Her age would be taken into account and the argument given weight but the process and sentence would be that of an 18 year old, not 15.
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
I missed it, sorry...brain dead todayJust a joke about cancel culture. My bad.
That becomes I SUK. Has an appropriate sound to it
Is she still a teen?
Well of all the hot takes I thought this would generate, I didn't expect to see 'the UK should recognise the legitimacy of IS' .
Nope she's 21.
Back when all this started, as in she was found in that camp, I was listening to a discussion on her case and the issue was that there was no real charged that could be levelled at her, in terms of terrorism and carrying out any acts of terror etc.
I can't remember the details but there have been cases of girls who went and came back and weren't even prosecuted.
The issue, certainly, at the time was the high profile, in the media sense, for Shamima was the biggest issue for govt. A sort of she won't see prison time so there will be uproar type thing.
Like I say it was a while back so the details are hazy but that was the gist.
Does anyone know if bar the false identity thing what laws she actually broke, at the time and if laws put in place since would apply to her if she had gone before the laws were implemented?
Yes I changed my mind once about putting a different t shirt on, not about joining an extremist group that kills people.
Think she can be charged for joining a terrorist group but the sentences are not that long. There was a guy who joined the PPK and got 1 year. He got 3 extra years for drug offences before he joined!
In the Terrorism Act 2000. By virtue of s. 41(1) “a constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist”.
Section 40 of the Act defines a terrorist as a person who either (a) has committed an offence under certain sections of the Act, or (b) “has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. To the extent that arrest is based on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, there is no need for the power under s.41.
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, s. 24,23 a police officer may arrest on reasonable suspicion relating to any offence. It is where the suspicion relates to behaviour falling within (b), that s. 41(1) becomes important and extends the normal arrest powers. . Although acts of “'terrorism” will almost certainly involve the commission of an offence.
So based on the Terrorism Act 200, she can be arrested.
Source
I'll try and find the info if I can from what I heard.
As I say it was a while back but I'm sure they were saying that the evidence at the time showed that the brides didn't participate in certain things and, again hazy, that marrying didn't fit the criteria for some who had gone to be classed as terrorist.
That's just in my words so could be wrong choice of words
i think it would satisfy all sides of this debate, if one of biden's new airstrikes got rid of this messy problem. happily, her baby is already dead, so one less thing to deal with. thank god!
i for one hope joe bombs some more and helps the at-risk british citizenry out here.
i for one hope joe bombs some more and helps the at-risk british citizenry out here.
One thing for certain with this whole debacle is that the government haven't refused due to some moral standing, have they? They just want to avoid any bad press?
It's all a very sticky affair and too far away from my field.
I wonder how her criminal activity sits with those that don't want her to come back. Genuine question. Because it seems that we've got people who are either saying "she's a British citizen who was groomed, the government has a responsibility to her" or "she's a criminal, she made her choice" yet don't actually want to see her put on trial for her crimes.
It's all a very sticky affair and too far away from my field.
"I'm a citizen of the world"
Okay mate, it would be an interesting read.
The law defines a terrorist who...
(1)In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—
(a)has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
Section 11 states...
(1)A person commits an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.
This is the legal test she would have to meet to be classed a terrorist, I believe she does.
A person found guilty of these terms...
Section 11
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, to a fine or to both.
This is what she could face just for being part of Isis.
An agm hellfire missile from a drone costs about £50k...
From an economic perspective we should probably just jihadi John her and take responsibility / clean up our mess
But the court says she's not a uk citizen so not our call I guess
Last edited:
Whilst looking for the bit I said I would above I've found that between 300/400 britons who went to syria have returned.
The have been subject to investigation. The age of responsibly is 10 in British law, according to one article, many just had exclusion orders and had certain restrictions placed upon them but not actual prison time. No stats as to how many, yet from articles I have found this far
I wanted her to be refused entry back into the UK. Reading posts on here though has made me change a little. The burden is on our Government. I didn't want her back to spite her if I'm honest But people are right, why should others clean up our mess.
I still believe she is past redemption and should rot in a UK prison for the rest of her life. She isn't innocent, her group, husband and herself for all we know have committed many crimes.
So far I found a couple of articles that speak of age of responsibility being 10. Also that 300-400 brits who left for syria came back and the Govt has a desistance and disengagement programme, but the Home Office won't reveal the effectiveness or progress of this programe.
Yes, the age of responsibility in England and Wales is 10. There are systems in place to deal with under age crimes though.
I too have found a couple of articles to read. Little information on what the legal outcome was more about why and the numbers returning.
