Go to first unread
Back
to top
Supreme Court: Shamima Begum not allowed to come to the UK.
Watch
Announcements
Report
#61
(Original post by uberteknik)
The Rochdale girls did not break international law to condone and help perpetuate genocide, murder, rape and terrorism.
The Rochdale girls did not break international law to condone and help perpetuate genocide, murder, rape and terrorism.
0
reply
Report
#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
Report
#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.
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
Report
#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.
Some of the Rochdale girls did break the law because they were manipulated to do so, just as Begum was manipulated to join ISIS.
1
reply
Report
#65
(Original post by uberteknik)
I hardly think the gravity of the law breaking cases are comparable.
I hardly think the gravity of the law breaking cases are comparable.
(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?
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?
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
Report
#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.
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.
1
reply
Report
#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.
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
Report
#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.
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.
0
reply
Report
#69
(Original post by DiddyDec)
They are all victims of grooming but it seems only some of them get sympathy.
They are all victims of grooming but it seems only some of them get sympathy.
Yes teenagers make mistakes but it's normally a bit of shoplifting or smoking
Last edited by harrysbar; 1 month ago
0
reply
Report
#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.
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
Report
#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.
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
Report
#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.
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.
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
Report
#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.
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.
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
Report
#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.
Some of the Rochdale girls did break the law because they were manipulated to do so, just as Begum was manipulated to join ISIS.
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
Report
#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
Report
#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.
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
Report
#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.
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.
I'm not really seeing other endings here.
0
reply
Report
#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?
I'm not really seeing other endings here.
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.
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
Report
#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.
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
Report
#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?
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 don't.
I don't.
Hope this helps.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
