Also in the News - Part 2

[foxy boxing]

3 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I agree. I think she needs to come back, for two reasons. First, because she was a child when she went out there. Although she went of her own accord, it doesn't seem right to ignore the fact that she was a child in the eyes of the law. If she has committed crimes, let her answer for them here. Second, because she's British. She's our responsibility. We were only able to strip her citizenship in the first place because we claimed that she was eligible to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship (a claim that Bangladesh has flatly rejected). How would we feel if a foreign terrorist was foisted on us because they had a British grandma?

 

No doubt this will be the view of most people. It's understandable, and I'm not criticising anybody who feels this way. I just disagree, for the reasons I mention above.

The government is trying to make an example of her, to say that there needs to be consequences for her actions and to use her as an example to others that might want to do the same.(ie) she made the choices to do what she did whether she was groomed or not. The other side is there are hundreds of people that went to fight for ISIS already back in this country going unchecked. Some have gone to prison. She should face justice in this country but would there be enough evidence to convict her, and how much time would she serve. By leaving her in limbo in Syria it is far greater punishment than our justice system would hand down. Maybe the problem is our own justice system and the countless lawyers who benefit from it.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, foxy boxing said:

The government is trying to make an example of her, to say that there needs to be consequences for her actions and to use her as an example to others that might want to do the same.(ie) she made the choices to do what she did whether she was groomed or not. The other side is there are hundreds of people that went to fight for ISIS already back in this country going unchecked. Some have gone to prison. She should face justice in this country but would there be enough evidence to convict her, and how much time would she serve. By leaving her in limbo in Syria it is far greater punishment than our justice system would hand down. Maybe the problem is our own justice system and the countless lawyers who benefit from it.

Perhaps.

 

Though I would posit that anyone who wishes a justice system they themselves are subject to is more draconian, perhaps might be careful of what they're wishing for, because such measures rarely end just with the guilty getting a taste of "justice".

[ClaphamFox]

10 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

The government is trying to make an example of her, to say that there needs to be consequences for her actions and to use her as an example to others that might want to do the same.(ie) she made the choices to do what she did whether she was groomed or not. The other side is there are hundreds of people that went to fight for ISIS already back in this country going unchecked. Some have gone to prison. She should face justice in this country but would there be enough evidence to convict her, and how much time would she serve. By leaving her in limbo in Syria it is far greater punishment than our justice system would hand down. Maybe the problem is our own justice system and the countless lawyers who benefit from it.

There is also the political aspect to consider. The British government knows that allowing her to return would be very unpopular and create the impression it is weak on terrorism, hence its hard line on this issue. However, the government will also know that this case will very likely end up in the ECHR, to which the UK is a signatory. If the ECHR decides that the UK acted illegally in stripping Begum of her citizenship and must take her back, the government will be able to hold up its hands and say, "Well, we did our best." It would also of course serve the purpose of those who would like the UK to withdraw from the ECHR, of which there are quite a few within the Conservative Party.

Edited 22 February 2023 by ClaphamFox

[MPH]

The other thing to consider is that with her being British and  having belonged to a terrorist organization then you can bet your grandma on it that she has been under surveillance for many years. Maybe some of what she is saying privately is contradictory to her public claims?

 

I guess I’m saying we as the public will mostly only know the public persona she is portraying?

 

 

HOWEVER, if this covert surveillance confirms she really has turned the corner from a terrible time in her life then it’s only fair this is brought to the decision making aswell.

 

if they’ve decided she needs to be made an example of then picking a 15 year old girl to be that person was probably the wrong choice..

[bovril]

28 minutes ago, MPH said:

The other thing to consider is that with her being British and  having belonged to a terrorist organization then you can bet your grandma on it that she has been under surveillance for many years. Maybe some of what she is saying privately is contradictory to her public claims?

 

I guess I’m saying we as the public will mostly only know the public persona she is portraying?

 

 

HOWEVER, if this covert surveillance confirms she really has turned the corner from a terrible time in her life then it’s only fair this is brought to the decision making aswell.

 

if they’ve decided she needs to be made an example of then picking a 15 year old girl to be that person was probably the wrong choice..

I've read some comments from people who know what she was involved in and reading between the lines I don't think it's something a person would be able to turn the corner on.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

The other thing to consider is that with her being British and  having belonged to a terrorist organization then you can bet your grandma on it that she has been under surveillance for many years. Maybe some of what she is saying privately is contradictory to her public claims?

 

I guess I’m saying we as the public will mostly only know the public persona she is portraying?

 

 

HOWEVER, if this covert surveillance confirms she really has turned the corner from a terrible time in her life then it’s only fair this is brought to the decision making aswell.

