evident probability that these "judges" are in fact enemies of the British people...

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you