Shamima Begum. Should she get legal aid from Britain ? Watch

That'sGreat
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#61
Report 6 days ago
#61
Personally I'd love for her to come home so we can stick her in a cage where she belong. But stick her kid up for adoption, give him a new identity etc. with no contact with his past family, or the chances are that he'll just be radicalised as well.

Obviously, for all this we need her to get her citizenship back, so sure give her legal aid.
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#62
Report 6 days ago
#62
(Original post by inconspicuous_x)
Yes, because I believe the country should deal with her actions and not someone else. Stripping her citizenship was not a good decision as it will make the country look silly if they let her in after.
Think of it like this, if a British citizen went to America to commit mass murder, he will be sent back to HIS country so he can deal with the consequences there, same with a rapist, etc.
Therefore I believe Shamima Begum should have been allowed back to serve her sentence.
Isis-wife was a dual national, the whole purpose of stripping her citizenship was to keep her out of the UK and all British territory.
Her crime spree whilst in this country, horrifying interviews in which she admitted terrorist membership of isis-daesh and her smug lack of remorse for her unlawful actions indicated just how conductive to Britain's national interests and public safety allowing her return to the UK would be.
The British government does not want to isis wife to continue to hold UK citizenship, nor to admit her to the UK.
It seems that Bangladesh does not want her to continue to hold their citizenship either.
Syria seems willing to keep her, she wanted to travel to Syria and relocate herself there- now her wish has come true.
0
reply
SCIENCE :D
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#63
Report 6 days ago
#63
Be gone devil preacher.
1
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#64
Report 6 days ago
#64
(Original post by That'sGreat)
Personally I'd love for her to come home so we can stick her in a cage where she belong. But stick her kid up for adoption, give him a new identity etc. with no contact with his past family, or the chances are that he'll just be radicalised as well.

Obviously, for all this we need her to get her citizenship back, so sure give her legal aid.
According to the media reports, all isis wife's descendants were born and died in Syria.
I disagree with you.
Isis wife has demanded to be allowed back into the UK and wants to keep her citizenship- so she can be yet another financially burdensome criminal troublemaker on the streets of Britain.
She is fed up of life in Syria- where there is no free healthcare, income support, housing benefits or the human rights act.
She is a self professed terrorist member of isis-daesh and does not belong in the UK; where she will be only be a threat to public safety along with national security and a burden to the taxpayer for the rest of her life.
0
reply
mysticmagic2000
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#65
Report 6 days ago
#65
I am sick and tired of hearing her name banded about. Leftist liberals constantly talk about how she was only child when ISIS groomed her, but in this country you legally take responsibility of your actions at the age of 10 - therefore under law, she should take responsibility for fighting against her country. Furthermore, as an individual herself, she seems to be quite rutheless. Earlier today, I read an article about her being part of the morality police and terrorising locals - do we really want her to enter into our country? I am truly sick of her and think she should shut up before the true horrors of her behaviour come to fruition when they do an investigation before the appeal of her citizenship...
1
reply
LeapingLucy
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#66
Report 6 days ago
#66
(Original post by CoolCavy)
Exactly obviously she has the right to having legal aid but defending people like her is not something I could live with myself for. I don't know why we can't criticise people who make up lies and tell murderers etc what to say to avoid being charged. If anyone else did that it would be perverting the course of justice.
People in police interviews on TV tell their clients to say no comment to the questions, if that isn't obstructive I don't know what is. What's worse is when they leave the room with said client and come back with some concocted story.
1) TV isn't real life. Those are dramas, intended for entertainment. They're not something on which to base one's opinion about an entire profession. If there is evidence that someone has committed a murder, nothing a defence lawyer can tell them to say will prevent them from being charged. Believing that is just silly.

2) Our criminal justice system convicts based on a burden of proof set at "beyond reasonable doubt". That is essential - unless we are sure that someone is guilty, then they should not be going to prison. If there is a level of doubt - that the defence lawyer is able to show - then that person should not be going to prison. It is that simple.

And as I've said before, once we remove the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the right of access to legal representation from one category of people, it's a slippery slope and everyone is vulnerable. If these rights are not universal than they are meaningless.
Last edited by LeapingLucy; 6 days ago
1
reply
CoolCavy
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 6 days ago
#67
(Original post by LeapingLucy)
TV isn't real life. Those are dramas, intended for entertainment. They're not something on which to base one's opinion about an entire profession. If there is evidence that someone has committed a murder, nothing a defence lawyer can tell them to say will prevent them from being charged. Believing that is just silly.

