UKH

The ISIS bride is returning to Britain.

BBC News - Shamima Begum can return to UK to fight for citizenship, Court of Appeal rules
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53427197

Thoughts?

Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go. Do not collect £200.

Good news - everyone deserves a 2nd chance.

God knows I was a right wassock when I was a teenager.

I see a glittering career in politics ahead of her.

Good. She should be able to receive the same level of support as any other underaged girls who have been victims of grooming by adults, not punishment and being casted out or exiled just because we don't like the people that groomed her.

It would have been cheaper, faster and more efficient to have brought her home promptly for a trial in the first place. The stupidity of a few teenagers should never have been used as an excuse to alter so dramatically the rule of law.   If she poses a genuine risk to the UK it’s far better to have her in prison here than doing whatever she ends up doing in a few years time in Syria.  If she doesn’t pose a risk how can we claim grounds to renounce citizenship and the legal obligations that carries - both in her favour and against it?

One might suggest there’s much less damage done to the integrity of our legal processes when these jeffing idiots have the sort of fatal accident that’s so common to jihadist training camps.  Like being shot in the head by a sniper or having their car blown up by a missile.

As you may tell; I’m very conflicted.  I just can’t bring myself to feel anything but contempt for the idiots walking away from the UK into jihad; for all it’s problems it’s one of the better places to live in the world.  The problem is that they’re pawns to some monsters who will be very happy every time their pawns trigger another lurch to extreme policies/politics in their home nations.

I listened to her first interview and as a result don't like her.

I don't like ISIS either but at 15 I knew that cutting people's heads off because they didn't share your religious views was wrong.

Yeah, let's just dispense with the messy business of trials, eh...?

Yes, let’s.

She’ll still have received more justice than that meted out to the victims of ISIS.

She is and was always our responsibility. This idea we could palm her off on a poorer country she'd never been to was morally repugnant and shows just how pathetic this modern cloying nationalism is. I made this point to somebody at the time and their response was 'well leave her where she is they'll know what to do with her'...… a clear that assumption that everyone in the Middle east is into medieval savagery.

Hopefully it won’t be a similar level of support as that received by girls in Rochdale.

Glad I live in a country with a good legal system - let them decide.

And as others have said, whilst she's f*cked up, it will no doubt be more complex than that.

Exactly. 7 is the age of reason. A 15 year old knows right from wrong. Having said that, it was always going to come to this. She will now receive more attention, more support and will no doubt, at great expense to the taxpayer, be left to resume where she left off doing who knows what damage in the unfortunate community where she will end up living. 

I haven't listened to her, but going off the fact that she was getting brainwashed since she was at least 14 if not younger, then married to a random person at 15, lived within Isis territory for 5 years with all the truly mad things that must be going on around her and surrounded by an extreme fanatic ideology being practiced fervently, had 3 children which all died, and all this by an age at whch 'normal' kids' biggest concern is to whether they should get an iPhone X or a Samsung Galaxy, then the surprising thing really would be if she sounded anything like what you may be deemed 'likeable'.

You probably didn't have people actively grooming you to make you believe what they want you to believe. Just read into the child soldiers in Africa if you want to see what's possible to make children do with the right 'encouragment' while making them certain what they are doing is right.

Children are malleable things, which is why we have so many safeguards around them.

Indeed. Which is why we must remain better than them. Fair trial is right and proper in my view. 

+1

I wonder if she'd be wishing to come home if ISIS had remained in power. She would be well aware of the atrocities being carried out and was clearly happy there. ISIS were defeated at the cost of thousands of Syria, Iraqi and Kurdish lives as well as the tech and air power of the west.

I appreciate the legal ruling but can't say I have any sympathy towards her. 

Yes, I know.

I'd like to see her tried for any crimes she may have committed in Syria and then, after she's served her sentence have her appeal heard in the UK and if successful she stands trial in the UK. However I understand that it's unlikely that she can be dealt with by the Kurds.

The UK's first responsibility must be to ensure the safety its innocent citizens. Wherever she ends up it is of paramount importance that she poses no threat to anyone.

Not falling to their level, then...? I thought our whole argument was that we're better than them...?

Your Rochdale quip is particularly unpleasant. True colours showing, I fear.

I like a gamble:  bet you £100 she doesn't.  (my crystal ball is just as good as yours).

I suspect the comment relates to the general lack of support offered to children involved in CSE....

Thoughts? It's about due process. She is able to have her appeal HEARD, not win it.

If she does win it it will be on a thorough review of the competing arguments.

The rule of law is supposed to be what this country has congratulated itself upon exporting around the world so let's see it upheld here. It's the controversial and difficult cases that test it.

As long as that's on remand, awaiting a fair trial.

If we want to claim the moral high ground, we need to be seen to have a robust and fair system of justice. If there is evidence that she committed a crime (let's say treason, and by joining IS I'd say that's close enough) then, she should be tried in an open court.

Followed by an appropriately lengthy custodial sentence.

I did too, but if I'd been fed the message that it was all made up, and that the ISIS thing was actually a promised land for my religion (I think it was at 14 or 15 that I stop thinking Catholicism made any sense) without any head chopping going on, with what was in the media being propaganda inline with the war on Iraq being based on WMD's which didn't turn out to exist, I might have started to have my perception of things warped away from one based on reality.  One doesn't know until she's back home and 'debriefed' towards potentially finding out. 

I didn't quite like her so much, but I try to keep in mind how damaged she might have become from living with ISIS, it might not be her more authentic self.

Edit: Given that she was potentially a naive teenager, she might deserve to have her citizenship back but need to have her freedom restricted because of the danger she has now become, but that 'feels fair' to me, compared to what she did as a teenager having her banished from the UK for the rest of her life.

This sets an unfortunate president.

If the original decision to strip her of her citizenship still stood it would mean that in a few years we could strip Boris Johnson of his citizenship for all the treasonous stuff he has done also.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

She should be tried and punished or not according to the law, I don't really see what alternative there is here. If someone joined an inner city gang at 15 and was caught at 18 still aiding and abetting acts of murder I don't think the situation would be any different but everyone would expect the law to do its job. I find her a thoroughly repugnant person as far as I can tell from the media but that doesn't mean she is anything less than any other accused criminal.

What a cracking typo.

Sure... and we should have a criminal justice system up to the task.

To the dislikers, let's walk you through it.

Shamina Begum, born, raised and educated in the UK. British citizen captured in Syria, touted 'options' were:

1) She stays in northern Syria. Ok, Kurds do get 1st refusal to prosecute her. Unsurprisingly, they're not interested, they've got their hands full, they want to return her to her country of origin, the UK.

2) UK tries to palm her off on Bangladesh, the country her parents were born in. Bangladesh, poor country much less resourced to deal with the situation than we are, doesn't want anything to do with it. UK pathetically keeps trying, UK international reputation takes another hit.

3) The UK acts its age and takes her back, she goes through the criminal justice system. Standard.

The human brain supposedly doesn't fully mature until it's 25, but looking at some of the knee-jerk reactions on here I'm questioning this. Have some of you not considered that you are making things worse?

In what way?

7 Is the beginning of the age of reason - the ability to begin to see things from the perspective of somebody else. 

Nobody is arguing that she wouldn't have known it was wrong to chop off heads at 15, to my mind, it hinges on how clear eyed she was about joining ISIS, how hoodwinked she may have been about the reality of things. I can almost hear in my head somebody asking that if the US and UK could go to war against Iraq because of WMD's which were proven not to exist on evidence which turned out to be flimsy (bordering on fabricated), and with Bush Jnr having a grudge against Saddam for trying to kill his dad, what is to stop there being propaganda on the TV about ISIS doing things like chopping people's heads off. I think that we can't know what environment she was in to do with online radicalisation before she decided to join ISIS, where her mind was at psychologically.

7 is where you should start to understand the concept of right from wrong. Nothing to do with seeing things from other peoples perspective. 

I'm not sure what point your trying to make. Saddam tried to kill George Bush Snr? I must have missed that one!

I found the removal of her citizenship extremly worring, she was British citizen and therefore our responsibility.

As a nation and society we should also consider how we allowed a child (as she was at the time) to get exploited like this and how to prevent it in future.

If she has commited crimes under British law she should be tried in our courts, if she commited crimes in other countries we should follow our extradition policy.

I don't disagree that she is completly unlikable but that should have no impact on the rule of law.

The whole point of a justice system is that it should be blind (hence the blindfold on the justice statues). Someone is accused of breaking the law, they are put on trial and the system decides. Short cutting this by removing the right to trial does far more damage to us as a country than would be caused by the defendant tried, found guilty and imprisoned (or found not guilty and freed). She was a UK citizen - she is our responsibility.

<wot he said above!> 

Yes it is, because if we can't see something from another's perspective, we can't know that doing something 'not very nice' as we might put it to children - isn't the right thing to do. 

Edit: This is in danger of a topic diversion, but I hope the above makes sense.

Edit 2: It's why I apparently got cross at a little girl kicking a cat when I was 6, because I could understand that it was weaker and defenseless. I can remember the cat and the girl, but not getting cross. I went to their tent and shouted and the girl got told off my her mum, so that was alright, I retreated in the face of angry French words emerging.  

But, as I undertand it, if she returns and is successful in getting back citizenship, she is unlikely to face prosecution. However she will need ongoing costly surveillance which, if it sets a precedent with other potential returnees, will compromise the system of trying to keep terrorist activity in check. 

Good. Her treatment by our government has been nothing short of disgraceful, she and they deserve their day in court.

jk

What I'm wondering is - why isn't she being tried in the country/ies where her alleged crimes were committed?

I wonder - was she 15 when her alleged crimes were committed? I think she was older than that?

Hot Shots! Part Deux.

I need to dig that film out again. The first one is even better. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/saddam-sent-hit-team-to-kill-bush-in-kuw...

Here you go, about the attempt on Bush Snr.

Bush Jnr had access oil, a grudge/sense of family duty as he saw it, and seeing Saddam as evil as reasons to go to war, but the WMD's proved to be somewhat elusive in the end. I guess it could have been a helpful things towards convincing a naive teenager that things are set against Muslims.

