Go to first unread
Back
to top
Supreme Court: Shamima Begum not allowed to come to the UK.
Watch
Announcements
Report
#41
Personally, I don't think she should be allowed back into the country, and I completely think the correct ruling was made today. Some of the things she has said in the last 2 years are vile, she said that seeing a severed head in the bin didn't faze her. She knew what was going on while she was there, and only wanted to return when it all went bad for her.
If she is allowed back in, then everyone else in the same situation would have to be.
If she is allowed back in, then everyone else in the same situation would have to be.
1
reply
Report
#42
(Original post by ReviseSleeping)
Personally, I don't think she should be allowed back into the country, and I completely think the correct ruling was made today. Some of the things she has said in the last 2 years are vile, she said that seeing a severed head in the bin didn't faze her. She knew what was going on while she was there, and only wanted to return when it all went bad for her.
If she is allowed back in, then everyone else in the same situation would have to be.
Personally, I don't think she should be allowed back into the country, and I completely think the correct ruling was made today. Some of the things she has said in the last 2 years are vile, she said that seeing a severed head in the bin didn't faze her. She knew what was going on while she was there, and only wanted to return when it all went bad for her.
If she is allowed back in, then everyone else in the same situation would have to be.
0
reply
Report
#44
On one hand, I think that teenagers are easy to manipulate and so make mistakes. However, the whole being a terrorist and only crying when it went south and not even having any remorse is disgusting. I think she should face trial where she is.
0
reply
Report
#45
there's a nice little press summary on the Supreme Court website explaining the reasoning behind the judgment if anyone's interested.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-su...2020-0157.html
basically the SC said 'the right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public. If a vital public interest makes it impossible for a case to be fairly heard, then the courts cannot ordinarily hear it. The appropriate response to the problem in the present case is for the deprivation appeal to be stayed until Ms Begum is in a position to play an effective part in it without the safety of the public being compromised'.
also SC said the Court of Appeal errored 'as to whether the national security concerns about Ms Begum could be addressed and managed by her being arrested and charged upon her arrival in the UK' and that that was an assessment that must be made by the Secretary of State 'who has been charged by Parliament with responsibility for making such assessments, and who is democratically accountable to Parliament for the discharge of that responsibility'. (Parliamentary Sovereignty in other words.)
works for me. personally could totally see this coming that the Court of Appeal would throw Begum a bone just to look like the judiciary did all it could - and probably knowingly imo that ultimately it would be appealed and shut down by the Supreme Court. i mean what a disaster it would have been if she was allowed to come back and then do some act of terrorism.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-su...2020-0157.html
basically the SC said 'the right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public. If a vital public interest makes it impossible for a case to be fairly heard, then the courts cannot ordinarily hear it. The appropriate response to the problem in the present case is for the deprivation appeal to be stayed until Ms Begum is in a position to play an effective part in it without the safety of the public being compromised'.
also SC said the Court of Appeal errored 'as to whether the national security concerns about Ms Begum could be addressed and managed by her being arrested and charged upon her arrival in the UK' and that that was an assessment that must be made by the Secretary of State 'who has been charged by Parliament with responsibility for making such assessments, and who is democratically accountable to Parliament for the discharge of that responsibility'. (Parliamentary Sovereignty in other words.)
works for me. personally could totally see this coming that the Court of Appeal would throw Begum a bone just to look like the judiciary did all it could - and probably knowingly imo that ultimately it would be appealed and shut down by the Supreme Court. i mean what a disaster it would have been if she was allowed to come back and then do some act of terrorism.
1
reply
Report
#47
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
A good decision but the real question is how much did this cost in legal fees? I wonder how many cases have been swept under the carpet due to fear of legal costs.
A good decision but the real question is how much did this cost in legal fees? I wonder how many cases have been swept under the carpet due to fear of legal costs.
0
reply
Report
#48
(Original post by legalhelp)
Sir James Eadie doesn’t come cheap I can tell you that, and that’s without the other two silks and the rest of the Govt team...complete overkill if you ask me.
