Go to first unread
Back
to top
Supreme Court: Shamima Begum not allowed to come to the UK.
Watch
Announcements
Report
#81
(Original post by StriderHort)
I would say in a word 'Celebrity', most of the other terrorists we jail don't have glamour pics.
I would say in a word 'Celebrity', most of the other terrorists we jail don't have glamour pics.
0
reply
Report
#82
(Original post by legalhelp)
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.
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.
But I agree in general that the UK has picked a weird hill to die on here, I'm honestly surprised SB hasn't just quietly vanished one way or anoither
0
reply
Report
#83
(Original post by StriderHort)
Celebs simply don't have the same rules. Kevin Spacey has never been convicted that I know of but he's not getting his life back, is he?
But I agree in general that the UK has picked a weird hill to die on here, I'm honestly surprised SB hasn't just quietly vanished one way or anoither
Celebs simply don't have the same rules. Kevin Spacey has never been convicted that I know of but he's not getting his life back, is he?
But I agree in general that the UK has picked a weird hill to die on here, I'm honestly surprised SB hasn't just quietly vanished one way or anoither
0
reply
Report
#84
(Original post by harrysbar)
I think the only reason she hasn't is that lawyers are trying to keep her story alive to make money out of her - same with journalists
I think the only reason she hasn't is that lawyers are trying to keep her story alive to make money out of her - same with journalists
1
reply
Report
#85
(Original post by Gofre)
Time for my unusual unpopular take whenever threads about her come up.
Time for my unusual unpopular take whenever threads about her come up.
0
reply
Report
#86
(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.
If you ask the simple question; how do we know that she was a member of ISIS, then I think the answer is we don’t. It is not the sort of organisation that has membership lists and an annual subscription.
We proved membership of the IRA by proving that a particular activity, say a piece of fundraising, was undertaken in the name of the IRA, and then that the accused was associated with that activity. We generally proved all of this by surveillance by police or military witnesses. We are just not going to have that in her case.
The basic problem the U.K. has with dealing with the likes of Begum, is that the Foreign Enlistment Acts have not been updated since the late 19th century. These made it illegal for Brits to get involved in foreign wars without the consent of the Government and the key point was that the crime was complete when the Brit left the country to enlist. All the necessary evidence was in the U.K. so that when the Brit returned here, they could be convicted. The Acts were known to be defective in dealing with non-state belligerents as long ago as the Spanish Civil War, but nothing has been about it. That has left the U.K. trying to demonstrate guilt of hard to prove terrorist offences committed in dodgy bits of the world where everyone “knows” the accused is guilty but no-one including our spies have the slightest evidence of what everyone “knows”.
0
reply
Report
#87
(Original post by nulli tertius)
I suspect that there is an admissible evidence problem for any offence. If brought to the U.K., she will be advised to give a “no comment” interview and we will find that the Government have nothing that can be used in a prosecution against her.
If you ask the simple question; how do we know that she was a member of ISIS, then I think the answer is we don’t. It is not the sort of organisation that has membership lists and an annual subscription.
We proved membership of the IRA by proving that a particular activity, say a piece of fundraising, was undertaken in the name of the IRA, and then that the accused was associated with that activity. We generally proved all of this by surveillance by police or military witnesses. We are just not going to have that in her case.
The basic problem the U.K. has with dealing with the likes of Begum, is that the Foreign Enlistment Acts have not been updated since the late 19th century. These made it illegal for Brits to get involved in foreign wars without the consent of the Government and the key point was that the crime was complete when the Brit left the country to enlist. All the necessary evidence was in the U.K. so that when the Brit returned here, they could be convicted. The Acts were known to be defective in dealing with non-state belligerents as long ago as the Spanish Civil War, but nothing has been about it. That has left the U.K. trying to demonstrate guilt of hard to prove terrorist offences committed in dodgy bits of the world where everyone “knows” the accused is guilty but no-one including our spies have the slightest evidence of what everyone “knows”.