Arguably the greatest thing about the UK is its legal system and I think that this is a fantastic example of it, acting outside of the political sphere, as all legal systems should, but few do. 

Allowing Shemima Begum or Jihadi Jack to rot in a camp in Syria brings a lovely feeling of schadenfreude, but is the easy way out and undermines the principles that govern Western ideology. I do think punishment should follow if a crime can be proven, but the West generally must have more faith that our ideals do hold universal appeal and resist resorting to measures that belie those same ideals.

Personally I think that locking people up based on the vague idea that they are a threat to society would fall short of the ideals that make Britain great. Being an inclusive society is a difficult thing to achieve, but welcoming back those who have rejected UK society should be part of that, in my opinion. Far from feeling aggrieved that these individuals have rejected our system of beliefs for something obviously abhorrent, we should be proud to be a nation that upholds its values in the face of such rejection.

Edit: There were only 5 responses to this thread when I started writing this. I obviously need to write more quickly!

So to be clear, this is a hearing in a British court to decide whether the home secretary had a right to remove her passport and therefore re-entry into the country?  Will she stand 'trial' remotely or is she coming home to have the hearing?  

If its in the UK and she loses the appeal, will she be carted off back to the promised land?  I just cant see that happening.  Wont she be viewed as vulnerable and therefore given asylum?

This feels complicated.

(I am also conflicted on the matter - we should rise above the barbarity of the likes of ISIS but for sure, she appears to have little fondness for the UK and only appears to want to come back because she is in hardship)

Wow, incredible that you’ve managed to ascertain all that and yet you’ve not even listened to the person you’ve formed such firm beliefs about. 

According to reports from the time, her whole family, the mosque she attended and her entire community stood firmly against ISIS and their hateful ideology. And rather than being groomed by some Svengali like expert brainwasher, Begum self radicalised through watching shit on the internet.

They are, and Begum has a modicum of my sympathy simply for being such a bloody fool, but don’t paint her the victim in all this, she was entirely the architect of her own misfortune.

First time I've seen that report.

I can't help but wonder why you seem so keen to defend her? She'll have her day in court and the law will decide her fate.  What can't be disputed is that she's a nasty piece of work  gullible or otherwise, who seemed quite happy to spend her time in the midst of terrorists and jihadists who thought nothing of chopping off a few innocent peoples heads. If ISIS hadn't been defeated she would still be happily accompanying her terrorist husband in Syria or whatever other caliphate they settled in and knocking out one of his kids every 12 months or so.

I thought she was 15 when she did a runner to Syria.

I think your part 1 to 3 description is spot on.....the legality of our govt response was always going to come back to haunt, however, I also think the general idea of her being brought to trial is a non starter....on what grounds, what charges, how are witnesses to be cross examined etc....it won't get past first base.

She will be brought back, get a new start and possibly anonymity on the grounds of risk to her from others......

Its a real issue....the notion of de-radicalisation is not reliable and here she and potentially others will be following this precedent.

Why should she be? The ISIS controlled 'promised land' she went to is now controlled by the SDF, who control the refugee camp she is in. They want western countries to take their citizens back, understandably. They've just fought a war against ISIS and others, they don't have the resources to accommodate so many refugees. We should be doing what we can to help them, that include dealing with our own problem citizens.

I don't agree, she's admitted membership of a proscribed terrorist organisation, it's on tv.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/proscr...

High profile cases like this shouldn't be a problem, it's the ones that slip back unnoticed we need to worry about.

There's a great Swedish series on the subject of ISIS brides on Netflix called Caliphate. It doesn't offer them any favours but it does humanise them. 

Fair point!

I can hear the mitigation and defence already though!

She committed her alleged crimes in Syria but the Syrian government doesn't have control over the area where she is being held or where she allegedly committed these crimes. The UK government officially recognise the Syrian National Council, which opposes the Syrian government, so no chance of any extradition negotiations.

She can have her fair trial. On remand, behind bars.

We could lock her up for life without a trial and we still wouldn’t have stooped as low as ISIS.

My Rochdale reference might be unpleasant but was the reality faced by many innocent girls.

What you mean by ‘true colours showing’ I’ll take as an accusation of racism.

It was a fear of being accused of racism that allowed vulnerable girls to be exploited, if you get upset by me saying that then tough.

I'm not clear what you mean. Would you like her to receive more or less support than the Rochdale victims, or are you just crowbarring a reminder of the Muslims are paedo-predators trope into the conversation?

jk

Sending her to Bangladesh was a ridiculous notion.  I don't in the slightest agree with what she did, but she is our problem.  

We're all innocent until proven guilty aren't we?

jk

I was referencing the lack of support received by many young girls who were groomed and abused.

If you want a discussion on the ethnicity of the men concerned In the abuse then I’m more than happy to have one but that wasn’t the purpose of my post.

That's how it read to me. Child sexual exploitation occurs pretty much everywhere. You chose to use a particular example, which I took, as jk says, to be intended to crowbar a racist trope into the conversation.

There are two ways to look at this:

- She is nasty terrorist etc etc

We should take responsibility bring her home

- She's a victim etc etc

We should take responsibility bring her home

Ideally, in either case this would have been done immediately before her child died in horrible conditions just so some priministerial hopeful could look tough.

Rochdale was the first example of large scale abuse that was ignored by the authorities that sprung to mind. Ignored being the important bit, as in not supported. The ethnicity of those involved doesn’t come into it, except in your mind.

I’ll await your apology for calling me a racist.

You will, yes.

In reply to elliott92:

Part of the problem as I understand it is that we don't know what she did in Syria and even if we had an idea, wouldn't be able to prove that she broke UK law. I think there's a law against joining a banned organisation but I don't know what the penalty might be if convicted.

I can't imagine many people feeling comfortable about her coming back to the UK and being allowed to roam the streets but I'm not sure what she might be charged with that would keep her in jail for a long time.

Edit:

I see that she would be likely to get a sentence of five years. I guess that would actually amount to three years with good behaviour. That doesn't sound enough to me.

There was plenty of coverage in the news and on social media about all the terrible things going on at that time so she definitely knew what ISIS were up to. Her appearances on TV since being captured have shown nothing but contempt and hatred for the country she grew up in except her plea to be seen as the victim in all this (Channel 4 news covered it well at the time). Her attitude suggests she remains a security threat to the UK.

If a court rules she should be put before a UK judge then fine, have her day in court, but let's not pretend she was an innocent teenager unaware of what she was getting into. 

I just remember how malleable I was at the same age. She does seem to be an objectionable person, but that's not what I've been posting about. 

Edit: This feels like it's blowing my own trumpet in a way I'm not comfortable with, but if it strikes a chord, or touches on what feels like a principle of fairness, I'd probably defend most people if it's to do with particular point. If a murderer was wrongly convicted of something else which added to their sentence, for instance, it wouldn't be fair for them to be in jail for longer even if one didn't like them or what they did, I think similar applies to who this thread is about. 

The case for her going to jail could seem to be a strong one, and it could be a weaker one for her losing her right to citizenship when she was potentially too unaware at the time of what she was getting into. I haven't found anything to like about her or what she did, but that doesn't seem relevant to how aware she was at the time. I don't think it does, at least. 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/11

She's admitted to it, it's a custodial sentence.

I dont disagree with your principles of fairness. Like I said she will have her day in court and the law will decide her fate. 

Unlike you, I can't find forgiveness nor understanding and that is where we differ.

I suspect she'll win her appeal for citizenship, then lose her terrorism trial. Given that she was a child when she committed the offences, I doubt she'll receive a particularly lengthy sentence. 

My concern then would be that she follows the well-worn path taken by Islamist terrorists upon their release from incarceration  and vapourises herself in a shopping centre, or something similar.

It'd be interesting to hear what those who supported her quest for citizenship would have to say about it, then.

In light of her successful appeal, the government's policy of launching drone strikes against (former) UK citizens fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria makes alot of sense.

It's be interesting to hear what those who supported her quest for citizenship would have to say about it, then.

Well I'm not supporting her quest for citizenship, I am opposing her removal of citizenship, there is an important difference.

She is in my opionion our responsibility, with all that entails(Edit *).

If we really are in an existential fight for the survival of our civilisation and way of life as some seem to think. Then let us at least have a civilisation and way of life worth fighting for, which includes 'inconvenences' like the right to a fair trial.

Edit: * By which I do not mean accepting that people will be blown up, I mean vigilance, investing in de-radicalisation (is that a word?) etc. Those are the costs of being 'the good guys'.

She's a British criminal, should face a British jury and serve time in a British penal institution. She was born in Britain and has only ever held a British passport. If she can be sent "back" to Bangladesh, I can be sent back to Slovakia. Messing about with fundamental constitutional rights and responsibilities to satisfy Murdoch's press outlets is a dangerous way to go.

Yes please

OK, and thanks, but in my opinion it's FAR more likely she'll be watching TV, going out with her mates, and getting a burger at Burger King

I'm not joking

I would support her right for a fair trial, but I don't think she'll get one; as this would include a fair outcome....afew years in a young offenders institute, as punnishment for joining an organisation like ISIS, isn't fair. 

Deradicalisation is a nonsense; it's a nonsensical solution dreamed-up by left-wing thinkers, grasping for an answer to problem posed by post-release terrorists. 

Look no further than Usman Khan (the London Bridge attacker) to see deradicalisation in action.

Far better we abandon her in the desert of Iraq than provide her with a way out in the interests of being the virtuous 'good guys'.

We're not exactly the good, anyway.

Far too many 'ex'-terrorists have gone on to commit atrocities after their release from prison.

You can't be sure that she'd go on to a normal life.

Interesting background viewing "Once Upon a Time in Iraq",  https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m000kxws/once-upon-a-time-in-iraq I've watched the first couple of parts and there is a clear theme emerging of the responsibility that the UK and the US bear for the creation of ISIS through our complete lack of any sort of plan of what the hell we would do in Iraq after Saddam had been given the boot.  It's utterly heart-breaking stuff - watching the 11 year old girl who has just had an eye blinded telling her Mum to stop crying, or watching the Beduin man whose family have just been annihilated by gunships in the desert dig up his dead kids' school books.