Sir James Eadie doesn’t come cheap I can tell you that, and that’s without the other two silks and the rest of the Govt team...complete overkill if you ask me.
If the government lost the optics would be terrible. It's worth it to remove any chance of that happening. And with the state if things now I wouldn't be surprised if some judge felt her rights were being abused.
0
reply
Report
#49
If Trump were to comment on this, it would go like this:
"Very great, the greatest moment you can ever see, she was a fine terrorist, a great terrorist, none knows better terrorists than me" - Donald Trump
"Very great, the greatest moment you can ever see, she was a fine terrorist, a great terrorist, none knows better terrorists than me" - Donald Trump
Last edited by The RAR; 1 month ago
1
reply
Report
#50
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Well it's not their money is it?
If the government lost the optics would be terrible. It's worth it to remove any chance of that happening. And with the state if things now I wouldn't be surprised if some judge felt her rights were being abused.
Well it's not their money is it?
If the government lost the optics would be terrible. It's worth it to remove any chance of that happening. And with the state if things now I wouldn't be surprised if some judge felt her rights were being abused.
0
reply
Report
#51
At what point does a groomed teenager get blamed for their own outcome?
How many of the people on this thread would blame the girls groomed up north for their outcome?
How many of the people on this thread would blame the girls groomed up north for their outcome?
0
reply
(Original post by DiddyDec)
At what point does a groomed teenager get blamed for their own outcome?
How many of the people on this thread would blame the girls groomed up north for their outcome?
At what point does a groomed teenager get blamed for their own outcome?
How many of the people on this thread would blame the girls groomed up north for their outcome?
0
reply
Report
#53
(Original post by Thecrazydoughnut)
Are you implying about the Rochdale Grooming gangs?
Are you implying about the Rochdale Grooming gangs?
0
reply
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Among others, yes.
Among others, yes.
They were neglected, therefore they didn’t know any better. Perhaps they were looking up to someone elder to guide them? A father figure?
0
reply
Report
#55
(Original post by Thecrazydoughnut)
I wouldn’t blame the girls specifically in the Rochdale context.
They were neglected, therefore they didn’t know any better. Perhaps they were looking up to someone elder to guide them? A father figure?
I wouldn’t blame the girls specifically in the Rochdale context.
They were neglected, therefore they didn’t know any better. Perhaps they were looking up to someone elder to guide them? A father figure?
0
reply
Report
#56
I think the “don’t let her in to argue the case” decision was correct. I am less convinced about the idea of staying the main appeal indefinitely waiting for something to turn up and she can contact her lawyers. The case will neither turn on her evidence nor on her instructions. It is a very technical legal argument. I think she gets as fair a trial as she can by having eminent lawyers argue her case. I think the Government will still lose the main argument. I don’t see how an English court can say she has the right to Bangladeshi citizenship when the body charged with issuing Bangladeshi passports says she hasn’t. This is a question that has always been deferred to the diplomatic agents of the relevant foreign Government.
1
reply
(Original post by DiddyDec)
So why do you blame Begum after getting groomed?
So why do you blame Begum after getting groomed?
Shamima had a choice, she just decided to pick the wrong one.
The Rochdale gang were manipulated, and they were given incentives.
0
reply
Report
#58
(Original post by Thecrazydoughnut)
The context of both is different.
Shamima had a choice, she just decided to pick the wrong one.
The Rochdale gang were manipulated, and they were given incentives.
The context of both is different.
Shamima had a choice, she just decided to pick the wrong one.
The Rochdale gang were manipulated, and they were given incentives.
They are all victims of grooming but it seems only some of them get sympathy.
1
reply
Report
#59
(Original post by DiddyDec)
So why do you blame Begum after getting groomed?
So why do you blame Begum after getting groomed?
0
reply
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Do you understand how grooming works? It is manipulative and often with incentives.
They are all victims of grooming but it seems only some of them get sympathy.
Do you understand how grooming works? It is manipulative and often with incentives.
They are all victims of grooming but it seems only some of them get sympathy.
The Rochdale girls didn’t break any laws.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
