Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK

maniak said:
So basically a country washes its hands of the problem and pushes it to someone else.
Click to expand...

Under these circumstances yes. This individual travelled to Syria to commit his crimes and was arrested and imprisoned in Syria. Britain has revoked his citizenship so he is no longer British. Syria doesn't have to keep him but Britain does not have an obligation to take him back that outweighs the obligation to keep the people who chose not to be terrorists safe.

He'll have less negative impact on the current safety of Syria than he could have on the safety of Britain should he return. Unless you are going to take him back and lock him up in solitary confinement until he dies of old age, he should stay where he is or be released unto his own devices.

Perhaps something could be worked out whereby Britain pays for the cost of imprisoning him in Syria.
 
diarm said:
Under these circumstances yes. This individual travelled to Syria to commit his crimes and was arrested and imprisoned in Syria. Britain has revoked his citizenship so he is no longer British. Syria doesn't have to keep him but Britain does not have an obligation to take him back that outweighs the obligation to keep the people who chose not to be terrorists safe.

He'll have less negative impact on the current safety of Syria than he could have on the safety of Britain should he return. Unless you are going to take him back and lock him up in solitary confinement until he dies of old age, he should stay where he is or be released unto his own devices.

Perhaps something could be worked out whereby Britain pays for the cost of imprisoning him in Syria.
Click to expand...
Isn't that ridiculous? So hypothetically, say an idiot from a country signs up to become a terrorist and then makes his way to London, en route to somewhere else. And his home country cancels his citizenship. So England should be stuck with a brain washed guy because he is stateless?
 
diarm said:
Under these circumstances yes. This individual travelled to Syria to commit his crimes and was arrested and imprisoned in Syria. Britain has revoked his citizenship so he is no longer British. Syria doesn't have to keep him but Britain does not have an obligation to take him back that outweighs the obligation to keep the people who chose not to be terrorists safe.

He'll have less negative impact on the current safety of Syria than he could have on the safety of Britain should he return. Unless you are going to take him back and lock him up in solitary confinement until he dies of old age, he should stay where he is or be released unto his own devices.

Perhaps something could be worked out whereby Britain pays for the cost of imprisoning him in Syria.
Click to expand...

So what if nobody grants her citizenship? Do we ship her to the moon?
 
ThatsGreat said:
They're getting off easy, bring them back and try them for terrorism. Revoking their citizenship is such a cop out. If a citizen has committed any crime, then they should be punished according to that country's laws.
Click to expand...
Being tried in UK is pure bliss compared to being judged locally and risk either the death sentence or literally rot for the rest of their (short) life in an Iraqi or Syrian cell or even worse.
 
BBRBB said:
Being tried in UK is pure bliss compared to being judged locally and risk either the death sentence or literally rot for the rest of their (short) life in an Iraqi or Syrian cell or even worse.
Click to expand...
But at least you'll see them getting punished. Punishments are more for setting an example to people who'd like to commit the same crime.
 
ThatsGreat said:
But at least you'll see them getting punished. Punishments are more for setting an example to people who'd like to commit the same crime.
Click to expand...


The sentence she receives won’t be a deterrent to others at all because it will be nothing. That works for all crimes though. The sentences handed down are pathetic in the uk.

Only reason these Vermin want to come back to the uk is because it’s easy for them they will get such a lenient sentence then be protected and paid out for the rest of their lives.

In this case she can feck off to Bangladesh and be hung or she can stay where she is and deal with her miserable existence.
 
ThatsGreat said:
But at least you'll see them getting punished. Punishments are more for setting an example to people who'd like to commit the same crime.
Click to expand...
They mostly committed crimes in the middle east, I'm not sure why example is needed here. There will hardly be any witnesses and the sentence will be accordingly light, 10 years max.

In the meantime they'll be in a perfect environment to radicalize and recruit terrorists while serving their time and be completely free much sooner than you expect.

I understand where you're coming from but unless the terrorists abandon their ideology when they're arrested, repatriating them amounts to releasing the wolf in the sheepfold.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Do we view IS as a legitimate political movement though? Would that be an actual political affiliation?

I would be all for the UK bringing them back and punishing them but I just don't trust our justice system to get it right.
Click to expand...

