I quite clearly stated that 'legally I think she has to be allowed back and then go through the due process of the legal system to see what action is taken against her.' But you elected to ignore that part of my post.
Yes, I think the money spent on her case, prosecution costs and I presume the legal aid funded defense, could be spent on on any one of thousands of more deserving cases. But it wont be.
The 'British national went to Benidorm and, without provocation and totally random, brutally killed a fellow British holidaymaker, would you be happy with that person being allowed back in the country?' No I wouldn't, they should stand trial in the country they commited the crime. That doesn't seem to be an option in this case. Stripped of their British citizenship? Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but again it's not my decision to make.
This thread was started by Tikay asking for people's opinions, I have given mine. I have no desire to keep having to defend my point of view and I suspect that that may be the reason why the vast majority of people don't bother posting on this type of thread.
Well that and the fact that , you have certain people like hhy , who have no interest in the topic itself , just like to troll . Killing the forum. Obviously you have to be in the right group to get away with it constantly , without repercussions
I quite clearly stated that 'legally I think she has to be allowed back and then go through the due process of the legal system to see what action is taken against her.' But you elected to ignore that part of my post.
Yes, I think the money spent on her case, prosecution costs and I presume the legal aid funded defense, could be spent on on any one of thousands of more deserving cases. But it wont be.
The 'British national went to Benidorm and, without provocation and totally random, brutally killed a fellow British holidaymaker, would you be happy with that person being allowed back in the country?' No I wouldn't, they should stand trial in the country they commited the crime. That doesn't seem to be an option in this case. Stripped of their British citizenship? Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but again it's not my decision to make.
This thread was started by Tikay asking for people's opinions, I have given mine. I have no desire to keep having to defend my point of view and I suspect that that may be the reason why the vast majority of people don't bother posting on this type of thread.
Well that and the fact that , you have certain people like hhy , who have no interest in the topic itself , just like to troll . Killing the forum. Obviously you have to be in the right group to get away with it constantly , without repercussions
Myself and Enut are literally discussing the topic. You're the one who has just posted without any relevance to what is being discussed. So by your own logic, that's troll behaviour.
But yes, I'm ''killing the forum'' lol
Mr Tune, I am very aware of what ISIS are trying, and thankfully failing, to achieve. Should we, as a civilised western country, not want to try and understand what would make a 15 year old want to join such an organisation?
There are recent reports that we have let back in hundreds of males who were on the frontline fighting for ISIS. Is it then not strange that we've blocked the return of a 19 year old woman who, by all accounts, has been 'behind the scenes' with them and not actively involved in killing or warfare? Why have we made an example of her, a young woman who was pregnant?
Surely we need to find out exactly what crimes she may have committed, which would mean bringing her home. And the UK is her home, whether we like it or not.
I quite clearly stated that 'legally I think she has to be allowed back and then go through the due process of the legal system to see what action is taken against her.' But you elected to ignore that part of my post.
Yes, I think the money spent on her case, prosecution costs and I presume the legal aid funded defense, could be spent on on any one of thousands of more deserving cases. But it wont be.
The 'British national went to Benidorm and, without provocation and totally random, brutally killed a fellow British holidaymaker, would you be happy with that person being allowed back in the country?' No I wouldn't, they should stand trial in the country they commited the crime. That doesn't seem to be an option in this case. Stripped of their British citizenship? Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but again it's not my decision to make.
This thread was started by Tikay asking for people's opinions, I have given mine. I have no desire to keep having to defend my point of view and I suspect that that may be the reason why the vast majority of people don't bother posting on this type of thread.
Well that and the fact that , you have certain people like hhy , who have no interest in the topic itself , just like to troll . Killing the forum. Obviously you have to be in the right group to get away with it constantly , without repercussions
Myself and Enut are literally discussing the topic. You're the one who has just posted without any relevance to what is being discussed. So by your own logic, that's troll behaviour.
But yes, I'm ''killing the forum'' lol
Mr Tune, I am very aware of what ISIS are trying, and thankfully failing, to achieve. Should we, as a civilised western country, not want to try and understand what would make a 15 year old want to join such an organisation?
There are recent reports that we have let back in hundreds of males who were on the frontline fighting for ISIS. Is it then not strange that we've blocked the return of a 19 year old woman who, by all accounts, has been 'behind the scenes' with them and not actively involved in killing or warfare? Why have we made an example of her, a young woman who was pregnant?
Surely we need to find out exactly what crimes she may have committed, which would mean bringing her home. And the UK is her home, whether we like it or not.
