AIBU to think that the IS bride would never have been allowed the freedoms she has, unless they have a grander plan?

[Sureyouwill]

I just find it all a bit suspicious.
She looks dopey or doped.
Her interview was very rehearsed.
They want to get her back here for nefarious reasons.
They would not have allowed her to speak to press.
She is a willing accomplice in a grander plan?

... although tbf I think you’ve misunderstood the point anyway. Shamima was a british citizen yesterday, whatever her actions. Legal rights aren’t based on our feelings.

My quote back to you was from BBC saying the letter was issued to the parents and that it was already done. I haven't looked at the telegraph...
And it doesnt matter about yesterday, it matters today.

The letter states 'the order has been issued'. Or something similar.

It has been revoked.

And that's the letter from the Home Office to the mother.

Full Home Office letter
The Home Office letter read: “Dear Mrs Begum. Please find enclosed papers that relate to a decision taken by the Home Secretary to deprive your daughter, Shamima Begum, of her British citizenship.

“In light of the circumstances of your daughter, the notice of the Home Secretary’s decision has been served on file today (19th February), and the order removing her British citizenship has subsequently been made. Copies of each are included with this letter.

“If you are in contact with our daughter, or are able to establish contact with her shortly, I would be very grateful if you could ensure the Home Secretary’s decision is brought to her attention, along with her right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, that arises as a result of the service of the notice of intention to deprive her.

“The relevant appeal forms and guidance notes are also included with this letter in case you do have opportunity to relay these to your daughter.

“If you are aware that your daughter has instructed a lawyer that you would like me to also send the enclosed papers to, then please do let me know and I shall arrange for this to happen.”

So basically the notice was served and the order was made. I.e. they made an application and it was granted.

Turn on Sky News

Basically the guy was saying if she appeals, she won't have knowledge of any evidence against her. Nor will her instructed lawyers.

On that basis, I am again going to state, that I think they must have some seriously incriminating evidence against her.

The guy interviewed also mentioned two cases that were won on appeal as Bangladeshi nationality expires after the age of 21. But because she's 19, she can't appeal on that basis.

Her only basis for appeal really is that she has done nothing wrong.

That's the long and the short of it basically.

TheresACatInMyLaundryBasket Tue 19-Feb-19 19:59:06
While I don't want her here, I'm going to play devils advocate and ask why the hell should the Bangladeshi government and people have to take her? She was radicalised in the UK. If I was Bangladeshi home office equivalent I'd decline her citizenship on principal

This. As a left-leaning liberal, I am sure her views are absolutely appalling, but if you can revoke citizenship for somebody on account of their appalling views- or even on account of crimes committed- then we are basically back in the 19th century deporting murderers to Australia. Why should she be a Bangladeshi responsibility more than a British when she has lived all her life in Britain?

If the situation was reverse; if somebody had dual nationality elsewhere, lived in the other country, got radicalised there and went on to commit crimes in a third country- how many people would be arguing that the UK should take them in because the other country had been quick off the mark revoking their citizenship?

I find it all very suspicious. Something's just not quite right. I just can't yet put my finger on what.

She lived her life in Britain in Bangladeshi culture under her parents and extended family. Not immersed into British life.

I can put my finger on it.

They (IS) want her to go back to Britain. Why you might ask? Well I wonder.....

She lived her life in Britain in Bangladeshi culture under her parents and extended family. Not immersed into British life.
Where is your source on that? I can't find anything re: the family.

If the situation was reverse; if somebody had dual nationality elsewhere, lived in the other country, got radicalised there and went on to commit crimes in a third country- how many people would be arguing that the UK should take them in because the other country had been quick off the mark revoking their citizenship?

We have now gone complete full circle from we should follow international law to ignore it.

The mental gymnastics are becoming parody now surely?

Be interesting to see how this plays out legally. Maybe Bangladesh has intimated they will take her. If they don't offer citizenship then any appeal on her behalf could well be successful.

I was thinking about this today and there is something a bit fishy. Not sure how I feel about it as she was radicalised as a young girl and now the extent of this and all she has reportedly been through can be seen in everything she says. She doesn’t seem to have the wherewithal to even act repentant. If she was my daughter I would want her back so I feel sorry for the family :-(

I don't want this young man back in the country - I think she is dangerous.

However, if the government is ignoring the law in order to keep her out (I don't know if they are, as I know nowt about international law), then I think that's even worse. If laws don't work anymore - re-draft the appropriate legislation;ation so that covers these modern situations. None of us, including governments, have the right to just obey the laws we like!

This situation is a horrible one internationally speaking:

• if she is allowed back in she needs to be tried and if appropriate, jailed, and her baby taken from her, making her a martyr in the eyes of extremists.

• if she isn't allowed back in, she is left stateless, putting her baby at risk, making her a martyr in the yes of extremists

(IF there IS a baby . . . I'm not convinced . . . and I'm certainly not convinced she's already lost two infants)

*young woman - not young man

I don't have any idea how that happened

She lived her life in Britain in Bangladeshi culture under her parents and extended family. Not immersed into British life.

What utter crap. So Bangladesh should have her because she wears a hijab and doesn't get pissed every weekend?

What is 'immersed in British life'?

What utter crap. So Bangladesh should have her because she wears a hijab and doesn't get pissed every weekend?

She’s of Bangladeshi descent. If you knew fuck all about the area you would know that this is completely true. You can live in Tower Hamlets your entire life without engaging with anyone of English descent or even speaking English.

The guy interviewed also mentioned two cases that were won on appeal as Bangladeshi nationality expires after the age of 21. But because she's 19, she can't appeal on that basis.
Her only basis for appeal really is that she has done nothing wrong.

The thing is, she's now 19 turning 20 this year if she was born in 1999. She's not just turned 19 if she was a 2000 baby, she's turning 20. Saying this, she'll have a year until the expiry date and the appeal could take more than a year with all the evidence and adjournments etc.