| Return to UK 22:58 - Feb 13 with 31177 views | PozuelosSideys |
Thoughts on this article? Bear in mind its BBC and probably quite sympathetic and careful in its wording.
Note the comments from the indvidual concerned where she appears to have no regrets and still feels it was the right thing to do.
Should she and others like her be free to return? Bare in mind her views and the likelyhood of her offspring being educated by her and her like..
This will be the first of many applications i would assume
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47229181 |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |  |
| Return to UK on 23:42 - Feb 19 with 2284 views | Luther27 |
| Return to UK on 23:19 - Feb 19 by jack_lord |
That is pretty much it. Went to extreme lengths to join them.
Not sure how this will play out. I have a feeling it will be closer to the way Lisa calls it. |
Hurts me to say it but I agree. The only saving grace is she will probably be repatriated to London. |  | | |
| Return to UK on 01:19 - Feb 20 with 2237 views | theloneranger |
People argue whether Shamima Begum should be allowed back into the UK and then have a fair trial ... At the moment the stats are in her favour ...
To date, of the other 21 Jihadi Brides already back in this country, only 1 has ever been jailed !!
Plus, in just the ONE refugee camp where Shamima Begum and her son are at present, there are another 6 British Jihadi Brides pleading to be allowed back into the UK. |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| Return to UK on 07:37 - Feb 20 with 2177 views | jackrabbit |
Well that’s that then. Well done Sajid Javid - at last a decisive Tory with conviction! Let her go and spread her hate in Bangladesh. There’s a few thousand more that should be sent join her, but she’s a good start, and a very important message to like-minded individuals who ‘hate’ everything about our way of life until such a time as they’d “like to come back and live quietly”. Good riddance. |  | | |
| Return to UK on 07:58 - Feb 20 with 2161 views | AnotherJohn |
There was an interesting interview with Phillippe Sands from Matrix chambers on Radio 5 earlier this morning. He believes that Javid's order will have to be reversed, and Begum should be admitted to the UK. Some of the points from the interview came up earlier in this thread and Lisa and people on that side of the argument would have found their views supported.
The thing that interested me through is the relative positions of Begum and her child. Phillippe Sands maintains that Begum has only a potential claim to Bangladeshi citizenship (on the basis of her mother’s nationality) and has yet to assert such a claim. Yet he also mentioned that her baby is automatically a British citizen, whatever his potential claim to Dutch citizenship might be. In the background there is the fact that Syria is not a jus soli (automatic citizenship by birth) country - so the above seems plausible. However, if the baby is automatically British because of jus sanguinis (bloodline), then why was Shamima not automatically Bangladeshi on the same basis? Bangladeshi citizenship is established primarily jus sanguinis (or through bloodline) regardless of place of birth. It is only secondarily a jus soli country, so wasn’t Shamima Begum automatically Bangladeshi when born to a woman of that nationality in the UK? If so that would make the issue of whether she had ever applied for a registration document or passport moot.
It is a very complicated case because if Shamima was a dual national at the time of birth the baby might potentially have British, Dutch or Bangladeshi nationality. Another piece in the jigsaw is that under Dutch nationality law the citizenship of the father determines that of the child. [Post edited 20 Feb 2019 8:40]
| | | |
| Return to UK on 10:10 - Feb 20 with 2098 views | Professor |
Yes. She should be allowed to return, but face investigation and potentially charges related to terrorism. If guilty then she should be imprisoned and the child taken by social services. | | | |
| Return to UK on 10:14 - Feb 20 with 2095 views | LeonWasGod |
| Return to UK on 07:37 - Feb 20 by jackrabbit |
Well that’s that then. Well done Sajid Javid - at last a decisive Tory with conviction! Let her go and spread her hate in Bangladesh. There’s a few thousand more that should be sent join her, but she’s a good start, and a very important message to like-minded individuals who ‘hate’ everything about our way of life until such a time as they’d “like to come back and live quietly”. Good riddance. |
Cue length legal battle I suspect. We're certainly better off without, but this may just be the start rather than the end. |  | | |
| Return to UK on 11:19 - Feb 20 with 2051 views | Wingstandwood |
| Return to UK on 10:10 - Feb 20 by Professor |
Yes. She should be allowed to return, but face investigation and potentially charges related to terrorism. If guilty then she should be imprisoned and the child taken by social services. |
Yep, and by doing that! She'll end up the ultimate Godsend for far right recruitment and the likes of Tommy Robinson for example will be in his element at a decision like that i.e. he'd exploit that for forever and a day.