Our hands are covered in blood, and to throw out the rule book because 'She's an evil terrorist, obvs' seems callous and the wrong decision.  It's going to cost a shit-ton of money and sets a precedent for the other home grown jihadis who have had their citizenship renounced but I can't see an alternative.

Look I'm not going to claim it is  simple but I don't think its nonsense.

https://www.ctc.usma.edu/interview-with-a-former-terrorist-nasir-abbas-dera...

I'm sure you think I'm naive (and maybe I am). But I feel strongly that whatever a human does, however awful, they are still a human. Now I'm sure some cases are irredeamable and will need permanent (humane) incarceration and I know that has a cost. But I reject our taking away their hummanity, not just for their sake but most importantly for our sake.

At the end the day we both seem to have very strong, if opposing, feelings on this and I suspect this is not the correct environment to facilitate coming to an agreement.

You need to start a new thread so as not to derail this one.

I’m fairly sure that it will be a fairly popular topic.

I'm always chilled by people who think that because somebody has committed a criminal offence, no matter how serious, basic legal protections should not apply to them. I wonder whether these people may, ironically, feel more at home in the caliphate as-was.

Begum is not a nice person; she's certainly committed a crime. She should be brought to justice and made to answer for this crime. In the United Kingdom, we pride ourselves on the rule of law, under which justice is carried out through a trial - at which point the fact that she was radicalised as a child can be accounted for as a mitigating (if not exonerating) factor.

Do people who agree with the revocation of her citizenship have no sense of national responsibility? It was always clear that it was unlawful to make some stateless - the idea was to try and make her the problem of Bangladesh. She was radicalised in this country before going abroad to become a terrorist supporting a murderous regime. I think if you make a mess you should clean it up yourself.

The worst thing of all is that at a time when the government could have repatriated her and tried her, she had a newborn son who was clearly in an incredibly vulnerable position. That son, blameless for the actions of his mother, was a British citizen, and the UK government left him to die of pneumonia in a refugee camp in order to score a political point. That alone should be a source of enormous personal shame to those involved in making the decision to revoke her citizenship.

I agree with your idea that it's nonsense but it's got sod all to do with being left wing.....not all left wing people fit your box that you try and sneer them in to....

I'm thinking that the only way to eliminate all risk of potentially dangerous people causing harm to society is to never let them out of prison, or back into the country, which, given her age at the time, and that she's in a refugee camp and (probably) not able to have he psychological sate and level of risk assessed, couldn't it be seen to be unjust to not let her back into the country (from which left while in an undetermined level of naivety or awareness) because of an unquantified potential to be a danger?

For justice to have any meaning, I think it needs to apply to those we really don't like and the potentially dangerous as well.

I'm not sure how old you are, or what your historical perspective is, but many of us objecting at the time to the appalling invasion of Iraq - and indeed the subsequent invasion of Libya, ten years later - were pretty sure that no good would come of it. When will we ever learn?

The UK holds some responsibility via the creation of Iraq in the first place, too, and the powder keg created which Saddam Hussain kept in check through his dictatorship. 

Justice for Shamima Begum.... It’s a money spinner for the briefs. And the newspapers. Perhaps her publishers etc etc

As for Begum herself...well, the public interest will wane. It’s a dime store thrill.

I like the way you blame the UK government for her actions, and the actions of the people who groomed and radicalised her!

I wasn't being serious, just seeing if you were. The idea of a UKC thread discussing the ethnicity of sex offenders is utterly depressing. But yes you're right, it would probably be very popular.

I dont have a crystal ball  but I don't expect her to spend the remainder of her lifetime in jail which means at some point she will return to the community..... What are you betting on?

The British government supported the armed opposition groups in Syria that were trying to overthrow Assad. Some of the main figures in these groups were ex-Iraqi army officers that were radicalised as a result of the 2003 invasion. The more radical elements of the Syrian opposition morphed to become ISIS. So yes, the UK government played a part in the creation of the Islamic state. 

And if a 15 year-old girl can be held responsible for her bad decisions, surely government ministers can be held responsible for theirs!

Well, I hope you're right. According to this mornings Telegraph, 150 other stateless ex-Jihasis are preparing their legal cases for UK citizenship, on the back of Begums successful appeal.

Either we implement a deradicalisation process that is 100% successful, or we get ready for another wave of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks.

Still, atleast we never 'took away their humanity', eh?

I always objected to the principle that the home secretary thought that he had authority to remove citizenship from someone who had it because they were born here - like me.

After all, if he could do that to someone I don't like he could do it to someone I do.

Justice shouldn't be blind - it should be fair, accessible, transparent etc. Not sure why everyone always thinks there is a blindfold on the famous Old Bailey scales of justice statue - there isn't. 

I would like to see SB put on trial for supporting terrorism but having seen her interviews I worry she is utterly manipulative and still radicalised.

Thats not a reason to keep her out of UK - but I fear for the damage she may do, inside or out of prison. 

Oh Tim, so many cans to open!  Did we not set the people on the path to self-governance by creating Iraq from Mesopotamia, having helped the people rise against their evil  colonial overlords?  What responsibility do the Turks bear for their rule before that...or let's face it what have the Romans ever done for us?  I jest sorry.

What has also come through very clearly from the Iraqis being interviewed is a feeling that Saddam ruled a society that was for the most part tolerant, liberal (culturally for the Middle East), safe and prosperous.  What came after was infinitely worse.  Yes if you got on the wrong side of him you were likely to find yourself being beaten with a rubber hose in a dank cell or worse (and this extended to whole communities) but if you sang the songs about how much you loved him and didn't say anything unwise to the wrong person you could go to school, hospital, university, the cafe or the heavy-metal gig without fear of sudden violent death.

Anyway we're off the point : )

“The vocal or active opposition to British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas "

That is quote from the Government Task Force on Extremism's definition of extremism from when I had my PREVENT training. There is no doubt SB fits that, but just read that first sentence again.

Should we remove the citizenship from everyone who shows signs of extremism, afterall we can never be 100% sure that they wont become radicalised and violent can we?

I agree, but I don't think the fault lies with those ministers who tried to put the genie back in the bottle in Syria. 

The genesis of the problem was Blair / Bush war-mongering in the Middle East, after 9/11.

If anyone is to be strung-up, it's them. Sadly, theres no chance of that happening now. 

Makes me wonder why some posters are trying to represent 'the west' as the 'good guys'.

Clearly, this is not the case.

Although this is getting away from the debate re Begum and co; whether-or-not the moral benefit of giving her back her citizenship in return for a short sentence in a young offenders institute outweighs the problem of having a small army of supposedly de-radicalised terrorists living amongst us.

Personally, I prefer to be able to do the shopping without running the risk of being decapitated by a nail bomber.

And, I care not-one-jot if Begum and co have to spend the rest of their miserable lives in a desert refuge camp to keep them away from me.

Although, I seem to be in the minority on this thread!

Nobody does but that’s not the point.

The problem is that the government has been given powers of judge, jury and executioner by being allowed to deprive people of their citizenship without due judicial process.

You do realise where she was when she gave this interview, and who she was surrounded by.

If she'd been in the UK, she'd have been the victim of grooming, why because she ended up in a different country, do people want to change the law to make her stateless?

There were all sorts of agencies that knew she was at risk of being groomed, they sent her home with a letter from school, not one of these agencies spoke to the parents!!.

Now let's change the scenario a little and have her being groomed by some sex gang in Bradford, certain people, many of them who are most vocal about Shamima not being allowed back, would be calling for the blood of the groomers, especially if they had a different skin colour.

As for cutting people heads off, what if she'd been convinced that was western fake news? To make ISIS look bad.

I think you're conflating those who MAY become terrorists, and would be suitable for the 'prevent' programme, with those who have actually crossed the Rubicon and would be more suitable for the 'drone' programme!

The prevent programme is designed to stop people becoming radicalised. It is not intended to deal with people who have actually become terrorists.

Active vocal opposition to British values is a long way from travelling to Syria, marrying a terrorist and firing out the next generation of suicide bombers. 

How long does sound right for a victim of grooming and then imprisonment/slavery ?

It isn't like she was allowed to do what she wanted, and she could hardly say ,"f*ck it I'm off back home", is it?

So what sentence would you give her for her stupidity?

Supporting the Syrian opposition was not about putting the Iraq genie back in the bottle, it was about trying to overthrow Assad who is one of those pesky Middle-Eastern leaders who refuses to toe the USA line.

Saddam was another of those pesky leaders. Why can't they just be like that nice Al-Saud family?

Where do you think she and her fellow UK jihadists would be more secure, in a sprawling desert PoW camp being guarded by people who would rather not have to deal with the problem, or in a British high-security jail? 

I'm not a fan of allowing people back when they've clearly and repeatedly expressed support for, and given support to, a regime as vile as ISIS - and my general feeling is to support the government's removal of her citizenship on this.

I'm sorry if she was groomed as a child, although it's not clear to me that she was - it looks a lot as if she may simply be an awful person. But she is who she is now, and she showed no remorse about what she has done and likely poses a real danger to people here. It isn't possible to reform everyone.

I totally accept that the government should not be able to sidestep international law and that we should deal with our own citizens - but there is an unusal, almost quirky, situation here. She left to join another state, ISIS, and lived there and did what she could to help build that state. It's only because that state was never recognised (quite rightly), and has since been more or less destroyed, that she doesn't have ISIS citizenship, making the removal of other citizenships entirely viable.

I don't think there's a good solution to this one. I think we'll be left with someone living here who actively wants to harm our people and our way of life, and may well raise or groom others to that way of thinking; it seems quite likely that honouring her rights could result in many others losing theirs.

Not always a bad thing to be on UKC!

I’m betting that she won’t do untold damage  to her community, you think she will. So go on, put your money where your mouth is. 
If she does we will sure as hell know about it.

