Shamima Begum cannot return.....

[Lillylolo]

What are your opinions?

I feel that her dual heritage has been used against her, to push her towards Bangladesh.

However, I do feel she is a threat to the general public and it would be incredibly difficult to control/monitor her actions. Which may put the rest of the population at risk.

This is just an open debate. Let’s try not to rip each other apart, more of a healthy debate

@Jux

When discussing her purported citizenship of Bangladesh, what relevance is it that she's never been there? Either, she has a claim to citizenship there or she does not (OK they're not interested in awarding it to her anyway).

As I remember it though, at the time at which that little squirt whose name I've forgotten removed her UK citizenship, she still theoretically at least, had a claim to Bangladeshi citizenship. Her having visited there or not is beside the point, was then is now.

As the UK has disavowed her then isn't it Bangladesh who are, or would be, the ones leaving her stateless?

Bangladesh has been very clear that they don’t want to deal with a mess that was made-in-Britain. Quite rightly so too.

@SuperSimple

Exactly why should Bengladesh take care of a problem that was created by the U.K. is beyond me.

Yes because Islamic terrorism is a british-only problem.

As you might find to your disappointment, in this case it is. We quite literally let hundreds slip right from under our nose to a country that was going under. And now claim it’s not our problem and please can someone else deal with it. Sure

This woman was not raped. She went to Syria to marry a fighter. Which she did.
She married freely to a Dutch ISIS fighter and bore 3 children.
She should never be allowed back.
The safety of our UK citizens comes first. And, before you all say it....she is no longer a UK citizen.
She has chosen not to apply for a Bangladeshi passport, probably because she thought we would be a soft touch.
At last we have a government who have got some sense.

Thank fuck for that!

We quite literally let hundreds slip right from under our nose to a country that was going under

Now that I do agree with; however there's the small problem of how we'd have stopped them, bearing in mind many claim they're travelling "to join the humanitarian effort" , to "attend a family wedding" or whatever

Try blocking their exit on a suspicion - however well founded - and the screams of racism will start again, with the apologists insisting that their only offence was "travelling while brown"

This also sets a dangerous precedent for other situations: Imagine a few more terrorists leave the U.K. and visit some other country to cause mayhem there. Now U.K. can easily get away with it by stripping them of their citizenship. What’s stopping British authorise from letting them go on purpose so they could stop them from entering again?
How is this fair?

I’m actually happy that the U.K. stripped her British citizenship and won’t let her return to the country. She is a former ISIS terrorist. She wasn’t a captive of ISIS, she was one of their female police used to terrorise and kill Yazidi slaves and the populace in occupied territories and cities. She built and put bomb vests on homicide bombers. She expressed no regret or remorse for anyone she has killed or assisted in getting killed, she states she would see beheadings and executions and be happy that unbelievers were being killed. She’s said she wants to go back to U.K. but won’t deny that she would still be an extremist and this very dangerous.

There would be no question if she were a he. Everyone’s gone soft with the whole oh, but she’s a girl.

Don’t let her back in the UK. I think living free anywhere but the U.K. is a nicer sentence than life in the UK in a maximum security women’s prison anyway.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

We quite literally let hundreds slip right from under our nose to a country that was going under

Now that I do agree with; however there's the small problem of how we'd have stopped them, bearing in mind many claim they're travelling "to join the humanitarian effort" , to "attend a family wedding" or whatever

Try blocking their exit on a suspicion - however well founded - and the screams of racism will start again, with the apologists insisting that their only offence was "travelling while brown"

Like I said, a two-way treaty is an excellent answer and would have been far more efficient in the long run. But we have to start from somewhere. For the U.K., It was tough to stop people from visiting. For Syria it meant lost lives, resources and extended war. Which one was the better alternative?

I blame the Tories for cutting out tens of thousands from the police force despite severe warnings from the police chiefs.
I remember that press clipping still and remember the dread I felt when he said it will mean we will miss hundreds of terrorists potentially.

@Thewithesarehere

This also sets a dangerous precedent for other situations: Imagine a few more terrorists leave the U.K. and visit some other country to cause mayhem there. Now U.K. can easily get away with it by stripping them of their citizenship. What’s stopping British authorise from letting them go on purpose so they could stop them from entering again? How is this fair?

Of course it’s fair. It’s called granting you citizens their right of freedom. And if some terrorists use their freedom to go off and kill in terror acts then that is on the terrorists, not the government for not being big brother nanny state and infringing on rights of freedom.

Don’t let her back in the UK. I think living free anywhere but the U.K. is a nicer sentence than life in the UK in a maximum security women’s prison anyway.
Yeah let’s dump our nukes elsewhere so they become someone else’s problem.

Of course it’s fair. It’s called granting you citizens their right of freedom. And if some terrorists use their freedom to go off and kill in terror acts then that is on the terrorists, not the government for not being big brother nanny state and infringing on rights of freedom.
You mean it’s right it set a precedent so we could offload our terrorists elsewhere at our convenience?
That is an awful thing to do.

