By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The child should be taken into care the minute he crosses our borders and placed in a loving family hundreds of miles away from his grandfather who will have him radicalised before he’s 5.
Its was the father of one of her companions that attended an Anjem Choudary meeting, not her own father, so I think you're barking up the wrong tree there.
She may be eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship but there is no evidence that she has it. That could make Javeds actions illegal.
The legal standard is that you can have your citizenship revoked, provided that you are not left stateless as a result of such revocation.
The UK, particularly when Theresa May, was home secretary, was aggressive in revoking citizenships. they took the view that you would not be stateless following a revocation so long as you were merely eligible for citizenship elsewhere. this was upheld by quasi extrajudicial immigration courts, which often apply lower levels of due process rights to litigants
Sidestep? Its not a tit for tat game. Of course the children in Manchester were innocent.
That doesn't mean that a baby should be punished for the sins of it's parents.
So I ask again, what has this child done? If you do want to play sidestep, I asked first, and you've still not replied.
And.... are you saying the child should be separated from the mother and come here without her?
Is she not using the child as a reason to be allowed back, She Apparently allowed 2 of her sprogs to died in this utopia world she choose and have these babies in, very caring Right? , that was her choice Right?, her responsibility Right?
Has she asked for just the baby to be allowed to come here, her parents have said they would look after it... Nah it's about her And you are also trying to use the baby as a reason to let her back, you don't really care about the baby just using it as an argument or you would start a campaign or go found to support it
It's no different than some girl here getting up the duff to get housing
Can’t believe that there are two people on here that have said she should be allowed to return.
I'm one of them. But only to face proper legal process (I didn't tick to face prosecution, because it's not up to me if she gets prosecuted, and I don't know — none of us do — whether she's done something that actually merits prosecution, as opposed to being generally vile. It's not a crime to have kids by a terrorist; we don't know if she's been a terrorist herself.)
I'm one of them. But only to face proper legal process (I didn't tick to face prosecution, because it's not up to me if she gets prosecuted, and I don't know — none of us do — whether she's done something that actually merits prosecution, as opposed to being generally vile. It's not a crime to have kids by a terrorist; we don't know if she's been a terrorist herself.)
Supporting or being a member of IS is a criminal offense.
Not exactly helped herself in her interviews. Comes across completely arrogant and shows no remorse whatsoever. If shes let back and put in the nick then she'll only radicalise more prisoners just like her old man has done to her.
And.... are you saying the child should be separated from the mother and come here without her?
Is she not using the child as a reason to be allowed back, She Apparently allowed 2 of her sprogs to died in this utopia world she choose and have these babies in, very caring Right? , that was her choice Right?, her responsibility Right?
Has she asked for just the baby to be allowed to come here, her parents have said they would look after it... Nah it's about her And you are also trying to use the baby as a reason to let her back, you don't really care about the baby just using it as an argument or you would start a campaign or go found to support it
It's no different than some girl here getting up the duff to get housing
Nothing but get used as a pawn by her to get back. If there was the option for the child to come back and be put into care and for her to stay there then Im pretty sure people would go for that but that isn't on the cards. The child could also do with a name change
I think she comes across as quite stupid, probably sociopathic and almost certainly brainwashed.
The real reason for this however is that Javid is acting the strongman to boost his leadership actions.
Taking all the emotive stuff out of the equation, what do we hope to achieve here? Wouldn't it be better to have these people back in the UK being watched (and perhaps deradicalised) than out in the wild where they're more than likely to join another terrorist group and/or provide propaganda material to others?
As far as I'm aware of, the citizenship of the mother has been taken away, it does not matter if it's an innocent, it's in the care of its mother, if she cares so much about it, get her parents to apply to look after it, see how much the child's wellbeing really means to her and we will know it's not all about her and not just a pawn.
Here you go While he said he would not comment on individual cases, Home Secretary Sajid Javid has suggested Ms Begum's baby could still be British.
He told the Commons "Children should not suffer. So, if a parent does lose their British citizenship, it does not affect the rights of their child."
I'm also one the people on here that thinks she should come back and be held account for her actions.
It would appear from all I have seen or heard that she MAY be eligible to apply for citizenship elsewhere, but it would appear that she definitely has (or had) British citizenship, and that she was radicalised here. Therefore in my mind it's our problem.