I think there were several objectives to our military intervention in Syria...one of the primary being to degrade the threat that Islamist terrorism posed to the west. We created this threat in Iraq, when we overthrew the government and left a power vacuum in its stead. 

This created the infamous insurgency which spread to Syria after the US-led 'surge' made it too dangerous for the insurgents to operate.

Asad was a side issue, which would have put us in direct conflict with Russia...this is why it stayed a side-issue. 

Yes. I agree. Leave him, and his ilk, well alone!

I hope you're right about this...but I don't think she'll spend much time in a maximum security gaol.

If I did, I would support her return to the UK for trial.

A great many of our home-grown terrorist did not serve fair time. As we have seen on atleast 2 occasions in London, some have been released early to attack us again.

Far better in a Kurdish prison than a suburban council flat. 

Well put.

A remarkable leap from supposition to fact. 

Really, you don't think she was a willing recruit to ISIS who helped oppress and abuse the people of Raqqa? That's what they accuse her of.

Don't know really. We need to ensure she's not a danger to anyone else so we need to do whatever it takes to do that. I don't care about her, I care about keeping everyone else safe.

WTF are you on about? Its an opinion, not a statement of fact, just like you having your opinion that she won't be a problem. My opinion is based on her illegal actions and her doesnt give a shit attitude. Whats your opinion based on?

To you and skog: rather than this vague term ‘quite likely’ why not spell out how likely?  ‘Quite likely’ to me means above 50%.  Easy to say when dealing with this issue (lets face, none of us have a great deal of time for her).  Whilst there are examples of prison/prevent etc etc not working, by and large it does (or something must work or else we would see a constant stream of terrorist incidents).
 

I think the Golden Rule applies: Are we okay with the idea that if a citizen of another country committed a reprehensible crime here in the UK then that other country could choose to wash their hands of said person, leaving us to deal with punishing, detaining and rehabilitating them. It's strange how so many of the "send them back" brigade think we should be able to just ditch our undesirables on other, much poorer, countries and just let them sort our mess out.

My opinion is based on the statistics that ‘the system’ of prison/prevent/rehab/time/surveillance etc means she will probably not cause untold damage.  

Dont for one minute think I have any sympathy for her. 

Well I don't have a crystal ball. But, according to JTAC, at present the threat of a terrorist attack 'substantial - an attack is likely'.

The threat varied between 'severe - an attack is highly likely' and 'critical - an attack is highly likely in the near future' during the last wave of terrorist atrocities, which mysteriously coincided with the last batch of Jihadis returning home.

If we allow Begum back, and is so doing open the door to dozens more, we'll be back in the realms of critical. 

You only need to look at the carnage at the MEN or on London Bridge to see what that means. 

Because I don't know how likely and don't want to pretend that I do!

I only know that she voluntarily ran away to support a "state" devoted to destroying unbelievers, engaged in widespread murder, torture, abduction, rape and slavery, and shows no remorse or indication that she might be at fault at all, even after her own children dying as a direct result of her actions.

She's poisonous and dangerous.

I don't think that's true, with regards to such extreme cases. I'm not even sure it's true for petty crime, it was my understanding that reoffending was rife! Can you back that up?

I think we don't see a constant stream of terrorist incidents firstly because most people are much better than her, and secondly because there are constant ongoing efforts to foil them.

11% of our prison population is made up of foreign nationals (about 9000) and around 1000 British nationals are locked up abroad. If you commit a crime in a foreign country it's entirely normal to be tried and detained in that country, why wouldn't it be?

It seems the UK system is already dealing with the undesirables at a ratio of 9:1 in the rest of the World's favour. Rather than ditching our responsibilities in this regard, we appear to be more than pulling our weight.

Yes, I regard this Guardianista "actually it's all our fault" attitude to be a form of moral cowardice. Rather than condemn obviously attrocious behaviour and risk having to defend one's thinking, better to shift the blame back to somewhere or someone we feel comfortable in criticising.

Of course the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent neglect of the country resulted in the establishment of a host of unpleasant actions but this woman wasn't a victim. She was living a comfortable life in a liberal democracy. She lived in a society where the differences between right and wrong are clearly established but decided to reject all that and join an organisation which revelled in barbarism and wished to impose a cruel and oppressive regime, not just on the middle East but on the entire world.

We might have metaphorical blood on our hands but she and her comrades had the real stuff on theirs.

It is but the country can also choose to deport the foreigner to their country of origin, in this case the UK.

I completely get the concerns, but expecting the SDF/Kurds to deal with it isn't on. They've had a shit a time of things recently, they could do without indefinitely running a refugee camp for western jihadists.

‘Can I back that up?’

Yes. I have sat on the local channel panel and met people. I will dig up some stats etc when I get time. But, logically speaking, if these systems did not work then we would have massive numbers of people regularly committing terrorist offences, which we don’t. Not saying they work 100%. 

The Western narrative would have us believe we are fighting militant Islam rather than helping overthrow uncooperative governments, but time and again it comes to light that we will support whoever serves our interests.

So we equipped and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan when the USSR was our biggest enemy, then rebranded them the Taliban when they no longer served the purpose. We allow Saudi Arabia to be as hardcore Islamic as it likes, as long as it keeps the oil flowing and allows the US to build military bases on its territory.

The UK started supporting the anti-Assad opposition in 2012, so well before the creation of ISIS or the Russian intervention. It was Assad's subsequent lack of control over areas in northern Syria that allowed ISIS to develop and declare their caliphate. From Syria they moved into Iraq.

Islamic terrorism is, in fact, the sideshow. Maintaining Western hegemony in the Middle East is the true aim of our military interventions there. 

OK, I'm interested to see that if you have the time.

I'm not sure that's right - I don't think it's very easy to actually commit a terrorist offence, most of the time, even if you'd like to.

Grand. Guess we can just exempt ourselves from international law on making people of British birth stateless and hope that no one else does the same.

The origins* of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria are in the post invasion prisons of Iraq filled with Sunni insurgents (newly unemployed, ex-Iraqi army?).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-origins-of-isis-finding-the-birthplace-of-...

*Wiki takes the roots back a bit further.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - as you can guess from the name, born in Iraq, imprisoned during the insurgency.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

Before 2012 and Iraq to Syria rather than Syria to Iraq.

Not what I said. Didn't even imply it. You seem to like to misrepresent others so that it looks like you've got a point.

I believe it's up to us to learn our lessons (longer sentences, permanent electronic surveillance), rather than palm the problem of on someone else.

It's an unresolved situation so left as it is there could still be consequences.

Then there's the precedent we set... if other countries decide that foreign criminals locked up here are 'stateless' we've got problems where normally we'd just deport them at the end of sentence. Quoting international law after this might not get us very far.

So then you replied to my original post with something not actually in response to the point I was making. This is already tedious. Let's spare each other and everyone else this dross shall we?

I replied directly to the the point you were attempting to make, illustrating with statistics that you were wrong.

Yep, perhaps you could try debating the points that posters actually make and save us all the tedious posturing?

The ironic thing is that they've been just as much brainwashed by their consumption of media outlets such as the Daily Mail, the Sun, etc., as the unfortunate girl has been.  I also question if the general vitriol would be the same if she was a he.

Why would she get the idea it was western fake news? ISIS were proud of it and invested heavily in high quality videos of torture and murder, it was their key recruiting strategy.

No one joined ISIS because they'd heard the catering was nice and they had a great pension scheme.

Yes for sure, but it wasn't the Islamic State at that point. The group seized territory in Syria, declared a caliphate and adopted the name Islamic State in 2014. This was enabled by UK support of Syrian opposition groups from 2012. At that time the opposition was a number of disparate groups which the UK had little sway over. Some of these groups included militant Iraqi insurgents and they became the dominant force.

What I'm saying is that had Assad not lost control of the north of Syria, ISIS would not have been able to seize territory from where they went on to invade Iraq. The UK government should recognise its share of responsibility. Shamima Begum is not the only person to have made a bad decision!

How do you know what she saw or what was said to her?

Surely, that's what the trial is for, unless you don't believe in trials and the rule of law.

I have no idea why people joined ISIS, maybe we'll learn a bit about that from her, and prevent others doing the same.

Never made a mistake at the age of 15?

Why didn't anyone get in touch with her parents? What would you expect for UK agencies if your 15 years old daughter was involved in something similar, let's say grooming for sex?

Well ISIS were promising something fairly similar to Saudi Arabia. Not sure what pensions are like over there but the food's ok!

It's against international law to leave people stateless!

Are you suggesting she was older than 15?

I think the timeline does not start in 2012 and direction is more Iraq to Syria than the reverse.

The removal of Saddam and post invasion chaos was an opportunity for Al Qaeda in Iraq->ISIL->ISIS.

Under Saddam I think Al Qaeda controlled single village in Iraq, pretty much kept in check.

ISIS leadership in Syria was Iraqi and came together during imprisonment in Iraq by US.

Assad's weakness was an opportunity for Iraqi insurgents (then ISIL?)

Yep, I know and said as much. And if we're discussing the letter of the law, it's also not clear that she'd be stateless.

No, I'm saying that it's not at all clear that she was groomed.

Also, when it comes to matters of knowing that it's wrong to murder, enslave, and torture, 15 is not a child.

See what you did there "Nationals" we've tried to make her nation-less, for something she did when she was 15!

She might be a horrible piece of crap, but we have laws and if we're prepared to ditch them for a 15 year old girl's decisions, doesn't that make our law rather weak?

It doesn't matter if she knew, if some 30 year old bloke was f*cking her and she was 15 but she wanted it, he'd still but guilty of rape.

See how it works?

You seem to already know, what she knew? That's an amazing power you have.

You might want to perform some fact checking there.

You seem to want to view this as some sort of child sex case.

I see it as a young adult deciding they liked what ISIS was doing, researching it, then running off to support it, I frankly have no interest in her sex life and don't think it's really anything to do with it.

Well, it has been pretty well reported that she spent time researching this before running off, and ISIS in general hasn't exactly been hidden from the news, so yes I do already know.

Literacy and access to the free press are indeed amazing powers, and I'm very glad I live somewhere that grants those to most. Perhaps you should do a little more reading before wading in?