This is sarcasm isn't it? I want to believe it is.
Agreed. This is the best outcome.
yes. i was arguing in this thread when it was first active years ago and was a little shocked at the positions people were taking.
Good for you mate. Rest assured most who want her back don’t want her back and forgiven, she needs to be tried and punished accordingly. But she’s our problem, no one else’s.
Though i imagine if she was tried here, she’d play the ‘victim card’, probably get 3 years, out in 18 months and benefits for the rest of her life.
That's a totally different subject though. If you're unhappy with the softness of our justice system then I suggest you petition your MP to bring up, a motion to make sentencing stricter with hard mandatory sentences for a plethora of crimes.
The same might be true of another 16 year old who injured someone in a fight. Why is this different?
Have you ever written to an MP?
In the eyes of the law, you generally don't. I'm South African and I think our laws work very much the same as the UK? Whether terrorism laws exclude this clause, is another matter, and maybe something she should just be tried at "home" for...
The minimum age for prosecution in the UK is 10 and children have been convicted at that age for things like murder where them knowing right from wrong was established.
But anyway, it's the UK's problem and so it has to deal with it.
This is a very good point about how prisoners are scroungers, living off honest, hardworking taxpayers. And the younger they are, the more resources they consume. This disgusting excuse for a human being was recently released after being fed and getting a toilet (with drainage!) at govt expense for 70 years! Disgrace. The govt might have been able to buy a replacement nosewheel for a fighter jet for that money.
I think, to avoid this waste of resources on human filth, it is time to bring back hanging, but only for juveniles. No appeals once the sentence is passed to avoid wasting courts' time. Cheap, quick, less resources, more justice. What's not to like.
I think, to avoid this waste of resources on human filth, it is time to bring back hanging, but only for juveniles. No appeals once the sentence is passed to avoid wasting courts' time. Cheap, quick, less resources, more justice. What's not to like.
I suppose joining a terrorist organisation intent on over throwing the society that you come from whilst participating in enslavement, torture, rape and murder as means of achieving those ends goes beyond an isolated assault.
Should just get on a Dinghy to Dover.
I was all for this 2 years ago when this all kicked off, now I've changed my mind.
I find it quite concerning how fragile your citizenship status is in this country as a 2nd generation immigrant. I think her citizenship should've upheld but the govt should've been under no obligation to rescue her from syria. If she managed to find her way back, she should've then been arrested at the point of entry and tried for everything they could throw at her.
I find it quite concerning how fragile your citizenship status is in this country as a 2nd generation immigrant. I think her citizenship should've upheld but the govt should've been under no obligation to rescue her from syria. If she managed to find her way back, she should've then been arrested at the point of entry and tried for everything they could throw at her.
Thanks for that info choker. I'm not a lawyer, and wouldn't want to detract from our legal minds here - so maybe "cause/intent" here is also a metric. Even if convicted under adult age though, they spend time in juvenile detention, rather than a full blown prison with adult convicts?
I guess i haven't a clue other than opinion.
Yes that's right, if you want an example look at the murder of James Bulger by Jonathan Venebles and Robert Thompson
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mur... Bulger (16 March,on Friday, 12 February 1993.
I think that stems from how society views people, particularly of different race. As we have many times pointed out, we'd never do that to someone who is British from Irish descent for example. We wouldn't even call them 2nd gen immigrant. Which is technically right, since a person born and raised here is a native by the very definition of the word.
Passing the buck.
Radicalised on our own turf. Own the problem and apply the law upon her return. I have no real sympathy for Begum the adult: she shows practically zero contrition for her role within a terrorist organisation, but the fact of the matter is that she was radicalised on UK soil at the age of 14 and should have been safeguarded from the events that occurred both before and thereafter.
Do I particularly want somebody who espouses her views on our streets? No. Do I think she poses a threat to national security? Absolutely. But she is a UK citizen and we’ve passed the buck. Our systems also failed to safeguard her from harm when she was a child. We should be better than this.
Radicalised on our own turf. Own the problem and apply the law upon her return. I have no real sympathy for Begum the adult: she shows practically zero contrition for her role within a terrorist organisation, but the fact of the matter is that she was radicalised on UK soil at the age of 14 and should have been safeguarded from the events that occurred both before and thereafter.
Do I particularly want somebody who espouses her views on our streets? No. Do I think she poses a threat to national security? Absolutely. But she is a UK citizen and we’ve passed the buck. Our systems also failed to safeguard her from harm when she was a child. We should be better than this.