RESULT Shamima Begum

[lardy]

Glad the government can bypass the rule of law because you’re scared of the bogeyman Muslims?

The state of the absolute bootlickers in this country. Calling others snowflakes when they’re so scared of Muslims they’re happy for the government to forget how the law works.

I'm thinking of Trump's attempted Muslim ban. Boris could be our next PM and it's not beyond the realms that he'd attempt one. Is our system as robust as the Americans to overturn it? I don't think so.

We could ban all visitors from selected countries, Somalia, Syria, wherever, and next turf out anyone living here from those countries or with heritage from them. It's the natural step. And I guarantee there are people reading this post who think "good, let's do it".

[Igovernor]

That is the trouble with the UK too many good-doers if this board is anything to go by, which I guess it's not. Anyone on here that says she should be brought back and tried is living in cloud cuckoo land. She would probably not get more than 6 years and serve 3, then she would be living off the taxpayer, free house, free free council tax, child benefit, and more than likely disability allowance ( as the poor girl will say she has mental problems) having lived under Isis, also a new identity, and police protection, all paid for by the taxpayer.

If she had said that she made a mistake going out to join Isis and that she regrets it, and was appalled by all the be-headings and murders that ISIS committed and not stating that the Manchester bombings were justified, she may have had some sympathy, ( but not from me) for as as far as I am concerned she would only be lying.

How could any of you on here want to let her back into the UK, and not just her but anyone that went out to support ISIS, I really cannot understand, you must either be crackers, or are arguing for her just to be argumentative, or have really low intelligence!

[rs3100]

Anyone on here that says she should be brought back and tried is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Why is it cloud cuckoo land to think that we should have a system of law in place, we should abide by that system of law, and if we don't then we should be punished accordingly.

Yes, the chances are she has broken the law, she has been around some pretty nasty people with some pretty nasty ideals, she has shown no remorse (as far as is reported in the media), she may well want to come over here and indoctrinate and radicalise others, but surely that is more of a reason to use the system of law to deal with it, not just say "sorry love you ain't coming in" which can then lead to her a) harbouring further hatred for Western ideals, and b) doing so freely elsewhere.

It is the thin end of the wedge and sets a precedent for use elsewhere e.g. political opponents.

[lardy]

Why is it cloud cuckoo land to think that we should have a system of law in place, we should abide by that system of law, and if we don't then we should be punished accordingly.

Yes, the chances are she has broken the law, she has been around some pretty nasty people with some pretty nasty ideals, she has shown no remorse (as far as is reported in the media), she may well want to come over here and indoctrinate and radicalise others, but surely that is more of a reason to use the system of law to deal with it, not just say "sorry love you ain't coming in" which can then lead to her a) harbouring further hatred for Western ideals, and b) doing so freely elsewhere.

It is the thin end of the wedge and sets a precedent for use elsewhere e.g. political opponents.

Don't forget the UK is now a country where one of the biggest national newspapers can print pictures of high court judges above the headline ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE

We're being radicalised against our legal system. And people are falling for it. Look no further than igovernors post for evidence.

[Igovernor]

Rs3100 She is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship so the government is not breaking international law, and as for your "as far as reported in the media", have you actually heard hear interviews, it is a out of her own mouth that she has said what was reported by the media!

[Heisenberg]

I really cannot understand, you must either be crackers, or are arguing for her just to be argumentative, or have really low intelligence!

If you can't understand, perhaps you shouldn't be playing the intelligence card.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

That is the trouble with the UK too many good-doers if this board is anything to go by, which I guess it's not. Anyone on here that says she should be brought back and tried is living in cloud cuckoo land. She would probably not get more than 6 years and serve 3, then she would be living off the taxpayer, free house, free free council tax, child benefit, and more than likely disability allowance ( as the poor girl will say she has mental problems) having lived under Isis, also a new identity, and police protection, all paid for by the taxpayer.

If she had said that she made a mistake going out to join Isis and that she regrets it, and was appalled by all the be-headings and murders that ISIS committed and not stating that the Manchester bombings were justified, she may have had some sympathy, ( but not from me) for as as far as I am concerned she would only be lying.

How could any of you on here want to let her back into the UK, and not just her but anyone that went out to support ISIS, I really cannot understand, you must either be crackers, or are arguing for her just to be argumentative, or have really low intelligence!

You're missing the point, though. She's British. She's never been to Bangladesh or wherever people think she's from. There's so much shit around that it's hard to know what's real. We should get her back and lock her up. This is a one off but what if it wasn't. Well, we did it for Shamima Begum, so we can do it again. Currently, she is stateless and she is not a citizen of Bangladesh which the home office are trying to argue.