Good, I'm glad we've established that you don't know why she joined ISIS and your claim of grooming us speculation. Another view is that she was a groupie attracted to violent psychopaths.

The biggest mistake I made at that age was drinking an entire bottle of Lanliq in 35 minutes. It never occurred to me to join a bunch of murderous psychopaths, no.

Prisons and de-radicalisation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51357313

Numbers in prisons:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50823532     Quote:

''How often do those convicted reoffend?

The reoffending rate of people convicted of terror offences is very low, according to former military intelligence officer Philip Ingram.

He told the BBC that only two out of 235 who had been released since 2012 had committed another act of terror.

These were Usman Khan, who carried out the Fishmonger's Hall attack, and Sudesh Amman, who stabbed people in Streatham.

Mr Ingram added that 20,000 had been on a watch list at some stage and 800 were part of investigations which were currently active.''

A quick search will show you the Prevent and Channel Panel stats.  I fully understand that the crimes committed by the two re-offenders were very serious, and I don't doubt that many people arrested etc. may not have been that serious about committing terror in the first place (not excusing their sentencing though - better safe than sorry etc), but this idea that SB will most likely do X,Y and Z isn't supported by the stats etc. (even though it may go against our gut instinct).  SB may be a complete and utter hard core terrorist for all I know, but others can decide, and decide her fate.  

Also, it is very easy to commit a terrorist offence - knife attacks, using cars and lorries etc.

Prisons and de-radicalisation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51357313

Numbers in prisons:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50823532     Quote:

''How often do those convicted reoffend?

The reoffending rate of people convicted of terror offences is very low, according to former military intelligence officer Philip Ingram.

He told the BBC that only two out of 235 who had been released since 2012 had committed another act of terror.

These were Usman Khan, who carried out the Fishmonger's Hall attack, and Sudesh Amman, who stabbed people in Streatham.

Mr Ingram added that 20,000 had been on a watch list at some stage and 800 were part of investigations which were currently active.''

A quick search will show you the Prevent and Channel Panel stats.  I fully understand that the crimes committed by the two re-offenders were very serious, and I don't doubt that many people arrested etc. may not have been that serious about committing terror in the first place (not excusing their sentencing though - better safe than sorry etc), but this idea that SB will most likely do X,Y and Z isn't supported by the stats etc. (even though it may go against our gut instinct).  SB may be a complete and utter hard core terrorist for all I know, but others can decide, and decide her fate.  

Also, it is very easy to commit a terrorist offence - knife attacks, using cars and lorries etc.

Thanks.

That's focusing directly on those committing another terrorist offense, which to be fair is what I asked about, and it does look like a low number.

The thing I'd be most worried about the woman in question doing is raising and radicalising others to commit and support such offenses. That is, in fact, what she ran off to do.

Go on then - pick someone wicked, or that you hate, someone who the world would be better without, and kill them. I bet you couldn't, and most people living in a stable, civilised society couldn't; I'm pretty sure I couldn't. There are so many barriers to it - personal ones, the people around you, the fear of getting caught, actually getting caught, and so on.

(For clarity: I'm not really suggesting that you should try to murder anyone!)

Agreed. I should have said: 'if you were totally mad bonkers crazy enough to commit an act of terror...then its easy enough'.  And what you say may possibly one of the reasons why there are low rates/low re-offending rates. TBH, i'm not that convinced many of those locked up would have carried out a 'full-on' act of terror, but it is right that the processes found them guilty and locked them up. 

She did end up being married to someone!

But I'm saying it has all the hallmarks of grooming, and we (the UK government) knew about it, yet did nothing.

And if she decided she wanted sex with a 30 year old bloke.

I what way is she a young adult? She can't legally have sex, she can't vote, she can't buy fags or alcohol, drive.

So what exactly about her is in anyway adult?

We've got plenty of footage of her being interviewed on exactly these issues. I tend to take direct source, words out of the horses mouth evidence as slightly better than the complete speculation you seem to prefer.

According to Begum, she was partly attracted by the beheading videos and the good life in the Caliphate that she saw portrayed in ISIS videos, a life she professes (at age 20) to have enjoyed right up until the end when ISIS started getting a thorough and much deserved arse kicking.

Yep, but it never entered my head that the torture, murder and enslavement of people for the "crimes" of wrong creed/nationality/sexuality was at all a good idea though. You think being 15 is an acceptable excuse for that bullshit FFS?

Because the authorities are entirely fallible? Because family should know better than "the authorities" what's going on with their kid?

You got kids? I have, and if they go right off the rails, me and the Mrs will be at the head of the queue of people I'll be blaming, can't say I'd spend much time castigating "the authorities" for not being more aware of what was happening under my own roof.

Before any more conjecture on what's going on in Begum's head, perhaps spend a bit of time contemplating the words coming out of Begum's adult mouth:

youtube.com/watch?v=EWcJHxmXD1Q&

Sorry you're right there she was a whole two years older than an unambiguous rape charge.

It would only be "Sexual activity with a child", if they were over 18 of course.

Taken where?

And how free was she to say what she wanted?

Who was the person on her right hand side?

After this interview where did she go?

Oh! that's right back to a camp full of IS prisoners. If she had renounced everything and called ISIS a bunch of murdering cnuts, how long do you think she'd have lasted?

Why is a TV interview more important than questioning in a dock in the UK?

Thanks. I don't know as much as I should about this sort of stuff.

Why on earth are you focussing on the sex side of this, when there are so many much worse aspects to it?

She was a young adult in matters of knowing that the acts promoted and perpetrated by ISIS were wicked; she was also well over the UK age where she can be found to have commited a crime.

I don't consider her rights to shop for age-restricted substances relevant to her support for genocide, murder, and enslavement. I feel that I'm repeating myself here, and that you're attacking something I haven't said.

 So on one side we have her own actions and her own words and on the other we have Cobra_Head's conjecture, based on what exactly?

Sorry, I'd rather base my opinions on known facts rather than some bloke on the internets ideologically driven speculation.

You don't know that she was groomed! Just because she was 15 doesn't a solve her of free will and responsibility....grooming really isn't so black and white. You do realise for example that in CSE it's not uncommon for the grooming to be done by other children?

Its really not such a binary position....

You’re very certain of your position but this comment paints you as almost unbelievably poorly informed.  

She was clearly influenced by ISIS, and one of their ways of reaching out to western youth was their graphic beheading videos.  To try and paint that as “western fake news” suggests either outright ignorance or an ingrained anti-establishment view that overrides all evidence.   Some brits went to ISIS because they wanted to cut heads off, others because they thought it was a jolly good way to run a state.  

Watching that video, it seems clear that the attraction to her in videos was of a better life in a sort of Islamic utopia (and that this was, in fact, initially what she got). She just says she was "aware" of the beheadings and so on but accepted them as being Islamic. She comes across to me as simply naive and sad rather than evil. 

Mr Ingram added that 20,000 had been on a watch list at some stage and 800 were part of investigations which were currently active.''

This article glosses over the fact that at least some off the 800 who were under investigation would have committed an attack but they were prevent from doing so because of the attentions of the police and security services...we know that two 'ex'-terrorists successfully managed to attack us, but how many were prevented from doing so?

This would give a more accurate read on how successful de-radicalisation programmes have been.

Also, it doesn't factor-in current mythology to groom and deploy 'clean skins', rather than those who have already attracted the attention of the authorities. 

It could be argued that ex-terrorists don't reoffend because they attract far too much attention from the authorities...not because they've had a change of heart.

Without this context, it doesn't really do much to persuade me that terrorists can be deradicalised en-mass.

They can be dissuaded from attacking us, of course. Drone strikes, life sentences and removal of citizenship would no doubt have a cooling effect on people thinking of attacking us in the name of Islam.

Allowing Begum and her pals back into the UK is likely to have the opposite effect.

No it wasn't. That'd be the catholic church.

Followed by the anglican church.

Followed by young offender institutes.

Followed by childrens homes.

Followed by social services departments (cf. Cleveland, early 90's)

Then followed by your "grooming gangs" (unless i've missed any others out).

Edit - Which indeed i have - add Jimmy Savile / Rolf harris etc to my list - JS was specifically called out on this in 78/79 but nothing was done.......

And apologies for misreading you post - the fact that the Rochdale one was the first that sprung to your mind means you managed to miss out the list above, none of which have been exactly low profile. The fact the first one to spring to mind was the first one to involve brown people is possibly what might lead people to infer your post had racist overtones..........

It's not a case of 'allowing', we're obliged to take our own citizens back if they are deported from somewhere else. The headline grabbing 'removal of citizenship' was codswallop... if she'd ended up in a sovereign state they'd have sent her back to the UK, end of.

If you want the international system to change fair enough, but would you be happy if the UK was stuck with every foreign criminal  convicted here for the rest of their lives?

I have to admit that it left me feeling quite sorry for her. She is someone who has really messed up her life. She at least deserves a fair trial and probably a second chance.

Our obligations are yet to be decided. Thus her up-comming appeal.

That's just an internal UK thing. A sovereign nation would swiftly remind us of our obligations, as I'm sure we would if foreign countries tried it on with us.

It's likely one day that refugee camp will come under the control of a sovereign nation, and they'll want to disperse the inhabitants. 

Cannot help but feel sorry for her. She comes across as a rather silly girl who drank the Kool Aid about the coming Islamic paradise on earth. Either way it's difficult to see her life as anything other than a train wreck-it's either a long prison sentence or looking over your shoulder forever. Sad.

That's incorrect.

No ruling has yet been made; at present she is not a citizen of the UK. 

What is?

That's what the British government says, but they frequently talk nonsense. They'd keep it up until a case got close the ICJ, then drop it as they'd obviously lose.

It's a nonsense policy that will come to a head at some point. What do you think the UK would do if random country said no we're not taking nasty violent criminal back after sentence finished, we've removed his citizenship, he's all yours!?!

I know how feel. That a teenager can throw their life away. It's comforting to excuse it as silliness or manipulation but the fact is that we don't actually know.

