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?

She should be shot for treason

That hasn't been a thing in this country for a while.

Should the white 50 yo that committed a right wing terrorist attack too?

What about the white 17 yo that was arrested for plotting to attack a synagogue?

[quote Wolfgirrl]@CherryPavlova I think it was sarcastic![/quote]
Oh good. Rather lost track as so much I’m not racist but....

@CodexDevinchi

If you didnt understand my response was a generalised 'you' and not a personal 'you', then you are the one not reading properly.

@CodexDevinchi

No LolaSmiles thats what you read in to it because if people don’t think like you they are all white racist knuckle draggers.

People have every right to want to reject her coming back - it doesn’t make them right but it certainly doesn’t make them racist either.

Tbh I find it really sickening that you and others are constantly dragging CSE victims on to this thread to support your theme. Are you not capable of putting your thoughts across with out accusing people of racism and pulling in another set of abused girls to further your point?

Also I recommend you research what the difference is between CSE and Extremism recruitment ( which is what happened to SB and her friends) and you might find ER is actually a shit load more dangerous and that SB and her friends were specifically targeted. So please stop dragging the CSE victims in to it. This case stands on its own merit.

Excellent post and my thoughts exactly.

SB is 20 still a young woman and was a 15 yr old and should face the music if she returns BUT I think the bill for legal team etc should be her familys' responsibility not the tax payer. Certainly until the matter of her citizenship is sorted. She shouldn't be 'protected' at taxpayer expense now or in the future. Actions have consequences. This young woman who hasn't actually shown regret/remorse is going to cost the taxpayer a fortune. Advice, Legal, Penal, Health, Welfare. etc Her family need to step up and fund this.

MellowBird85
So out of interest, what have you said to challenge those posters who have been arguing that SB wasn't groomed because she was a 15 year old girl and knew exactly what she was doing?

Genuinely interested because there seems to be more outrage at me pointing out a range of situations where teenagers can be groomed (complete with claims I need to educate myself and suggestions that I've said different types of grooming are the same, or better still to shut up about how teens can be groomed) than there was about posters claiming a schoolgirl who was groomed and radicalised in the UK knew exactly what she was doing and couldn't have been groomed because, if I remember correctly, it's just different and she had good grades.

It seems to come back to people thinking grooming only happens to certain children, which is concerning but not surprising given the attitudes to safeguarding on here at times.

BUT I think the bill for legal team etc should be her familys' responsibility not the tax payer.

So we aren't going to fund lawyers in criminal cases for the defense in the UK?
Instead families of the accused will have to raise funds to cover this?
What happens if a potential criminal has no parents alive, would you like siblings to cover the costs, cousins?
Do those who cannot raise any funds simply not get a defense team, leaving only wealthy people with access to a fair trial?
That is before starting on the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty.

The country has plenty of criminals who show no remorse, the sentencing guidelines can consider this but every citizen should have equal access to a free trial otherwise we aren't living a country with a rule of law.

Thegereldine3000

She should be shot for treason“

So we behave as ISIS does?

Yes, logical that. 🙄

@LolaSmiles

I think in most extremist recruitment there is an element of grooming (aka radicalisation). ISIS obviously preys on vulnerable people i.e. young and impressionable and / or people who feel they’ve been dealt a bad hand by society.

But I do not think this and CSE are comparable.

The main reason for this is that, with CSE grooming, it is very insidious. The majority of teenage girls will start forming relationships with males and experimenting with sexuality at some point and, most of the time, there’s nothing wrong with this, it’s just part of growing up. This is how most CSE begins - innocently.

My point is that these girls simply believe they are doing something normal / natural with no ill intent towards anyone, including themselves. In the case of Shamima Begum, she knew full well that the purpose of ISIS is to cause terror, pain, death and horrendous atrocities to others. CSE victims have no such intentions and it’s insulting to tar them with the same brush.

This, I believe, is why other poster’s are rejecting the notion that the two are one in the same.

I am not putting myself forward as an expert on radicalization but I suspect this
In the case of Shamima Begum, she knew full well that the purpose of ISIS is to cause terror, pain, death and horrendous atrocities to others.
Not to be true.

It is rare for terrorist organizations to sell themselves to their supporters in this way.
Their purpose in this case was to establish a holy way of living, a sanctified place on earth run along what they saw as the correct lines. They may have been happy to dish out severe consequences for those of different views but I don't think that was their primary goal.
( I'm not saying I either believe a word of what they said or had any sympathy with their aims)

@lakesidesummer is correct, with the exception that Begum didn’t exist in a vacuum. There was plentiful information on the news and common discussion about the horrors of the group by the time she left to go there. This suggests that she was already suffering from a cognitive opening caused element of disenfranchisement prior to the contact being made. Working out how this happened is critical, as otherwise there is no viable step forward other than imprisonment.