Whether or not depriving someone of their citizenship is right/wrong, I don't believe it should be a government minister who decides this without recourse to the courts. It should be a legal tool not a political one.
 
hobbers said:
The opportunity to spend a few years radicalising others at her majesty's pleasure on taxpayer dime isn't just not a good punishment, it's what a lot of them would actively opt to do.
Click to expand...
So the right thing to do is letting a British radical loose, for the rest of the world to deal with?
 
Buster15 said:
Bit strange really. She has her UK citizenship taken away and yet she is able to get free legal aid in order to launch an appeal against the decision.
Not sure I understand that logic but what do I know.
Click to expand...

Legal Aid isn't exactly free. It sometimes requires a contribution if the party is (relatively) well off, and if damages are recovered against the opposing party then the Legal Aid Agency will need to be paid back. Either from the opposing party if costs are recovered or from the damages if a Legal Aid Claim is made.
If she caused her case or funding to be ended due to being unreasonable she could also be pursued for the costs back (though good luck with that).

Anyone seeking Legal Aid should be aware of what they are signing up for.

Assuming that the proceedings are a Judicial Review into the legality of the decision to revoke her citizenship then of course she should be entitled to that.. we dont live in a country where the state can do 100% what it wants without challenge. To get around the 'unpersoning' problem it may be the parents who are issuing the challenge.

That said, due to the rules regarding Judicial Reviews, the Legal Aid would be dependent on permissions to bring the review being granted - so the solicitors and counsel could lose funding retrospectively if the court refuses the case at the permissions stage.
 
Was thinking about what’s going on with her the other day. So what’s gonna happen? Are they gonna keep her in Syria? Send her to Bangladesh?
 
Sara125 said:
Was thinking about what’s going on with her the other day. So what’s gonna happen? Are they gonna keep her in Syria? Send her to Bangladesh?
Click to expand...
Bangladesh?

They don’t want her! They’ve stated quite clearly that she won’t be admitted. She’s our problem and we should deal with it
 
Sara125 said:
Was thinking about what’s going on with her the other day. So what’s gonna happen? Are they gonna keep her in Syria? Send her to Bangladesh?
Click to expand...

She may face trial in Syria:

 
Fantastic news. Hopefully she swings with a rope around her neck wherever she ends up.
 
Think it's scandalous that the Home Sec can unilaterally strip someone of their citizenship.
 
Adisa said:
Think it's scandalous that the Home Sec can unilaterally strip someone of their citizenship.
Click to expand...
Well the judge said he could do it as she is of Bangladeshi descent and can claim citizenship there. What a great message that sends out to all the British citizens who have parents who were born abroad.
 
Adisa said:
Think it's scandalous that the Home Sec can unilaterally strip someone of their citizenship.
Click to expand...
Priti Patel has made her bed already with pre election claims re terrorists. She faced criticism over the early release of the Streatham attacker. So now the Tories need to be making a statement and sticking to it.
 
2mufc0 said:
Well the judge said he could do it as she is of Bangladeshi descent and can claim citizenship there. What a great message that sends out to all the British citizens who have parents who were born abroad.
Click to expand...

and why should Bangladesh have to deal with her? it's an absurd ruling. disgraceful stuff all round, but the majority won't care cuz feck terrorists rah and all that.
 
11101 said:
Enemy combatants don't usually get a trial.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that term is used anymore. Regardless, I don’t think it’s right for the British government to strip someone of their citizenship without a trial (or at all but that’s a different discussion).
 
2mufc0 said:
Well the judge said he could do it as she is of Bangladeshi descent and can claim citizenship there. What a great message that sends out to all the British citizens who have parents who were born abroad.
Click to expand...
I know. They can't even aid and abet terrorists now without the threat of losing their citizenship. What's the world coming to?
 
2mufc0 said:
Well the judge said he could do it as she is of Bangladeshi descent and can claim citizenship there. What a great message that sends out to all the British citizens who have parents who were born abroad.
Click to expand...
I recall that the Bangladesh government said she'd have to apply for citizenship and they wouldn't grant it. This mantra that the UK government keeps repeating about her right to Bangladeshi citizenship isn't accurate.

She should be brought back to the UK and tried for the offences she's committed. No-one wants her, of course, but someone has to deal with the situation.
 
ivaldo said:
I know. They can't even aid and abet terrorists now without the threat of losing their citizenship. What's the world coming to?
Click to expand...
Yeah, completely miss the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.