How do you solve a problem like Shamima Begum?

Should Shamima Begum be allowed to return to the UK


  • Total voters
    29

octophone

User
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
47,527
I take it that’s a fake account?

Of course, it wouldn't be funny if it was real.

Pathetic to strip her of citizenship, what a fucking cop out. Who else is this going to happen to? Anyone the government just doesn't like?
 

octophone

User
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
47,527
A UK passport won't be worth a fuck in 6 weeks time anyway so no loss to her, all in.
 

Rita

User
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
33,083
Am I the only one that thinks that this doesn’t quite ring true? Could this be a ploy to get her back to the UK without the hate mob baying for blood? It just seems so strange to me.
 

octophone

User
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
47,527
The letter looks fake. It;s also potentially illegal. Not that the UK Government give a shit about that.

There's an argument that she's basically a victim of grooming. So what message are they sending with this? That they will always appease the far-right of the Conservative party? That threatening violence works?
 

Slave

User
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
32,515
There's an argument that she's basically a victim of grooming. So what message are they sending with this?

I think that is one of the limitations of Prevent - we teach that people are vulnerable and we should be trying to protect them from IS, educating them, etc...but if that fails the discourse seems to switch to them being a lost cause and we strip them of their citizenship.

There has to be something between vulnerable victim and evil extremist. And this does seem to send the message that it's a one-way street with no middle ground.
 

octophone

User
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
47,527
There has to be something between vulnerable victim and evil extremist.

That's exactly it. Our culture now has only YES and NO, hero and villain, no nuance, no shading, no balance.

You'd almost think the country had, I dunno, divided itself over a yes/no referendum or something.
 

SDF

We're all Angles in Chainz
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
18,694
Oh are we really not going to sort our own shit out then? How ill judged

I’m not sure why I’m surprised mind you
 

cwej

User
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
48,468
I don't understand why we should be allowed to revoke her citizenship even if she does have dual nationality. Bangladesh don't want her either - and she's neither lived there nor visited there. As usual, the British trying to not claim the naughty Muslim girl as their own even though she was brought up in our country, speaks our language, went to our schools and it is OUR nation that failed to keep her on the straight and narrow - not Bangladesh.

She should be brought back here and we should try her for whatever crime it is she's committed.

Having said all that, I can't remember seeing a more misjudged media interview than the one she gave this week. I went in with an open mind and by the end of the interview hated her as much as the right-wing loons. She needs a media advisor pronto.
 

big ron

Nude inspector
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
26,660
Location
Your DMs
So I'm no chemtrail conspiracy weirdo BUT I found this whole thing a bit odd and staged, and then someone I know who IS a chemtrail conspiracy weirdo pointed out that exactly the same thing is going on in Canada and the US at exactly the same time, in the same style.

I thought the way Shamima's story came out and was covered very odd but then to find there are two other stories seemingly coordinated? Fishy. (Or am I just eating to much weed cake?)
 

Sheena

Hang on to your chair, dearie...
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
123,847
why? so she can seem otherwise than what she is? if anything we need less media advisors in this awful constructed reality tv program life is turning into.

I got the feeling @cwej wasn't being ENTIRELY serious... :D
 

Slave

User
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
32,515
I thought the way Shamima's story came out and was covered very odd but then to find there are two other stories seemingly coordinated? Fishy. (Or am I just eating to much weed cake?)

Initially people were praising the interviewer who tracked her down for his bravery. But now she’s giving interviews left, right and centre and no-one seems to be under much threat.

I figured that someone in the depths of IS wouldn’t just be able to invite ITV News in for tea and sympathy.
 

cwej

User
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
48,468
I got the feeling @cwej wasn't being ENTIRELY serious... :D

Semi-serious.

I didn't really mean a media advisor. I meant a legal advisor just like all criminals should have. She needs someone to help her make a narrative that actually makes sense. She's now saying things like 'I got tricked', 'I didn't understand what Islam was'... which a few days ago she wasn't saying. She's being led by journalists in ways that a 19-year-old girl shouldn't be. I'm not excusing her, but she really shouldn't be speaking to people without some kind of advice first.

Anyway, the fact remains she's an absolute cock.
 