I would actually say that CSE and political radicalization are very similar, and absolutely comparable. I’m a CT specialist, but have done work in preventing CSE before due to these similarities. Doesn’t mean she can’t be held accountable.

My background is child sex abuse so I have done a lot on CSE and a little on radicalization.
I do see similarities although I don't think they are identical.

BUT I think the bill for legal team etc should be her familys' responsibility not the tax payer

I do think we should pay because I think those girls were genuinely used as bait and set up. The Met police were very aware of what was going on but ‘forgot’ to send there parents a letter to tell their concerns. The school didn’t even speak to the parents. I actually get really angry thinking about it.

Can you imagine the school and police finding out your child was possibly taking heroin but they kept quite about to catch the dealer and who the dealer bought it off? I’d put money on it that what the Met did to SB and her friends.

These girls didn’t go out for coffees or shopping the went to school and then went back home. One of the mothers sat beside her dd whilst she was on her lap top doing her home work, she had total access to it, one insisted on changing her mobile number and only her dad and mum was allowed to know it ( she was obviously scared). Some one had constant access to these girls in school .

The girls were old enough to make an informed choice. They were bright and studious girls. They broke the law and should be punished but we need to find out what the fuck went on and why the two most trusted institutions, police and school, failed to tell the parents of teenage girls that they were on the path to being recruited in IS

MellowBird85
So you and I agree that teenagers can be groomed.

I've not said CSE and grooming for extremism are the same.

The reason I mentioned CSE and county lines is because some posters were claiming that she wasn't groomed and knew exactly what she was doing, whereas I consider a 15 year old a child who absolutely can be groomed and targeted by adults with their own agendas.

I find the claims by some further up the thread that we should wash our hands of a radicalised schoolgirl and dump her in a foreign country because she 'knew what she was doing' to be worrying. When I then asked about all the other examples of teenagers being groomed, I was basically told 'but SB is different.. she had good grades... she was almost old enough to get married in this country... Why are you mentioning all those other examples that show teenagers can be groomed... Stop mentioning examples that show teenagers can be groomed... SB is just different and she just is yeah, so educate yourself'.

Either we believe that 15 year olds are children who can be groomed and need protecting because there is a duty of care to children, or we believe that 15 year olds are old enough to not be groomed and don't need safeguarding in which case change the age someone becomes an adult and decide they no longer need safeguarding. We can't say 'all these other children were definitely groomed, but not the ones linked to Islamic extremism because that doesn't count'.

First rule of safeguarding is that abuse, neglect and grooming can happen to any child. Some on this thread seem to think otherwise.

Well perhaps she was groomed, and yes that and all the other facts will need to be identified and looked at, but she still joined a terror group and will need to be punished for it.

Even If she was groomed, and I don’t condone grooming, in her head terrorism is normal and that in itself is dangerous to us as a country because she mightn’t think twice about carrying out an atrocity

LolaSmiles because people are angry she joined IS, an army who were bombing children’s concerts and beheading men who had gone to Syria to help give aid out or setting men on fire in cages.

People have a right to feel angry about that and scared what will happen if she comes back That’s why people find it hard to swallow that the CSE victims and SB and her friends are the same. And this does not in any way equate to them being racist.

Both sets of girls are victims but to different insidious crimes.

It’s like saying apples and oranges are fruit but in fact as we know totally different.

People keep repeating that she's still dangerous.

Possibly - as are numerous other offenders who we often release and they go on to reoffend.

Just because she's dangerous doesn't mean it's ok to palm her off on someone else.

Do you think it's ok to dump toxic waste in other countries too?

CodexDevinchi
I'm not sure why IS needs bolding. It's not like anyone on this thread is somehow clueless that she went off with IS.

How many times do I have to point out that giving DIFFERENT examples of grooming to challenge the idea that a 15 year old apparently knows exactly what they're doing is not saying they're the same? It's like you are being deliberately obtuse.

Anyone arguing she had good grades, knew exactly what she was doing etc is perpetrating the idea that grooming only happens to some children. Safeguarding doesn't work like that. Either 15 year olds can be groomed or they can't. We can't run safeguarding based on how Joe Blogs feels about the child in question.