It may also be the case, for example, like a lot of girls with not much of a future she wanted babies and also liked the gun toting murderers of ISIS. Some young women are attracted to people like that. 

Thing is she didn't express remorse, didn't try to escape and has been accused of abusing the citizens of Raqqa.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/shamima-begum-isis-syr...

So, she is currently a citizen then?

You should let her know. Save her the hassle of an appeal hearing. 

Don't be silly.

Do you want all foreign nationals convicted of crimes in the UK to be dumped permanently in the UK by their own governments?

And if you really believe our government saying something makes it so, have a look at this

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-in-greenwich-3-february-20...

wordsearch 'coronavirus' for the total b*llocks.

People can infer whatever they choose but that’s not what I meant.

It’s becoming a bit tiresome having to defend myself against accusations of racism based upon people reading more into my posts than there actually is.

I really have no idea what you're talking about.

The bigger problem is that the use of deprivation of citizenship is increasing massively and a lot of the victims aren’t criminals.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-man-blocked-uk-home...

If a government can take away someone citizenship without due legal process then it’s not a democracy anymore.

It may well not be what you meant - perhaps you could / should be a bit more careful about the contents / context of some posts; dont leave yourself so open to these accusations.

How about I type something and people take it at face value?
I really cannot be bothered having to consider the numerous ways that people can choose to interpret even the most innocent of posts just because they think everything has a hidden meaning.

"Do you want all foreign nationals convicted of crimes in the UK to be dumped permanently in the UK by their own governments?"

It's a pretty straightforward question, which part do you not understand?

Eh?

The point we were debating was whether or not Begum is a UK citizen. You seem to think she is. However, she isn't. Yet. That's why she's taking the government to court.

Everything else you've written seems to pseudo-conspiracy theory waffle, of no relevance to the debate. 

Start another thread?

No, that's how you've framed it. I'm pointing out that if she was under the jurisdiction of a sovereign nation they would not accept the UKs position and send her back. One day she may be.

Rubbish, I'm pointing out the consequences of your preferred policy. You know that full well and it's you that have resorted to waffle.

You seem to think the UK could 'strip' citizenship with no comeback from other countries, well we're not that special anymore, if we try that kind of stunt it will be reciprocated. Best to just stick with accepted international law.

I haven't framed it. I'm just repeating the position of the UK government. She is not a UK citizen. 

I have no idea why you're arguing this point. 

Ha ha, I don't think it would matter who I was or what I said, you've already made your mind up that a 15 year old girl knows what she's signed up for.

Why are you frightened about giving her a day in court?

Why don't you care that no one got in touch with her parents?

I noticed you ignored her position of being in a camp with loads of ISIS and that it might have an influence on what she can and can't say.

Does it matter who's doing it? Surely the issue is, was she groomed? not who did it.

But many people seem to think it is, get her in court and let's find out.

MI5 knew what was going on, so why didn't they act?

Surely, this is a failure that needs investigating, if nothing else to prevent other people ending up the same.

But besides ALL of that, speculation on everyone's side, there is the issue of International Law and our willingness to disregard it, for the actions of a 15 year old girl.

I know that.

It's debatable, but I'm not arguing that point. I'm pointing out why a policy you support (the stripping of citizenship) is untenable. I think you now know that but yer a bit stubborn!

BTW what country is Beggum a citizen of?

One of the ways. There were plenty of others.

I didn't try and do anything of the sort, I proposed she might have been told this, not she was.

Who knows what groomers do? I doubt it's very truthful, where that's trying to get people to join ISIS, trying to get kids into sex rings, trying to get people to join the British Army  even, they don't tell you how boring and monotonous it's going to be. Join the army see the world!!

I don't doubt there's thousands of reasons why people went, or why they justified it to themselves. The problem being they're all different, you (not just you) are seeking to paint them as having the same reasons. But worse than that, she was 15, not 25 and more capable of making sound choices for herself.

But she wouldn't have been old enough to got to prison, in the year she left!! Doesn't that speak volumes?

Where is she a citizen of then?

This is the basis of the trial, it's not about what she's done, it's about what the UK government has done.

She said herself that she knew what she signed up for. She said herself that she was quite happy living in the Caliphate up until the coalition started shutting it down. 

I'm just reporting what she said. It's you that's made your mind up despite the actual evidence.

Who's frightened?

Where did I say I didn't care? As a parent of a 14 year old girl I'm well aware of how much state oversight of my kids I can expect.

Since she'd already risked her life to travel to a war zone and already acted against the wishes of her UK family and community, it's fair to say Begum has already amply demonstrated that she's not overly influenced by outside pressure or fears for her own safety.

Do you see how this works? I'm judging her on her own actions and statements, you're judging her on your own ideologically based wishful thinking.

It's not debatable. She has been stripped of her citizenship. And she is yet to win it back. 

She is currently a citizen on Bangladesh...although they want her about as much as we do.

BBC:

"...the UK has responsibilities under international law to avoid people being left stateless. But in February, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent".

..... for the actions of a 15 year old girl.

So you think we shouldn't ditch this person who decided to be a citizen of "ISIS" because she was 15 and female at the time.

Not long ago a number of people on here were effectively DEMANDING the vote for all 16 year olds. This would have meant 15 year olds being put on the electoral role for votes to take place in the near future. So Ms Begum would have been, by these persons standards, capable of deciding the future of this country very soon.

But apparently as a mere 15 year old person, she wasn't capable of deciding her own future.

We have had equal voting, workplace opportunities, forcing male-only clubs to allow females as members, and so on for years, decades even.

But apparently, as a girl - that is a female - she must have been told what to do by a man, so wasn't capable of making her own decisions.

Question - In the context of the above, why is being 15 years old or female regarded as a reason to excuse actions which led to this person voluntarily being part of a vile organisation which she knew used slavery, murder, genocide, rape and heaven (or hell) knows what else on those persons SHE regarded as sub-human ?

If anyone thinks that her age is a good reason to excuse her - then forget about voting at 16, and maybe think about changing the voting age to 21, when maybe you could agree that someone can be responsible for their own actions.

If anyone thinks being female is a good reason to excuse her - then please come on here and state your reasoned objections to equality. (And don't be surprised if the BMC President objects to your views) 

The murderers of James Boulger did, and they were much younger.

For that matter, one of the reasons drug gangs are using younger and younger pushers is because of softer sentences for youngsters - do you think they should be just patted on the head, told not to be naughty boys (or girls), and sent out to do it all again ?

I don't understand your response. My query to you was in response to your assertions that she was groomed. I challenged you on this as you don't know that she was groomed.

I don't know if they were aware....if they were it suggests she was a threat/risk prior to her leaving the UK. There is also the question of resources. Would you be happy with a significant increase of funding to the intelligence services?

It may already have been. You don't know.

I agree.

Agreed. I watched a couple interviews today to see what the fuss was all about and she doesn't come half as bad as people is keen to paint her. In this one she comes across better than the interviewer youtube.com/watch?v=TGAxm6KJTWE&

Is international law being disregarded?

This thread was started with a link to an article saying it's being dealt with in court - which doesn't sound like disregarding it, and does suggest that there's a legal argument to be made either way.

Quite

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47312207

"Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country, Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said."

So it is debatable... we don't get to lord it over other counties anymore.

Morally, it's pretty obvious which country should accept responsibility.

I totally get your desire to keep this country safer, this just isn't the answer.

Up until now!

And there's still an appeal by the government before it happens!

You don't know that she wasn't, but she was 15 years old, if she hadn't 'effed off and had stayed in this country she would have been classed as being groomed.

The point being 3 UK agencies knew what WAS happening and they didn't intervine, apsrt from giving the GIRLS a letter to take home!!

What where they doing? Why not contact the parents?

Yay?

Untl she gets into court, it's all supposition.

But someone who confesses to a murder, still has a trail.

AFAIK, she wasn't involved in killing anyone, so what exactly was her crime?

Appeals are a legitimate part of the legal process, though.

Much as I'd like her to be kept out of the country, I can't untilmately support the governemnt flouting the law on it - but I don't think the law is entirely clear yet, so I can't see that they are.

I reckon the government knows that if we go through the full international legal process we are signed up to, she will ultimately be judged to be a British citizen. I assume they are hoping something else happens so we never get to that point.

No they don’t, if they confess (admit to murder ) they enter a guilty plea and are dealt with according to sentencing guidelines.

Membership of a prescribed terrorist organisation.

That depends on whether or not she wins her case.

I doubt she’s going to be deportable if she looses her case; Bangladesh won’t take her and there’re no grounds to send her back to where she is now.  If she wins it, it will be interesting to see how many charges are then brought against her.

You must have missed this one https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/thirteen-people-walsall-cour...

Anybody yet figured out how they are going to get her back here for a court case.Even a video link looks impractical.

In a way it is a bit of a “ paper” win unless she is actually in the U.K.

I doubt U.K. Gov is going to send in a team of people to rescue her and expose those people to needless risk.

Somehow she has to make her way to somewhere safe as the next stage.

Totally incorrect.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how things progress, with regards to citizenship and residency. I suspect we'll get stuck with her. No government wants her, but her claim to stay here appears to be strongest. 

With regards to charges, I'd say the 'membership of a proscribed terrorist organisation' charge is nailed-on but it only carrys a maximum sentance of 10 years, and she would be eligible for release after 5.

Rumour has it that she was a member of the notorious Al-Khansaa Brigade. If proven, this would open-up the possibility of charges for murder and torture etc, but I suspect this would be difficult to prove. 

Disgraceful. Opens the door for others to come back. They fight against us and our way of life. 
They don’t agree with how we live and would change it in a heartbeat to the way they want to live. If this was a white far right nazi returning and not a far right IS supporter you would all be saying “let him/her rot in the shithole they are in. Bloody Racist”. More pressure on our hard working police force and counter terrorism teams. Fantastic.

There is a principle called the rule of law, which we used to adhere to. She is as British as I am.

If she was white there would be no question. That's what's disgraceful.