Our justice system convicts based on a burden of proof set at "beyond reasonable doubt". That is essential - unless we are sure that someone is guilty, then they should not be going to prison. If there is a level of doubt - that the defence lawyer is able to show - then that person should not be going to prison. It is that simple.
im not basing my entire opinion on it, i've already said that i have had limited exposure as that's the only thing i've seen and i'm open to new things and changing my opinion once i learn them.
If you were saying things respectfully like londonmyst did and not getting so defensive and accusing me of saying things i havent said then i would be willing for this conversation to continue but as it is i am feeling like you are attacking me for no good reason (im no legal expert but have stated that multiple times).
0
reply
LeapingLucy
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#68
Report 6 days ago
#68
(Original post by londonmyst)
According to the media reports, all isis wife's descendants were born and died in Syria.
I disagree with you.
Isis wife has demanded to be allowed back into the UK and wants to keep her citizenship- so she can be yet another financially burdensome criminal troublemaker on the streets of Britain.
She is fed up of life in Syria- where there is no free healthcare, income support, housing benefits or the human rights act.
She is a self professed terrorist member of isis-daesh and does not belong in the UK; where she will be only be a threat to public safety along with national security and a burden to the taxpayer for the rest of her life.
She was born, raised, educated and radicalised in Britain. She was also allowed to travel outside of the country as a minor by British border authorities.

She has to be a burden somewhere, so why is it right to impose that burden on Bangladesh rather than Britain?

And why is it better for her to be a national security threat in Bangladesh than Britain? Do you believe Bangladeshi lives are worth less than British lives? We, as a developed country, are far more equipped to monitor and deradicalise her.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#69
Report 6 days ago
#69
(Original post by LeapingLucy)
1) TV isn't real life. Those are dramas, intended for entertainment. They're not something on which to base one's opinion about an entire profession. If there is evidence that someone has committed a murder, nothing a defence lawyer can tell them to say will prevent them from being charged. Believing that is just silly.

2) Our criminal justice system convicts based on a burden of proof set at "beyond reasonable doubt". That is essential - unless we are sure that someone is guilty, then they should not be going to prison. If there is a level of doubt - that the defence lawyer is able to show - then that person should not be going to prison. It is that simple.

And as I've said before, once we remove the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the right of access to legal representation from one category of people, it's a slippery slope and everyone is vulnerable. If these rights are not universal than they are meaningless.
“Tv isn’t real life, those are dramas” ummmm Cavy was referring to Tv shows such as 24 hours in police custody and traffic cops, they are not dramas are they?
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report 6 days ago
#70
(Original post by LeapingLucy)
She was born, raised, educated and radicalised in Britain. She was also allowed to travel outside of the country as a minor by British border authorities.

She has to be a burden somewhere, so why is it right to impose that burden on Bangladesh rather than Britain?

And why is it better for her to be a national security threat in Bangladesh than Britain? Do you believe Bangladeshi lives are worth less than British lives? We, as a developed country, are far more equipped to monitor and deradicalise her.
It’s the job of the British government to look after British citizens and Britain. Not Bangladesh,
People value the lives of those in their own country above people in other countries.
Last edited by Andrew97; 6 days ago
0
reply
Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#71
Report 6 days ago
#71
(Original post by LeapingLucy)
She was born, raised, educated and radicalised in Britain. She was also allowed to travel outside of the country as a minor by British border authorities.

She has to be a burden somewhere, so why is it right to impose that burden on Bangladesh rather than Britain?

And why is it better for her to be a national security threat in Bangladesh than Britain? Do you believe Bangladeshi lives are worth less than British lives? We, as a developed country, are far more equipped to monitor and deradicalise her.
I am going to say the most selfish thing ever, but better them than us. I wish she could just be rendered stateless and be neither country's problem. (Yes I know my statement can be seen as completely illogical but I am protectionist for cases like this.)
Last edited by Themysticalegg; 6 days ago
0
reply
LeapingLucy
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#72
Report 6 days ago
#72
(Original post by Andrew97)
“Tv isn’t real life, those are dramas” ummmm Cavy was referring to Tv shows such as 24 hours in police custody and traffic cops, they are not dramas are they?
I'm not interested in continuing this argument, but Cavy also said that she has seen on TV "people who make up lies and tell murderers etc what to say to avoid being charged".

There is no way that that has been shown in a TV documentary - even if they did "make up lies and tell murderers what to say" what defence lawyer would allow themselves to be filmed doing so? Clearly, if she has seen that on TV it has been in a drama programme.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#73
Report 6 days ago
#73
(Original post by CoolCavy)
Exactly obviously she has the right to having legal aid but defending people like her is not something I could live with myself for. I don't know why we can't criticise people who make up lies and tell murderers etc what to say to avoid being charged. If anyone else did that it would be perverting the course of justice.
People in police interviews on TV tell their clients to say no comment to the questions, if that isn't obstructive I don't know what is. What's worse is when they leave the room with said client and come back with some concocted story.

What ill informed comments. For starters, solicitors and barristers are not allowed to lie in court and if they did so they would be struck off, or possibly worse. If they knowingly lie, that would be perverting the course of justice, just like it would be if anyone else did so. If a person tells their solicitor they are guilty, a solicitor cannot and will not say their client didn't do it, in court.

Essential to any democracy is the upholding of the rule of law. That everyone, no matter who they are or what they have done is entitled to a fair trial and equality before the law. The solicitors and barristers who represent such individuals should be applauded, not criticised. It's because of them our legal system works.

