Shamima Begum's mother

[AddingUp]

I read an article about Shamima Begum's mother in the Daily Mail. I am very much in the camp that Shamima Begum should come back to the UK and be trialed here as her crimes.

Anyway, the mother says how close she was with Shamima and how she misses her etc.

If I were Shamima Begum's mum and my daughter was not allowed into the UK, I would travel to the refugee camp to be with her. Or, I would take my daughter to Bangladesh just to be with her and not leave her on her own.

I don't understand why Shamima Begum's mum takes no action to support her daughter!

Hi OP. I feel the same. But she cannot travel to the refugee camp without putting herself in serious danger. Our own embassy officials can't get into the camps. If she went with her to Bangladesh she would face the death penalty. I assume she has other children? I think we have a responsibility to Shamima and she should face trial in the UK but I think it would be difficult in terms of public opinion.

Perhaps look up the political affiliations of the East London Mosque which the whole family attended. It might help you understand where such views came from in the first place, and why SB is considered a continuing risk to national security.

However comparing this women to the girls of Rochdale is nonsense.

Grooming is grooming. It is a form of brainwashing. Radicalisation is a form of brainwashing. It deosn't matter what the sect or group doing it is - it is a form of exploitation of the vulnerable by people who know exactly what they are doing and how to best use mind games and lies to convince those who are naive and vulnerable. The only difference is in what the Dail Mail makes of the story, not the actual facts of it.

If she is guilty of something then fine, let's have a trial. But not even the government case is accusing her of anything other than some unspecified "continuing risk". This is not about being for her or against her - it is about not making judgements without facts, something shockingly popular on this thread. And, it would appear, in the government circles that are in front of the tribunal now. Let's have facts. I am more than happy to leave her where she is if someone can furnish facts of her criminal activity, but to date nobody has explained to me which court she has been tried in and found guilty. Prejudice and hatred are not facts. If, as some have claimed, she was the poster girl of ISIS, there's one hell of a lot of poster girls for unreasoned prejudice and hatred on here. Not one of which has yet provided a single FACT about her alleged criminal convictions.

I'm sure they can present that evidence to a court. MI5 and MI6 aren't actually the people who can legally make the judgements.

How would her mum going there fight her cause? She may need to work to earn money which may be used to fund her legal team. She may have other children that need their mum, she may not be allowed to travel there. She may have been advised against it by their lawyer. She may be terrified her own citizenship would be cancelled. It is very easy to say you would go but her daughter is accused of terrorism and her son in law is serving time for it. She may be being used as a message to warn others off doing the same, it may not be right what has happened to her and she may well be a victim but rushing over to join her is likely to do damage rather then good

People can't even read the dates on threads and stop resurrecting Zombies on here and you expect them to be able to read the Daily Mail and not take it's word as gospel?

Sorry but that is not true. There have been a number of interviews with her where she has said that she was foolish, naive, and regretted what she did. What she hasn't done is say she was guilty of doing any wrongdoing. Since she hasn't been charged with anything at all, then she can't show remorse for things she didn't do!!! Perhaps you should watch all the interviews with her, because there have been many, rather tha the edited highlights of the DM. There are two sides to every story, and the one set of facts that everyone seems to agree with is that she was 15, groomed into sex /"marriage" by total strangers (apparently that is RAPE in capital letters according to everyone else here), and, as the Canadian government have confirmed, smuggled into ISIS territory whilst under age by one of the intelligence operatives. Everything else is pure speculation.

It is VERY easy to sit on the sidelines and pontificate about what you would apparently definitely have done, in a situation you are (I hope) unlikely ever to even encounter, and spout forth about what you believe another parent should be doing. It isn't that simple. I highly doubt that refugee camps in Syria have accommodation for visiting families and visiting hours. You can't just rock up, and they are dangerous places.

