Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
Printable View
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
What a weird thing to think of, even if it's a 'joke'.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
You know she's not 15 any more, right?
My point is that I have heard people argue that as a 15 year old she wasn't mature enough to know that joining a group which was infamous for the barbarity of its behaviour was wrong while also arguing that people just a few months older are mature enough to determine the future of the whole population of their country through voting. We're not talking about not understanding the implications of vandalism or bullying. We're talking about not being able to see that beheading people and burning them alive is obviously wrong. And if someone is not able to see that at the age she was when she left for ISIS then I don't believe she would have experienced an epiphany a few months later which would have equipped her to be deciding mine or your political, economic and social fate. You may think otherwise of course. If you do then I think you are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canton Kev
I don't think I can put it any clearer than that so I will leave it there.
High profile media campaign, a team of lawyers, her PR seem pretty busy - so the question - who is paying for all this.
This was asked on LBC last night and her 'representative' wouldnt answer
Let's assume it 'us' the UK tax payer as Shamima Begum is getting Legal Aid?Quote:
Originally Posted by pipster
That's the same UK tax payers stumping up for Boris Johnsons legal fees.
Can a non-UK citizen really be a recipient of Legal Aid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordi Culé
I'd query Johnsons entitlement to receiving legal costs too as he was born in New York.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie
I'm not getting involved in the descent into the inevitable Punch and Judy / Labour v Conservatives spats that are so tiresome when the thread isn't party political.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordi Culé
Not sure why you bring Johnson into the argument. I was coming from it - that I know she is entitled to legal aid (how much Im not sure) - but she has 2 KC's , a legal team , her case is being run Birnberg Peirce solicitors and there are countless others involved - so either someone somewhere is bank rolling it - or the legal profession can smell a nice long drawn out process - where they can apply exorbitant fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordi Culé
And on LBC last night when being interviewed one of her representatives refused to answer that question re who else is involved in funding her
I know that old fruit, I think it's a decent comparison though as some tabloid were apoplectic about Begum receiving Legal Aid although technically until all the appeals processes have been exhausted she is still entitled to legal aid (?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie
Any legal knowledge here on the board?
Personally I got no issue her having it if it means she's getting the hearing in the UK courts and they can conclude the matter.
Boris Johnson receiving legal costs for Partygate is a bitter of a piisstake in my eyes.
I wonder which individual (Begum or Boris) was more of a risk and caused more damage to UK society?
Human rights groups? Whip rounds in mosques around the country? Osama Bin Laden trust fund?Quote:
Originally Posted by pipster
No idea but does it matter?
If the tabloids hadn't have made a panto villain out of her in order to shift more papers I very much doubt that this would have played out in the same way. Does anyone think she still represents a danger to the UK? she probably would have been quietly tried for her crimes and thats that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordi Culé
Panto Villain? You make out as if the tabloids slandered her. I think she did that herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
In terms of whether she poses a threat to the UK, the security services clearly think she does and the courts have now upheld that, so I'm content going with that.
I do have a lot of sympathy for the argument she should be tried here, but she shouldn't be painted in a good light or considered a victim.
In fact more than that. If the UK government had been a bit more intellectually agile and less concerned about right wing imagery, it could have brought the woman home, got her sentenced through the courts and maybe subsequently have used her as a propaganda asset to warn off other potential recruits to terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
To my mind she was a 15 year old child, groomed online and 'enabled' by others to travel to a distant country where she was essentially raped.
She agreed with ISIS and accepted their barbarity, but she did not actively take part in atrocities or act as a recruiter. The national security threat justification for Sajid Javid's original decision (repeated ever since by government) to revoke her citizenship is not convincing.
In the UK the age of criminal responsibility is 10 - much lower than for most 'liberal democracies'. So she should be prosecuted in the UK if the CPS believes that would be in the public interest. She has broken UK law.
She should also retain her UK citizenship. Is is scandalous that a Home Secretary can make a political (not legal) judgement to make someone stateless - and therefore someone else's problem. Most other western nations are repatriating their citizens from Syrian camps and deciding on their return whether to prosecute them. In the USA it is not legally/constitutionally possible to take away citizenship in the way the UK does. The UK is second in the international league table (after Bahrain) for stripping citizenship.
She can be a victim and need to face the punishment for what she's done, it isn't either/or.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
I agree, of course she could be both, and most criminals are victims at once stage in their lives and that is frequently part of the reason they go on to commit crimes. None of us have expert knowledge on this case, which I agree on the face of it does seem curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
But you make out that she has faced no justice; but the security services provided evidence to a decision that the legal system has now backed up. I'm not one of these people who thinks the courts cannot be criticised, because that in itself is part of democracy too, but I think you have to at least respect the process and decisions of people in full possession of the facts.
She said in 2019 she didn't regret travelling to join IS. That's a full two years after one of their followers blew up a load of young children in Manchester.
There are many injustices in the world and she sure as hell isn't top of my list. On this one I am happy to trust the judicial process.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8778491.html
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...i-should-know/