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

Watch
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 month ago
#61
(Original post by uberteknik)
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.
0
reply
ROTL94
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 month ago
#62
Good, would have been a legal nightmare trying to get rid of her if she was allowed back in to attend the trial, which is the actually important bit, whether or not the court rules in favour of Begum regaining British citizenship, and spending the rest of her days in a women's prison.
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 month ago
#63
(Original post by DiddyDec)
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.
0
reply
Sabertooth
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 month ago
#64
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Some of the Rochdale girls did break the law because they were manipulated to do so, just as Begum was manipulated to join ISIS.
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?
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 month ago
#65
(Original post by uberteknik)
I hardly think the gravity of the law breaking cases are comparable.
Obviously the laws broken are worlds apart but the principal remains the same.

(Original post by Sabertooth)
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?
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.
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 month ago
#66
(Original post by ROTL94)
Good, would have been a legal nightmare trying to get rid of her if she was allowed back in to attend the trial, which is the actually important bit, whether or not the court rules in favour of Begum regaining British citizenship, and spending the rest of her days in a women's prison.
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 sympathise with your general position. Personally, I think she knew very well what she was doing, and is thoroughly wicked.
1
reply
ROTL94
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 month ago
#67
(Original post by legalhelp)
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 sympathise with your general position. Personally, I think she knew very well what she was doing, and is thoroughly wicked.
No it is fine, I appreciate the correction.
1
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 month ago
#68
(Original post by legalhelp)
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.
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.
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 month ago
#69
(Original post by DiddyDec)
They are all victims of grooming but it seems only some of them get sympathy.
They're not all terrorists, tbf

Yes teenagers make mistakes but it's normally a bit of shoplifting or smoking
Last edited by harrysbar; 1 month ago
0
reply
Sabertooth
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 month ago
#70
(Original post by DiddyDec)
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.
That's an interesting argument. I would say, however, that formative years are more like 8-16. People in the UK, not even that few, often try to argue that 16 year olds should be given the right to vote. In many countries they can join the military, drive and drink beer at 16. I hear what you're saying about how teenagers are not fully developed but I think most would have realized upon arrival that they made a mistake. It wouldn't take years of watching beheadings and playing soccer with the heads for them to think "hey, maybe I made a mistake" (though from what I know, she hasn't even admitted that). I guess, teenagers make mistakes but I think although they are easily persuadable they still have enough moral guidance from 15 years in the UK (in what seems like a stable family) to know that burning people alive is wrong.
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 month ago
#71
(Original post by uberteknik)
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.
Trust me, if they had the evidence to charge with something serious enough already, then they would have done. That is an infinitely easier option than the process of formally stripping someone of their citizenship. But I agree, if new evidence came to light, or if she came back to the UK and committed an offence, then it would be very difficult for her to have a fair trial by jury. Not impossible mind - frankly, worse people with worse publicity, who have done worse things, have been fairly tried. But if you were her defence team you would certainly give that argument a crack.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 month ago
#72
(Original post by 04MR17)
Perhaps because it is only white people who made the decision:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/bi...-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.
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?
3
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 month ago
#73
(Original post by ROTL94)
Good, would have been a legal nightmare trying to get rid of her if she was allowed back in to attend the trial, which is the actually important bit, whether or not the court rules in favour of Begum regaining British citizenship, and spending the rest of her days in a women's prison.
Could have led to some very entertaining future litigation though. Such as the government being complicit in rendering material assistance to a terrorist (by flying it to safety).
Given its statements though, it beggars belief anyone can support it being allowed to return. It explicitly said she regrets nothing (thus standing by murdering westerners) theres little reason to think it wouldnt have tried to do that here. Under guard or not.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 month ago
#74
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Some of the Rochdale girls did break the law because they were manipulated to do so, just as Begum was manipulated to join ISIS.
As a broad point on this, wouldnt this apply to all terrorists and thus absolve them of their crimes? Granted, it was talked into joining ISIL (it would be rather hard for anyone to join if they werent) but it went out of its way to look into how to join and get there. It was less manipulated than fetishised the idea and sought it out really.
More broadly though, as i said, as this applies to most every terrorist (especially the ones who left the west to join) wouldnt this line of thought that it was none of their faults and simply those of some wicked instagram recruiter do a gross injustice to those that suffered because of their actions? As well sending out a message that joining such groups is de facto okay as it was nothing more than a youthful indiscretion?
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 month ago
#75
I would only support her return if she was thrown in prison the moment she sets foot in this country, but because she likely will walk free it's better if she stays in her shithole.
Last edited by The RAR; 1 month ago
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 month ago
#76
Time for my unusual unpopular take whenever threads about her come up.

She should be brought back. Not for her benefit, I don't have the remotest ounce of sympathy for her and think she should be immediately taken into custody and charged with whatever terror offences can be gotten to stick and keep her incarcerated for as long as possible while also providing her with a metric ton of psychiatric help. The larger issue for me is that our government is seemingly able to unilaterally leave a person born, raised and educated here completely stateless on the drop of a hat. She is unequivocally our mess that we need to clean up, and it sets a dangerous precedent bkth domestically and internationally. Could you imagine the uproar if we started having to keep every foreigner who commit criminal acts while living illegally or visiting, because their home nation yanked their citizenship and blocked their return?

She deserves every drop of vitriol she is receiving and as much prison time as can feasibly by thrown at her, but it is our responsibility to be the ojves that deal with her.
1
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 month ago
#77
(Original post by Gofre)
Time for my unusual unpopular take whenever threads about her come up.

She should be brought back. Not for her benefit, I don't have the remotest ounce of sympathy for her and think she should be immediately taken into custody and charged with whatever terror offences can be gotten to stick and keep her incarcerated for as long as possible while also providing her with a metric ton of psychiatric help. The larger issue for me is that our government is seemingly able to unilaterally leave a person born, raised and educated here completely stateless on the drop of a hat. She is unequivocally our mess that we need to clean up, and it sets a dangerous precedent bkth domestically and internationally. Could you imagine the uproar if we started having to keep every foreigner who commit criminal acts while living illegally or visiting, because their home nation yanked their citizenship and blocked their return?

She deserves every drop of vitriol she is receiving and as much prison time as can feasibly by thrown at her, but it is our responsibility to be the ojves that deal with her.
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? :confused: I'm not really seeing other endings here.
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 month ago
#78
(Original post by StriderHort)
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? :confused: 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.
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 month ago
#79
(Original post by legalhelp)
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.
I would say in a word 'Celebrity', most of the other terrorists we jail don't have glamour pics.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 month ago
#80
(Original post by Napp)
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?
No.

I don't.

I don't.

Hope this helps.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (145)
4.86%
Uncertainty around my education (440)
14.75%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (335)
11.23%
Lack of purpose or motivation (417)
13.97%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (139)
4.66%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (180)
6.03%
Loneliness (256)
8.58%
Financial worries (109)
3.65%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (121)
4.05%
Exposure to negative news/social media (135)
4.52%
Lack of real life entertainment (162)
5.43%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (263)
8.81%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (282)
9.45%

Watched Threads

View All