 

if they’ve decided she needs to be made an example of then picking a 15 year old girl to be that person was probably the wrong choice..

Although harsh, it does act as a deterent to other young people that may be thinking of joining a terrorist organisation, no matter how old you are there isn't a second chance when it comes to national security. 

[Super_horns]

10 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Although harsh, it does act as a deterent to other young people that may be thinking of joining a terrorist organisation, no matter how old you are there isn't a second chance when it comes to national security. 

Yes maybe thought if we let one in how many will will want to come ?

[Free Falling Foxes]

15 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Although harsh, it does act as a deterent to other young people that may be thinking of joining a terrorist organisation, no matter how old you are there isn't a second chance when it comes to national security. 

I don't think it is harsh besides, you just know she'll be allowed back in one day.

[Innovindil]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Good riddance, personally.

100% this. 

 

And same goes for any other cvnt that would join or support that shite cult of monsters. 

[Dunge]

There are a lot of competing arguments about her as a person, what she’s done, how much responsibility she should take, etc. Personally I think the responsibility outweighs the sympathy, but I accept it depends what arguments you put more value upon.

However, to me there are two key additional aspects to this.

 

1. The question of whether Britain itself should take responsibility for her instead of leaving the Kurds and the Iraqi authorities to it. ie Why should they have to shoulder the burden of managing her? I think there’s an argument that she should be seen as more our problem that theirs, and if she’s effectively stateless then she’s still going to exist somewhere. I think there’s an argument that we owe it to the Iraqis to step up, regardless of her.

 

2. However, any politician or party who brings her back to this country will only be onto a loser, and very likely others within their own party will quickly distance themselves from the decision. So realistically it ain’t going to happen.

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, Dunge said:

There are a lot of competing arguments about her as a person, what she’s done, how much responsibility she should take, etc. Personally I think the responsibility outweighs the sympathy, but I accept it depends what arguments you put more value upon.

However, to me there are two key additional aspects to this.

 

1. The question of whether Britain itself should take responsibility for her instead of leaving the Kurds and the Iraqi authorities to it. ie Why should they have to shoulder the burden of managing her? I think there’s an argument that she should be seen as more our problem that theirs, and if she’s effectively stateless then she’s still going to exist somewhere. I think there’s an argument that we owe it to the Iraqis to step up, regardless of her.

 

2. However, any politician or party who brings her back to this country will only be onto a loser, and very likely others within their own party will quickly distance themselves from the decision. So realistically it ain’t going to happen.

Hence why they’ll leave it to the ECHR to do it for them.

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Although harsh, it does act as a deterent to other young people that may be thinking of joining a terrorist organisation, no matter how old you are there isn't a second chance when it comes to national security. 

...if this is the road to travel then there had better be other examples of such deterrents for other things too, seeing as "national security" isn't really the most important thing going and therefore not the most heinous to violate, and may not even be in the top five IMO.

 

On the topic itself, I think both @ClaphamFox and @Dunge have made salient points here, particularly about responsibility, the abdication thereof and how doing so is rather perversely a PR winner.

[marbles]

Wonder how you guys would feel if she was allowed back, and eventually orchestrated a terrorist attack in the UK.

Would you be on the front line blaming the government, or would you step up and say “I voted for her return”

[Tommy Fresh]

14 minutes ago, marbles said:

Wonder how you guys would feel if she was allowed back, and eventually orchestrated a terrorist attack in the UK.

Would you be on the front line blaming the government, or would you step up and say “I voted for her return”

Important to learn why a 15 year old felt such a way that they turned in that direction though.

[FoxesDeb]

I'm surprised that people don't think we should allow her back. She was 15 when she left, and aside from that, she's British. Why should we refuse her? She's our responsibility, nobody else's.

 

I'm not really comfortable that we should be able to just wash our hands of any British citizen, regardless of what they've done, and especially when they were only a child when they made their decisions. 

[marbles]

5 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Important to learn why a 15 year old felt such a way that they turned in that direction though.

Sure - from a distance.

 

[Tommy Fresh]

1 minute ago, marbles said:

Sure - from a distance.

 

How do you do that from a distance?

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, FoxesDeb said:

I'm surprised that people don't think we should allow her back. She was 15 when she left, and aside from that, she's British. Why should we refuse her? She's our responsibility, nobody else's.

 

I'm not really comfortable that we should be able to just wash our hands of any British citizen, regardless of what they've done, and especially when they were only a child when they made their decisions. 

Totally agree, she is a British citizen and therefore the responsibility of Britain, she should be prosecuted if allowed back to the UK though.