You are not having a debate with enut , he's already said in effect why people don't engage in these conversations as a result of your input and people like you . He's explained his position in detail , but you insist on pulling it apart because it would appear you have nothing better to do with your time . Well done for deflecting on the tragic , heartbreaking circumstances of another innocent child dying .
We are discussing, cos he's posted again since and also asked me a question. It's generally what happens in a debate, goes back and forth.
As for your last bizarre comment, it's barely worthy of dignifying with a reply, but people can see for themselves how ridiculous it is.
An innocent baby has died , and you wish to point score , quite frankly you are a disgrace !
An innocent baby has died, and this is forming part of the overall topic and discussion. A discussion that you are trying to hijack and derail yet again.
We are discussing, cos he's posted again since and also asked me a question. It's generally what happens in a debate, goes back and forth.
As for your last bizarre comment, it's barely worthy of dignifying with a reply, but people can see for themselves how ridiculous it is.
An innocent baby has died , and you wish to point score , quite frankly you are a disgrace !
An innocent baby has died, and this is forming part of the overall topic and discussion. A discussion that you are trying to hijack and derail yet again.
So please stop, because you're rather tiresome.
Sadly you are only interested in a debate when there is a whiff of controversy . The truth is you could care less about this issue and will lose interest as soon as it dies a death as there will be no reason and no opportunity to argue .
Show some respect , and leave people to debate an issue like adults .
I appreciate that there are differing views about this person.
I am saddened that the Supreme Court has today ruled that she cannot return to the UK to argue her case.
She is (or was) British. She is currently held as a captive. She is not able to speak to Lawyers. She is also unable to have access to a videolink so that she can give evidence. I could quite see the argument why she should not be allowed to return to give evidence if there was an alternative method of ensuring both sides of the case are heard. But there is not.
We can all have our own views as to whether a British person ceases to be British if they do something we disagree with. But to deny her any opportunity of stating in evidence why she should still be British? Poor. We should be better than this.
"Mr Javid welcomed the ruling, saying any "restrictions of rights and freedoms" faced by Ms Begum were a "direct" result of her "extreme" actions.
He said: "The home secretary is responsible for the security of our citizens and borders, and therefore should have the power to decide whether anyone posing a serious threat to that security can enter our country".
She hardly strikes me as a "threat to national security". She seems to be paying very dearly for her mistakes as a young girl.
When I was 16, I volunteered to join the armed forces because I wanted to do it. I wasn't groomed by the MoD. The argument that Shamima Begum was 'groomed' to join ISIS is, in my own opinion, rubbish. She knew what she was getting into. Just like, at 16, I knew what I was getting into when I signed up to join HM Forces (which was one of the best decisions of my life). Glad to see that common sense has prevailed today.
When I was 16, I volunteered to join the armed forces because I wanted to do it. I wasn't groomed by the MoD. The argument that Shamima Begum was 'groomed' to join ISIS is, in my own opinion, rubbish. She knew what she was getting into. Just like, at 16, I knew what I was getting into when I signed up to join HM Forces (which was one of the best decisions of my life). Glad to see that common sense has prevailed today.
Let's start with the UK Army. Seems a sensible benchmark for comparison.
Can you join the Army at 15? No.
Can join the Army at 16-the only European or NATO member to allow it. And strict rules for 16 year old-need parental consent, and cannot fight abroad until 18. Because the Army considers it to be wrong.
"Knew what she was getting into"? 15 year olds have a romanticised view of wars. You reckon she knew she was going to be passed around like a piece of meat, and watch her kids die?
Common sense does not mean a British person ceases being British just because they do something wrong. Common sense would have been either to bring her here for a hearing, or to take steps to facilitate advice/evidence from the region she is currently in.
What saddens me most is this:-
Impressionable 15-yr old white girls get groomed and abused in places like Rotherham, and they get helped. As they should. And the vile perpetrators get tried, and jailed. As they should.
But if you are an impressionable young girl like Ms Begum, you don't get helped. You get vilified. And told it is all your own fault. And not even given a fair trial. Or any trial.
I think not being able to properly offer any evidence is a travesty and certainly not a situation I would ever want anybody to be in.
The problem for me is several fold.
1, If we allow her into the country to give her evidence, she's never leaving. She would get so lawyered up it would become a political nightmare.
2, When she gave her first interview she stated that she still believed in the establishment of a Caliphate and a desire to see Jihad brought to Britain.
3, Were we actually at "War" with ISIS if so then collaboration and assisting an enemy could be construed as treason which carries a maximum of life imprisonment. Would she be prepared to accept that?