SDF

We're all Angles in Chainz
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
18,694
Thank god Max Clifford is dead

She'd be on the cover of Heat magazine in no time
 

dmlaw

Democracy doesn't work
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
13,856
I see she thinks that she can get a Dutch passport through her husband. I'll tell you one thing, if this bitch ends up with EU citizenship after Brexit when I don't then I am seriously going to lose my shit.
 

Gangsta Nancy Lam

Slut's Spaghetti
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
11,311
Location
Hell
So I'm no chemtrail conspiracy weirdo BUT I found this whole thing a bit odd and staged, and then someone I know who IS a chemtrail conspiracy weirdo pointed out that exactly the same thing is going on in Canada and the US at exactly the same time, in the same style.

I thought the way Shamima's story came out and was covered very odd but then to find there are two other stories seemingly coordinated? Fishy. (Or am I just eating to much weed cake?)

I think the logical answer to this would be that it's all going tits up for IS, and a bunch of people are now trying to split. I would imagine it's possible that when one journalist finds a refugee camp full of IS defectors, it wouldn't take long for a bunch of other journos to descend.

That said, fully open to the possibility that the lizard people are behind this. Can we be sure it's not CROOKED HILLARY under that headscarf, plotting her next paedo pizza party in England's green and pleasant lands? I think not.
 

VoR

Take it or leave it
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
115,677
Location
The Cinema
Apparently her baby has died. :(

What a horrible, ugly, depressing story on every conceivable level.
 

Rita

User
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
33,083
That is utterly heartbreaking. The poor child had no choice of what World it was born in to. :(
 

SDF

We're all Angles in Chainz
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
18,694
:eyes:

2020 will always be remembered for three things, the return of Kylie, Maddie McCann and now Shamima Begum
 
Last edited:

ZenGiraffe

There's nothing grey about my gardens.
Joined
Apr 25, 2020
Messages
7,782
Location
Handforth Parish Council
I was always confused as to how this was even a contentious story? Of course she should come back here and be tried in a British court and (presumably) be sent to a British Prison. That is just the basic functioning of British and International law.
 

Lucille

The President of ASS
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
22,009
Location
The Bins, Hackney
Yeah she’s contending that her citizenship being revoked was illegal. Which it was. The government can’t just make you stateless WILLY NILLY.
 

Ag

#fuckingcorners
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
200,078
Location
Your womb
I was always confused as to how this was even a contentious story? Of course she should come back here and be tried in a British court and (presumably) be sent to a British Prison. That is just the basic functioning of British and International law.

Yeah she’s contending that her citizenship being revoked was illegal. Which it was. The government can’t just make you stateless WILLY NILLY.
Quite. That's what happens when you popularist politics.
 

ZenGiraffe

There's nothing grey about my gardens.
Joined
Apr 25, 2020
Messages
7,782
Location
Handforth Parish Council
Genuinely surprised by this. The judge ruled that decisions by politicians are more important than the law itself? Have I understood that right?

 

Peekaboo

User
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
4,806
From the article:

British law allows the home secretary to remove a person’s British citizenship if doing so would be “conducive to the public good”.

How unsurprising.
 

Iguana

Protect yourself with fire
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
21,835
Location
Between war and denial
The Supreme Court is within its rights to take public interest into account. The decision was unanimous so there's no dissenting opinion.

Lord Reed said in his judgment: “In such a case, it would be irresponsible for the court to allow the appeal without any regard to the interests of national security which prompted the decision in question, and it is difficult to conceive that the law would require it to do so.”
 

Kate

she's for the streets BITCH
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
72,626
Location
loony left
So if the Home Secretary decided to hang somebody because the neanderthal Sun-reading public were clamouring for it, that would be fine?
 

ZenGiraffe

There's nothing grey about my gardens.
Joined
Apr 25, 2020
Messages
7,782
Location
Handforth Parish Council
The Supreme Court is within its rights to take public interest into account. The decision was unanimous so there's no dissenting opinion.

Lord Reed said in his judgment: “In such a case, it would be irresponsible for the court to allow the appeal without any regard to the interests of national security which prompted the decision in question, and it is difficult to conceive that the law would require it to do so.”
So, because the Government engineered a situation where the defendant couldn't defend themselves, then it's fine to ignore what seems like a clear case of breaking international law?
 

Iguana

Protect yourself with fire
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
21,835
Location
Between war and denial
I'm just quoting the court, pitchfork-bearers. From a more detailed summary issued by the court:

[They start by saying the case shouldn't even have been heard because she didn't bring her appeal under the right statute - but brushing over that...]

