Shamima Begum lost her appeal....

[Noangelbuthavingfun]

Just heard on BBC news a reporter said one reason is that she has shown zero remorse and spoke exactly like other extremists - still. Whilst it us unfortunate fir her...
I think it's the right decision given the circumstances....what are your thoughts?

Rubbish

She may be able to obtain Syrian citizenship? A quick google suggests living there 10 years and married to a Syrian

I thought he was Dutch - and they refused to recognise the marriage as legal as she was under age? Or has she married again ?

Why the hand wringing because she was a 'child' so were many of the innocent victims of the Manchester bombjngs. I'll save my sympathy for them not this vile creature.

Savid Javid had intel on her which has not been made public.

Yep, there is more that we dont know and dont need to. She's seen as a threat and should not be allowed back into the UK.

Sickening isn't it? Makes my blood boil actually.

Exactly and children ARE capable of doing 'evil' things, we know this. Some people are just inherently bad and I suspect she is one of them. I wasn't looking into joining a terrorist organisation at 15.

I don't think any government would ever have let her back in. I do think she was groomed. I also think that her unpleasant personality and nondescript looks did her no favours in making her case (yes I know it's unfair to judge on looks, but there are so many studies say that people do). Also her lack of remorse was and is extremely troubling.

Yes, raped at 15 when she was 'married' to an ISIS Fighter. Lost three babies.

I don't like her and I think she should go on trial when she comes back here.

What the court has actually said is that they do believe she was groomed for trafficking but they believe that the question of her citizenship should be left to the home minister.

The morality of this case aside this sets a very dangerous precedent as it clearly says that my children (born to naturalized British citizens) in spite of having British citizenship are not quite as British as yours.

One of the 15yr olds didn’t help commit genocide as an adult…I see no double standards going on.

wtf? You're using that word but i don't think it means what you think it means.

I checked guy she married was Dutch and in a Kurdish detention centre in Syria and the the Dutch government stated that they were not going to repatriate him and they don't recognise the marriage and he's on record saying he wants to live in Netherlands with Begum.

Bangladeshi has said they don't believe she had citizenship with them and that if she enters the country she will face the death penalty due to her links with terrorism.

So she has no citizenship - which I think is supposed to be illegal to do that to someone under international law and thus a problem.

Though given there a lot not in pubic domain about risks she poses can see why it's been done - I just worry about the next time it's done in more sympathetic circumstances.

Apart from the UK other European governments are very much repatriating their (!!!) Isis members or ex members and their families.

I'm torn on it.

Initially I felt that revoking her citizenship was the right decision. Yes she was a child, but what she did, to join a terrorist group, was so extreme that I felt nothing but disgust towards her. It's completely beyond my comprehension why anyone would turn their back on a safe country to join ISIS.

However I have since listened to the BBC podcast and watched the documentary and it seems that not only were opportunities to stop her from leaving missed, for example a letter that never actually reached her parents, but she was actually smuggled through by some sort of spy working for Canadian authorities. Surely the authorities must take some of the responsibility for this.

She comes across very badly, weird, detached, unremorseful, entitled. However, she is in a probably dangerous camp with other extremists, she's also lived through horrors for several years now, so who knows what she really thinks or feels.

What is going to happen to her? She can't stay in that camp indefinitely, why should Syria have to have her anyway? Why should Bangladesh or anywhere? There is an argument that it's more dangerous leaving all these people in the camps, there are being radicalised even more and so are the children, the camps aren't secure. What is going to happen to the children.

She wouldn't face trial is she did come back here so she'd end up having to be kept and protected. She's just one, stupid, person so even if you have sympathy for her on some level, why take any risks bringing her back when you consider all the the innocent people who've lost their lives because of terrorism.

But it certainly isn't a straightforward situation and eventually something will have to be done with all the people in the camps.

For me it doesn't matter how she comes across or if she has regrets or not. She was a British Citizen, requires British justice, and the British State needed to take responsibility for meting that out, not palm her off onto another country.

No such things as British 'justice', the fact we're so lax has influenced people's opinions on this.

Morality? What has morality got to do with it?

And revoking your citizenship isn't something that happens everyday. Nothing has changed for you, it doesn't mean you less british or your children are less british. Unless you decide to go join a terrorist organisation in another country and openly declare your hatred for the people living in that country just because they have a different belief or culture

You can hate what someone has done and what they stand for and still recognise them as a complex human being who should be afforded the same human rights as everyone else.

Picking and choosing who is and isn’t deserving of having their human rights protected is a dangerous path with no place in a civilised democracy. Mumsnet is real big on the mob justice it seems and that scares me.

@Greedymiss "She comes across very badly, weird, detached, unremorseful, entitled. However, she is in a probably dangerous camp with other extremists, she's also lived through horrors for several years now, so who knows what she really thinks or feels."

I agree with all of this and although it doesn't reflect on her guilt or innocence it does explain why the judges might be unsympathetic. Whenever she is asked about her regret about joining ISIS she sounds as if she is reading a script.

Something else I found from the interviews is how detached she seems from her childrens deaths but I guess that could be from living in the horror that is/was ISIS.

But I can do all of that and keep my citizenship because my parents were born here. Why is some British citizenship conditional and others not, based on where your parents were born. Of course it’s a two tier system.

Although thinking about it I am entitled to another citizenship because of one set of grandparents. Maybe I am not safe.

@JustForThisOneTime I meant any UK government

I don't think that she's had her citizenship removed because she's Asian or because her father is Bangladeshi, has she?

Other white Isis members have had their citizenship removed as far as I know.

"Nothing has changed for you, it doesn't mean you less british or your children are less british. Unless you decide to go join a terrorist organisation in another country and openly declare your hatred for the people living in that country just because they have a different belief or culture"

But if this hypothetical British child was accompanied by their friend English McEnglishface who also joined the same terrorist organisation and had exactly the same terrorist beliefs, when the two terrorists were both caught the terrorist with parents born in another country would be treated differently to the one with 100% English ancestry?

But your talking hypothetical and well other posters have pointed out other cases where this is basically a moot point.

Of course morality has something to do with it. It has something to do with pretty much everything we do including why you are posting what you are posting.

Do you understand what a precedent is?

This case says that it is up to the home minister and their department (the lovely people responsible for the windrush scandal, remember) to decide who can be stripped of their citizenship. If they decide tomorrow to strip me or my kids of our British citizenship the court will say again it is up to the home minister and the British public will just say "oh I'm sure the home minister has got a good reason to think that "justforthisonetime" and her family are dangerous but they can't tell us. It's for our protection."

Of course you have to consider hypotheticals when discussing the impact a law can have.

She went out specifically in the knowledge that she would be married to a jihadi. That, according to her own words, and to the propaganda Sally "Umm-al-Britani" Jones was putting out, was specifically why she went there. Because the jihadi warriors needed good ISIS brides, and she went out there saying she wanted to get married.

I'm not sure you can call it rape, given the context.