Not only that she'd end up a 'living-martyr' and revered Islamic prisoner. History has shown terrorist organisations and their sympathisers love nothing more than a PR-propaganda dream of having a poster boy/girl political prisoner. Al-Muhajiroun types will have an absolute field day!
And finally of course just like the way ISIS used an infamous imprisoned female Islamic poster girl Sajida al-Rishawi as an excuse to take hostages, and to murder them horrifically? The same could happen here. |  |
| |
| Return to UK on 12:58 - Feb 20 with 1991 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Return to UK on 22:34 - Feb 19 by Lohengrin |
I find it quite interesting that the handful of dissenting voices I have encountered (granted we move in nothing like the same circles) have been on here, but then ‘here’ isn’t a lot like real life, I find. People in this neck of the woods have talked about little else for the last few days and those I’ve spoken to would find your comments bewildering.
That’s not me trying to pick an argument by the way, that’s me ruefully shaking my head. |
Nobody, as far as I’m aware anyway, on either side of the discussion believes that this woman deserves sympathy.
I certainly don’t. I think she’s abhorrent and her actions are abhorrent. If a shell took out her sorry backside I wouldn’t care even slightly.
The only difference is that in the absence of a shell taking her out, and if she manages to get back here, I think that we should treat her in the same way as we’d treat any other of our citizens who’ve done something abhorrent. By putting her through the legal process that we are supposed to value.
If we say to some of our citizens (the ones with immigrant parents) ‘we’re taking away your passport’ we are saying ‘although you were born here, raised here, educated here, have lived here all your life, we don’t think you’re actually as British as everyone else’. If we are prepared to say that, I can’t see how we can expect them to feel as British as everyone else.
As an aside, the fact that everyone has talked about little else for a few days, seems to me to be rather the point of all this don’t you think? This has happened dozens of times (people coming bac’ after Syria) - the fact that this particular case has been blown up (started by a Murdoch paper), has certainly distracted from the Brexit debacle hasn’t it. That’s handy. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Return to UK on 13:00 - Feb 20 with 1989 views | Jango |
| Return to UK on 10:10 - Feb 20 by Professor |
Yes. She should be allowed to return, but face investigation and potentially charges related to terrorism. If guilty then she should be imprisoned and the child taken by social services. |
What if they can’t bring any charges against her? You lot will be harping on that she has to be let free as innocent until proven guilty. We’ve then potentially got someone who’s been hacking peoples heads off and stoning innocent people for the last few years walking our streets. We don’t know what sort of training she’s had or information she’s been instructed to bring over here. If there’s any loop hole to be used then it should be, or if there was ever an exception to the rule to be used then it’s these scumbags it should be used for. Those who disagree spit in the face of the families that have lost loved ones to these evil f***ers. | | | |
| Return to UK on 13:04 - Feb 20 with 1983 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Return to UK on 13:00 - Feb 20 by Jango |
What if they can’t bring any charges against her? You lot will be harping on that she has to be let free as innocent until proven guilty. We’ve then potentially got someone who’s been hacking peoples heads off and stoning innocent people for the last few years walking our streets. We don’t know what sort of training she’s had or information she’s been instructed to bring over here. If there’s any loop hole to be used then it should be, or if there was ever an exception to the rule to be used then it’s these scumbags it should be used for. Those who disagree spit in the face of the families that have lost loved ones to these evil f***ers. |
Your final sentence is a disgrace. | | | |
| Return to UK on 13:11 - Feb 20 with 1977 views | Professor |
| Return to UK on 13:04 - Feb 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Your final sentence is a disgrace. |
Yes. Access to a relatively fair legal system is one of the cornerstones of why we are a civilised society.
Having had some counterterrorism awareness training recently, it is easier to see how naive/gullible individuals fall for extreme islamic or right wing messages.
If she returns there are no loopholes she can access to avoid detention prior to trial. | | | |
| Return to UK on 13:39 - Feb 20 with 1938 views | Lohengrin |
| Return to UK on 12:58 - Feb 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Nobody, as far as I’m aware anyway, on either side of the discussion believes that this woman deserves sympathy.
I certainly don’t. I think she’s abhorrent and her actions are abhorrent. If a shell took out her sorry backside I wouldn’t care even slightly.