4, She says that she has no access to legal representation and yet journalists had little trouble interviewing her.
5, Yes its harsh on her but there has to be an example set so that others know that if you leave to join an insurgent terrorist organisation, that's it. You lose everything.
There is a danger that our compassion continues to be exploited by those with hidden agendas and ulterior motives and to this end I feel the Government are making an example, a political statement to the rest of the world.
Do I agree with it? No
Do I understand why theyve done it ? Yes.
Do I think Shamina Begum has been given a **** deal? Absolutely
There are so many standpoints that you could come at this from. I however have to come at it as a Christian which puts me at odds with many on this issue. Grace, forgiveness and mercy have I received and continue to receive daily.
I cannot deny this to others. To do so is hypocrisy.
I think not being able to properly offer any evidence is a travesty and certainly not a situation I would ever want anybody to be in.
The problem for me is several fold.
1, If we allow her into the country to give her evidence, she's never leaving. She would get so lawyered up it would become a political nightmare.
2, When she gave her first interview she stated that she still believed in the establishment of a Caliphate and a desire to see Jihad brought to Britain.
3, Were we actually at "War" with ISIS if so then collaboration and assisting an enemy could be construed as treason which carries a maximum of life imprisonment. Would she be prepared to accept that?
4, She says that she has no access to legal representation and yet journalists had little trouble interviewing her.
5, Yes its harsh on her but there has to be an example set so that others know that if you leave to join an insurgent terrorist organisation, that's it. You lose everything.
There is a danger that our compassion continues to be exploited by those with hidden agendas and ulterior motives and to this end I feel the Government are making an example, a political statement to the rest of the world.
Do I agree with it? No
Do I understand why theyve done it ? Yes.
Do I think Shamina Begum has been given a **** deal? Absolutely
There are so many standpoints that you could come at this from. I however have to come at it as a Christian which puts me at odds with many on this issue. Grace, forgiveness and mercy have I received and continue to receive daily.
I cannot deny this to others. To do so is hypocrisy.
There is a lot of sense in what you say.
I can see the argument for her to face criminal charges. Imprisoned? Possibly. But banished? It's a bit 17th Century.
A lot of people have referred to her "collaboration". The only thing that we know she has done is slept with the enemy. Whereas various former fighters have been allowed back in to the UK.
Is she being used as an example? Undoubtedly. Just not a very good one. Why can we not use an adult who has killed people as an example?
When I was 16, I volunteered to join the armed forces because I wanted to do it. I wasn't groomed by the MoD. The argument that Shamima Begum was 'groomed' to join ISIS is, in my own opinion, rubbish. She knew what she was getting into. Just like, at 16, I knew what I was getting into when I signed up to join HM Forces (which was one of the best decisions of my life). Glad to see that common sense has prevailed today.
Out of curiosity, what would your opinion be if she was a white girl called Sarah?
Common sense is to bring her back, try get to the root of the situation and put her on trial if deemed necessary.
Comments
Well that and the fact that , you have certain people like hhy , who have no interest in the topic itself , just like to troll . Killing the forum. Obviously you have to be in the right group to get away with it constantly , without repercussions
Myself and Enut are literally discussing the topic. You're the one who has just posted without any relevance to what is being discussed. So by your own logic, that's troll behaviour.
But yes, I'm ''killing the forum'' lol
Mr Tune, I am very aware of what ISIS are trying, and thankfully failing, to achieve. Should we, as a civilised western country, not want to try and understand what would make a 15 year old want to join such an organisation?
There are recent reports that we have let back in hundreds of males who were on the frontline fighting for ISIS. Is it then not strange that we've blocked the return of a 19 year old woman who, by all accounts, has been 'behind the scenes' with them and not actively involved in killing or warfare? Why have we made an example of her, a young woman who was pregnant?
Surely we need to find out exactly what crimes she may have committed, which would mean bringing her home. And the UK is her home, whether we like it or not.
But yes, I'm ''killing the forum'' lol
Mr Tune, I am very aware of what ISIS are trying, and thankfully failing, to achieve. Should we, as a civilised western country, not want to try and understand what would make a 15 year old want to join such an organisation?
There are recent reports that we have let back in hundreds of males who were on the frontline fighting for ISIS. Is it then not strange that we've blocked the return of a 19 year old woman who, by all accounts, has been 'behind the scenes' with them and not actively involved in killing or warfare? Why have we made an example of her, a young woman who was pregnant?
Surely we need to find out exactly what crimes she may have committed, which would mean bringing her home. And the UK is her home, whether we like it or not.
