Supreme Court: Shamima Begum not allowed to come to the UK.

The Rochdale girls did not break international law to condone and help perpetuate genocide, murder, rape and terrorism.

Some of the Rochdale girls did break the law because they were manipulated to do so, just as Begum was manipulated to join ISIS.

Some of the Rochdale girls did break the law because they were manipulated to do so, just as Begum was manipulated to join ISIS.

I hardly think the gravity of the law breaking cases are comparable.

That is partially my thinking too. Like teenagers make mistakes, they're easy to manipulate. But I think, from what I've read at least, Begum actually took part in atrocities, she didn't want to come back to the UK because she was sorry and admitted she was mistaken but because she is now in a refugee camp and wants to return to her cushy British life. Correct me if I'm wrong but she hasn't apologized or shown remorse?

Not to be too nit-picky, but it’s not a trial, and she won’t (as it currently stands) go to prison, because she hasn’t been charged with a criminal offence in this country. What there is is a hearing to determine whether the SSHD acted unlawfully in revoking her British citizenship. But I sympathiste with your general position. Personally, I think she knew very well what she was doing, and is thoroughly wicked.

They are all victims of grooming but it seems only some of them get sympathy.

Given that she has been living with ISIS in for formative years I'm not sure the moral guidance in the group would have given her a particularly strong moral compass. I would imagine that having lived with them for so long that she is deeply indoctrinated with extremist and radical views, that will take years undoing especially since she was so young when she joined.

Young people will follow the lead of the authority figures around them, so in an environment of barbarity it would stand to reason that she would think that those sorts of acts are justifiable since nobody has ever told otherwise and she was encouraged to take part if nothing else than to fit in. Something that humans and especially young ones often fall victim to.

Thing is, with all the publicity and intense polarised opinion, whatever crime she is charged with and subsequent trial by jury (if it gets that far) would likely be unfair. Any closed trial would be labelled as a government kangaroo court going through the motions before arriving at a predetermined outcome.

Perhaps because it is only white people who made the decision:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
I don't disagree with their verdict, but it is the case that they are entirely white - not surprising considering the demographics of the legal profession.

Some of the Rochdale girls did break the law because they were manipulated to do so, just as Begum was manipulated to join ISIS.

And if they can't make anything immediately stick? Is that her just wandering about the place causing grief and raising terror money until a decently angry mob get a hold of her? I'm not really seeing other endings here.

If she was charged with membership of a proscribed organisation (which I think, evidentially speaking, is probably the best they would be able to do at this stage), then she would almost certainly be remanded in custody all the way up to trial, so that’s less of an issue.

As a matter of principle though, it is interesting to consider why this woman is being treated so differently to any other garden variety terrorist, the likes of which we routinely deal with in the criminal justice system. She is clearly loathed by the public, and rightly so. But we charge, try, and convict terrorist offenders all the time, and they are dealt with in the infrastructure that we have for dealing with this type of offender. We don’t normally strip British terrorist offenders of their citizenship, even those who have gone out to the Middle East to train in ISIS camps. So why is this woman any different? Yes, she poses a danger. But so do many, many other people, and that doesn’t mean we can boot them out of their county of birth or lock them in prison for the rest of their lives.

Did you just ever so subtly call the judges racists...? Being consummate professionals i find it dubious that their melanin count had much bearing on how they can read the law.
Out of interest though, why do you think putting a Bangla on this would have made one iota of difference? The law is the law and doesnt bend to a ethnic considerations here. On from that, whilst diversity of thought is always handy what makes you think that putting a token ethnic on this case would have added any unique insight?

I would say in a word 'Celebrity', most of the other terrorists we jail don't have glamour pics.

Perhaps. But the fact remains that she has not actually been convicted of any terrorist offence in this country, and yet is arguably being dealt with in a more heavy-handed way than many who have. Plus, by treating this case so differently from the outset, the Government is itself complicit in whatever grim celebrity status she has now achieved. They have really made a rod for their own back with this one, and now they are caught up in a high profile legal battle that, I have to say, I think they will ultimately lose.