To wonder how we CAN even consider not bringing the girl back from Syria?

[SpeakingALanguage]

Do we not legally have to? We can't just wipe our hands of her, can we?

I've seen petition after petition on my Facebook feed about not allowing her back, sign the petition, etc etc.

But if she's a British citizen, does she not have every legal right to be here, even if she is vile and dangerous?

I did see someone mention she would have to get here on her own steam, but isn't there a big part in the British passport (I know she hasn't got one but she was entitled and is technically British), that says something along the lines of Her Majesty grants assistance and protection as needed?

Without her baby even coming into the argument, she alone regardless is allowed back here, vulnerable with a newborn or not.

I doubt the Bangladesh Government are going to do much.

She again needs to get to an embassy which is not in Syria. She has no passport and no country will allow a terrorist in.
Also I doubt the Bangladesh authorities would take to kindly to her rocking up anyway.

• Another option I might try with my family is my husband is from Holland and he has family in Holland," she said. "Maybe I can ask for citizenship in Holland. If he gets sent back to prison in Holland I can just wait for him while he is in prison."*

Oh Yea because Holland is just going to welcome her in 😐
Yet another interview where the 'baby' is covered in blankets.

It's great news! I see her mother is still alive, so why were people saying she was motherless.

No lies out of bounds when it comes to bending overbackwards for this fucker.

Anyway, off she to Bangladesh she fucks-if they'll have her- and she take the baby with her...if its real mother doesn't mind. She probably beat the baby's real mother into submission.

How come she's gained a double chin when she says a baby of hers died of malnutrition. She looks bloody chubby under that garment. Did she stuff herself and starve the child or is it yet more lies?

She should certanly try for the Bangladeshi passport as she seems eligible. I am not sure of Holland's rules. It looks like she would have to learn Dutch and pass an exam in it www.netherlandsworldwide.nl/countries/united-kingdom/living-and-working/becoming-a-dutch-citizen-in-the-united-kingdom

suffragetteorsuffragist I thought that too. She has had two children die but has managed to carry a baby to full term, the baby is healthy and she looks chubby.

No doubt some DTs (daft twats) will be along soon to explain not only how it could happen but in fact is completely normal and not to be wondered at!

I've read a few threads about this woman and noticed how it's been repeatedly stated that her mother died and she was raised by an uncle. The letter regarding her citizenship was addressed to her mother.
Looking on-line there was another 15 year old from Bethnal Green called Sharmeena Begum who left for Syria 3 months before Shamima Begum and her 2 friends.

Sharmeena's mother died of cancer in 2014 and she was raised by her uncle Shamim Miah.

So if this is correct (and I assume if the Home Office had sent the letter to a dead mother that would have been picked up by the media by now, plus an article about Shamima from 6 days ago states "The mother of a British teenager who fled to Syria to join ISIS has said she understands why people would not want her daughter back in the UK".) then people's opinions of her based on her upbringing have been wrongly influenced.

I'm sure I read one baby died around 1 year of malnutrition?
Would this happen if she's breast feeding... it's confusing because we see images of Very skeletol poor mums in famine area's and Very skinny baby's...

What level of malnutrition would baby have too get too when she looks nothing like that bad? Breast milk alone would surely keep baby going at 1 year?

Just feel like it’s a distraction for something bigger. So many hole in her story. And when she was being interviewed she didn’t sound convincing one bit. I can’t see Isis letting her leave unless they have an ulterior motive. When she was interviewing it didn’t even look like she was holding a baby it looked like it was just a blanket. 🤔

I didn't think she was with ISIS anymore?

She's been interviewed by journalists so presumably the camp isn't in ISIS territory?

We've all been made to feel a sense of relief that she has been denied citizenship. The government has managed to successfully brush under the carpet the fact that hundreds of young men and women have already come back and continue to do so but we don't know their names and they don't make headlines. Sajid Javed has played a blinder.

Yes what about the hundreds of young violent men who killed for isis who are back? No news stories on them. No interviewed. No trial by media.

And how did they revoke the citizenship so quickly when they can't do the same for the Rochdale groomers. It's a very dangerous precedent when citizenship cam be revoked without trial or evidence of crimes committed. Who is next? What now of our rule of law?

This news story is massive and it's left me felling very uncomfortable for some reason. Why have the government let all the murders Isis men back in without so much a peep? Her statements have been vile but what crime had she actually committed? I'm really torn over the whole thing.

The grooming gang members who had dual citizenship were stripped of their UK citizenship (thankfully).

I honestly feel that this case will fail the reasonableness test in court and the Home Secretary's decision will be overturned.

It should have been clear from the outset that entry into a prohibited zone would result in citizenship being revoked or a long sentence. They failed to change the law early on and we now have a mess.

But the grooming gang members who did not have dual citizenship, like SM, did not have their citizenship revoked. Despite widespread support from the public. My point is, when will this be used? For whom? What crime? The boundaries have been blurred. I also think this is sajid javid trying to court popularity and in fact his decision will be revoked on appeal because it has no legal standing.

The UK argument is that SM does have dual citizenship though. She has Bangladeshi citizenship (or a right to Bangladeshi citizenship) through her mother.

Bangladesh is denying this but it's the reason Javed could revoke her British citizenship.

I'd rather have her in the uk and in prison with no internet access than free in another country.

I think we're being fooled into thinking that we're safe with her in another country.

Legal background to removing citizenship:
_
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Declarations.aspx?index=United%20Kingdom%20of%20Great%20Britain%20and%20Northern%20Ireland&lang==en&chapter=5&treaty=145

The UK signed up to the relevant UN treaty on citizenship in 1961 and ratified it in 1966 BUT with the following provisos:

"[The Government of the United Kingdom declares that], in accordance with paragraph 3 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention,
notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 8,

the United Kingdom retains the right to deprive a naturalised person of his nationality on the following grounds,

being grounds existing in United Kingdom law at the present time:
that, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to Her Britannic Majesty, the person

"(i) Has, in disregard of an express prohibition of Her Britannic Majesty, rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments from, another State, or

"(ii) Has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of Her Britannic Majesty.
< this would be the proviso the govt might be using >

How long do you think she would be in prison ( with access to vulnerable women) before she's out in the community?

I think she should be behind bars for a very long time - there are no easy solutions.

I don't have an answer! I just think she's more dangerous with internet access and if she's perceived to be an exiled martyr.

The Rotherham gang targeted children in their vicinity so we are safer with them out of the country. I'm not so sure about SM.

*SB

Justanother I don't understand your last post. I don't think anyone has any doubt that the international law which says you can't make a person stateless is watertight? I think what people were questioning (myself included) was whether the Home Sec's decision that we could revoke her citizenship was watertight, ie that she woldn't be made stateless by our doing so.

Our justice system is soft. Our prisons are full

She'll be out quickly

jux I posted above the UK's legal provisos to that UN treaty
Hence there looks to be a legal case that the UK may be able remove her citizenship

I'm sure there's a bloody good case to remove her citizenship - Javed is being advised by QC's! We don't need to worry about that.

Still doesn't mean it's not open to challenge though. Things like reasonableness and proportionality (if relevant) are so difficult to prove. It might fail to get over those hurdles whether we like it or not.

Has there been an official statement from government?

All I've seen is begun reading out the letter ( and a copy of it)

An official statement would maybe address the reasoning and legal angle behind this