Shamima begum allowed to return to UK

[mummabear1967]

Surely I’ve got this wrong? She’s actually allowed back to the UK after joining a terrorist group abroad?

Anyone just a tiny bit worried about what might happen if she does return?

It's not the point. In the eyes of the law she was a child.

Evelefteden
You seem to have a limiting awareness of CSE to be honest if you think that it's just threatening children into having no choice.

Grooming is so effective precisely because the victims often haven't a clue they're victims.

If you seriously believe a 15 year old is immune from being groomed and they're able to make full, informed decisions

Evelefteden
You seem to have a limiting awareness of CSE to be honest if you think that it's just threatening children into having no choice.

Grooming is so effective precisely because the victims often haven't a clue they're victims.

If you seriously believe a 15 year old is immune from being groomed and they're able to make full, informed decisions then I hope you're also in favour of removing the age of consent at 16, removing the fact it's against the law for adults in a position of trust to have relationships with under 18s, you're also happy to view teens groomed into county lines as being the same as hardened criminals who run drug dealing networks, you're happy for the law to be changed on circulating nude images of 15 year olds... After all they know exactly what they're doing and couldn't be groomed unless someone threatened them.

@disorganisedsecretsquirrel

2020wasShocking

Try making it about colour all you want, if you think it helps your argument (it doesn’t btw) but the fact still stands - she joined a terrorist organisation!

And your answer to that is to dispense with fair trials because they are 'yada yada'
Why don't you believe in the right to a fair trial ? Or do you only believe that SOME people are allowed a free trial.

How about answering a question, in reply to a pretty shocking post , instead of deflecting .

If I'm honest I don't think you've really thought about any of this at all beyond a knee jerk 'daily mail' reaction.

You don't want her back because you believe she has committed a crime . So do I as it happens . However I want her back to face trial and you want her to rot in a refugee camp. However you can't pick and choose the bits of law we like, and apply them to the people we like. Do that and YOU could find yourself imprisoned without a fair trial.

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for belonging to a terrorist organisation. where he was also accused of treason and sedition against his own country. ?

Would you have been equally happy that he was denied a fair trial ?

I never says age should rot in Syria- think you’ve got me mixed up with someone else!

She should come back, go on trial, if they find her guilty then I think she should be imprisoned here but then stripped of her citizenship.

And your NM argument is absurd. They are not comparable one iota. He was oppressed by white regime. She wasn’t. She was influence by a known terrorist group... worlds apart

I dont think it is relevant whether she is a child or an adult frankly, the crux of it is that she is a British citizen and she is our mess to clean up. We cannot expect war torn, poverty stricken countries like Syria to indefinitely detain and provide for our home grown terrorists (unless of course they wanted to keep her for the purposes of prosecution etc).

Can you even imagine the reaction of the brexiteer 'leave her there' types if a Syrian terrorist flew over to the UK to participate in acts of terror and Syria refused to take them back?

Wolfgirrl
100% agree with you.

I highly doubt all the 'leave her over there / send her to another country that's got nothing to do with her' people would be saying our government is wrong for deporting foreign nationals who have committed crimes in this country. I'd be willing to bet they'd be on board with 'send them home' 'why should we have to deal with foreign criminals' arguments, but that logic doesn't apply when the UK has to deal with their own citizens.

It's hard not to see the fairly obvious race issue behind some of these posts.

LolaSmiles I know what child grooming is. I probably know more about it than you. If you’d bother to read my above posts I lay out why CSE is different to SB grooming.

You don’t have to patronise me or insinuate I’m thick and racist because I don’t agree wit you. There is a name for people who do that - bigots.

SB knew exactly what she was walking in to. At 15 - nearly 16 she would have a firm grip on whether joining a terrorist group that were already beheadings people was right or wrong.

Yeah they sold her a dream, one that she evidently really liked the sound off. Death to the very society that had looked after her from birth.

This country really is going to the dogs. First the illegal stripping of someone's citizenship thus making them stateless (no I am not defending SB). Then we have all the racists trying to dump her elsewhere as she's not British enough despite being born, educated and radicalized here.

She may (or may not) have committed atrocities but that needs to be examined in court under a fair trial. She never had Bangladeshi citizenship. She was possibly eligible due to her mother but she didn't have it at the time her British citizenship was stripped (which made her stateless) and she would have needed to apply for it. Understandably, Bangladesh have basically said piss off. She is nothing to do with them and we shouldn't be trying to palm her off.

Evelefteden
I didn't say the cases were the same.

I'm saying children can be groomed and at the end of the day they are children.

She was a child and a UK citizen. She is our responsibility. What sort of country abandons the rule of law and washes its hands of a child who was born, raised, groomed and radicalised in their country?

If you think it doesn't count because she was 15 and groomed by a terrorist organisation then that's worrying.

Floraflower3
I'd agree with you, but apparently none of that counts because she was 15 and knew exactly what she was doing.

She knew all that was going to happen! She went there to marry some one! She had seen the videos of the barbaric murders.
She was armed wit the knowledge of exactly what was going to happen.
The sex abuse victims didnt

Virginia Giuffre was seventeen but a key witness against Epstein. Nobody seems to be saying she was over the age for consent and ‘nearly an adult’ or ‘she must have known sex would be involved’.