Saying 'no comment' isn't obstructive - it's a person's legal right. If you, or someone else was accused of doing something that you did not, and the evidence is weak then it's often the best tactic to instruct your client to say nothing. After all, the onus is and should be on the CPS to prove that your client committed the offence.

It's no different to doctors who treat everyone, no matter what they've done. It would be like criticising a doctor for treating a bank robber.
Last edited by DSilva; 6 days ago
3
reply
Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#74
Report 6 days ago
#74
(Original post by DSilva)
What ill informed comments. For starters, solicitors and barristers are not allowed to lie in court and if they did so they would be struck off, or possibly worse. If they knowingly lie, that would be perverting the course of justice, just like it would be if anyone else. If a person tells their solicitor they are guilty, a solicitor cannot and will not say their client didn't do it, in court.

Essential to any democracy is the upholding of the rule of law. That everyone, no matter who they are or what they have done is entitled to a fair trial and equality before the law. The solicitors and barristers who defend such individuals should be applauded, not criticised. It's because of them our legal system works.

It's no different to doctors who treat everyone, no matter what they've done.
I get the penalties but surely they could lie if they wanted even if the risk is extremely high and it’s completely against the oath they swore. (Not sure why they would but they still can surely) Tbh this topic will always split people in half. There’s one half who believes she should be banished and another half who believes she should be given a fair trial as per a British Citizen’s rights and these thoughts just aren’t compatible and it is in many cases not worth arguing over.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Themysticalegg; 6 days ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#75
Report 6 days ago
#75
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
I get the penalties but surely they could lie if they wanted even if the risk is extremely high and it’s completely against the oath they swore. (Not sure why they would but they still can surely) Tbh this topic will always split people in half. There’s one half who believes she should be banished and another half who believes she should be given a fair trial as per a British Citizen’s rights and these thoughts just aren’t compatible and it is in many cases not worth arguing over.
Well they could...just as anyone could. But they would face being struck off or charged with perverting the course of justice if they were to be found out. But criticising lawyers for defending bad people is ridiculous. It would be like criticising doctors for treating bad people.

As for Begum, this is a matter of law not politics. You may, justifiably, not want her back here. But legally she has a right to be here and that's pretty much that.
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#76
Report 6 days ago
#76
(Original post by CoolCavy)
What boggles my mind is that there are solicitors and lawyers willing to defend people like her, like on 24 hours in police custardy where they have people defending murderers and pedophiles. Very unscrupulous, imagine having to come up with some legitimate argument for what these people do
It is no different from a surgeon saving the life of a child rapist shot by the police. It is not just a job, it is a sworn duty.
More importantly, until all avenues have been explored, the case been held in open court and the jury made a decision based on the evidence, the accused must be regarded as innocent. It is the very foundation of our legal system. As William Blackstone said "It is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted".
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#77
Report 6 days ago
#77
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
No, she ran away from our society knowing full well about ISIS, it's not like we didn't warn her! She was the one who ran out of our system and went to ISIS, she shouldn't be entitled to live by our system.
So anyone who knowingly breaks the laws of our society or actively goes against the system does not deserve a fair trial or legal representation?
Wow!
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#78
Report 6 days ago
#78
(Original post by londonmyst)
CoolCavy was only expressing her opinion of the criminal defence lawyers who choose to undertake criminal defence work for the most heinous of clients.
She was not disputing the right of all persons to instruct a lawyer or put their defence before the courts, merely criticizing some defence lawyers who choose to make a career out of representing the most horrifying and high profile of individuals.
If you accept that all accused should have legal representation, how can you criticise people who perform that task?
0
reply
Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#79
Report 6 days ago
#79
(Original post by QE2)
So anyone who knowingly breaks the laws of our society or actively goes against the system does not deserve a fair trial or legal representation?
Wow!
Wow indeed, generally I would not think like that and yes you can’t make one rule for one person and a different one for another. Yes by law she deserves a fair trial she’s a British citizen and protected by the human rights act, but honestly screw her. 😅 I am completely prepared to screw democracy and human rights to get her removed. She is an exception and is a threat to the U.K and I’d rather minimise the risk to the British people.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Themysticalegg; 6 days ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#80
Report 6 days ago
#80
(Original post by CoolCavy)
Exactly obviously she has the right to having legal aid but defending people like her is not something I could live with myself for. I don't know why we can't criticise people who make up lies and tell murderers etc what to say to avoid being charged. If anyone else did that it would be perverting the course of justice.
People in police interviews on TV tell their clients to say no comment to the questions, if that isn't obstructive I don't know what is. What's worse is when they leave the room with said client and come back with some concocted story.
If you are criticising lawyers who break the law, commit perjury or pervert the course of justice to get a client off, then I agree with you - but that is not a defence lawyers job. The vast majority of court-appointed defence lawyers would never dream of doing that. It's like criticising doctors because of Harold Shipman.
Last edited by QE2; 6 days ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (314)
37.74%
No - but I will (64)
7.69%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.45%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (392)
47.12%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise