Yeah I don't see sending her away to other countries is the best idea.
Do we give her life as a prisoner, do we let her live a normal life but with constant surveillance? it's hard to know what the correct thing is.
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Do we give her life as a prisoner, do we let her live a normal life but with constant surveillance? it's hard to know what the correct thing is.
The enjoyment of her sleeping arrangement was a throwaway comment, quite clearly!
True is, I care little if she enjoyed her time there or not. We don't know the extent of her involvement but that doesn't stop people on both sides of the argument from formulating their uneducated opinions.
We don't know the full extent as to why she left in the first place, just that 'the Government should have stopped it happening' No mention of her parents or her having to take responsibility for her own action. I have three children all over 15 and believe me, not all kids need 'convincing to do unimaginable things. The cases I've worked on involving what children can do would send shivers.
We can only form our opinions on the facts. The trouble is, there is more mendacity than truth being reported.
Her case is yet to be heard by the Court of Appeal. If they rule in the Governments favour, She can appeal at the Supreme Court. They will look at how the Appeals Court applied the law, then make a judgment. The Supreme Court can only look at points of law.
Presumably you'd lock her up for whatever the maximum sentence is, be it 15, 20 years or whatever, then keep her under some form of surveillance depending on what the situation is then.
Nobody is suggesting we give her a council house and forget about her. As I have clearly said in other posts, she should be brought back to the country and made to take responsibility for her actions. She needs to undergo a de-radicalisation program and she needs to be monitored closely for the rest of her life. Yes there is a cost to that but it’s absolutely pathetic to think you can just disown one of your citizens if they do something you don’t like. She was born here and she was raised here - she is British. The idea we can let someone else clean up our own mess is so quintessentially Boris.
We didn't let her back in, that's the issue. Different laws apply if she was living here.
Ah, right, so this could rumble on for yonks yet, basically.
Unfortunately, yes! As do most legal cases of this magnitude.
Personally I don't consider it primarily the goverments reponsibility to protect people like her from radicalisation. That reponsibility is on her parents, herself and her enviroment. Sure I'm open to any programmes that deradicalize people but I'm not sure how much of a succes rate there is. There is also some who have gone on to committed terrorattacks whilst claiming to have been deradicalized after spending some time in prison.
Can you be more specific?
Why don’t you just marry her @Pexbo?
If only the victims of ISIS were protected by that right..Which I'm afraid amounts to a breach of her right to protection against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.
So UK have to follow every law, but Bangladesh can cherry pick which they want to enact?
Edit: wrong country
India?
Teenagers who are in swept off their feet by the ideology of ISIS
No precedent has been set that is going to make any real difference though? As I recall, she used her sisters passport to leave the country. So if she used her own, shed be fine to just come back. Hell, she could have got a fake one and just come back. Her actual passport wasnt revoked until after she was found in a detention camp. How many others have gone and come back without any problems?
The flood gates are already open as people come and go all the time. Have done for years. Currently theres 40 brits in a similar boat to her being held in camps for Isil fighters, jihadi brides and their children in northern Syria. 40 people isnt really a flood. And its certainly nothing to how many come and go already.
"Radicalization" doesnt actually tell us anything. Surely we want better details than that? If it was my daughter, Id want to know how, who, what and where. And youre right, we wouldnt be doing this is it was a bomber. So why are we doing it someone who stitched suicide vests on to bombers? Its weird, IMO.
The precedent that is being set here, is that the UK wont deal with its own shit. Shes ours, whether we like it or not. She can be charged with ‘preparation of terrorist acts’ under Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which can carry a life sentence. Why arent we doing that? Why are we avoiding going after a terrorist??? Shes already detained. Lets go get her, charge her, and set her up at her majesty's pleasure for a long stay.
At some point, I dont know when, we all agreed that being 15 meant that you didnt know or understand right from wrong. Having been a 15 year old I know that to be false. So you can say that she was tricked or conned or radicalized or groomed, and youd be correct. But that doesnt really take away from what she did, and that makes it hard to feel sorry for her. She still isnt renouncing what shes done. And while I accept that might be just because of where she is, and a threat of harm might be present if she does. Shes still publicly in favour of terror.
The one that I feel sorry for are her three dead kids. If nothing else, when she was found her child should have been taken as a british citizen and allowed to be with the family. 3 weeks old and dead of pneumonia. Thats fecking heart breaking.
Bangladesh, sorry.
Maybe I asked you the question because it was a throwaway that has been stated before.
I don't believe that we are not to be permitted to formulate or express our opinions, either uneducated or educated, some of us are here to learn too and that's what a forum is for. I happen to believe she lost children which was reported on by a charity in the camp and reporters but I am not in possession of any facts as to her behaviours or enjoyments, that I would have hoped is the purpose of British Justice to determine.
I've worked with some of the most damaged and dangerous children in the country for twenty years, I know quite a few extremes that 15 year olds and any other aged children can get into. Most of them still learning the consequences of their choices, and that they are capable also of positive choices. None of us would be surprised how long the learning curve is.
Now, what's the educated opinion and why on the 'mendacity' on the facts that she had three, two, or one child die?
Because she has a radical opinion on shoe sizes.
So it’s not the government’s responsibility to limit the number of terrorists being created, only to stop them when they have already been radicalised and are actually planning an attack? Until that point it’s just bad parenting?
