Shamima Begum

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.

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.

If there was any chance she would be ripped apart, lots more would be in favour of her coming back. But the English justice system doesn't give much hope.

All kinds of horrible people have been let out eventually, Baby P's so-called mother was released, iirc. She's out there getting on with life, as SB would eventually

You'd be out there sorting it?

I'd have 100% disowned her.

She’d be ripped apart if she came back. She’s best off restarting her life elsewhere. If she was my child I’d be out there with her sorting it. She shouldn’t be alone.

When it comes down to it she’s pretty low on the list of people I would fight for or feel any sympathy for. I’ve also seen her interviews.

I think she is unlikeable and probably a horrible person. However, no one should be able to be stripped of their citizenship. That is a horrible precedent.

We as a society need to deal with her as we would any other citizen. If that’s a lengthy prison sentence so be it. We can’t just ignore it and let a probably very stretched Syria deal with it.

But we shouldn't be able to dump her on a poorer country, she's our problem. People don't have to be sorry for what they've done, or be likeable, to be UK citizens. And we've taken back actual IS fighters, so if we can cope with them we should be able to cope with her. She's a scapegoat.

We let them back because we had no choice. But we do have a choice to get rid of her.

Anyway, that comment wasnt even on that topic. It's impossible to declare racism when she's a horrible person ie her background isn't the reason people don't like her.

The UK has allowed back over 300 others who left to join IS. Men who were adults when they left and who will have actually fought and killed for IS have been allowed back and you could be living next door to them and your kids playing with theirs at school.

Shamima Begum comes across very badly in interviews etc. She is unlikeable to say the least. But we've accepted actual terrorists back, yet made an example of her, why?Shamima Begum is a handy scapegoat. We've taken back adult men who definitely did worse.

It's naïve to say 'she's a massive terrorist' when we've let men of fighting age, who were adults when they went over to join IS, come back.

Yeah, plenty of 15 year olds do spectacularly daft stuff. But, you know what, 99.9% of them manage to not join a terrorist organisation and spend their days sewing others into suicide vests. Because that's clearly not just your average, dopey teenage behaviour. It's twisted, chilling, sociopathic behaviour that is, thankfully, far beyond the comprehension of 99.9% of teenagers.

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.

If she committed crimes in Syria why should she be tried in UK - as posters have suggested should happen?

This

Islamic states brides helped facilitate the rape of Yasidi girls by the IS husbands. Sick.

Exactly, poor little girl who isn't sp innocent.... if people read everything they might change their minds

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.

Works for me, prh47bridge, and thanks for confirming who made the remark

FWIW I don't automatically trust governments to get it right all the time either, but that's where professional advisers such as the secuity services come in and I'll take their assessments above some of the nonsense spouted on SM

The Bangladeshi government provided evidence to the courts that contradicts some of the public pronouncements by Bangladeshi ministers and showed that she actually held Bangladeshi citizenship at the time the decision was taken by virtue of her mother being Bangladeshi. The evidence was that her citizenship would expire on her 21st birthday unless she took steps to keep it, which she did not. That is the position accepted by the courts

Edited to add thanks for clarifying this too - it would be nice to think it would stop the usual howls of "British made her stateless!" but I doubt it

It wasn't that she could have Bangladeshi citizenship or, as another poster suggests, that she could apply for it. The Bangladeshi government provided evidence to the courts that contradicts some of the public pronouncements by Bangladeshi ministers and showed that she actually held Bangladeshi citizenship at the time the decision was taken by virtue of her mother being Bangladeshi. The evidence was that her citizenship would expire on her 21st birthday unless she took steps to keep it, which she did not. That is the position accepted by the courts. More recent submissions from the Bangladeshi government suggest she may still hold Bangladeshi citizenship, but the courts are working on the basis of the original submissions and assuming she is currently stateless.

That was Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary who stripped Begum of her British nationality. The courts have also seen the evidence from our intelligence services. We don't know what this evidence is as the relevant judgements have not been made public, but the courts agreed that the evidence supported and continues to support the decision.

The ECHRs cannot override sovereign laws. It can only advise

Yes, and under the circumstances I'd say that's just as well

To my mind it's not for the ECHR or anyone else to interfere with another nation's security arrangements, and as you rightly said the services will have a lot more information than we do on exactly what risk Shamima may present - iin fact didn't one of them say that if the general public knew what they do the cries of "poor groomed Shamima" may become rather less?

The British courts considered your opinion and rejected it. Under Bangladeshi citizenship law, she remained a Bangladeshi citizen from birth until the age of 21. Bangladesh have no denied that. They gave only refused to let her travel to Bangladesh (just as our courts have).

Personally, I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on whether she should be permitted to live in the U.K. or have her citizenship reinstated. I defer to our courts to make the right decision and trust that, with access to all the information, including plenty that we don’t have, they have made the correct decision. I gather she is now taking her case to the ECHRs, which deals with rights, not national citizenship laws. She may have more luck there, but the ECHRs cannot override sovereign laws. It can only advise. I suspect she is wasting her time and would be better off seeking to return to Bangladesh.

From memory the government tried to make the case that she could have Bangladeshi citizenship to support their case for stripping her of her British citizenship but Bangladesh itself said no.
I have a slightly different take. She was (and in my opinion still is) a British citizen and we are dodging our responsibility to just leave her there. We need to return her and try her in a British court according to British law.
We don't have to like her or forgive her.

Or am I missing something?

The main tthing you're perhaps missing, OP, is that the removal of her British citizenship has been found to be legal again and again

I get that people believe there's a moral argument to be had, but that doesn't change the law - and besides, for me at least the security of the vast majority comes way before Shamima's individual interests

Since the 80's we've checked passports and had the capability to put people on no fly lists. It would have been easy to have every under 16 year old flying without an adult checked.

Apparently not. Her lawyer has started another one. The cost of this.

That's a different issue - we don't check people leaving the UK. Other countries do check your passport when you are leaving.

We don't know the nature of the evidence collected by the intelligence services, but we do know that they provided evidence to the then Home Secretary that has also been seen by the courts that indicates that she would be a threat to public safety if she returns to the UK.