I suspect that there is an admissible evidence problem for any offence. If brought to the U.K., she will be advised to give a “no comment” interview and we will find that the Government have nothing that can be used in a prosecution against her.
If you ask the simple question; how do we know that she was a member of ISIS, then I think the answer is we don’t. It is not the sort of organisation that has membership lists and an annual subscription.
We proved membership of the IRA by proving that a particular activity, say a piece of fundraising, was undertaken in the name of the IRA, and then that the accused was associated with that activity. We generally proved all of this by surveillance by police or military witnesses. We are just not going to have that in her case.
The basic problem the U.K. has with dealing with the likes of Begum, is that the Foreign Enlistment Acts have not been updated since the late 19th century. These made it illegal for Brits to get involved in foreign wars without the consent of the Government and the key point was that the crime was complete when the Brit left the country to enlist. All the necessary evidence was in the U.K. so that when the Brit returned here, they could be convicted. The Acts were known to be defective in dealing with non-state belligerents as long ago as the Spanish Civil War, but nothing has been about it. That has left the U.K. trying to demonstrate guilt of hard to prove terrorist offences committed in dodgy bits of the world where everyone “knows” the accused is guilty but no-one including our spies have the slightest evidence of what everyone “knows”.
Worth pointing out as well that any charging decision would be for the CPS, not the Government.
0
reply
Report
#88
(Original post by Napp)
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?
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
Report
#91
(Original post by legalhelp)
I don’t think there would be any evidential difficulty whatsoever in making out a s. 11 TA 2000 offence. Her own lawyers have said she went to Syria to join ISIS. The difficulty is that this only carries a maximum penalty of 10 years, and I expect there is a general concern about the optics of charging her with what is, in the grand scheme of what she has probably done, a relatively minor offence.
Worth pointing out as well that any charging decision would be for the CPS, not the Government.
I don’t think there would be any evidential difficulty whatsoever in making out a s. 11 TA 2000 offence. Her own lawyers have said she went to Syria to join ISIS. The difficulty is that this only carries a maximum penalty of 10 years, and I expect there is a general concern about the optics of charging her with what is, in the grand scheme of what she has probably done, a relatively minor offence.
Worth pointing out as well that any charging decision would be for the CPS, not the Government.
One can easily get into the problem of a fact everyone knows but no-one has any evidence to prove.
There is also a specific problem of an assurance given when she originally skiped the country, that basically means we cannot rely on anything she did prior to leaving as being evidence of a crime.
In the case of foreign terrorism, AG must grant prior permission before DPP (which can be Chief Crown Prosecutor) consent can be given. The intention is to keep politiical oversight of matters with foreign policy implications.
0
reply
Report
#92
The right decision has been made. It's right that she shouldn't be allowed back.
She went there of her own accord to join ISIS. Yes she may have only been 15 when she went, but she knew what she was letting herself in for. It was her choice to go, no one made her.
She went there of her own accord to join ISIS. Yes she may have only been 15 when she went, but she knew what she was letting herself in for. It was her choice to go, no one made her.
0
reply
Report
#93
(Original post by Emma:-))
The right decision has been made. It's right that she shouldn't be allowed back.
She went there of her own accord to join ISIS. Yes she may have only been 15 when she went, but she knew what she was letting herself in for. It was her choice to go, no one made her.
The right decision has been made. It's right that she shouldn't be allowed back.
She went there of her own accord to join ISIS. Yes she may have only been 15 when she went, but she knew what she was letting herself in for. It was her choice to go, no one made her.
Do you understand what grooming is?
0
reply
Report
#94
(Original post by legalhelp)
I don’t think there would be any evidential difficulty whatsoever in making out a s. 11 TA 2000 offence. Her own lawyers have said she went to Syria to join ISIS. The difficulty is that this only carries a maximum penalty of 10 years, and I expect there is a general concern about the optics of charging her with what is, in the grand scheme of what she has probably done, a relatively minor offence.