You are not having a debate with enut , he's already said in effect why people don't engage in these conversations as a result of your input and people like you . He's explained his position in detail , but you insist on pulling it apart because it would appear you have nothing better to do with your time . Well done for deflecting on the tragic , heartbreaking circumstances of another innocent child dying .
As for your last bizarre comment, it's barely worthy of dignifying with a reply, but people can see for themselves how ridiculous it is.
So please stop, because you're rather tiresome.
The truth is you could care less about this issue and will lose interest as soon as it dies a death as there will be no reason and no opportunity to argue .
Show some respect , and leave people to debate an issue like adults .
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/shamima-begum-british-citizenship-appeal-a4499961.html
That's good news imho.
you're not allowed to say that these days.
All lives matter*
*unless you have brown skin, or arrive on a boat, or wear weird clothing on your head
I am saddened that the Supreme Court has today ruled that she cannot return to the UK to argue her case.
She is (or was) British. She is currently held as a captive. She is not able to speak to Lawyers. She is also unable to have access to a videolink so that she can give evidence. I could quite see the argument why she should not be allowed to return to give evidence if there was an alternative method of ensuring both sides of the case are heard. But there is not.
We can all have our own views as to whether a British person ceases to be British if they do something we disagree with. But to deny her any opportunity of stating in evidence why she should still be British? Poor. We should be better than this.
@Essexphil
100% agree with that. Terrible decision.
"Mr Javid welcomed the ruling, saying any "restrictions of rights and freedoms" faced by Ms Begum were a "direct" result of her "extreme" actions.
He said: "The home secretary is responsible for the security of our citizens and borders, and therefore should have the power to decide whether anyone posing a serious threat to that security can enter our country".
She hardly strikes me as a "threat to national security". She seems to be paying very dearly for her mistakes as a young girl.
I wasn't groomed by the MoD.
The argument that Shamima Begum was 'groomed' to join ISIS is, in my own opinion, rubbish.
She knew what she was getting into.
Just like, at 16, I knew what I was getting into when I signed up to join HM Forces (which was one of the best decisions of my life).
Glad to see that common sense has prevailed today.
Can you join the Army at 15? No.
Can join the Army at 16-the only European or NATO member to allow it. And strict rules for 16 year old-need parental consent, and cannot fight abroad until 18. Because the Army considers it to be wrong.
"Knew what she was getting into"? 15 year olds have a romanticised view of wars. You reckon she knew she was going to be passed around like a piece of meat, and watch her kids die?
Common sense does not mean a British person ceases being British just because they do something wrong. Common sense would have been either to bring her here for a hearing, or to take steps to facilitate advice/evidence from the region she is currently in.
What saddens me most is this:-
Impressionable 15-yr old white girls get groomed and abused in places like Rotherham, and they get helped. As they should. And the vile perpetrators get tried, and jailed. As they should.
But if you are an impressionable young girl like Ms Begum, you don't get helped. You get vilified. And told it is all your own fault. And not even given a fair trial. Or any trial.
The problem for me is several fold.
1, If we allow her into the country to give her evidence, she's never leaving. She would get so lawyered up it would become a political nightmare.
2, When she gave her first interview she stated that she still believed in the establishment of a Caliphate and a desire to see Jihad brought to Britain.
3, Were we actually at "War" with ISIS if so then collaboration and assisting an enemy could be construed as treason which carries a maximum of life imprisonment. Would she be prepared to accept that?
4, She says that she has no access to legal representation and yet journalists had little trouble interviewing her.
5, Yes its harsh on her but there has to be an example set so that others know that if you leave to join an insurgent terrorist organisation, that's it. You lose everything.
There is a danger that our compassion continues to be exploited by those with hidden agendas and ulterior motives and to this end I feel the Government are making an example, a political statement to the rest of the world.
Do I agree with it? No
Do I understand why theyve done it ? Yes.
Do I think Shamina Begum has been given a **** deal? Absolutely
There are so many standpoints that you could come at this from. I however have to come at it as a Christian which puts me at odds with many on this issue. Grace, forgiveness and mercy have I received and continue to receive daily.
I cannot deny this to others. To do so is hypocrisy.
I can see the argument for her to face criminal charges. Imprisoned? Possibly. But banished? It's a bit 17th Century.
A lot of people have referred to her "collaboration". The only thing that we know she has done is slept with the enemy. Whereas various former fighters have been allowed back in to the UK.
Is she being used as an example? Undoubtedly. Just not a very good one. Why can we not use an adult who has killed people as an example?
Common sense is to bring her back, try get to the root of the situation and put her on trial if deemed necessary.