OT. Shamima Begum

[swaledale]

You seem to miss the point entirely here Swale

I believe the government believes that it has dealt with it by perfectly legally stripping citizenship from a dual national and not leaving her stateless (albeit there is some uncertainty about the Bangladeshi nationality - lets face it everyone wants to distance themselves from this woman). It has thus "fulfilled its obligation under international law" and has no further responsibility. She is appealing that stripping, and wanted to enter this country to manage her appeal. This is what she has lost this case on.

So she will then have to win the appeal and regain British citizenship.

If she does that, then the points you raise has validity because she becomes our responsibility again. But until then, she doesn't. There is no "innocent until proved otherwise" about it, its simply a civil court matter based on fact and law. I dont know enough about the detail to comment on how said appeal might go and a lot of the evidence given to the recent case has been redacted so we will not know for many years to come

I'm not missing the point at all, I realise what this case was about, the government stopping her entering the country to participate in her appeal regarding UK Citizenship - the Government doesn't believe it has acted perfectly legally, its completely aware that it is trying to pull a fast one, claiming she has dual citizenship to get around the International Law on this. Despite the fact that there is considerable doubt that she is entitled to dual citizenship, this from a government that is happy to accuse lawyers of using the law!!

As I made plain in my previous post, it isn't acceptable for a government to try and shirk its international responsibility on this, nor does it assist national security. The original decision was legally and morally flawed, but of course it suits the government to deny her the opportunity to challenge this.

The government is trying to shirk all responsibility, its an atrocious way for a civilised country to behave, especially one that prides itself as being a leader in law and morality amongst nations. It regrettably means that when the circumstances are reversed, we might well be in a position where we are forced to accept responsibility for someone where another country has done the same - I'll wait for the howls of protest from hypocrites when this happens.

Quite simply its an opportunistic political move designed to appeal to a certain voter base.

Everyone wants to distance themselves from this woman? Really on what basis do you offer that summing up? Quite a few people actually believe she has not been treated in accordance with international conventions which the Uk signed up to and this will get tested in time.

The decision of the government is neither legal or sensible.

[MadAmster]

I believe the government believes......... they probably do believe, GP. That doesn't automatically mean they are right.

[ramAnag]

I'm not missing the point at all, I realise what this case was about, the government stopping her entering the country to participate in her appeal regarding UK Citizenship - the Government doesn't believe it has acted perfectly legally, its completely aware that it is trying to pull a fast one, claiming she has dual citizenship to get around the International Law on this. Despite the fact that there is considerable doubt that she is entitled to dual citizenship, this from a government that is happy to accuse lawyers of using the law!!

As I made plain in my previous post, it isn't acceptable for a government to try and shirk its international responsibility on this, nor does it assist national security. The original decision was legally and morally flawed, but of course it suits the government to deny her the opportunity to challenge this.

The government is trying to shirk all responsibility, its an atrocious way for a civilised country to behave, especially one that prides itself as being a leader in law and morality amongst nations. It regrettably means that when the circumstances are reversed, we might well be in a position where we are forced to accept responsibility for someone where another country has done the same - I'll wait for the howls of protest from hypocrites when this happens.

Quite simply its an opportunistic political move designed to appeal to a certain voter base.

Everyone wants to distance themselves from this woman? Really on what basis do you offer that summing up? Quite a few people actually believe she has not been treated in accordance with international conventions which the Uk signed up to and this will get tested in time.

The decision of the government is neither legal or sensible.

Very sensible and doubtless thoroughly unpopular post which I can only agree with.

The Government is yet again putting populist politics above moral responsibility.

[Trickytreesreds]

Personally, I wouldn't want her or any of them back.
What folks have to remember is, bring them back and even if a trial finds them guilty. You have them in the prison system spreading their corruption.
So what do you do? Keep them in solitary, new H blocks? Perhaps the death penalty should be introduced? After all it is what these monsters believed in.
That would set the humanitarian screamers off as well.

Even if it saves just one inncent life, it is worth it.
Remember, it was 5 minutes ago, that a "asylum" seeker murdered 3 gay men in a hate crime and one went berserk in Glasgow on a knife rampage over the wi fi.
Bringing a known western hater back, has real dangers without a long term plan.
So its either lock and key for life, or not welcome back ever!

[ramAnag]

‘Personally, I wouldn’t want her or any of them back.’

