Shamima Begum renewed hope of coming back to uk?
It looks like Shamima Begum may have renewed hope of coming back by the European court of human rights.
What is your opinion of this?
Shamima Begum must never be allowed to return to Britain, Tories warn - after ISIS bride was given renewed hope by ECHR | Daily Mail Online
What is your opinion of this?
Shamima Begum must never be allowed to return to Britain, Tories warn - after ISIS bride was given renewed hope by ECHR | Daily Mail Online
Scroll to see replies
I dont think she should come back.
Its already been through court several times and every time its been declined.
Its already been through court several times and every time its been declined.
Reply 2
She should come back-- she was only 15 when she was married. Should is different from what will happen, however.
Also, OP, not criticising you, but the Daily Mail is a very sensationalist tabloid, and there are definitely more trustworthy (and less biased) papers to source from
Also, OP, not criticising you, but the Daily Mail is a very sensationalist tabloid, and there are definitely more trustworthy (and less biased) papers to source from
Original post
by ethereal-bleachShe should come back-- she was only 15 when she was married. Should is different from what will happen, however.
Also, OP, not criticising you, but the Daily Mail is a very sensationalist tabloid, and there are definitely more trustworthy (and less biased) papers to source from
Also, OP, not criticising you, but the Daily Mail is a very sensationalist tabloid, and there are definitely more trustworthy (and less biased) papers to source from
Daily mail wise, its just the first one i found when looking for articles.
Reply 4
21
My main issue is the hypocrisy of it all, if Labour let her back ‘because she was only a child’ what does that say about them allowing 16yo the right to vote? You can’t say they are children and don’t know what they are doing but also say they should be voting. It’s one of the other imo
Original post
by ALEreappMy main issue is the hypocrisy of it all, if Labour let her back ‘because she was only a child’ what does that say about them allowing 16yo the right to vote? You can’t say they are children and don’t know what they are doing but also say they should be voting. It’s one of the other imo
Good point
Reply 6
21
Original post
by Emma:-)It looks like Shamima Begum may have renewed hope of coming back by the European court of human rights.
What is your opinion of this?
Shamima Begum must never be allowed to return to Britain, Tories warn - after ISIS bride was given renewed hope by ECHR | Daily Mail Online
What is your opinion of this?
Shamima Begum must never be allowed to return to Britain, Tories warn - after ISIS bride was given renewed hope by ECHR | Daily Mail Online
Two thoughts..
1) It's a ruling from a foreign court and should be ignored. A UK court has already ruled.
2) She should only be permitted to return when the law is strong enough that she be tried for treason and executed.
Reply 7
Quite apart from how old she was or how vulnerable she was, I did not and still do not agree with the notion that we can strip one of our citizens of their citizenship as a way to essentially make her another country's problem. I'm not entirely sure why so many of the people and news outlets are openly supportive of something that they would be absolutely outraged about if another country did it to us. I am very much of the view that she should return her, be charged and put on trial here and, if found guilty, serve her sentence here. I think we've shirked our responsibilities by stripping her of her citizenship. I remember Jacob Rees-Mogg quite passionately making the same point, which is only noteworthy because it's rare that I share the same view as him on any notable political issue, but there we are.
Original post
by Rakas21Two thoughts..
1) It's a ruling from a foreign court and should be ignored. A UK court has already ruled.
2) She should only be permitted to return when the law is strong enough that she be tried for treason and executed.
1) It's a ruling from a foreign court and should be ignored. A UK court has already ruled.
2) She should only be permitted to return when the law is strong enough that she be tried for treason and executed.
Reply 8
21
Original post
by Crazy JamieQuite apart from how old she was or how vulnerable she was, I did not and still do not agree with the notion that we can strip one of our citizens of their citizenship as a way to essentially make her another country's problem. I'm not entirely sure why so many of the people and news outlets are openly supportive of something that they would be absolutely outraged about if another country did it to us. I am very much of the view that she should return her, be charged and put on trial here and, if found guilty, serve her sentence here. I think we've shirked our responsibilities by stripping her of her citizenship. I remember Jacob Rees-Mogg quite passionately making the same point, which is only noteworthy because it's rare that I share the same view as him on any notable political issue, but there we are.
Out of curiosity, do you hold that view for every British citizen who commits a crime abroad? Eg if you commit drug smuggling offences in Singapore do you think they should be extradited and put on trial in uk and serve their sentence in uk (which would be a lot more lenient)? Or do you think they should be tried and sentenced in the country they committed the crime (in this case potentially the death penalty in Singapore)?