The only difference is that in the absence of a shell taking her out, and if she manages to get back here, I think that we should treat her in the same way as we’d treat any other of our citizens who’ve done something abhorrent. By putting her through the legal process that we are supposed to value.
If we say to some of our citizens (the ones with immigrant parents) ‘we’re taking away your passport’ we are saying ‘although you were born here, raised here, educated here, have lived here all your life, we don’t think you’re actually as British as everyone else’. If we are prepared to say that, I can’t see how we can expect them to feel as British as everyone else.
As an aside, the fact that everyone has talked about little else for a few days, seems to me to be rather the point of all this don’t you think? This has happened dozens of times (people coming bac’ after Syria) - the fact that this particular case has been blown up (started by a Murdoch paper), has certainly distracted from the Brexit debacle hasn’t it. That’s handy. |
Brexit may well be the issue foremost on many minds, but is by no means the priority for everybody. I could post reams on here day-in-day-out about this but I’ve no need to as you know perfectly well where I’m coming from and why.
My eldest girl’s boyfriend is parading today, love. I’m meeting him for a pint later but I’d have been up in Cardiff to clap them on if I hadn’t been working nights.
[Post edited 21 Feb 2019 10:53]
|  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| Return to UK on 13:43 - Feb 20 with 1929 views | Groo |
One issue I have about our system, if supporters of extremist organisations are imprisoned, they are allowed free access to other prisoners who they can work on and try to convert.
Meaning the risks are greatly increased.
If not imprisoned, they are free to roam the countryside converting those weak of minded people who need a cause.
She's certainly unrepentant, perhaps she's just being honest, how many of the previous ones who returned renouncing what they did actually lied. |  |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Return to UK on 13:49 - Feb 20 with 1920 views | jackal |
| Return to UK on 12:58 - Feb 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Nobody, as far as I’m aware anyway, on either side of the discussion believes that this woman deserves sympathy.
I certainly don’t. I think she’s abhorrent and her actions are abhorrent. If a shell took out her sorry backside I wouldn’t care even slightly.
The only difference is that in the absence of a shell taking her out, and if she manages to get back here, I think that we should treat her in the same way as we’d treat any other of our citizens who’ve done something abhorrent. By putting her through the legal process that we are supposed to value.
If we say to some of our citizens (the ones with immigrant parents) ‘we’re taking away your passport’ we are saying ‘although you were born here, raised here, educated here, have lived here all your life, we don’t think you’re actually as British as everyone else’. If we are prepared to say that, I can’t see how we can expect them to feel as British as everyone else.
As an aside, the fact that everyone has talked about little else for a few days, seems to me to be rather the point of all this don’t you think? This has happened dozens of times (people coming bac’ after Syria) - the fact that this particular case has been blown up (started by a Murdoch paper), has certainly distracted from the Brexit debacle hasn’t it. That’s handy. |
I think it should be considered that having thrown away her British passport and joined an enemy power fighting Britain and still sympathetic to Britain's enemies, she has forfeited her right to British protection.
But that won't matter.
I'm pretty sure that she'll be back. The lawyers and Barristers will earn a lovely big payday. She'll have to be protected. All at the expense of the people she hates.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2019 14:52]
|  | | |
| Return to UK on 14:49 - Feb 20 with 1890 views | Groo |
| Return to UK on 13:49 - Feb 20 by jackal |
I think it should be considered that having thrown away her British passport and joined an enemy power fighting Britain and still sympathetic to Britain's enemies, she has forfeited her right to British protection.
But that won't matter.
I'm pretty sure that she'll be back. The lawyers and Barristers will earn a lovely big payday. She'll have to be protected. All at the expense of the people she hates.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2019 14:52]
|
Maybe the death penalty for treason should be re-introduced, may at least dissuade them from trying to return. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Return to UK on 15:18 - Feb 20 with 1861 views | Professor |
| Return to UK on 12:58 - Feb 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Nobody, as far as I’m aware anyway, on either side of the discussion believes that this woman deserves sympathy.
I certainly don’t. I think she’s abhorrent and her actions are abhorrent. If a shell took out her sorry backside I wouldn’t care even slightly.
The only difference is that in the absence of a shell taking her out, and if she manages to get back here, I think that we should treat her in the same way as we’d treat any other of our citizens who’ve done something abhorrent. By putting her through the legal process that we are supposed to value.
