Shamima Begum

Not bullshit at all. You clearly don't understand how the courts work when reviewing ministerial decisions.

You said the courts decided they do not have the power to override the Home Secretary's decision. That is absolutely not what they decided.

No, they don't decide if it is the right decision. But nor is it as simple as asking if the Home Secretary had the power to strip her of citizenship.

For a decision by a minister to be legal, it must be supported by adequate evidence (amongst other things). To quote the judgement of the Court of Appeal on the evidence from the security services, "The evidence as a whole does support the original assessment." That was their view of the evidence we are not allowed to see. If they concluded that the evidence did not support the original assessment, that would have been grounds for overturning the Home Secretary's decision.

The Court of Appeal also looked at evidence that has emerged since the Home Secretary's decision and concluded that, "taken together and at its highest, [it] did not require the matter to be referred back to the Secretary of State." So, they do not think that any new evidence has emerged that would justify overturning the decision.

Bullshit. Complete bullshit.

The courts only job was to ask if what the Home Secretary did was legal. Nothing to do with it being the “right decision”, or the courts supporting it. The question was - did the Home Secretary have the legal power to strip her of her citizenship. The answer is yes he did. So no the courts can’t override that decision.

Oh come on, there’s been a fair amount of in-depth reporting on the case by this point, with various pieces of corroborated evidence. I suggest taking a listen to the podcast “I’m not a monster” if you are interested in the case and want to have an opinion that is informed.

Have you seen there are 14 pages of comments? Do you maybe think that this has already been discussed?

And they have not had their citizenship removed. That’s the point.

She needs to be brought back here and put on trial if she can be charged with offences. If not, she will be monitored.

They have overridden many government decisions, eg the Rwanda law. A pp mentioned Boris's prorogation of parliament. They ruled that we needed a parliamentary vote on Theresa May's Brexit deal. Just to name but a few instances where they've held the government to account.

I am not saying they can't get things wrong, but I do think they have rather more knowledge and expertise than MNers who know nothing about immigration, terrorism or citizenship laws and the judges are therefore well equipped to make decisions.

I've not had my passport checked leaving the UK for decades. I can't remember the last time it was checked (by government authorities as opposed to the airline).

I am not sure we have the infrastructure to check under 16s (or anyone). I suppose a no fly warning eg for someone who's committed an offence gets picked up by the airlines?

She could be prosecuted in the UK for being a member of a proscribed organisation and possibly for other crimes.

The evidence available strongly suggests she did commit crimes overseas, where she appears to have been an enforcer in the morality police. We know that our intelligence services have evidence that she is a threat to the UK's security, although we don't know the nature of that evidence.

This isn't about 'poor little Shamima', not for me. I don't support her, I don't absolve her of responsibility, I don't think she's likely to ever tell the truth about what she did or didn't do or what she truly believes.

This is about using her as a scapegoat. The government has allowed adults, some male, who are fully culpable for their decision to join IS and will have actually taken up arms for IS, to come back here. Whether you are let free or kept in a foreign prison camp, and whether you lose your UK citizenship, shouldn't be based on how infamous you are, or how likeable you are. She is our problem and we can apparently manage others who've done what she has and worse. So why not her?

Governments can make unlawful decisions. The courts can and do over-rule them. Eg the prorogation case.

No, that is absolutely not what the courts decided. They clearly do have the power to override the decision. The courts have looked at the evidence seen by the then Home Secretary (which we haven't seen) and agreed that it supports the decision taken. They have also found, based on evidence from the Bangladeshi government, that she held Bangladeshi citizenship at the time the decision was taken, and the decision was therefore lawful.

Oh her lawyers said she shows remorse? No need for any further investigation, that's me convinced!😂

Lots of people on here seem to think she hasn’t shown remorse but her lawyers say otherwise. She said she is ashamed according to them.

Also, highly unlikely she’d show any remorse while still living within reach of Isis, given that there are reports of a girl trying to leave and being beaten to death.

Even so, remorse doesn’t affect your citizenship, there are plenty of people who have committed terribly crimes in this and other countries and don’t feel - or have to show - remorse in order to keep their citizenship.