Irrespective of what law Bangladesh chooses to follow or not and same with UK, it doesn't really change that she wasn't a Bangladesh citizen and isn't one now. The UK has chosen to make her stateless
I think the more interesting question is what part of our lives do you not want government involved in? your posts come off as very big brotherish
People wanting her to be allowed back - do you hold the same position for all the British Jihadi Johns (yes I know he wasn't actually born in Britain) out there as well?
Or is it just because she's female and lost children and you feel sorry for her?
She might not have taken a butcher knife to someone's neck personally (though cant rule it out entirely) but she was no doubt complicit in atrocities in the three years or so she was living under IS rule.
Or is it just because she's female and lost children and you feel sorry for her?
She might not have taken a butcher knife to someone's neck personally (though cant rule it out entirely) but she was no doubt complicit in atrocities in the three years or so she was living under IS rule.
Seems to me that both countries want to cheery pick however she was born in the UK and it's my opinion in any case that it is Britain that are responsible for her and not to try and pass off their issues to any other country due to her ancestry.
What's your ancestry? Start worrying.
Great..
Any chance of actually answering the question?
Sorry, but this is totally misconstruing the argument.
People don't want her back to give her a pat on the back, and a cup of tea.
They want her back to be tried in a British court of law, and a sentence passed under British law.
What the government has done so far is just totally abdicate on that, render her stateless which in reality means another country will have to deal with her.
And presumably she'll be put in solitary to avoid affecting other prisoners with her radical views.
Again there is self-responsibility, upbringing and enviroment. It's the goverments job track them, convict them if they do wrong and put them in a juvenile prison. And there you can try out some programmes possibly. Preventing people from comitting terrorattacks in the first place is really difficult. A single person can take a car and mow down a crowd of people or take a machete and try an stab as many as possible. In the US you can just go an buy a automatic weapon and go in a crowded place and start shooting up the place.
But if she's eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship she's not stateless?
So you think it’s completely normal that 15 year olds can buy plane tickets and leave the country with no checks or balances in place to stop that?
If she wins her case, that would be a massive, dangerous precedent!
You won't get them. They would be classified if they even existed.
I feel I'm getting railroaded into an argument about an issue unimportant to the argument. The death of children is something I wish on no one but it doesn't detract from the action taken by their mother ( This is not Begum specific)
I lost a friend to the Manchester bombing and my daughter was present. The bomber on the day was radicalised too and had a family yet I hold no sympathy for him. I have little interest in wondering if he was a decent human, a good dad and the victim of terrorist pressure and influence. I care for him as much as he cared for the people I loved.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, however I have very little sympathy for people that have aided a terror regime create one of the worst humanitarian crises we've had in recent history.
What do you mean by your last sentence?
The goverment and the countries citizens have a duty, but I simply can't pin the blame on the goverment in this case. There is self-responsibility. Perhaps its a weaknes of a liberal democracy that we can't just lock radical preachers and neo-Nazi's. There was a averted terror attack in Denmark a few days ago. I commend the anti-terror corps in nicking them before the were able to commit terrorattacks in Denmark and Germany. I don't consider it the reponsibility of my goverment that they comitted to ISIS in the first place.
Yes? If they have a passport, it's not like a 15 year old is a toddler
This is all it comes down to. People seem to think those arguing otherwise are sympathising with her or ISIS which is bollocks. She is the UK government‘s responsibility and as per usual they are shirking that responsibility.
Why is leaving her where she is not an option?
I mean he also thinks Andrew Neil is a liberal, so.
You can have sympathy with the situation of a person suffering for the mistakes they made as a 15 year old. But that sympathy does not override the safety and security of people who did not make that same mistake.
If you bring her home, it can't be to anything other than a lifetime of solitary confinement in prison. If Britain as a country decide that such an outcome is worth the financial and ethical cost then so be it but to bring her home under any other circumstances is simply irresponsible.
All the other arguments surrounding sympathy, empathy, responsibility and citizenship are immaterial. Protecting your law abiding citizens comes first.
If you bring her home, it can't be to anything other than a lifetime of solitary confinement in prison. If Britain as a country decide that such an outcome is worth the financial and ethical cost then so be it but to bring her home under any other circumstances is simply irresponsible.
All the other arguments surrounding sympathy, empathy, responsibility and citizenship are immaterial. Protecting your law abiding citizens comes first.
Well there is, if she was travelling on her own, but she was not, she was with a 16 year old, who was her accompanied adult.
4. Identification requirements
All children under the age of eighteen are not required to provide identification to purchase a ticket, to get a boarding pass or to get past the security.
However, the adults who are responsible for the child must have the required identification. Most airlines require the government-issued photo ID. The person is also needed to fill the unaccompanied form and all the immigration documents at the airport. The following information is, however, necessary when making any reservation;
- The child's full names
- The child's address
- The relationship with the child
- Child's date of birth
- Information about the parents or guardians dropping off or picking up the child
- Alternative contact for a person in the destination
My point is that a 15 year old should not be able to book a ticket and leave the country without their parent or guardian’s knowledge.
I'm only replying to your statements, none of my questions have been unreasonable.
I'm sorry you lost a friend. However I don't think I've seen anyone advocate let alone myself that Begum ne brought back and thrown a parade. Far from it, those I've seen questioning this courts decision have stated that she should face the charges and submit to justice. Got Sweet FA to do with how comfortable her bed was which I contend hasn't been a 16 mattress jobby, still got feck all to do with Britain facing up to its responsibilities and not trying to foist them on another country who conveniently just could be something to do with her ancestry.