Shamima Begum

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

I wondered that. So many posters have said she should come back to UK and be tried here but as pp have said, people are normally tried in the country where they commit the crimes.

I mean, if other countries started offloading their terrorists to the uk, I expect you'd be livid about that, no?

Usually if you commit a crime on foreign soil you are dealt with by that country’s law. There would be an abrupt end to tourism otherwise. I guess the logical thing to happen to her is for either Syria or an international court to try her for war crimes. What crimes has she committed in the UK? What would the UK have legal power to try her for?

Why would the uk get to offload their terrorists on other countries though? Why is she anyone else's responsibility other than the UKs?

im not concerned about her. Im saying she's a uk citizen and we'd no right to try and foist her on any other country. She can feel the full strength of the law here - fine. But it's very unfair on another country if we try to palm her off on them.

She contributed to the destruction of the lives of the people of Syria. An untold, catastrophic tragedy for which she can never make restitution, and shows no remorse. She joined a group that attempted to enslave them, effectively, because she wanted to create her own statelet in place of theirs, and with abhorrent violence. Why should they have to put up with arrogant, violent westerners like her, ruining their lives, killing their families? What possible excuse could she have for that? What does her age or gender have to do with her living off loot? It is up to them to enact justice as far as she is concerned. If the group hadn’t destroyed Syria, she would not be sitting in ruins now. The Syrians themselves have no choice but to live in camps. She declared herself to be a ‘citizen’ of the Islamic State which is a de facto declaration of no longer being British, as there is no dual nationality between two nations at war. Being British is not a plastic card that you can use cynically to seek a place of safety, having fought against the foundations of that very security. The British passport grants the holder rights and privileges while travelling. The government can cancel your passport if it wishes. The Bangladeshi citizenship thing was a sleight of hand and we all know it.

No she isn't. She does not have British citizenship.

She is not "our" terrorist. She is "a" terrorist. She is her own responsibililty, not ours. Why are you so concerned about a person who has conspired to murder thousands? She has shown no remorse. Her own considerable suffering is not relevant to her crimes.

That's even more reason not to make her someone else's problem. She was radicalised in the uk. She is the UMUK's responsibility

A couple of silly schoolgirls with romantic ideas of finding a handsome husband. What became of the other girl?

Why would the uk get to offload their terrorists on other countries though? Why is she anyone else's responsibility other than the UKs?

OMG, she's a f*king terrorist!

Sorry typo. UK's responsibility

She was a child when she went there, groomed, she has had terrible experiences. However, there is a danger she is still radicalised and therefore it's too risky to let her back in. It's awful for her but it would be a hundred times worse if she were let back in and engaged in terrorist activities.

She was a child who was groomed. Absolutely ridiculous that this very basic fact is ignored.

You'd be out there sorting it?

I'd have 100% disowned her.

But we've let 300 others back in, including men who were adults when they went and who fought for IS. How likely is it that someone who was a teenager,a female and a mother, in that medieval belief system, did worse than them? She probably never left the house. How can she be a bigger risk to us than adults who fought for IS and who are now free on our streets? It doesn't make sense.