From the Standard: “The fact of the matter is this - that Shamima, as with other British women and children, is arbitrarily detained in a prison camp in north east Syria," her lawyers said in a written statement on her behalf.
"It is not a refugee camp - those detained are unable to leave and the conditions have, with ever greater urgency, been categorised by every international body as well as by the UK courts in Shamima's case itself, as constituting torture and inhuman treatment."
Ms Begum has admitted knowingly joining a proscribed organisation. She said that she was "ashamed" to have done so and regretted it.”

It is not making excuses to say that she was a child groomed at the time. She’s very obviously being made an example of, as other posters have said hundreds of male fighters have been allowed back to the UK.

She's a tricky one for me...
While I do believe in "play stupid games, get stupid prizes", she was just 15 years old. A child. And also a child who has gone through a hell of a lot of trauma. She's had 3 children, all dead. The 2 friends she travelled with are also believed to have been killed within quite a short time of arriving in Syria.

BUT, the deal-breaker for me is that she shows no remorse.

It's very naive to think that Begum would have been living like an ordinary housewife

Probably, yes, but I don't imagine it would be easy to prove what Shamima's done in a country that's effectively become a failed state - and in the UK we don't convict on what we only suspect someone of

Brave of you to mention the three alleged children though. AFAIK nobody's ever offered any proof of these either - far less that all three died - but some who insist we can't be certain of any wrongdoing seem to swing the other way on this and believe that Shamima's word is enough

Other Jihadi brides have been found complicit in the keeping, mistreatment and death of slaves; women and children slaves who were starved, raped and tortured. Then there were the morality squads, comprised of Jihadi brides who used physical brutality to punish women who broke dress codes, failed to have a male chaperone or worked in a proscribed job. Sometimes they selected women to be killed. Then there's the whole issue of sewing people into suicide vests. Often the people in these vests were primary school aged children, some of them selected for death by their own parents.

It's very naive to think that Begum would have been living like an ordinary housewife. We don't even know if she really had three children. It was a mistake to let anyone who joined ISIS/ISIL back, but that doesn't mean we should just shrug and let her in.

What crimes has she committed in the UK? What would the UK have legal power to try her for?

As far as we know - and the security services may well know more - just about the only thing she could be tried for is joining a proscribed organisation, and with all the bleating about "she was groomed!" I strongly suspect she'd walk, though doubtless with some inevitably ineffective "monitoring" promised

I also strongly suspect that the "poor Shamima" contingent would immediately howl that she was being unfairly targeted should anyone even try to monitor her, knowing perfectly well that there's little chance of her activities in Syria ever becoming fully known

And never mind the potential risk to the rest of us, which noticeably is never mentioned by those determined she should be allowed to return

Syria Is still war torn and probably doesn’t have much by way of civil courts going on. Among about 6 million people who have been dispossessed since 2011 SB is not really on their radar. So perhaps she should stay there until the war is over and they are ready to deal with her in court. If she has British Citizenship by then - which she may, Keir Starmer is a v different type from the last lot - the UK would be obliged to give her appropriate legal assistance.

If there was public support for it they would . Until then, unlikely.

The decision to deprive her of her citizenship was a political one.

In which case maybe the Labour government will reverse it.

Im no expert but I understand that simply the act of defecting / migrating to isis territory would make her eligible for prosecution under UK terrorism laws - supporting a terrorist group etc. However it would like be discovered during trial that she actually committed no crimes overseas, so that would no doubt be a factor .

The decision to deprive her of her citizenship was a political one, made by a politician in response to the baying mob incited by sensationalist media reporting.
The courts have decided they do not have the power to override that decision, that’s all

There’s no evidence she committed any crimes abroad. Do you think Syria is busy prosecuting ever child bride married to an Isis soldier?

If there’s no evidence of her committing crimes abroad then why are people suggesting she should be tried in UK? What would she be tried for?

There’s no evidence she committed any crimes abroad. Do you think Syria / Iraq are busy prosecuting every child bride married to an Isis soldier?

This 👆🏻