Reply 9
Mixed feelings, it's a special circumstance that I feel she is practically on the wrong side of. I always felt this was stretching the allowances for age/vulnerability to a questionable point (much media making such an appeal seemed very reluctant to do so for young men who were spoke of in very different language)
As much as the interviews with Anthony Loyd and others gave her massive exposure the lack of remorse came across really badly and did put the government in a really awkward position to act one way or another. I do wonder if she hadn't of went so high profile and put so many people on the public defensive things might have been settled out of the public eye far less dramatically.
In purely practical terms, what would we do with her? I seem to remember that due to the location and circumstances of the more serious things she is accused of there would little chance of a meaningful or safe conviction? The most you might get her on is the relatively minor offences when she bailed, so short of being vaguely detained forever on some sort of pretext she would be free, she would almost certainly need a new identify and significant special treatment and taxpayer cost going forward and I think that would a tough sell to the public just now.
As much as the interviews with Anthony Loyd and others gave her massive exposure the lack of remorse came across really badly and did put the government in a really awkward position to act one way or another. I do wonder if she hadn't of went so high profile and put so many people on the public defensive things might have been settled out of the public eye far less dramatically.
In purely practical terms, what would we do with her? I seem to remember that due to the location and circumstances of the more serious things she is accused of there would little chance of a meaningful or safe conviction? The most you might get her on is the relatively minor offences when she bailed, so short of being vaguely detained forever on some sort of pretext she would be free, she would almost certainly need a new identify and significant special treatment and taxpayer cost going forward and I think that would a tough sell to the public just now.
Reply 10
Original post
by ALEreappOut of curiosity, do you hold that view for every British citizen who commits a crime abroad? Eg if you commit drug smuggling offences in Singapore do you think they should be extradited and put on trial in uk and serve their sentence in uk (which would be a lot more lenient)? Or do you think they should be tried and sentenced in the country they committed the crime (in this case potentially the death penalty in Singapore)?
You misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting she should be tried in this country for laws she has broken in another country. Anyone who breaks the laws of another country would obviously ordinarily be subject to that country's criminal justice system and serve a sentence in that country, subject to things like foreign office intervention and other arrangements between countries. If Shamima Begum had been arrested and was on trial in Syria for crimes committed in Syria, that would be a different situation.
I am talking about the removal of citizenship from a British citizen to prevent her from returning to this country on the basis that she could claim citizenship in a country that she has never lived in. That is something I object to, because as I say, it's effectively passing the buck. We have laws in this country that prohibit terrorism, including going abroad to fight for a terrorist organisation. The correct course of action in my view is to allow her to return and charge her with relevant offences under British law. What that means in terms of sentence of likelihood of conviction depends on what she has been accused and what the evidence is, but that is how our system works. Either way, I take the view that she is our problem and we should deal with her.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post
by Rakas21Two thoughts..
1) It's a ruling from a foreign court and should be ignored. A UK court has already ruled.
2) She should only be permitted to return when the law is strong enough that she be tried for treason and executed.
1) It's a ruling from a foreign court and should be ignored. A UK court has already ruled.
2) She should only be permitted to return when the law is strong enough that she be tried for treason and executed.
Exactly, the UK courts have decided to not allow her back. Why should a foreign court over rule that?
Reply 12
Original post
by Emma:-)Exactly, the UK courts have decided to not allow her back. Why should a foreign court over rule that?
It's not a foreign court. It's an international court. There is a significant difference. We have established relationships and agreements with other countries and supranational organisations that, in certain circumstances, either provide a right of appeal from domestic courts to international courts, or involve international cases and litigation that are binding on the United Kingdom government and/or its public bodies. There is nothing at all unusual in this. In certain respects it is essential to dealings between countries that they have mechanisms by which they can resolve disputes.
For the record, the European Court of Human Rights is an international court that interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. By its constitution, we are not bound by it and do not have to follow it. The reason we do follow it is because the Human Rights Act 1998 says that we have to have regard to the court's decisions. So to answer your question, the reason why this particular international court can 'overrule' our courts is because our government passed a law that said it can. A law which, to date, has not been repealed by any subsequent government. So if we didn't follow the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, we'd been in breach of our own laws.
Reply 13
Original post
by Emma:-)Exactly, the UK courts have decided to not allow her back. Why should a foreign court over rule that?
Well to Bangladesh we're a foreign court trying to impose rule on them. It's not like she was born or raised there, why would they feel a need to take that responsibility from the UK?