If we say to some of our citizens (the ones with immigrant parents) ‘we’re taking away your passport’ we are saying ‘although you were born here, raised here, educated here, have lived here all your life, we don’t think you’re actually as British as everyone else’. If we are prepared to say that, I can’t see how we can expect them to feel as British as everyone else.
As an aside, the fact that everyone has talked about little else for a few days, seems to me to be rather the point of all this don’t you think? This has happened dozens of times (people coming bac’ after Syria) - the fact that this particular case has been blown up (started by a Murdoch paper), has certainly distracted from the Brexit debacle hasn’t it. That’s handy. |
This time last week I would challenge anyone to have named her. All Brought about by 'The Times' article. | | | |
| Return to UK on 15:21 - Feb 20 with 1856 views | Professor |
| Return to UK on 14:49 - Feb 20 by Groo |
Maybe the death penalty for treason should be re-introduced, may at least dissuade them from trying to return. |
It won't though. They will be glorious martyrs then. Unlikely that the Death Penalty will ever return. Last execution for treason was in the 1940s and was not used again from William Joyce until its abolition in 1998. | | | |
| Return to UK on 18:00 - Feb 20 with 1787 views | AnotherJohn |
As I suggested above..
"Is Shamima Begum entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship?
By Clive Coleman, BBC legal correspondent
Under Bangladesh law, a UK national like Ms Begum who is born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. That means that such a person would have dual nationality.
However, their Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapses when they reach the age of 21, unless they make active efforts to retain it.
So, it is Ms Begum's age, 19, that is likely - in part - to have given Home Office lawyers and the home secretary reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping her of her UK citizenship.
In 2017, the government lost an appeal case brought by two British citizens of Bangladeshi origin who were stripped of their citizenship when they were abroad.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that E3 and N3 had not tried to retain their citizenship before they reached the age of 21, and so it had automatically lapsed.
That meant that the decision to strip them of their UK citizenship had rendered them stateless.
Ms Begum's case is different. Her Bangladeshi citizenship remains intact until she reaches 21, even if she has never visited the country or made active efforts to retain her citizenship."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47301623 | | | |
| Return to UK on 18:02 - Feb 20 with 1780 views | Groo |
| Return to UK on 18:00 - Feb 20 by AnotherJohn |
As I suggested above..
"Is Shamima Begum entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship?
By Clive Coleman, BBC legal correspondent
Under Bangladesh law, a UK national like Ms Begum who is born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. That means that such a person would have dual nationality.
However, their Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapses when they reach the age of 21, unless they make active efforts to retain it.
So, it is Ms Begum's age, 19, that is likely - in part - to have given Home Office lawyers and the home secretary reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping her of her UK citizenship.
In 2017, the government lost an appeal case brought by two British citizens of Bangladeshi origin who were stripped of their citizenship when they were abroad.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that E3 and N3 had not tried to retain their citizenship before they reached the age of 21, and so it had automatically lapsed.
That meant that the decision to strip them of their UK citizenship had rendered them stateless.
Ms Begum's case is different. Her Bangladeshi citizenship remains intact until she reaches 21, even if she has never visited the country or made active efforts to retain her citizenship."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47301623 |
So all she has to do is hang on another couple of years and she could claim being stateless and get her UK citizenship back | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Return to UK on 18:04 - Feb 20 with 1775 views | theloneranger |
"Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is “no question” of her being allowed into Bangladesh, the country’s ministry of foreign affairs has insisted, despite Britain’s move to strip the teenager of her UK citizenship."
“The government of Bangladesh is deeply concerned that [Begum] has been erroneously identified as a holder of dual citizenship,” Shahrial Alam, state minister of foreign affairs, said in a statement issued to the Guardian, adding that his government had learned of Britain’s move to cancel her citizenship rights from media reports. "
“Bangladesh asserts that Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is a British citizen by birth and never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh … There is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh.” | |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| Return to UK on 18:10 - Feb 20 with 1764 views | Flashberryjack |
| Return to UK on 15:18 - Feb 20 by Professor |
This time last week I would challenge anyone to have named her. All Brought about by 'The Times' article. |
Ah ! right, it's all the Times fault. |  |
| |
| Return to UK on 18:36 - Feb 20 with 1723 views | Dyfnant |
If she’s been a member of ISIS in Syria, surely the Syrian government should deal with her. |  |
| |
| Return to UK on 18:42 - Feb 20 with 1715 views | AnotherJohn |
| Return to UK on 18:04 - Feb 20 by theloneranger |
"Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is “no question” of her being allowed into Bangladesh, the country’s ministry of foreign affairs has insisted, despite Britain’s move to strip the teenager of her UK citizenship."