Worth pointing out as well that any charging decision would be for the CPS, not the Government.
I don’t think there would be any evidential difficulty whatsoever in making out a s. 11 TA 2000 offence. Her own lawyers have said she went to Syria to join ISIS. The difficulty is that this only carries a maximum penalty of 10 years, and I expect there is a general concern about the optics of charging her with what is, in the grand scheme of what she has probably done, a relatively minor offence.
Worth pointing out as well that any charging decision would be for the CPS, not the Government.
Sentencing is complicated however and not something that dictates an election so even if this government wanted harsher sentencing, your picking a long, complicated set of reforms (with the customary London liberal opposition) For not much meaningful political gain even if there’s strong nominal support.
(Original post by DiddyDec)
No, age is a key factor in grooming cases. She was still legally a child when she left the country. I'm not saying don't punish her at all but being groomed should be a mitigating factor.
No, age is a key factor in grooming cases. She was still legally a child when she left the country. I'm not saying don't punish her at all but being groomed should be a mitigating factor.
..
My own view is that this was a surprising but pleasing feat. This woman has shamed her family, her friends and her nation in the name of a terrorist group and a foreign religion.
In lue of reliable legislation surrounding treason I confess that I am only sad that she has not been caught in a drone strike. She is a putrid example of inferiority and it would be a horrific betrayal if the British Justice system were to permit her to walk freely (even observed) in the U.K.
0
reply
Report
#95
(Original post by Rakas21)
To what extent does grooming mitigate actions. The age of criminal responsibility in the U.K. is 10 rather than 18 (and even in most European nations, below the age of suffrage and consent) and while you can feign sympathy for finding ISIS attractive, there is a big jump from that to jumping on a plane to go to a war zone to at a minimum prove comfort to terrorists and marrying somebody the Dutch state considers a killer. There comes a point (especially at 15) where being impressionable is of insufficient excuse.
..
My own view is that this was a surprising but pleasing feat. This woman has shamed her family, her friends and her nation in the name of a terrorist group and a foreign religion.
In lue of reliable legislation surrounding treason I confess that I am only sad that she has not been caught in a drone strike. She is a putrid example of inferiority and it would be a horrific betrayal if the British Justice system were to permit her to walk freely (even observed) in the U.K.
To what extent does grooming mitigate actions. The age of criminal responsibility in the U.K. is 10 rather than 18 (and even in most European nations, below the age of suffrage and consent) and while you can feign sympathy for finding ISIS attractive, there is a big jump from that to jumping on a plane to go to a war zone to at a minimum prove comfort to terrorists and marrying somebody the Dutch state considers a killer. There comes a point (especially at 15) where being impressionable is of insufficient excuse.
..
My own view is that this was a surprising but pleasing feat. This woman has shamed her family, her friends and her nation in the name of a terrorist group and a foreign religion.
In lue of reliable legislation surrounding treason I confess that I am only sad that she has not been caught in a drone strike. She is a putrid example of inferiority and it would be a horrific betrayal if the British Justice system were to permit her to walk freely (even observed) in the U.K.
0
reply
Report
#96
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Coming from someone that supports genocide this is utterly meaningless.
Coming from someone that supports genocide this is utterly meaningless.
I believe you are referring to enforced monoculturalism within a sovereign nations internal borders.
0
reply
Report
#97
(Original post by Rakas21)
In no circumstances do I support acts of genocide.
I believe you are referring to enforced monoculturalism within a sovereign nations internal borders.
In no circumstances do I support acts of genocide.
I believe you are referring to enforced monoculturalism within a sovereign nations internal borders.
0
reply
Report
#98
(Original post by Rakas21)
And these optics in addition to a bit of luck (finding her in the camp) are why she cannot return for trial. The relevant U.K. legislation is much too liberal in its sentencing for a whole host of crimes and so people like me who devoutly support law and order won’t even support taking that risk.