Jihadi Jack is white? He is still exiled. So thats that thought process done already that its due to skin colour. Uk Discriminating against the poor IS supporters. Oh dear. My heart bleeds. IS/NAZI and any far right supporters, who have actively fought against us should be left to their own fate because as soon as you declare your loyalty to a group that fights against us, then any rights you have to be in the Uk, Germany, where ever it is are gone. It is a kick in the teeth to all those soldiers from many nations who have fought IS, protecting us from them. Disgraceful.

I will try and explain again. What makes the UK one of the best places to live is that we have evolved a rule of law. We try and establish principles that we adhere to even when they result in uncomfortable outcomes. This is one such.

Among other things, our military are there to maintain that principle. It's not an insult to them - it's a major  reason for their existence. 

Now, before you splutter 'disgraceful' again, consider what I have written, and consider the alternatives. Try not to just come across as a thick tw*t.

Please enlighten me.

She's being held by the Syrian Kurds who the British armed forces are allied with. It should just be a matter of handing her over. She can then be flown out from Iraq.

I’m sure she will be covered by ATOL / ABTA 

The problem is that the immigration act 2014 is an authoritarian piece of legislation that expanded the government powers way beyond what’s normally accepted in democracy.

It allows the government to deprive people of their citizenship pretty much on nothing else that the their own judgement. 
 

The case isn’t about Begum it’s all about setting a precedent.

I hope the government win the appeal.

It would be really bad news as it would be setting a precedent and enshrine the government’s right to deprive people of their citizenship on not much else than their own judgment and with pretty much no condition attached.

I’ve been skim reading through the judgement.  I don’t see it saying anywhere that the British state have any obligation what so ever to transport her here.  To quote 121 “[she] is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom”.  She will be given travel documents and permission to enter the UK.  An observation is made that the Kurdish authorities have publicly stated their determination to facilitate her return, but my take on that is that it means they would release her from detention not that they would fly her over.

Airlines are under no obligation to carry her, travel documents or not.

Several media sites have alluded to the embarrassment of the UK gov have to “send a jet” for her, but so far I’ve seen no reason why we would have to.

In reply to Neillh:

I only just saw your message; I concur.  Given the rumours about her role in Syria - true or false - I wouldn’t want to be her making my own way out of the country.  If she isn’t given UK gov assistance to come here I expect a charitable effort will see to it; with the relevant papers and a 2-3 private security contractors it’s a 48 hour drive across mostly benign places.  Plenty of firms in the UK who’d take on this sort of work.  Or she might be able to book flights from Turkey but I’m running on the supposition she’s on terrorist no fly lists so it’s either a UK military flight or the highway.

You jest, but I recall a news item from my youth about American citizens going on what was effectively a package tour to fight in the Bosnian war.  

It does seem a classic case of "hard cases make bad law".

Aside from anything else it seems a tad unfair on Bangladesh that the UK palm a problem off onto them.

This is one of the major flaws in the original process to my interpretation.  

SIAC determined that she was a citezen of Bangladesh.  But SIAC are a UK government entity; they do not have legitimate access to the archives, records or mandate of the Bangladesh government; ergo they can not make a decision on Bangladeshi citezenship of Begum.  Only the Bangladeshi government can do that.  In my view SIAC can, and should have, contacted the Bangladeshi government to request that determination and then to have abided by it.  Otherwise a situation is possible where Begum is in the UK, we say she’s Bangladeshi and to be deported, they say “Oh no she’s not” and we’re left with egg on our face and a stateless radical Islamist on our hands.  That now seems a not unlikely possibility.

Bingo.

I take it you got bored before reading the post directly below Rob's?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49385376

He looks pretty white to me.

It certainly does. It sets a precedent for the estimated 150 other Jihadi's who have set their sights on a new life in the UK. 

We have no way of knowing whether or not they will attack us when they get here.

Supporting the legal rights of people who want to kill us is absurd, regardless of the (dubious) moral case; reminds me of the pig who tried to persuade diners eat it in Douglas Adam's Resturant At The End Of The Universe!

If you are that scared of Shamima Begum you have no right to be wearing that Gorilla Mountaineering T-shirt. Worldwide adventure my arse!

You say "pretty much their own judgement", I say "secret/top secret intelligence case".

I guess it's a "tomahto/tomayto" situation. 

It's interesting how many people appear to believe her account of  being nothing more than the poor housebound stay-at-home homemaker throughout her considerable time in ISIS married to jihadists.  In case it's not clear, I don't.

It would be great to run a trial where we can see the evidence against her in detail, but these things can be tricky when they involve, hypothetically speaking, secret/top secret intelligence, or testimony from people who were both terrorised or killed. Adding to that mix is the fact that as the Islamic State shrunk, those within it's boundaries were more likely to be actively involved in its atrocities, so putting their heads above the parapet to shout "J'accuse" is more likely to draw prosecutorial focus on them. Not much of an incentive to testify there....

And finally, givent the propensity for those involved in things like the Al-Khansaa Brigade to operate effectively masked as well, I'd imagine we'd need evidence of others within that organisation as well. Which is on a par with getting Nazi gas chamber operators to point each other out, possible but unlikely.

I guess, if we are unlucky enough to have her back, we may get an inkling of the strength of the intel case if the government go for a TPIM whilst she awaits trial, though that, and the existence of any order, might never be made public.

I can wholly understand that she may have been groomed online and was wholly without agency as she apparently decieved her entire family and made her way across half the world to successfully cross a number of borders and arrive within IS, but how much of a free pass does that give her for her subsequent actions as an adult? Is it one hand amputation? Half a stoning? Two decapitations?

Try not to just come across as a thick tw*t.

I'd say the thick tw*t is the person who prioritises the rights of terrorists over the security of everyone else.

Sounds pretty thick to me!

I don't follow your logic. Please explain.

And you are wrong. 

The threshold for triggering citizenship deprivation is either technicalities and/or that “ the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”. 
 

It’s not limited to terror suspect and that is the issue. I don’t care about what happens to Begum that much but I care that the government has given itself a power of judge jury and executioner.

No, it’s a “you don’t know the facts” situation.

No, because the law they are using isn’t limited to terror suspect.

Would you be ok with the government depriving political opponents who have committed no crime of their citizenship, for example ? Because this law effectively allows it.

As you say - "The secretary of state is satisfied".

Unfortunately the nature of secret/top secret intelligence is that we don't get to see it, however much we want to. It's also interesting that this hadn't been used carte blanche with numerous returning jihadists. That might suggest there may be slightly more to this case than meets the eye.

Likewise. 

It completely is but they don’t care, under the immigration act they only need to have a “reasonable belief” that she can acquire another citizenship.

Effectively U.K. law now allows to make people stateless so we are in blatant breach of international law.

The ability to deprive people of their citizenship is open to challenge.

This case is purely about whether she gets to come to the UK to make that challenge.

It literally doesn't.

I don’t mind that we can’t see the top secret intelligence as long as evidence is required and reviews by a court.

The problem is that it is not required, all that is required is the order of the Secretary of State, which is completely abusive and against every principle of democracy and separation of power.

Basically all I am asking for is that there a proper judicial process before depriving people of their citizenship.

Well, no, not really, as you have shown to not understand at all the requirements of citizenship deprivation.

It literally does.

The Immigration Act 2014 added a new section 40(4A), which allows deprivation even where it might cause statelessness. That had never previously been the case.

That's pretty much the text-book alarmist response...'if they can do this to Begum, they could do it to you or me'!!!

Can you give any actual examples of when our government has attempted to deprive political opponents of their citizenship for political purposes or is you objection purely hypothetical?

I can give plenty of non-hyperthetical examples of people being killed by terrorists nail bombs, if it helps shift the debate from 'hyperthetical'  to 'reality'.

It is your response that is alarmist, as you are prepared to ditch every single principle of legal due process and separation out of the window

So far they haven’t but I don’t trust that they, or any future government won’t.
 

And we don’t need to give powers of judge jury and executioners to deal with them. We have a legal system perfectly capable of dealing with those scumbags.

I'm struggling to follow your argument.

If:

1. The government hasn't abused this power.

and 2.) There are plenty of checks and balances in place to prevent them from doing so, as this case demonstrates.

What's the problem?

And, if our legal system is as capable of dealing with terrorists as you believe it to be, why have we been repeatedly attack by supposedly reformed terrorists after their release from prison?

If you are referred to the amendments that the Immigration Act 2014 made to the British Nationality Act 1981 then you will of course be aware of the conditions before such a deprivation of citizenship can be taken:

a)the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,

AND

(b)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and

AND

(c)the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory

There is also the requirement for both a one year and a three year review of that decision, and the submission of a report on that review that must be submitted to parliament. 

That review allows for redactions to cover national security issue. (Eg secret/top secret intelligence)

And you will also be aware of the automatic right to an appeal to a SIAC baked in to the act. Which Begum is exercising.

That is why the case is important, lawyers and the courts are challenging the stupidly abusive powers the government has given themselves.

The problem is that I don’t want to live in a authoritarian regime where the government can punish and threaten citizens at their whim.

You say "stupidly abusive powers" exercised "at their whim", I say "top secret intelligence in a process subject to checks/balances, reports and an appeal process that are required to meet the high hurdle of 'seriously prejudicial'. "

I guess, you say "tomahto", I say "Al -khansaa brigade..."

Wrong. That isn’t the case anymore since 2014. 

Yes, it depends only on the Secretary of State being “satisfied” not on any proper standard of evidence.

As for what is “prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom” what would that include ? It’s very vague and open to interpretation.

A Scottish Nationalist promoting Scottish independence for example could in theory fit the definition.

Exactly that is the most problematic clausez

I have mentioned this three times already.

It is odd really that you are quoting exactly the evidence that supports my point.

The problem is that this right to appeal can be frustrated.

The lawyers are challenging the governments stance because the act has specifically given them the power to do so. The government even pay their wages while their doing so...

...which kind of defeats the standard-issue hypeethetical 'dystopian future' argument trotted by the left, and you!

There are no checks and balances and no requirements for evidence. That’s the issue.

Which is a good thing however it shouldn’t have to come to this.