Reply 14
21
Original post
by StriderHortWell to Bangladesh we're a foreign court trying to impose rule on them. It's not like she was born or raised there, why would they feel a need to take that responsibility from the UK?
We can't allow her back, the law is too soft. She would not be tried for treason or aiding terrorism.
Also it's somewhat for her own safety. She'd be lynched.
Reply 15
Original post
by Rakas21We can't allow her back, the law is too soft. She would not be tried for treason or aiding terrorism.
Also it's somewhat for her own safety. She'd be lynched.
Also it's somewhat for her own safety. She'd be lynched.
"She shouldn't be allowed back until we can legally kill her" to "she shouldn't be allowed back for her own safety" is quite the pivot.
Reply 16
Original post
by Rakas21We can't allow her back, the law is too soft. She would not be tried for treason or aiding terrorism.
Also it's somewhat for her own safety. She'd be lynched.
Also it's somewhat for her own safety. She'd be lynched.
None of that makes much difference to Bangladesh though, we're still just trying to hand off one of our home grown problems to them. While I'm in some agreement with you that we can't just let her back to wander about freely I also feel she is ultimately our problem.
I'm simply replying to Emma's point of 'Why should we let a foreign court interfere?' when that's exactly what we're expecting Bangladesh to allow.
Original post
by Rakas21We can't allow her back, the law is too soft. She would not be tried for treason or aiding terrorism.
Also it's somewhat for her own safety. She'd be lynched.
Also it's somewhat for her own safety. She'd be lynched.
If they did let her back, then she would have to be tried/go to prision for what she has done surely. She shouldnt be allowed to be set free.
Reply 18
Original post
by Emma:-)If they did let her back, then she would have to be tried/go to prision for what she has done surely. She shouldnt be allowed to be set free.
The issue us, what has she done exactly?
We can't likely charge her effectively for anything that happened outside the UK, so that leaves you with the initial offences of her fleeing when she was 15 over a decade ago and I just don't see that attracting a particularly harsh sentence, I don't even know if she would/could be tried as an adult and the fact she is no longer a UK citizen would possibly come back to bite them legally.
Basically whatever sentence we gave I think she would be out and a huge expensive problem sooner rather than later. As much as public opinion (and mine) seems pretty solid against her return, eventually we would be accused of sheer bloody mindedness if we stayed hyper focussed on one person rather than the other 400 odd who returned (out of those 400 we appear to successfully convicted barely 10%)
Reply 19
21
Original post
by Emma:-)If they did let her back, then she would have to be tried/go to prision for what she has done surely. She shouldnt be allowed to be set free.
As Strider points out, the problem is that we can't try her with anything significant because while she did join a terrorist group, any evidence of illegality and aiding an attack is probably buried in redacted MI6 files.
If the law were solid then then marrying a terrorist and fleeing to join a terrorist proto group would be enough to have her hung but currently, the law is still too soft.
As Strider also points out, she is likely to need witness protection and be an expensive problem because as a known terrorist supporter, she's going to be beaten by somebody if she walks.
Where I differ with Strider is that I don't think that people outside the likes of the Greens and Galloway and Corbyn really care. As we've seen since 2016, bleeding heart liberalism is not in vogue.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Renewing passport while on UK Student Visa
- What do you need to prove you were abroad temporarily to get student finance?
- Urgent advice needed!!!!!
- Student finance needs ID
- Do I qualify for a student loan in England
- Program Recommendations- Sustainability
- Enrolment problems
- British and French will be sent to die in Ukraine.
- uk uni nottingham trent uni
- Which Renewable Energy Engineering Master’s course would be best?
- Career path and moving forward
- Urgent: Ucl issue with pre-enrolment
- Oxford Postgraduates: MSc Energy Systems 2026
- Tuition Fees
- Enquires about uni offers
- AQA GCSE Geography Paper 2 (8035/2) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- The Official TSR Fantasy Premier League 2024/25
- [Official Thread] Angela Rayner Resigns After Tax Row and Starmer Reshuffles Cabinet
- Proof of identity problem
- DBS important notice
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 months ago
TSR Quiz of the Week #203 (19th July 2025) - Missing Words RoundLast reply 6 months ago
16-year-olds given right to vote in next General Election [Official Thread]Last reply 8 months ago
Bank of England cuts interest rates to lowest level at 4.5%Last reply 9 months ago
[Official] US announces new tariffs on most countriesLast reply 9 months ago
Criminal offence or legitimate expression of belief?
How The Student Room is moderated
To keep The Student Room safe for everyone, we moderate posts that are added to the site.