And these optics in addition to a bit of luck (finding her in the camp) are why she cannot return for trial. The relevant U.K. legislation is much too liberal in its sentencing for a whole host of crimes and so people like me who devoutly support law and order won’t even support taking that risk.
1
reply
Report
#99
(Original post by Rakas21)
And these optics in addition to a bit of luck (finding her in the camp) are why she cannot return for trial. The relevant U.K. legislation is much too liberal in its sentencing for a whole host of crimes and so people like me who devoutly support law and order won’t even support taking that risk.
Sentencing is complicated however and not something that dictates an election so even if this government wanted harsher sentencing, your picking a long, complicated set of reforms (with the customary London liberal opposition) For not much meaningful political gain even if there’s strong nominal support.
To what extent does grooming mitigate actions. The age of criminal responsibility in the U.K. is 10 rather than 18 (and even in most European nations, below the age of suffrage and consent) and while you can feign sympathy for finding ISIS attractive, there is a big jump from that to jumping on a plane to go to a war zone to at a minimum prove comfort to terrorists and marrying somebody the Dutch state considers a killer. There comes a point (especially at 15) where being impressionable is of insufficient excuse.
..
My own view is that this was a surprising but pleasing feat. This woman has shamed her family, her friends and her nation in the name of a terrorist group and a foreign religion.
In lue of reliable legislation surrounding treason I confess that I am only sad that she has not been caught in a drone strike. She is a putrid example of inferiority and it would be a horrific betrayal if the British Justice system were to permit her to walk freely (even observed) in the U.K.
And these optics in addition to a bit of luck (finding her in the camp) are why she cannot return for trial. The relevant U.K. legislation is much too liberal in its sentencing for a whole host of crimes and so people like me who devoutly support law and order won’t even support taking that risk.
Sentencing is complicated however and not something that dictates an election so even if this government wanted harsher sentencing, your picking a long, complicated set of reforms (with the customary London liberal opposition) For not much meaningful political gain even if there’s strong nominal support.
To what extent does grooming mitigate actions. The age of criminal responsibility in the U.K. is 10 rather than 18 (and even in most European nations, below the age of suffrage and consent) and while you can feign sympathy for finding ISIS attractive, there is a big jump from that to jumping on a plane to go to a war zone to at a minimum prove comfort to terrorists and marrying somebody the Dutch state considers a killer. There comes a point (especially at 15) where being impressionable is of insufficient excuse.
..
My own view is that this was a surprising but pleasing feat. This woman has shamed her family, her friends and her nation in the name of a terrorist group and a foreign religion.
In lue of reliable legislation surrounding treason I confess that I am only sad that she has not been caught in a drone strike. She is a putrid example of inferiority and it would be a horrific betrayal if the British Justice system were to permit her to walk freely (even observed) in the U.K.
Technicalities aside, the tone and content of this post is very odd. Like you are trying very hard to use every word from this week’s a-word-a-day calendar in a sentence. If you are going to use a public forum to wish death upon another human being, at least express yourself properly.
1
reply
Report
#100
(Original post by legalhelp)
If the Government wanted to change the maximum sentence for terrorist offences they could do so tomorrow. That is entirely within their gift. I don’t agree that we sentence too liberally in this country, but that is another conversation for another day.
Technicalities aside, the tone and content of this post is very odd. Like you are trying very hard to use every word from this week’s a-word-a-day calendar in a sentence. If you are going to use a public forum to wish death upon another human being, at least express yourself properly.
If the Government wanted to change the maximum sentence for terrorist offences they could do so tomorrow. That is entirely within their gift. I don’t agree that we sentence too liberally in this country, but that is another conversation for another day.
Technicalities aside, the tone and content of this post is very odd. Like you are trying very hard to use every word from this week’s a-word-a-day calendar in a sentence. If you are going to use a public forum to wish death upon another human being, at least express yourself properly.
Is it any wonder crime is as bad as it is in this country and anti-social behaviour is out of control? Can literally kill someone and get under a decade.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