SB seems to be being held to a different standard to other criminals and other UK citizens who've joined overseas terrorist groups. We've already had back British citizens and if if remember correctly they were adult men, but when it comes to a teenage girl who was groomed and radicalised suddenly everyone is up in arms and saying she had good grades and knew what she was signing up for so should be dumped in Syria or Bangladesh.

It's not racist to be concerned about how the UK will exercise it's duty to deal with its own citizens who've been in terrorist groups.
It is a bit racist to say that some teenagers are groomed but not the Muslim girls who were radicalised, or the UK should be free to deport foreign nationals who commit crimes here, whilst also thinking foreign countries should deal with our citizens when the mob don't fancy having them back (which conveniently seems to be people whose parents aren't from the UK).

I'm not sure why IS needs bolding. It's not like anyone on this thread is somehow clueless that she went off with IS

Because it’s really relevant to the reception she is getting. It’s not like she joined the local shop lifting gang is it?

SB seems to be being held to a different standard to other criminals and other UK citizens who've joined overseas terrorist groups. We've already had back British citizens and if if remember correctly they were adult men, but when it comes to a teenage girl who was groomed and radicalised suddenly everyone is up in arms and saying she had good grades and knew what she was signing up for so should be dumped in Syria or Bangladesh

The men come back quietly. No where near as much press reported on it. They were allowed back because of how useful they may have been, don’t kid yourself that it was for anything less. Women always get more shit thrown at them than men. Myra Hindleys face is more well known than Brady’s - she sold more news papers. Females are not supposed break them law but when they do they get way more judgement than men. U.K. are not bringing her back because they probably know she serves no purpose and and it’s a PR stunt.

She did know what she was walking in to. All of them did. Men and women

Once again the only person talking about Muslims - is you

Your obsessed with making people agree that they are just the same as CSE victims, all through the thread, your the only person taking about it, when frankly there are far more disturbing issues with this case.

If you genuinely care about her change your question from why is she any different to CSE to ‘why did the police and school allow 15 year olds to board a plane to join IS?’

Because they absolutely did.

We've already had back British citizens and if I remember correctly they were adult men, but when it comes to a teenage girl who was groomed and radicalised suddenly everyone is up in arms

I think it’s down to the media attention she got. I’m sure if the other cases had been given the same airtime, there’d have been the same level of outrage.

@CodexDevinchi is correct, people are intensely angry at anything remotely connected to ISIS - it overrides everything else and I don’t blame them. It’s like championing the human rights of Ian Huntley.

Your obsessed with making people agree that they are just the same as CSE victims, all through the thread, your the only person taking about it, when frankly there are far more disturbing issues with this case.

I'm obsessed with saying different types of grooming are the same?

Yet on this same page I've literally said:
How many times do I have to point out that giving DIFFERENT examples of grooming to challenge the idea that a 15 year old apparently knows exactly what they're doing is not saying they're the same? It's like you are being deliberately obtuse.
Doesn't sound like someone saying they're the same.

And this is also on this page:
I've not said CSE and grooming for extremism are the same.

The reason I mentioned CSE and county lines is because some posters were claiming that she wasn't groomed and knew exactly what she was doing, whereas I consider a 15 year old a child who absolutely can be groomed and targeted by adults with their own agendas.

Doesn't sound very much like saying different types of grooming are the same.

And a page back:
I mentioned CSE and country lines grooming because some people on this thread have seriously argued that SB should not be allowed in the UK because she was a 15 year old girl and knew exactly what she was getting into! Apparently if you're a Muslim schoolgirl then that doesn't count as grooming.

Again, talking about the double standards where grooming only applies to some children isn't the saying they're the same.

And further back:
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.

And yet I'm 'obsessed' with saying different types of grooming are the same.

Yeaaah...

SonEtLumiere
Not only that but Ian Huntley committed disgusting crimes, but he had to face a court of law and be suitably imprisoned. He didn't get rendered stateless because it would please the mob.

The rule of law has to exist for all.

@SonEtLumiere

It’s like championing the human rights of Ian Huntley.

You cannot champion the rights of Any citizen unless you champion the right of every citizen.

Only authoritarian followers and populists support a weak rule of law, because it never occurs to them that the response they want now could be applied to them in the future.

Exactly but if a comparison is to be made with the Soham case - personally I cannot see any comparisons- then it would be to Maxine Carr his girlfriend who gave him a false alibi.
Neither Carr nor Begum have ever been accused of committing a violent crime. In fact, Begum hasn’t been found guilty of anything.

Carr, I think, served four years.

It’s like championing the human rights of Ian Huntley.

Well it's not is it? Because despite all his horrendous crimes, he wasn't stripped of British citizenship or have his human rights taken away.