“The government of Bangladesh is deeply concerned that [Begum] has been erroneously identified as a holder of dual citizenship,” Shahrial Alam, state minister of foreign affairs, said in a statement issued to the Guardian, adding that his government had learned of Britain’s move to cancel her citizenship rights from media reports. "
“Bangladesh asserts that Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is a British citizen by birth and never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh … There is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh.” |
It will be interesting to see what legal arguments the Bangladeshi government puts forward. They had a major issue in the late 1970s with a wave of forced Rohingya migration from Burma. There was a possibility that Rohingyas of Bengali descent could claim citizenship, but the door was shut in 1982 with a change in the regulations affecting this group. However, according to legal authors, the general jus sanguinis (nationality by bloodline) principle remained in place in that country. My guess is that the Bangladeshis have quite a lot of wriggling to do to establish that Begum was not a dual national,. From our end the Home Office lawyers will have looked at the arguments used in the earlier cases involving over-21s. I think earlier posters were correct to say there could be lengthy legal proceedings. | | | |
| Return to UK on 19:13 - Feb 20 with 1694 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Return to UK on 18:42 - Feb 20 by AnotherJohn |
It will be interesting to see what legal arguments the Bangladeshi government puts forward. They had a major issue in the late 1970s with a wave of forced Rohingya migration from Burma. There was a possibility that Rohingyas of Bengali descent could claim citizenship, but the door was shut in 1982 with a change in the regulations affecting this group. However, according to legal authors, the general jus sanguinis (nationality by bloodline) principle remained in place in that country. My guess is that the Bangladeshis have quite a lot of wriggling to do to establish that Begum was not a dual national,. From our end the Home Office lawyers will have looked at the arguments used in the earlier cases involving over-21s. I think earlier posters were correct to say there could be lengthy legal proceedings. |
I wouldn’t put too much faith in whatever arguments the government legal department put forward, John. I’m fairly sure what’s happened here is that officials would have strongly advised ministers that any legal argument they make in favour of revoking Begum’s citizenship are flaky at best and doomed to failure at worst. Javid has likely ignored that advice in favour of a short term, populist and nakedly political announcement aimed at boosting his “look how tough I am” credentials in advance of the looming and inevitable Tory leadership contest.
One thing you’re absolutely right on is that lengthy legal proceedings are likely. Inevitable in fact. That would have been exactly the plan when yesterday’s rushed decision and announcement was made. The intention was to kick the can down the road and allow Javid to blame the judiciary when the woman is inevitably allowed back into the country. Then he’ll blame his officials. That’s how this government rolls, there are countless examples. Yesterday’s actions weren’t the result of lengthy legal deliberations and weighing up of the arguments on both sides. I’m almost certain of that. |  |
| |
| Return to UK on 19:20 - Feb 20 with 1685 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Return to UK on 18:42 - Feb 20 by AnotherJohn |
It will be interesting to see what legal arguments the Bangladeshi government puts forward. They had a major issue in the late 1970s with a wave of forced Rohingya migration from Burma. There was a possibility that Rohingyas of Bengali descent could claim citizenship, but the door was shut in 1982 with a change in the regulations affecting this group. However, according to legal authors, the general jus sanguinis (nationality by bloodline) principle remained in place in that country. My guess is that the Bangladeshis have quite a lot of wriggling to do to establish that Begum was not a dual national,. From our end the Home Office lawyers will have looked at the arguments used in the earlier cases involving over-21s. I think earlier posters were correct to say there could be lengthy legal proceedings. |
Well for a start, they’re presumably (the Bangladeshi government that is) not reliant on wiki for their info.
They have different rules when someone is a citizen of another country :
“ Bangladesh permits dual citizenship under limited circumstances. Citizens of USA, UK Australia, Canada and Europe of Bangladeshi origin may apply for a Dual Nationality Certificate.”
They say she hasn’t ever applied. Plus she’s British and we need to face our problems rather than running away from them. Imagine the uproar if, say, Bangladesh had a terror attack committed by a terrorist born in the UK of Bangladeshi origin who did have dual nationality, and who returned to Bangladesh to see some family members before carrying out a terror attack. And Bangladesh stripped them of citizenship and said ‘he’s British’. The number of people quite happy to stuff a country that has nothing to do with this is amazing, | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
