Because there's plenty of people willing to fund human rights causes.
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
Who? …British tax payer?
oh yeah, all those legal aid lawyers on the gravy train
My guess is its exceptional case funding which means around £50-70ph recovery for the business with overheads, admin staff etc to pay out of it..
I listened to the radio programme about her during the weekend (recovering from my 2nd knee replacement surgery). And it was pretty clear that she was far more aware of what was going on with ISIS than she had tried to make out.
Moreover, she had repeatedly lied about knowing anything about the Egyptian family she had been staying with.
And she admitted that she had paid her own travel costs to join IS and was not really trafficked. She also admitted that she had helped recruit a number of young girls and had a clear understanding of the atrocities that were going on.
It is difficult for me to conceive that she does not pose a risk to the security of the UK and so I agree with the decision.
The argument around her human rights is valid but the courts will also have to consider the human rights of those she'll come into contact with if allowed back into the country.
A lawyer charging £50-70 an hour?
Disgraceful, cowardly decision and yet another example of the government seeing itself above the law and happy to ditch its responsibilities to its citizens.
Global Britain, we'll look to renege on international agreements we've just signed, happy to flout international law and will dump our problems on other countries when it suits us politically.
Their line that Begum 'went into it with her eyes open' as a child is dangerous. Maybe Gary Glitter will try using that as a defence next time he's in court.
Global Britain, we'll look to renege on international agreements we've just signed, happy to flout international law and will dump our problems on other countries when it suits us politically.
Their line that Begum 'went into it with her eyes open' as a child is dangerous. Maybe Gary Glitter will try using that as a defence next time he's in court.
You know people have run out of arguments when they start talking about how much her lawyers are making.
Maybe syria can start stripping the nationality off of their criminals and dump them in some british island.
Maybe syria can start stripping the nationality off of their criminals and dump them in some british island.
What human rights would that be?
That's legal aid prescribed rates.
I work in Legal Aid for a Human Rights department, though we don't do immigration
You're looking at £50 to £75 for solicitors, a bit more for barristers, but not the gravy train sums..
If I was charged with representing a neighbour of SB, I would argue Article 27 & 28 Universal Declaration on Human Rights were breached. Article 2 and Protocol 1 article 1 could also be argued. This is just off the top of my head.
Fair enough, though at last count my solicitor/lawyer was charging £280 an hour +vat
As do ours when the client is paying privately, or even more if working on a Conditional Fee Agreement etc.
We're talking about legal aid under non-inquest exceptional case funding which you brought up because she is funded by legal aid.
Most law firms don't do legal aid and those that do have very narrow margins with legal aid or are subsidised by other funding.
Your misinterpretation of the 'gravy train' is why the rates haven't gone up since 1992 and went down by 10% in 2012
That's a middle-of-the-road fee. As a Junior Barrister, my fees would be around £100-£200 P/H reaching £500-£700 P/H as a senior. Bear in mind that there are no set fees outside of legal aid, excluding fixed fee arangments etc...
I assume I'm misunderstanding, because surely you're not referring to this? https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Article 27 said:
Article 28 said:
Thanks for explaining ….good to know
Apologies. Article 2 and Protocol 1 Article 1 of HRA 1998.
I would argue Article 27 and 28 UDHR as being denied the right out of fear.
Google will not give you much depth to any argument in any of the articles.
If someone has Begum as a neighbour, then either she hasn't been found guilty of a crime, or she has finished serving her sentence. You're not being serious, this is a weird topic to wum about.
I think the grooming aspect is being seen for what it is, a cynical attempt by her legal team to curry favour.
The argument for her Citizenship is based on her still being a threat.
Edit: Neighbour, in a legal context, are people who stay in your locality, people that are affected by your actions. Not necessarily the people that live next door to you.
Last edited:
Serious money, though surprised.
Would you charge those fees if representing someone on legal aid ….or is that a different type of Barrister?
No, legal aid fees work around set parameters. It's difficult to state an exact fee as there are Lawyers that will only do Legal Aid work and other private Lawyers that will do certain cases. Generally, the fees are governed by The Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Privately is it good money but the hours are very long and the work is very stressful. For example, receiving paperwork from the CPS at midnight and being due in court at 9 am. It is not how it looks on the TV.
Was @sun_tzu banned? Thank goodness.
Interesting. BTW trust I’m not being charged for this information
My Dutch stepgrandmother was a Barrister though I have no idea about her earnings other than she lived a comfortable life.
Pro Bono for all Cafe members
Thank god for that!Pro Bono for all Cafe members
Legal aid is not restricted to UK citizens. And the rates are fairly low for lawyers compared to private client work.
And that makes it worse as an argument. Countries cannot dump their bad apples on other nations.
But she was born in the UK. Shouldn't that trump everything else?
Surprised at the tone change in this thread. The decision was being widely celebrated when it was first made, despite the same obvious implications for what citizenship means.
ISIS a more distant memory?
ISIS a more distant memory?
not surprised. pathetic really.
(*Hope that is going well, don't over do it, follow the Docs orders
)Yes, its possible for me to get my head around a 15 year old getting everything wrong, maybe being lured by others, but the reality she faced on arrival should have made her take stock, she apparently didn't and carried on and engaged with what was going on around her. Knowing what was taking place and doing nothing, is one thing, actively involved in recruiting others is something else.
If you’re the child of first generation immigrants, it sets a precedent that you’re in the UK conditionally.,I don’t have much sympathy for her but the UK should own this problem and put her in a British prison while they try to rehabilitate her (if that’s possible).
Sadly not.
The citizenship laws have been changed so that it is okay to remove British citizenship from someone if there is a real possibility they can obtain another country's citizenship.
In practice this normally means via parents or grandparents.
So citizenship is much more likely to be stripped from someone who is a first or second generation immigrant, even if in the latter case the person is born in the UK.
It basically applies disproportionately heavily on people of colour, who are punished not for what they have done, but for the fact their parents were not born here.
To put it another way, Jimmy Savile and Harold Shipman (if both alive today) would not be able to have their citizenship removed as there is no other available nationality for them to apply for.
Shamima Begum, because of her youth, was theoretically able to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship as she was under 21, and that was all the Home Secretary needed to show under the current laws.
US is one of the very few countries that gives citizenship by virtue of birth within it's territories. My daughter was born in US and hence she's an US Citizen, even though me and my wife are Indian citizens.
I don't think this is right. A person's birthright shouldn't be stripped based on any other criteria. If they were born in X country that's their birthright. I know this is a special situation so I'm speaking generally.
That's why I was confused. Kids who were born here are untouchable regardless of where their parents were born. The dreamers act I think it's called.
Just pointing out that US is the exception than the norm. Majority of the countries today do not bestow a citizenship purely on the basis of the place of birth
Children cannot consent to things like this.
Manchester arena bombing victim says: “Those innocent pop fans never came home so why should she?”
It’s an emotional argument, and they’ve definitely got a point. I do however think as much as she deserves to be banished, she’s the UKs problem and the UK should deal with her. There’s lots of other threats to national security out there, but we don’t just shoot them out of a cannon so they can live far away from here.
It’s an emotional argument, and they’ve definitely got a point. I do however think as much as she deserves to be banished, she’s the UKs problem and the UK should deal with her. There’s lots of other threats to national security out there, but we don’t just shoot them out of a cannon so they can live far away from here.
I'm not her biggest fan (I never bought any of her merch and haven't listened to her latest album) but it's clear she does have quite a cult following on here and is probably ahead of Corden in the opinion polls.