I don't think anyone on here wants her back or has any sympathy for her whatsoever but I don't think a government should ever decide who is and isn't a citizen, especially by birth. It leads us down a very slippery slope of who's really British, who's a bit British etc. Currently, Javid won't be able to get this through either. Bangladesh aren't going to want to be lumbered with her, so they won't give her a passport. Also there have been IS fighters (she wasn't a combatant) who have come back and haven't had their citizenship revoked so there's precedent there. It's classic Tory posturing straight out of Theresa May's handbook.

[Igovernor]

Actually under Bangladesh law, as her mother is Bangladesh, she is regard by them as Bangladeshi!

[Heisenberg]

Actually under Bangladesh law, as her mother is Bangladesh, she is regard by them as Bangladeshi!

Amazing. Is it just Banhgladeshi law that you're familiar with or may I come to you with questions about Mongolian law too?

[Igovernor]

Amazing. Is it just Banhgladeshi law that you're familiar with or may I come to you with questions about Mongolian law too?

Google is a wonderful thing, perhaps you should try it rather than being sarcastic!

[Heisenberg]

Google is a wonderful thing, perhaps you should try it rather than being sarcastic!

I don't think a 5-second Google is going to help me understand the intricacies of the Bangladeshi laws on citizenship - just like it wouldn't for you. Sarcasm is the only way to address someone who continuously posts bullshit on here which proves to be false.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

Actually under Bangladesh law, as her mother is Bangladesh, she is regard by them as Bangladeshi!

SHE HASN'T GOT BANGLADESHI CITIZENSHIP. She has to apply, and guess what, they'll tell her where to go.

She's British, as she was born here. I don't want to start dicking about with citizenship status by birthright. It's a very slippery slope.

[Igovernor]

SHE HASN'T GOT BANGLADESHI CITIZENSHIP. She has to apply, and guess what, they'll tell her where to go.

She's British, as she was born here. I don't want to start dicking about with citizenship status by birthright. It's a very slippery slope.

They cannot refuse her as that is their law! Try using google, it really is easy!

[Pedro de la Rosa]

They cannot refuse her as that is their law! Try using google, it really is easy!

Citizenship by birthright is our law. Try reading the post, it really is easy.

[lardy]

Actually under Bangladesh law, as her mother is Bangladesh, she is regard by them as Bangladeshi!

Textbook igovernor

[rs3100]

Rs3100 She is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship so the government is not breaking international law, and as for your "as far as reported in the media", have you actually heard hear interviews, it is a out of her own mouth that she has said what was reported by the media!

She may be entitled to it, but what happens if they say "no, you ain't having it!" which is what I would do if I were them.

Exactly, reported by the media. The media are free to edit and report things as fits their desire. Trial by media has never worked.

You're missing the point, though. She's British. She's never been to Bangladesh or wherever people think she's from. There's so much shit around that it's hard to know what's real. We should get her back and lock her up. This is a one off but what if it wasn't. Well, we did it for Shamima Begum, so we can do it again. Currently, she is stateless and she is not a citizen of Bangladesh which the home office are trying to argue.

I don't think anyone on here wants her back or has any sympathy for her whatsoever but I don't think a government should ever decide who is and isn't a citizen, especially by birth. It leads us down a very slippery slope of who's really British, who's a bit British etc. Currently, Javid won't be able to get this through either. Bangladesh aren't going to want to be lumbered with her, so they won't give her a passport. Also there have been IS fighters (she wasn't a combatant) who have come back and haven't had their citizenship revoked so there's precedent there. It's classic Tory posturing straight out of Theresa May's handbook.

It's a case of "we'll do this to satisfy the baying mob, and when she wins her case on appeal we can just say that we tried".

[ken smith]

That is the trouble with the UK too many good-doers if this board is anything to go by, which I guess it's not. Anyone on here that says she should be brought back and tried is living in cloud cuckoo land. She would probably not get more than 6 years and serve 3, then she would be living off the taxpayer, free house, free free council tax, child benefit, and more than likely disability allowance ( as the poor girl will say she has mental problems) having lived under Isis, also a new identity, and police protection, all paid for by the taxpayer.

If she had said that she made a mistake going out to join Isis and that she regrets it, and was appalled by all the be-headings and murders that ISIS committed and not stating that the Manchester bombings were justified, she may have had some sympathy, ( but not from me) for as as far as I am concerned she would only be lying.

How could any of you on here want to let her back into the UK, and not just her but anyone that went out to support ISIS, I really cannot understand, you must either be crackers, or are arguing for her just to be argumentative, or have really low intelligence!

