Not really, she should be brought back, held in custody, tried, convicted and then sent to prison for as long as deemed necessary, if thats her entire life so be it, in solitary to prevent the chance of her radicalising anyone else.
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
You seem completely obsessed with her skin colour Pexbo. Do you just want everyone to be racists?
Wow.blah blah blah
There's an age minimum requirement here y'know
I'm not the one who doesn't realise this is about a State's responsibilities and not your kids and employees.
Wow, you still going? I bet you're hitting those keys hard!
Yeah I know loads of Muslims who don't want her back either, I think the issue is bigger than what Muslims want though. This is about whether or not the Government have the right to strip an individual's citizenship unilaterally.
How is a British person being allowed back into Britain a dangerous precedent? There are only 40 other Britons in the same boat as her.
I might not, but the security services might want to take a look. Remember that no one knew what happened to her until after she was gone. Her passport wasnt revoked until after she was found in a detention camp. Trying her, means an investigation. A proper one.
But none of this answers the question of why are we not going after a criminal?
I'm still pointing out your inconsistencies and whataboutisms which you have no answer to. Go on, talk about your kids and employees again...
Keep typing your nonsense like it has any relevance. You fail to provide a slither of evidence to back up your irrelevant claims.
You are boring
Knew this thread would be a mess, in my opinion we can’t just pick and choose who is British, she’s our problem and we should put her on trial and most likely put her away for the rest of her life, and judging by this thread I assume that is a very controversial statement.
It should be her parents but it'll be the states. Unfortunately.
I believe who shouldn't have to deal with her - the general public in Britain.
Now whether that means she goes to Bangladesh or is locked up in the UK I don't care.
No way she should be out, not at least for 15-20 years. Then they can check to see if she's been rehabilitated. Is she has, then release her - but keep an eye on her.
Let's change situation around a bit: what if she got high, stole a car and killed a pedestrian "by accident"?
Same thing. Choices have consequences.
That's a separate question you're asking, but anyway - you tell me, can a 15 year old think of the depth and consequences of their actions? If the answer is no, then it's not right to render her stateless. If it's yes, we should be rendering a whole lot of other people as stateless.
There is a general belief (not without merit) that the legal and correctional systems are not well suited to handle cases like hers. It will be hard to prove anything she did while abroad and technically her actions in foreign soil are subject to the laws of the land there. Syria is not in any state to pursue the legal cases of all these foreign individuals, they just want them gone. The only thing she could be tried for here is joining a terrorist organisation, it would be impossible to charge her with aiding or carrying out acts of terrorism. Solitary confinement is only for short periods, and for people deemed a physical danger to themselves or prison staff, there's only about 3-40 individuals in solitary at any time in the whole country (out of 7000+ inmates).
As a result based on current laws she's likely to get a life sentence (about 20yrs) and be out in 10-15 if she causes no trouble. She'll still only be 35 by then and still seen as a public enemy and will be completely unemployable. Which means she'll likely have to be subsidised by the state for another ~45 years. For many that's a reward rather than a punishment. On top of that her presence in prison could be detrimental to other inmates (a lot of the radicalisation happens in prison) and after she is let go she'll likely need to be monitored by intelligence officers for the rest of her life. Basically there's an extremely high cost attached to bringing back and catering for someone who obviously is not very fond of the country. Hence all the hardliners are against bringing her back.
Again, I'm with you that she is the UKs responsibility and should be brought back. But I understand where the others are coming from too. The bolded part of your sentence, we both know, is not likely to happen based on the laws.
They should have given her dual citizenship. IS and UK. Who doesn't want that passport combination?!
Is this accurate, and/or backed up by research?
I have no idea myself, but seen that it's been mentioned a lot. I can maybe see it happening in male prisons, by virtue of there are more male prisoners, gang culture, more violent crimes are committed by males and things of that nature. But female prisons tend to be less populated (less chance of this happening and more in the eye of prison staff), and the exhibition of better behaviour by prisoners, and generally, they're non violent prisoners and possibly less lengthy sentences.
Like I said, I have no idea, but would be interested to know if that is backed up by any research.
In the UK is it normal for 14/15 year olds to be treated in the exact same way as adults when they do something wrong? Because in other countries children tend to be treated differently even when they've committed offences like murder. And for good reason too. If that is also the case in the UK, it seems strange to not take this particular child's age and circumstances into account. And saying "she's old enough to know right from wrong" wouldn't be much of an argument in that context.
That's without going into the wrongs of the UK imposing the fate of a British citizen (who should be their responsibility) on others to deal with.
That's without going into the wrongs of the UK imposing the fate of a British citizen (who should be their responsibility) on others to deal with.
She was quite happy to leave in the first place wasn't she, and she's realised that it's not all rosey out there she wants to come back.
She's unemployable now so will be claiming off the state for the rest of her life.
You know what is right and wrong at 15 years old. She made her choice. I have no sympathy for her.
She's unemployable now so will be claiming off the state for the rest of her life.
You know what is right and wrong at 15 years old. She made her choice. I have no sympathy for her.
I have no idea about the particular angle of female prisons. I believe most research on this is indeed based on male prisons since they make ~95% of the inmate population.
I somehow doubt a terrorist state that executed deserters ever considered issuing passports (yes, I know that was a joke)
Afaik, the rules are different when it comes to terrorism and terrorist group related activities.
Still, she may have been u-18 when she left but she turned into an adult while still there, right?
So the State part of Islamic State is just for show then?