I’d think a 17 year old flying off to parties with middle aged men was an unwise decision but don’t for one moment think she wasn’t abused.

No, it wasn’t to join an terrorist group but it was about some idealistic, young women being promised romance and excitement when the reality was they were being lured into harms way.

Different colours, different values.

No, it wasn’t to join an terrorist group but it was about some idealistic, young women being promised romance and excitement when the reality was they were being lured into harms way

Romance? 🤯🤯

Wow. Terrifying that you and others could think this way.

CherryPavlova
Good point, though I'm sure several posters will be ready to the you that that doesn't count because children can absolutely be groomed, unless you're a 15 year old Muslim groomed and radicalised by a terrorist organisation, in which case you're obviously of age and fully capable of making an informed decision, knew exactly what you were getting into, deserve to be rendered stateless so your country of birth and another country should have to sort out our mess.

@LolaSmiles

I agree, it is clearly a race issue.

Wolfgirrl
It is.

We either believe 15 year old children can be groomed and we have a duty to safeguard them, or we believe that 15 year olds are clued up and know exactly what they're doing and they don't need protecting.

We either believe in the rule of law or we don't.

We either believe that countries have a responsibility to their citizens or we believe that if something happens in a foreign county that it's the foreign country's problem.

What we can't do is say only certain child can be groomed, that we should be allowed to deport foreign nationals who've committed crimes in the UK, but also other countries should have UK citizens if we don't feel like having them back.

First thing in safeguarding training is that grooming, abuse or neglect could happen to any child in any home. It worries me that this is even up for question.

@LolaSmiles I agree with everything you said.

EveLefteden no one is patronising you when they say you don’t understand grooming. You very literally show a very small understanding of grooming. And also of the fundamental importance of due process.

If the government hadn't stripped her of citizenship then she wouldn't necessarily be coming back. It's only because she has a right to challenge that decision that she is getting back here.

*QualityFeet
*
Exactly !!

Why is it that people can be so narrow minded as to not understand the difference between not agreeing with someone's behaviour. In fact being abhorred by it.. but not wanting ANYONE to be denied a fair trial with a full examination of the facts. ?

The type of summary judgement by the press results in horrific outcomes. Such as this.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30392988

This is NOT to say that she isn't guilty of an offence but the ONLY people who can judge that are the 12 jurors in a court of law.

Well disorganisedsecretaquirrel they certainly evidence the need for fair trail!

Because they're narrow minded fuckwits disorganisedsecretsquirrel. The same thing happened in discussions about the Gay Cake case. Apparently some people believe that the law only applies to individuals who hold views that they approve of.

@LolaSmiles

Wolfgirrl It is.

We either believe 15 year old children can be groomed and we have a duty to safeguard them, or we believe that 15 year olds are clued up and know exactly what they're doing and they don't need protecting.

We either believe in the rule of law or we don't.

We either believe that countries have a responsibility to their citizens or we believe that if something happens in a foreign county that it's the foreign country's problem.

What we can't do is say only certain child can be groomed, that we should be allowed to deport foreign nationals who've committed crimes in the UK, but also other countries should have UK citizens if we don't feel like having them back.

First thing in safeguarding training is that grooming, abuse or neglect could happen to any child in any home. It worries me that this is even up for question.

Yes yes. Agree with all of this!!

@Evelefteden

* No, it wasn’t to join an terrorist group but it was about some idealistic, young women being promised romance and excitement when the reality was they were being lured into harms way

Romance? 🤯🤯

Wow. Terrifying that you and others could think this way.

It wouldn’t be my idea of romance, no. Then I’m not an idealistic and groomed child bride thinking it was exciting and I could help support the creation of a better world.

It’s not my idea of a better world either, but I do remember the idealism, the romance and excitement of doing things to change the world in my youth.

@LolaSmiles

Wolfgirrl It is.

We either believe 15 year old children can be groomed and we have a duty to safeguard them, or we believe that 15 year olds are clued up and know exactly what they're doing and they don't need protecting.

We either believe in the rule of law or we don't.

We either believe that countries have a responsibility to their citizens or we believe that if something happens in a foreign county that it's the foreign country's problem.

What we can't do is say only certain child can be groomed, that we should be allowed to deport foreign nationals who've committed crimes in the UK, but also other countries should have UK citizens if we don't feel like having them back.

First thing in safeguarding training is that grooming, abuse or neglect could happen to any child in any home. It worries me that this is even up for question.

This exactly

Thank whatever God (if any) for sane voices in Mumsnet.. that don't wish to dispense with the rule of law just because they disagree with the probable defendant. !!

No doubt you think we are all lefty / liberal elite .. wrong !

I am a single parent , (rented accommodation, pay topped up by UC.. couldn't be more working class if you tried )... yet that doesn't mean I wish to dispense with the laws of this amazing country ..

It simply belittles us .

It seems to me, that she has committed a crime of 'membership of a proscribed terrorist organisation' . She is over the age of 10 so 'criminally responsible' .. so now the FACTS of that allegation need to be heard in a court of law if her country.

As she is NOT a citizen of Bangladesh.. (and never has been) but a Citizen of the UK until her citizenship was removed.. (maybe illegally) BOTH issues need to be examined . Including the issue of grooming of a CHILD .. (there is no point arguing this point .. 15 is A CHILD ! in UK law.)