Very much inclined to agree. But let’s remember three things.
1) She was 15 when she made the decision to leave the UK and join ISIS.
2) If the UK is to have any chance of retaining its credibility on the World stage it must accept its responsibilities. However unpleasant a person she may be she is a British citizen.
3) If she is still so inclined she is likely to continue to hold her ‘western hating’ views from wherever she is, but she is now so high profile in this country that she is unlikely to get away with very much at all.

[Andy_Faber]

‘Personally, I wouldn’t want her or any of them back.’

Very much inclined to agree. But let’s remember three things.
1) She was 15 when she made the decision to leave the UK and join ISIS.
2) If the UK is to have any chance of retaining its credibility on the World stage it must accept its responsibilities. However unpleasant a person she may be she is a British citizen.
3) If she is still so inclined she is likely to continue to hold her ‘western hating’ views from wherever she is, but she is now so high profile in this country that she is unlikely to get away with very much at all.

Apart from costing you and I between £250-400 thou per year for protection in U.K. according to an expert on the wireless yesterday

[ramAnag]

Apart from costing you and I between £250-400 thou per year for protection in U.K. according to an expert on the wireless yesterday

Take your word for that. Very difficult situation isn’t it...so what would you do?

[Geoff Parkstone]

‘Personally, I wouldn’t want her or any of them back.’

Very much inclined to agree. But let’s remember three things.
1) She was 15 when she made the decision to leave the UK and join ISIS.
2) If the UK is to have any chance of retaining its credibility on the World stage it must accept its responsibilities. However unpleasant a person she may be she is a British citizen.
3) If she is still so inclined she is likely to continue to hold her ‘western hating’ views from wherever she is, but she is now so high profile in this country that she is unlikely to get away with very much at all.

The whole point of this case is that she is NOT a British citizen, she was stripped of it and the appeal is to get citizenship reinstated.

If she wins that case, then we are back on the hook for her conduct and, as Andy says, a large sum of money to incarcerate her for a period of time and then what amounts to "witness protection" on her release.

Cynical as this may sound it would have been much better for Britain, and indeed Bangladesh, for her to have died in the camps, and I confess to being somewhat surprised that she hasn't given the number of enemies she must have.

The question of responsibility for radicalisation of a minor is a much wider and deeper one, and clearly the education systems and social services systems could and maybe should bear some of the blame. Whilst there must have been a dereliction of duty on the part of her parents and family, where does the primary blame lie, assuming it is not just her own individual responsibility.

Philosophically to what extent is "society" to blame for the actions and decisions of individuals, minor or not. Were the actions of Robert Thompson and John Venables blamed on anyone else for not detecting their intent? Is it different because she is if Asian heritage and thus the societal norms and family values are maybe different. I dont know the answers to these questions, but if we are to avoid the same things happening again we have to ask them.

[ramAnag]

The whole point of this case is that she is NOT a British citizen, she was stripped of it and the appeal is to get citizenship reinstated.

If she wins that case, then we are back on the hook for her conduct and, as Andy says, a large sum of money to incarcerate her for a period of time and then what amounts to "witness protection" on her release.

Cynical as this may sound it would have been much better for Britain, and indeed Bangladesh, for her to have died in the camps, and I confess to being somewhat surprised that she hasn't given the number of enemies she must have.

The question of responsibility for radicalisation of a minor is a much wider and deeper one, and clearly the education systems and social services systems could and maybe should bear some of the blame. Whilst there must have been a dereliction of duty on the part of her parents and family, where does the primary blame lie, assuming it is not just her own individual responsibility.

Philosophically to what extent is "society" to blame for the actions and decisions of individuals, minor or not. Were the actions of Robert Thompson and John Venables blamed on anyone else for not detecting their intent? Is it different because she is if Asian heritage and thus the societal norms and family values are maybe different. I dont know the answers to these questions, but if we are to avoid the same things happening again we have to ask them.

As I said GP...it’s immensely complicated.
I understand the simplistic, ‘she left, joined the enemy, so she can **** right off reaction’, but...as I understand, it it is illegal under both UK and UN law to make someone ‘stateless’.
Again as far as I understand it, she was born and brought up in the UK. Her views were formed in the UK. Her eligibility for Bangladeshi nationality is questionable and they certainly don’t want her anymore than we do.
Under such circumstances I’m not sure we can ‘strip her of her citizenship’. Neither do I think it has anything to do with her ‘Asian heritage’...I’m just not sure how we wriggle out of accepting responsibility for her while retaining our integrity and credibility.

[Geoff Parkstone]

So that just leaves the teachers to blame!!

The solution I believe is to not give a damn whether we retain said integrity and credibility.