Some strange willy waving going on in here. I also didn't know comparing being responsible for people at work with the definition of responsibility was a thing, either. Unless you're a manager that conflates having a handful of team leaders, who really handle the day to day stuff, with taking credit for every minute action of the people below you. Because if we're doing that then technically I'm responsible for a couple hundred folk as well, and it clearly means feck all in the real world because I'm a tube.
Also, getting into a "I manage more people" contest with oates is like getting into a farting competition with my dog.
Also, getting into a "I manage more people" contest with oates is like getting into a farting competition with my dog.
It appears there is no middle ground between being an irresponsible arsehole of a country and a 'typical do-gooder'.
That's the equivalent of saying anyone who doesn't throw all of their shit into their neighbour's garden is a 'typical do-gooder'.
The backup has arrived! Predictable!
Would 18 year olds who were groomed into committing crimes from a younger age get treated differently? That's a genuine question btw, I have no idea how UK law works or to what degree that type of coercion is taken into account in normal circumstances. I'm just wondering how consistent this "she was old enough to know what she was doing" argument is with the rest of UK law and how minors & young adults are typically treated when they've committed serious crimes.
Because if in general the law is applied differently to young offenders and those who were groomed/coerced (even on serious crimes like murder) then the "she was old enough to know" argument falls away, as the system is typically built on the premise that someone who is in such a position should be treated with different consideration.
Edit: I realise you probably don't know either btw.
That's irrelevant in law, she was a child unable to legally make that decision. Have you never changed your mind about anything since you were 15?
This thread is a shit show.
The girl was 14 (or younger) when she was radicalised. Why is religious extremist radicalisation treated so differently to other crimes? If this girl trafficked drugs to Europe at the age of 14 would we be revoking her citizenship? If she assaulted someone? If you are brain washed into something from a young age then “she knows right from wrong” goes out the window in my eyes.
I doubt the “choices have consequences”
crowd don’t advocate life sentences for all crimes. Every crime has a severity and mitigating factors.
We’ve had cases before as a country where we have wanted to extradite foreign nationals to answer for their crimes (Anne Sacoolas) and also people we have refused to extradite because we don’t believe a trial would be fair. We can’t wash our hands of one of our own citizen’s criminality abroad and then expect other nations to take us seriously in these matters.
Even if she was an adult, she’s our problem. What kind of citizens of the world are we to say “meh, she’s a bit of a risk and will cost a bit to house, you keep her”, especially given our economic power.
The UK’s position on this is shameful in my eyes.
The girl was 14 (or younger) when she was radicalised. Why is religious extremist radicalisation treated so differently to other crimes? If this girl trafficked drugs to Europe at the age of 14 would we be revoking her citizenship? If she assaulted someone? If you are brain washed into something from a young age then “she knows right from wrong” goes out the window in my eyes.
I doubt the “choices have consequences”
crowd don’t advocate life sentences for all crimes. Every crime has a severity and mitigating factors.
We’ve had cases before as a country where we have wanted to extradite foreign nationals to answer for their crimes (Anne Sacoolas) and also people we have refused to extradite because we don’t believe a trial would be fair. We can’t wash our hands of one of our own citizen’s criminality abroad and then expect other nations to take us seriously in these matters.
Even if she was an adult, she’s our problem. What kind of citizens of the world are we to say “meh, she’s a bit of a risk and will cost a bit to house, you keep her”, especially given our economic power.
The UK’s position on this is shameful in my eyes.
Children between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime. They are treated differently from adults and are dealt with by youth courts, given different sentences and sent to special secure centres for young people, not adult prisons.
Young people aged 18 are treated as an adult by the law. If they’re sent to prison, they’ll be sent to a place that holds 18 to 25-year-olds, not a full adult prison.
If you commit a crime at 15 but get prosecuted for it at 21, you will be prosecuted as an adult.
So if the UK was trying to deport a criminal back to their own country and that country refused to take them and stripped their citizenship so it was now the UK's problem, you'd be fine with that? And anyone arguing against it would be a do-gooder?
Not really backup, although I do agree with oates that you're on an poor wum that really isn't going to end well. I suppose we all pass the time in different ways.
Your last post was good, by the way. You should keep that up until you're comfortable with the forum.
I haven't followed the details of this closely. If by any chance Bangladesh says "ok we'll take her" could they simply not prosecute her and she'd be a free person?
I'm comfortable already. There are posters with the admin's ear that goad others and we fall for it. We can't reply for fear of being banned. My post gets singled out 'others' do worse and it gets accepted as they are protected. There is another goading people into making racist comments. I have a few DMs from people that have spotted the same but fear posting.
I'll admit my faults but refuse to be blamed for turning the thread into the shit show it has become.
This is the main reason for me hardly ever getting involved in threads. They always turn sour if your opinion differs from another. I generally post the match thread in the Newbie section and leave it at that.
I guess this statement will see me classed as 'childish' or that I'm still 'crying' A very welcoming place indeed.
Last edited:
She’d probably be out of prison pretty quickly in the UK. I don’t think there’s much real evidence against her.
So say in a situation where an 18 year old adult was on trial for crimes they committed when they were 15, would their age at the time and the fact that that they were groomed/coerced/compelled into the committing the crimes by adults (most likely by parents in cases where it does happen, I suppose, or possibly by gangs in some instances) tend to be taken into account in terms of sentencing and/or how their sentence is managed?
Or would it generally be assumed that given they were "old enough to know better" at 15 and are adults now then that shouldn't be taken into account?
Why are you trying to cancel us?!
I don't get it, sorry
Just a joke about cancel culture. My bad.