For what it's worth, I believe Shamima Begum should not have been stripped of her British citizenship. It was done without much in-depth consideration as the then Home Secretary (wasn't it Sajid Javid?) seemed convinced that she could go to Bangladesh, where she also has no citizenship and was not wanted. She was a child. She was just 15 and had been radicalised while still at school. Teenagers are not noted for reliably making good decisions all the time. For most of them the stakes are not as high as they have been for Shamima so you don't hear about them as much.

Personally, I think she should be brought back to the UK, possibly secretly and under a new name.

I know there are plenty who won't like that opinion, but I don't really care. It's what I think.

The moment Ms Begum refused to condemn the Manchester arena attack was the moment anybpubkic sympathy drained away. Oh and let's not forget her father was captured on film at one of the delightful Anjhem Choudrys hate rallies, along side one of Lee rigbys murderers.
A right bunch of charmers, I don't think!!

The difference between a paedophile ring and a terrorist group is that whilst paedophilia is a horrible crime, a terrorist group is a more highly dangerous movement that is intent on mass murder, violent crime and torture and is threat to lives of the public.

Basically she wasn't British enough, despite being born and raised here.

But raised to our values or to 'other' values which are at odds with our own. That is the critical question here.

Ah, so now children are responsible for their parents sins? Rather than, perhaps, considering how much easier that might have made it to groom her? Or at what age that grooming and radicalisation might have happened?

Basically she wasn't British enough, despite being born and raised here.

This is what I think. If I had done gone off to fight for ISIS at 15 I'd still have my British citizenship. I don't think it is okay to have two classes of citizens like this. If she actually held citizenship of a different country I might feel differently. But in this case, she was born here, raised here, has no other citizenship or passport. She is our problem to deal with.

So this family wont condem the Manchester Arena bombing. Just why? Maybe they think it was justified and if they have links to the East London Mosque then you can clearly piece together why this all happened?

AH, so the teenage girls groomed by gangs in Rotherham and Rochdale knew right from wrong and deserved what they got? Many of them were 15 year olds. And were groomed. You cannot pick and choose which 15 year old groomed girls are victims and which ones are criminals.

What kind of argument is that? Of course some girls are victims, some girls are criminals, some are both. We can't just say you can't be a criminal if you've been groomed. That's why we've got a CPS and courts, to decide what offence has been committed and what the mitigating factors were.

Most of the Rochdale girls were just victims. The Rochdale girl who supplied children to the gang to my mind is the same as SB - both a victim and a criminal. The CPS decided it's not in the public interest to prosecute her - they might decide the same for SB. But she should face the law.

Shamima made her bed

Her mother is dead.

MI5 and MI6 aren't actually the people who can legally make the judgements

Not in court, no, but they're the people best able to assess risks to the security of everyone else and if they've advised that Shamima is too much of a danger to be admitted then that's good enough for me

And for all the talk about "giving her a trial in the UK" I haven't the least doubt that, once arrived, her supporters would resist even that on the basis of her "mental trauma" or whatever

When? She was interviewed yesterday.

Shamima should be rotting in prison
Also she could be tried in Syria by syrian government as she commited her crimes against their ppl and country.

Must have been a good psychic then, she died in 2014.

But how do you know this? Where are the white terrorist supporters who've been welcomed back?

Apologies, it was Sharmeema Begum’s mother.

The comparison with Rochdale is interesting. At the time of the abuse, the girls were largely considered complicit in their own abuse and there was little sympathy or help for them, or for the families trying to break them away from the abusers. That is part of what shocked the public when it came to light - that few people in authority recognised the grooming of vulnerable children. And almost nobody helped them.

We (as a country) are not very clear on when adulthood begins, or to what extent children can make decisions. Parents can still overrule a 16yo in life-or-death medical treatment decisions, but a 10yo can be charged with murder. 17yo can't consent to having intimate photos taken, but a 15yo can be held fully responsible for travelling to another country to join ISIS. We protect children from decisions which can harm themselves on the grounds that they don't fully understand the consequences. But we hold them fully responsible for any decision which harms others. It is illogical.