What would people say if someone were to come here from abroad, make themselves persona non grata in some way and when we are about to send them back their country of origin revokes their citizenship and says sorry it's your problem now they are nothing to do with us?
I'm also one the people on here that thinks she should come back and be held account for her actions.
It would appear from all I have seen or heard that she MAY be eligible to apply for citizenship elsewhere, but it would appear that she definitely has (or had) British citizenship, and that she was radicalised here. Therefore in my mind it's our problem.
What would people say if someone were to come here from abroad, make themselves persona non grata in some way and when we are about to send them back their country of origin revokes their citizenship and says sorry it's your problem now they are nothing to do with us?
Its a bit more complicated than that, provided you have citizenship elsewhere (b/c of the statelessness issues)
Countries cant revoke citizenship for being persona non grata. Usually, there is a prescribed list of offenses you have to commit to be considered for having your citizenship group. Having said that, a lot of countries, such as Lebanon, can revoke your citizenship if you participate in organisations that are against the state (eg, terrorist orgs being the most obvious example). Not sure what Bangladesh's laws are like on this topic
There are some countries which have very technical statutes for revoking citizenship, but they are seldom enforced. For instance, Pakistan permits its citizens to have dual citizenship. They have a statute that says that in order to maintain their Pakistani citizenship, you need to go to an embassy and make some technical filing every 7 years or so. If you fail to do that, they can theoretically revoke your citizenship. But countries with laws like this seldom ever enforce
Of course, not all countries provide citizens the due process rights of the UK, so theres no certainty what might happen in another country with less established judicial systems.
As far as I'm aware of, the citizenship of the mother has been taken away, it does not matter if it's an innocent, it's in the care of its mother, if she cares so much about it, get her parents to apply to look after it, see how much the child's wellbeing really means to her and we will know it's not all about her and not just a pawn.
Here you go While he said he would not comment on individual cases, Home Secretary Sajid Javid has suggested Ms Begum's baby could still be British.
He told the Commons "Children should not suffer. So, if a parent does lose their British citizenship, it does not affect the rights of their child."
Happy now ?
[Post edited 20 Feb 2019 17:37]
My concern is, first and foremost, for the baby. Good you agree that he's innocent.
“Wherefore by their fruit shall they be known” The child child has done nothing wrong as yet obviously but being brought up by a woman like her? Well......
The legal standard is that you can have your citizenship revoked, provided that you are not left stateless as a result of such revocation.
The UK, particularly when Theresa May, was home secretary, was aggressive in revoking citizenships. they took the view that you would not be stateless following a revocation so long as you were merely eligible for citizenship elsewhere. this was upheld by quasi extrajudicial immigration courts, which often apply lower levels of due process rights to litigants
Comments earlier saying the child is automatically British because she is. I’m not so sure. My partner is Russian but a Kyrgyz national (as well as British citizen) but that does not automatically make our kids Kyrgyz nationals. Application has to be done to attain this.
I’m absolutely certain the child is deliberately being used as a pawn to precisely create a “won’t somebody pleeeeeease think of the children” situation to try and get what she wants.
Bangladesh now saying she not a national of theirs. Of course, they don’t want her either.
Comments earlier saying the child is automatically British because she is. I’m not so sure. My partner is Russian but a Kyrgyz national (as well as British citizen) but that does not automatically make our kids Kyrgyz nationals. Application has to be done to attain this.
I’m absolutely certain the child is deliberately being used as a pawn to precisely create a “won’t somebody pleeeeeease think of the children” situation to try and get what she wants.
Bangladesh now saying she not a national of theirs. Of course, they don’t want her either.
Well some on here think it's ok that another country doesn't want her And it's us, the wicked UK being nasty to her, maybe they hate this country as much as she did to leave and join IS
Good. Having worked in local govt I've seen the desolation that happens when children are neglected and is something which I care deeply about.
I agree absolutely with what NW5 wrote: "...She should be allowed back to Britain, where she should be investigated, and then prosecuted, if her actions are deemed prosecutable.
That's the way the law should work. Once you start picking and choosing who the law applies to, you're on your way to disaster.
I don't have the slightest bit of sympathy with her. I'd be perfectly happy to see her in a prison cell..."
As mentioned before, the Home Ofice strategy was published in 2018, was endorsed by Javed (since it's his Dept) and it clearly states that in circumstances like this, the actions mentioned above should take place. He's grandstanding for the PM job when May resigns and the care of a baby is at risk as a result of it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