Oh Tommy Tommy, Tommy Tommy Tommy Robinson

[Auntie Andy]

What bit don’t you get about radicalisation. How old was she when the radicalisation started 11,12,13? Are we now saying that no matter how old a child was when they were radicalised, that child has to be held responsible for their actions? We need to find those doing the radicalisation if we are to stop in happening again. We need her brought back to be questioned and prosecuted if appropriate. We need to stop these women being oppressed and coerced by MEN! And to stop them being used to produce the next babies who become jehadis.

[blue matt]

I'm thinking of Trump's attempted Muslim ban. Boris could be our next PM and it's not beyond the realms that he'd attempt one. Is our system as robust as the Americans to overturn it? I don't think so.

We could ban all visitors from selected countries, Somalia, Syria, wherever, and next turf out anyone living here from those countries or with heritage from them. It's the natural step. And I guarantee there are people reading this post who think "good, let's do it".

Or Maybe, just maybe we take this case as the individual case it is, hopefully it has set a precedence that if you go and renounce your western ways in exchange for joining a terrorist group ( as that is what they did when they left the UK to travel to turkey and be smuggled across the border to Syria and Daesh's caliphate ), but to automatically jump to the next use of this is just hypothetical and really serves little purpose in this discussion.

we could just see it for what it is, the government acting on the will of the people is serves ( i use that term loosely ), a good % of people wouldnt want her walking around free in the UK, afterall, who knows what training she has had ( it is no good putting her on trial as she will just say " oh i was only a wife and a baby machine, i did nothing wrong " )

[Igovernor]

Or Maybe, just maybe we take this case as the individual case it is, hopefully it has set a precedence that if you go and renounce your western ways in exchange for joining a terrorist group ( as that is what they did when they left the UK to travel to turkey and be smuggled across the border to Syria and Daesh's caliphate ), but to automatically jump to the next use of this is just hypothetical and really serves little purpose in this discussion.

we could just see it for what it is, the government acting on the will of the people is serves ( i use that term loosely ), a good % of people wouldnt want her walking around free in the UK, afterall, who knows what training she has had ( it is no good putting her on trial as she will just say " oh i was only a wife and a baby machine, i did nothing wrong " )

She is saying she was just a housewife

[lardy]

Or Maybe, just maybe we take this case as the individual case it is, hopefully it has set a precedence that if you go and renounce your western ways in exchange for joining a terrorist group ( as that is what they did when they left the UK to travel to turkey and be smuggled across the border to Syria and Daesh's caliphate ), but to automatically jump to the next use of this is just hypothetical and really serves little purpose in this discussion.

we could just see it for what it is, the government acting on the will of the people is serves ( i use that term loosely ), a good % of people wouldnt want her walking around free in the UK, afterall, who knows what training she has had ( it is no good putting her on trial as she will just say " oh i was only a wife and a baby machine, i did nothing wrong " )

Yeah, if we're being naive we can do exactly that.

[blue matt]

Yeah you’re right their is no history of a British government abusing power like this. Why worry!

Oh the old, It went on in the past, so it will happen in the future school of thought

I feel safe in the knowledge that Your good self and Lardy wouldnt just stand by and let the Government abuse its power, I can sleep safe in that knowledge

Yeah, if we're being naive we can do exactly that.

Or we can always look at everything in life with suspicion and mistrust, what a joyful life that must be

[lardy]

Oh the old, It went on in the past, so it will happen in the future school of thought

I feel safe in the knowledge that Your good self and Lardy wouldnt just stand by and let the Government abuse its power, I can sleep safe in that knowledge



Or we can always look at everything in life with suspicion and mistrust, what a joyful life that must be

We had windrush recently. That could easily happen again, but with added teeth.

Governments operating outside of the law is not a good thing.

[blue matt]

We had windrush recently. That could easily happen again, but with added teeth.

Governments operating outside of the law is not a good thing.

Yes of course we did, and we all agree that was wrong, but while it could easily happen again ? ? ( though the day and age of them finding it easy to abuse power must have gone, as the people are alot more connected ) it might not and imho if we take this incident alone and treat it as a one-off, then the government has done the right thing, which is follow the opinion of the mass's ( for once )

[lardy]

Yes of course we did, and we all agree that was wrong, but while it could easily happen again ? ? ( though the day and age of them finding it easy to abuse power must have gone, as the people are alot more connected ) it might not and imho if we take this incident alone and treat it as a one-off, then the government has done the right thing, which is follow the opinion of the mass's ( for once )

The day and age of it being easy to abuse power must have gone.

And you're totally sure you're not naive?