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

There are a lot of competing arguments about her as a person, what she’s done, how much responsibility she should take, etc. Personally I think the responsibility outweighs the sympathy, but I accept it depends what arguments you put more value upon.

However, to me there are two key additional aspects to this.

 

1. The question of whether Britain itself should take responsibility for her instead of leaving the Kurds and the Iraqi authorities to it. ie Why should they have to shoulder the burden of managing her? I think there’s an argument that she should be seen as more our problem that theirs, and if she’s effectively stateless then she’s still going to exist somewhere. I think there’s an argument that we owe it to the Iraqis to step up, regardless of her.

 

2. However, any politician or party who brings her back to this country will only be onto a loser, and very likely others within their own party will quickly distance themselves from the decision. So realistically it ain’t going to happen.

I don’t think people are saying she shouldn’t face prison, or even multiple life sentences if her crimes are serious enough, but people ultimately stripping someone of their citizenship who was born and raised in the UK and making them stateless is a failure of responsibility from the UK.

 

She was born and raised in the UK, she held a British passport, of course she should be allowed back in the UK and face the UK justice system. Not to mention her innocent child who has essentially been exiled due to this too, who has become a genuine draconian victim in all this.

 

For me the whole thing just sets a horrific precedent to give the UK government the power to strip citizenship from someone and make them stateless, as the old adage goes - imagine that power in the hands of the leader you least want in power. 
 

In recent years the UK has stripped citizenship more than every country in the world bar Iraq. Even the US have told us it’s not the way to deal with things, so you know it’s draconian. 
 

I think we’re an obvious iffy outlier on this one compared to the rest of the western world in the same way the US is on gun rights or public healthcare.

 

Stripping people of citizenship is draconian banishment in a modern guise and is not only not the answer but is also us washing our hands of responsibility from someone who grew up this way in our culture and our country. She’s a failiure of the UK’s system not any other country’s 

Edited 22 February 2023 by Sampson

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I don’t think people are saying she shouldn’t face prison, or even multiple life sentences if her crimes are serious enough, but people ultimately stripping someone of their citizenship who was born and raised in the UK and making them stateless is a failure of responsibility from the UK.

 

She was born and raised in the UK, she holds a British passport, of course she should be allowed back in the UK and face the UK justice system. Not to mention her innocent child who has essentially been exiled due to this too, who has become a genuine draconian victim in all this.

 

For me the whole thing just sets a horrific precedent to give the UK government the power to strip citizenship from someone and make them stateless, as the old adage goes - imagine that power in the hands of the leader you least want in power. 
 

In recent years the UK has stripped citizenship more than every country in the world bar Iraq. Even the US have told us it’s not the way to deal with things, so you know it’s draconian. 
 

I think we’re an obvious iffy outlier on this one compared to the rest of the western world in the same way the US is on gun rights or public healthcare.

 

Stripping people of citizenship is draconian banishment in a modern guise and is not only not the answer but is also us washing our hands of responsibility from someone who grew up this way in our culture and our country. She’s a failiure of the UK’s system not any other country’s 

What would she be tried with though? 

[Sampson]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

What would she be tried with though? 

I have no idea, but I’m assuming she’s done something serious enough to be stripped of her citizenship. None of us know the exact details for the reasons she was stripped of her citizenship as it’s classified although we’ve heard Michael Gove (I think it was him, it was whoever was home sec at the time) say they’d seen her file and was shocked by it.

 

She should be allowed a fair trail in a democratic country though rather than just been banished without trial. It’s medieval, authoritarian stuff.

[Free Falling Foxes]

I'm all for debate but, in this case, it will probably be all academic.

As I suggested earlier, she will be allowed back in the country. There will be a inexhaustible appeal process and higher courts to approach until one day......

[bovril]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

I have no idea, but I’m assuming she’s done something serious enough to be stripped of her citizenship. None of us know the exact details for the reasons she was stripped of her citizenship as it’s classified although we’ve heard Michael Gove (I think it was him, it was whoever was home sec at the time) say they’d seen her file and was shocked by it.

 

She should be allowed a fair trail in a democratic country though rather than just been banished without trial. It’s medieval, authoritarian stuff.

Tempted to say "she started it".

 

I think due to her age and the vagueness of what she's done means it's unlikely she'd get a long sentence, which obviously the public wouldn't accept. I don't really know to be honest, haven't followed the story that closely but on a personal level don't have any sympathy for her.

[marbles]

Didn’t think things were out of control

[Free Falling Foxes]

3 minutes ago, marbles said:

Didn’t realize that about child murderers in the UK - that’s horrible

Mary Bell.

Pitchfork - when he is released again.

Jamie Bulgers killers.

To name but 3 down the years.