Secondly, the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the appeal against the dismissal of Ms Begum’s application for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal of leave to enter the UK [134]. It made its own assessment of the requirements of national security, and preferred it to that of the Secretary of State, despite the absence of any relevant evidence before it, or any relevant findings of fact by the court below [108-109, 134]. In particular, there was no evidence before the Court 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, or by her being made the subject of a Terrorist Prevention and Investigation Measure [109]. The Court of Appeal’s approach did not give the Secretary of State’s assessment the respect which it should have received, given that it is 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 [134]. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal mistakenly believed that, when an individual’s right to have a fair hearing of an appeal came into conflict with the requirements of national security, her right to a fair hearing must prevail [110, 135]. But 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 [91-94, 135]. 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 [135]. That is not a perfect solution, as it is not known how long it may be before that is possible. But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind. In those circumstances, Ms Begum’s application for judicial review of the LTE decision was properly dismissed by the Administrative Court [111], as should be her cross-appeal in respect of SIAC’s preliminary decision in the deprivation appeal [97].

Thirdly, the Court of Appeal mistakenly believed that, when an individual’s right to have a fair hearing of an appeal came into conflict with the requirements of national security, her right to a fair hearing must prevail [110, 135]. But 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 [91-94, 135]. 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 [135]. That is not a perfect solution, as it is not known how long it may be before that is possible. But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind. In those circumstances, Ms Begum’s application for judicial review of the LTE decision was properly dismissed by the Administrative Court [111], as should be her cross-appeal in respect of SIAC’s preliminary decision in the deprivation appeal [97].

Fourthly, the Court of Appeal mistakenly treated the Secretary of State’s extraterritorial human rights policy as if it were a rule of law which he must obey [136], as opposed to something intended to guide the exercise of his statutory discretion [122]. On a deprivation appeal, SIAC is not entitled to re-exercise the Secretary of State’s discretion for itself. Rather, unless there is an issue as to whether the Secretary of State has acted in breach of his obligations under has the Human Rights Act, SIAC is confined to reviewing the Secretary of State’s decision by applying essentially the same principles that apply in administrative law [66-71, 118-119]. In this case, having considered detailed assessments by his officials and by the Security Service, the Secretary of State was not satisfied that depriving Ms Begum of British citizenship would expose her to a real risk of mistreatment within the meaning of his policy. SIAC decided that that conclusion was not an unreasonable one. There was no defect in SIAC’s reasoning in that regard [130]. Ms Begum’s application for judicial review of SIAC’s preliminary decision in the deprivation appeal is therefore dismissed [131].
 

dmlaw

Democracy doesn't work
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
13,856
So if the Home Secretary decided to hang somebody because the neanderthal Sun-reading public were clamouring for it, that would be fine?
If the law said that capital punishment was legal and that it was within the Home Secretary's remit to decide who gets executed, the Courts wouldn't strike it down. Their role is to interpret the existing law rather than to make new law. They really only take into account British Law when they're doing this, although they can make a declaration of incompatibility with international obligations, which is essentially a recommendation that Parliament change the law. Clearly they feel that what Priti Patel is doing is within the law as it currently stands, which means that she is allowed to do it, however morally repugnant it might be.
 

Iguana

Protect yourself with fire
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
21,835
Location
Between war and denial
That is really quite a scathing judgment against the Court of Appeal by the Supreme Court. They think the CoA was very wrong and acted outside its powers, very much putting the Appeal judges back in their box and saying they shouldn't be making policy when the Home Secretary has been given the power by Parliament to make that policy.
 

ZenGiraffe

There's nothing grey about my gardens.
Joined
Apr 25, 2020
Messages
7,782
Location
Handforth Parish Council
I'm just quoting the court, pitchfork-bearers.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

More broadly, it is surely a flaw in the legal system if the Home Secretary can illegally strip someone of their citizenship, and that act then leaving no pathway to challenge that decision in court? My understanding is that the Supreme Court's decision today does not include whether the original act of stripping citizenship was legal or not. I don't understand how this situation can be allowed to stand?
 

Kate

she's for the streets BITCH
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
72,626
Location
loony left
If she was brought back to face trial, would she not be held somewhere secure in the meantime? I don't really understand how it would be a threat to national security.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom