Forgetting everything but the fact an innocent baby has died

[UnexpectedButExpected]

AIBU to feel unbelievably sad that Shamima Bergum’s baby has died.

The poor mite simply didn’t have a chance in the world he was born in to.

I’m sure many children are subject to far more negative influences and environments at a much younger age than 14, yet don’t all support terrorist regimes which rape and murder.

“I’m sure many children are subject to far more negative influences and environments at a much younger age than 14, yet don’t all support terrorist regimes which rape and murder.“

Of course. All the more reason to find out why this one did.

And just to clarify, the evidence is that the circumstances Begum was in were not particularly unfavourable compared to many. Bright girl doing well at a decent school. She has also been quite open about her current beliefs and shows no remorse for atrocities

“Bright girl doing well at a decent school.“

So immune to grooming/radicalisation?

Oh ffs Bertrand. I didn’t say anyone is immune to radicalisation. (Which is different to grooming btw, so I don’t know why you keep using that term. Well, I do, but it’s radicalisation we’re talkint about.) My point is that there are many other young people with far more risk factors in their background who don’t turn to raping, torturing, murdering regimes.

I think we’re all agreed that the explanations behind radicalisation are very important to be considered - which is why there are agencies set up precisely to do that (despite the protestations from some people that these were racist and an infringement of rights when they were established.)

What is very clear is that in this individual case which the thread is about, is that Begum continues to support the atrocities inflicted by ISIS. She believes the Manchester bombing was justified. She wanted her son to become an ISIS fighter. She is comfortable with people being beheaded because they’re ‘probably journalists and might be spies.’ She actively sought out an ISIS fighter husband, and a way of life which led directly to the deaths of her own children.

I think it's a stretch to assume that because she left at 15 that she was 14 when it started.

She might have left just before her 16th birthday and only started this 6 months before - so all could have occurred while she was 15.

Anyway,it's a moot point.

I think it's already well known why people become radicalised and how it happens. We have the Prevent programme in place.

Let the authorities investigate how it happened and how she got involved. It makes no difference to me as to how she should be treated.

At the end of the day we are all responsible for our actions. The law in the UK holds children aged 10 and up criminally responsible. She was well above this age limit. If we can say that a 10 year old is responsible then we can definitely say that a 15 year old is well aware of what they are doing.

Clearly she wants to come back and is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that. So far she's been trying to pull on the nation's heart strings by playing on her "vulnerability" as a young woman that has lost 3 babies. I wonder what this "vulnerable" young woman has been doing in the 3 or 4 years that she's been out there for?

She knew full well what she was getting into when she went out there. She bought into the ideology. It's not like they hid it from her and she thought she was going out to some sort of summer camp. She knew, because she watched it on line, the barbaric acts that were being committed and she chose to involve herself in it. What do Syria plan on doing with her? Will she be tried there?

Meanwhile the entirely innocent Nazanin Zaghari Ratliff languishes in an Iranian jail with her baby and apparently nobody gives a toss about her. Maybe we should offer Begum her citizenship back and ask the Iranians to exchange them.

I do agree with you.

Why aren't all the people calling for us to go and get SB not also demanding we go and get Nazanin?

Actually I've been part of a group trying to pressurise the government to go and get Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

I fail to see how grooming and radicalising are different. The intent is obviously different, the technique is not.

People are ascribing adult comprehension and emotions to a child. Because it suits their agenda to do so. It really is that simple.

“Why aren't all the people calling for us to go and get SB not also demanding we go and get Nazanin?“
Many of us are active on this issue as well. Maybe start a thread about her? Be good to see some more publicity.

If she was a white girl she’d be seen exactly the same. Terrorism is just as abhorrent whoever commits it.

I felt exactly the same about the 2 white British girls who were sentenced abroad for taking drugs into the country. Had no sympathy for them either and could see no reason why they should be allowed back here to serve their time.

Damn right! Both of the above posts are exactly right - you break the laws of a country - especially when your actions are damaging to others - you take the penalty.

a little white boy doesn't get people going the way a woman in a burka does.

No - because a "little white boy" doesn't tug at the heartstrings the way a pregnant young woman who has lost two babies already does.

The job of a journalist used to be to report the facts - now it's largely to slant them to get the most readers/webpage hits etc - and to do that they need something that really captures the public imagination and is totally divisive. They found it in SB. Pretty, pregnant, grieving, alone - but unfortunately for them she was also unrepentant for any pain she had caused others - other women, other children.

I do not think that she should have had her citizenship revoked - the law isn't there for the HS to use for his own personal aggrandisement - but whatever the citizenship status, that baby would not have survived, and to blame anyone except his mother, who facilitated the conditions she is now suffering under, is rubbish!

People are ascribing adult comprehension and emotions to a child
Not really. Age of Criminal responsibility is 10. That's when the law holds children responsible. At age 16, so only 1 year (ish depending on exactly how old she was) older than she was she could get married, have sex or join the army. You are on dangerous territory - would you also argue that 14,15, 16 year olds can't make their own decisions or aren't Gillick competent, because that is ascribing " adult comprehension and emotions to a child"?

Meanwhile the entirely innocent Nazanin Zaghari Ratliff languishes in an Iranian jail with her baby and apparently nobody gives a toss about her. Maybe we should offer Begum her citizenship back and ask the Iranians to exchange them.

Totally this!

That poor woman has done nothing and she is suffering and has been for years, and may do for many more.

Thinking of a high profile murder case, two 10 year old boys (at least one of whom was from a very dysfunctional home where casual violence perpetrated by older siblings onto younger, was the norm) were, rightly judged to understand that torture and murder is wrong. Public opinion completely supported this view: that whatever malign influences these boys had been subjected to, and whatever the level of parental neglect, they knew that torture and murder is wrong.

But those two boys were rightly treated very differently to adults.

And we haven’t yet discussed the brainwashing effects of some religions/cults. The young people in the Westboro Baptist Church, for example- I would find it hard to think of them as wholly responsible for their actions. Fundamentalism is a powerful influence.

Of course they were because they weren’t adults. My point is that no one questioned their accountability.

But those two boys were rightly treated very differently to adults.

They weren't really. They were tried and then sentenced and served their time in detention. They weren't held in an adult prison because they weren't adults. However, had they.not been caught until they were say 19 they would have served their sentence in adult prison wouldn't they? The courts wouldn't have taken the view that they were 10 when they committed the crime and so applied the punishment as though they were still 10.

SB is now 19. The fact that she was younger when this started has no impact in my view. She wasn't born and raised in ISIS in Syria. She exposed herself to this as a 15 year old. She knew full well what she was doing. Now that it's all gone to pot for her is just too bad. She has involved herself into one of the cruelest, most barbaric group in existence. That she is now suffering is just a consequence of her choices. Maybe others considering joining will look at her and change their minds.

Noone questioned their accountability?

That just isn't true. There have been numerous attempts by people trying to show they weren't accountable. Their sentences reflected the fact they were children, and in fact, were lowered because of the fact they were children. They are also on life licences, meaning they will be monitored for the rest of their lives.

Why couldn't the same apply to Begum? That she could be tried, convicted and sentenced and then monitored for the rest of her life?

Let's not for a second pretend that Thompson and Venables were treated like adults, because that is absolutely untrue.

“She exposed herself to this as a 15 year old. She knew full well what she was doing.”

How are you so very sure of this?

“Let's not for a second pretend that Thompson and Venables were treated like adults, because that is absolutely untrue.”

And there was lot of unease at the time about them being tried in an adult court.

‘That just isn't true. There have been numerous attempts by people trying to show they weren't accountable.’
Really? Explanations of their behaviour, yes. But numerous people claiming they were not responsible?? Certainly public opinion was very much of the view that the conviction and sentencing was entirely justified

Yes, public opinion is always so balanced on such matters.

You disagree that they were accountable?

They were psychologically evaluated and deemed to be fully accountable. I found the way the trial was conducted profoundly uncomfortable at the time, as did many other people.

That just isn't true. There have been numerous attempts by people trying to show they weren't accountable.’

At the time, public opinion seemed to more against them for being only 10 rather than adults. They certainly weren't treated any differently than if they had been adults. And as has been pointed out they weren't put in an adult prison because they weren't adults at the time of being sentenced. It had nothing to do with the age at which they committed the crime.

You keep going on about when she was potentially radicalised to make her seem younger and therefore more of a victim but the age of radicalisation is not relevant unless you want to claim the practically every other Jahidi was groomed as well. When SB committed the crime she was in year 11 at school and considering it was February probably near 16 years old. There is a big difference between 10 and 16.