And here we go, we finally teased out the politically and ideologically motivated justification behind your argument.

The thing is, you might have no problem with  these abusive laws now, but one day maybe it will be “the left” using them against you, and you won’t be too happy then.

Be careful what you wish for. It might seem convenient to dismantle core democratic and human rights principle when it comes to dealing with terrorist now, but you might regret it later when those you don’t agree with end up in power.

The "checks and balances" you refer to are precisely what is happening now. What is the problem? For a democracy to work, ANY act of the executive (and, to an extent, the legislative) must be subject to judicial challenge and oversight.

CB

I don't really accept a hypothetical argument of something which may or may not happen in our Orwellian future to counter the real world problem of Jihadis killing children at pop concerts.

I really don't think that 'one day's the government will strip me of my citizenship, because I'm not going to fly to Syria to join a terrorist organisation. 

There was no logic to be followed. Just found it amusing that your profile picture was in stark contrast to the fearful nature of your comments. Everyone gets so serious towards the lower end of these threads!

Edit: Now I'm getting ads for Gorilla Grip chalk! Wonder if they're targeting the Gorilla theme?

Absolutely, just look what happened to the Catalonian nationalist leaders. The idea that repressive security measures are not an issue for law-abiding citizens is a dangerous one. You need 100% faith in the moral virtue of present and future governments to go along with it.

This whole thread is about the checks and balances which are in place.

Really? I'd be interested to know where that amendment has been made, as it is still written in the legislation and quoted in legal arguments.

In the interests of clarity you have omitted word "seriously".

And you're accusing ME of being fearful! At least terrorism is real...you're dealing in what-if's and unlikely futuristic scenarios. 

The day they attempt to strip peoples citizenship for anything other than 'seriously prejudicial' cases, I'd agree with you. 

But they're not. And there is absolutely nothing to indicate that they will.

If they aren’t going to abuse this power then they don’t need to have this abusive power. 

Deprivation of citizenship should be available only through a court order, not at the whim of a government official.

Terrorism is real of course, but it's a greatly over-exaggerated threat.

Governmental erosion of individual rights is, in my opinion, a greatly underestimated threat. I'm not necessarily talking about the stripping of citizenship; my Catalonian example involved imprisionment but we could also talk about UK rendition, torture and mass surveillance etc. to name a few recent examples. 

But nice reply all the same! I can agree to disagree.

You can simply look at the windrush scandal to understand what the consequences of giving powers of judge, jury and executioner to government officials are.

Or you can go back to the troubles and look at the policy of internment where hundreds of innocent people would be detained indefinitely  without trial in “camps”: that worked well in it ?
 

No, it would seem not... 

So, in summary - you're worry is that at some point in the future we will be ruled by an authoritarian regime that will use present day immigration laws to trample on our right.

Your supporting evidence for this is the unfortunate tale of some bloke who got stuck in Brussles!

And the presence of authoritarian regimes in other countries around the world...despite the fact that the UK has been a liberal democracy since the times of Cromwell!

And, you're proposed solution to this possible future problem is remove the laws from the legislature which the government use to protect us from terrorists.

Do you really believe this? Really?

Perhaps your efforts should be directed at the authoritarian governments of countries like China and Russian, rather than trying to turn our liberal government into a bogeyman for bleeding heart liberals?

That's one way of looking at it.

Another would be to recognise the flat-out efforts of MI5, MI6, the counter terrorist police and a sizable portion of the military in keeping a lid on the problem.

Over-exaggerated threats are unlikely to command such a huge quantity of effort, funding and resources.

I can't speak to this issues around the Catalan separatists....but I note that some of them sought refuge in the UK! Which kind of undermines the general undertone that our government is hateful and oppressive.

Read a lot of history books do you? 

They already are.

It’s an example oft unintended consequence of handing over so much power to government officials.

Its not because the UK has been a liberal democracy for a short while that it will stay that way indefinitely just by magic.

Step by step, inch by inch, individual and human rights are being trampled.

We don’t need laws that give powers of judge jury and executioners to government officials to protect us.
We have a justice system we can use it.

absolutely.

And yet you haven’t realised that the argument that you are using are exactly the same ones that Russia or China use to defend their authoritarian regimes.

If you honestly believe that we live in an oppressive tyranny, I suggest you leave home, now, before you door gets kicked in and you find yourself incarcerated for speaking out against the party!

Your repeated use of the phrase 'judge, jury and executioner' seems odd in the context of this debate.

Begum is exercising her right to appeal, a right which government legislators have written-in to the legislation.

What's more, an appeal court judge has overruled a governmental protest to allow her to attend her own trial in person.

And, her appeal is being paid for by the legal aid fund.

How would our oppressive government allow such a thing?

Clearly, the government in neither judge, jury nor executioner. More, bank-roller of the defence.

Feel free to take the last word. Its stopped raining, so I'm off out for a climb...travel permit and identity papers at the ready. 

You think this stuff is funny, but we have examples from relatively history where seeming liberal democracies have been subverted by governments eroding the rule of law. 

You don't have to choose sides. Our security services do plenty of sterling work but there have been many instances of abuse, incompetence and unjustified actions. You can recognise both. 

I'm talking about actual threats not perceived threats which carry a huge political impact. 3 dead in a terrorist attack is a big national news story that - you guessed it - terrorises the nation, 3 dead in a car crash is a small article in the local press. In a democracy the government has to put resources into keeping the population reassured and satisfied with its performance. That means avoiding terrorist attacks whatever the cost.

The actions of our military in the Middle East unfortunately exacerbate the terrorist threat. 3 civilians dead in an airstrike in Raqqa won't even be acknowleged, but that's another debate!

I think you're taking the criticism too personally. 

I never speak out against « the party » as you say  unless under the cover of anonymity. I have a dual  citizenship and I would like to keep it that way.

Why is it odd ? The government judged that she should be deprived of her citizenship and made stateless, and then went ahead and done it. Judge, jury, and executioner.

A right which is frustrated because the home office can revoke your citizenship whilst you are abroad and leaving you unable to effectively appeal.

There is also no right if appeal whatsoever in case of nullity

They dont « allow it » it just turns out that we still have a judicial system and human rights lawyers that fight back and that’s a very good thing. 

That’s not going to last if the kind of attitude you promote prevails.

Unfortunately legal aid is one of the thing that has been massively restricted in recent years. 

That’s the problem, anybody pointing out that we are chipping away at our fundamental rights and weakening our democracy is immediately deemed to be « anti-patriotic ». It used to be the opposite.

You're missing the point...which was that, despite the strenuous efforts of the police and security services and the  near annihilation of ISIS by the military, the attacks are still getting through.

Which indicates that the actual threat is far greater than your perception of it.

The standard-issue Orwellian line that the governments around the world are exaggerating the threat to exert control over us was vaporized in the 9/11 attack. Along with several thousand people. 

As was the 'thin end-of the wedge argument'.

Despite the introduction of countless new and draconian counter-terrorism laws whose origins can be traced back to this attack, and the endless warnings that we're sleep walking into an oppressive autocracy, 20 years later, we're still living in a liberal democracy.

All of which demonstrates that your concerns are unfounded.

If you really feel that you need the protection of anonymity to criticise the government, despite the evidence evidence all around you that is not necessary, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you are suffering from paranoia.

And I think you’re suffering from blindness because you find yourself on the good side of the fence.

I have absolutely no doubt that this government or future ones would have no qualms using immigration policy in authoritarian ways to achieve political aims. They have already demonstrated it multiple times.

Go tell that to the dozens of people who are being put on terrorist watchlist for minor errors on their tax return when they apply for ILR.

Go tell that to the hundreds of Windrush cases who have been put on indefinite detention without trial or deported, again, without having their case heard by a judge.

Every single time we’ve given these huge powers to government officials to ruin people’s lives at a stroke of a pen they have misused and abused them.

Either deliberately or through mere incompetence.

And even if they don’t , it’s foolish to think the future ones won’t.

You're in no position to pass valid comment on the intelligence which leads to people being put on terrorist watch-lists. None of us are. Its secret. 

Which leaves you with Windrush; incompetence rather than government conspiracy.

If this is the evidence that proves our ostensibly liberal government is, in fact, an oppressive autocratic regime which stomps on our rights and is about to metamorphosise into an Orwellian nightmare...I am not convinced!

You are obviously unaware of what I am talkign about. The home office has been using those terror watchlist as a tool for immigration enforcement fo people who have committed no terrorism offense whatsoever.

In most cases these are ILR applicants with small discrepancies in their tax record, often as a result of account error or even HMRC error, but it is enough for the home office to say you have breached the condition of your stay, and they put you on the terror travel watchlist to prevent you from coming back after they deported you. Forget abouyt travellign anywhere in the world once you are on that list.

It's just another example of a tool which was meant to be used to stop terrorists and is now being abused for a completely different purpose.
 

It isn;t incompetence when you are warned in advance multiple time that this was goign to happen by multiple parliamentary committees and you own civil service, and the press, adn you carry on anyway.
It isn't iuncomtenence when even after the fact you don't change any of the laws that have led to it and in fact make then worse. 

But even if it was incompetence, or say "politically motivated" incompetence, how does that make it any better ?

That is the issue with giving so much power to government officials, even if they have no ill-intent at some point they will f*ck up and ruin the life of someone completely innocent.

If hundreds of innocent people being put in indefinite detention without trial isn't convincing you there is a problem then nothing will convince you, you don't just care about the collateral damage as long as it's not you.

I am sure that the innocent people who found themselves on the wrong end of the stick through no fault of their own don't share your perspective.

Why don't you just do one? No name, no profile,  no photo. What is your malfunction???

I take it you and partner are on the MI6 or 5 watch list? After all, you did slink off to Cyprus because she didn't have complete tax records, as you informed us all. What a waste of money on the likes of you!

What are the "likes of you", exactly ?

Try and address the arguments and make an useful contribution instead of dwelling in personal attacks.
Ho wait, that might require some effort, probably too hard.

Effort on you is wasted effort. You're not worth it. 

Really ? I get posters banned ? That's a new one, I didn't know I had that power...