Now U.K. can easily get away with it by stripping them of their citizenship

This isn’t a new thing, countries have been able to strip citizenships off their people for centuries. The only thing new is that UN nations agreed, I think it was in the 1960s, that you can’t make anyone stateless because a lot of exNazis were stripped of their one and only citizenship and that left them stateless.

@Thewithesarehere

Don’t let her back in the UK. I think living free anywhere but the U.K. is a nicer sentence than life in the UK in a maximum security women’s prison anyway. Yeah let’s dump our nukes elsewhere so they become someone else’s problem.

U.K. doesn’t have any nukes. The only ones there are the US nukes.

@Thewithesarehere

Of course it’s fair. It’s called granting you citizens their right of freedom. And if some terrorists use their freedom to go off and kill in terror acts then that is on the terrorists, not the government for not being big brother nanny state and infringing on rights of freedom. You mean it’s right it set a precedent so we could offload our terrorists elsewhere at our convenience? That is an awful thing to do.

Shaming Begum is not a precedent. It has been customary and law to strip the citizenship from anyone who does a crime that falls under treason laws for literally hundreds of years. She is just one in a long line of people. And she’s not your, UK terrorist, she is an ISIS terrorist. She would only be a U.K. terrorist if she went on a rampage and blew up Parliament for a U.K. fascist party or what ever.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I don't think its down to school staff...haven't they enough to be doing?

They certainly have, but weren't schools co-opted in delivering the Prevent strategy?
Only of course that was deemed "racist" too, so they'd probably have been terrified to say anything even if suspicious activity had been noticed

For those asking what crimes she's committed here, I thought joining or supporting a terrorist organisation had been made a crime in itself? Probably it wouldn't attract the same sort of sentence as an actual terrorist atrocity though, which is all grist to the mill of those who'd be determined she should never be in jail

And to hell with the safety of everyone else

Yes I agree. It could backfire on them

I thought if you had a mother that is of Bangladesh heritage citizenship then you are automatically entitled to that same Bangladesh heritage citizenship yourself under Bangladesh law. That is not made up. She knew exactly what she was doing when she left the UK and remains a threat to UK citizens. She can engage with her lawyers as they can travel to her and she can do a Teams/Zoom type appeal and I hope she loses any appeal too. She has cost the UK tax payer far too much money on legal aid and I would regard her behaviour as scummy.

@Thewithesarehere

This also sets a dangerous precedent for other situations: Imagine a few more terrorists leave the U.K. and visit some other country to cause mayhem there. Now U.K. can easily get away with it by stripping them of their citizenship. What’s stopping British authorise from letting them go on purpose so they could stop them from entering again? How is this fair?

I suppose they are traitors in essence if they want to leave and carry out terrorism, I'm thinking of Guy Burgess. I know it is different.

I do take your point though and it has to be lawful but ooh why would we want them back?

Like I said, a two-way treaty is an excellent answer and would have been far more efficient in the long run

I take your point, but am not sure how much use a treaty with an effective failed state would be? The instant we tried to action something contained in it, and bearing in mind that everything has to be the UK's fault, the cries would certainly go up of "We cheated them!!"

Basically she is facing the consequences for her actions. She chose to leave this country. She doesn't need to be here to make her appeal. She wants to be here because her living conditions will be better. I don't feel as if I know enough about the situation to make any informed judgements about what help she should be entitled to from our Government.

I don't know enough about what happens when (ex) British Citizens commit crimes in other countries or about who is held responsible for them afterwards.

@SuperSimple

Exactly why should Bengladesh take care of a problem that was created by the U.K. is beyond me.

Yes because Islamic terrorism is a british-only problem.

No it isn't, that is why we should deal with British people who are involved and not expect other countries to do it for us.

I think this raises some valid points

@Whammyyammy

Leave her where she is, she left on by her own free will, opposing the UK and supporting terrorism with it. It was thevright decision, let her in and it then sets the bar for any former anti UK terrorist to return.

How would you feel if Syria decided to send some terrorists here and refused to have them back? Would that be OK, I mean they'd be here and why should Syria have them back. Any country really and any crime why stop at terrorism, countries could empty their prisons and we could have them all.

@50WaysToLeaveYourLover

I think this raises some valid points

If it had any truth in it. The 100% of others have returned is an especially ridiculous lie.

Jack Lett's was a white UK citizen who also joined ISIS and had citizenship revoked so no, not racist and perfectly consistent with Begin. Some are far too quick to scream racism, with absolutely no justification. Her race did not matter one not, her behaviour was the problem. I wish people could see the difference.

If she was white and blonde and called
Lucy or Charlotte and had a nice “English” speaking voice no one would even be having this conversation. People would be saying we need to get her home.
She was a child who was radicalised. She needs help not hatred.