Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Whatever your political persuasion, defend your corner here. All we ask is that you voice YOUR opinion, rather than just post a link to a half-hour youtube video. Politics can get a bit lively, and if you prefer a less combative debate, please post in the Politics for Moderates section instead.
Firefly
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:08 pm
Location: Hereford UK

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by Firefly »

Jim B

People arrested for holding up blank pieces of paper? I must have missed something.

As for being arrested for shouting in public, if you are referring to anti royal protesters shouting, then yes, I would consider it to be conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, it could have turned very nasty, given the number of pro royals there at them time. Nothing to do with Russia.

Shamima Begum didn't need a trial, she fully accepted everything that she had done, been a witness too, assisted in. Why waste more money on a trial? Legal aid lawyers, paid for by the UK, would have a field day. She also has a Dutch husband, let her live in Holland, if they'll have her.
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
Jim B
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:42 am

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by Jim B »

Good night Firefly.
User avatar
Dominic
Site Admin
Posts: 14931
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:00 pm
Location: Polemi
Contact:

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by Dominic »

I like the Waltons ending.
Web Designer / Developer. Currently working on Paphos Life.
Living in Polemi, Cyprus with my wife and daughter.
Firefly
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:08 pm
Location: Hereford UK

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by Firefly »

Good night Jim
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
Poppy
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:49 am

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by Poppy »

There you go agaim Jim talking about Prince Andrew - Yes he paid off his accuser but I must point out that they were ALLEGED offences and nothing proven. The chap arrested for shouting out at Prince Andrew was actually tackled to the ground by the spectators and the Police had to intervene. For goodness sake the UK is nothing at all like Russia, I don't think anyone is frightened of being poisoned or murdered by the Government here and we all feel free to say what we wish within reason but protests that disrupt vital services and cause damage to statues, shops, paintings vehicles is rightly condemned not just by the Government but by 99% of the population.
Jim B
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:42 am

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by Jim B »

Come on Poppy , you're not that nieve.
You and I know the establishment wouldn't prosecute Andrew in the UK or let him be extradited to the USA for trial on the Alleged offence of having sex with underage girls. He was asked to go to the States to help with the investigation but declined and then paid a settlement to his accusers.
The Queen basically dismissed him from being an active member of the Roal Family after paying the settlement; doesn't that make wonder why?
The first thing Putin did after getting in power was restrict freedom of speech and demonstrating against the establishment which is now happening in the UK, now you may not mind this happening in the but many millions of people do.
As I've said it's the thin end of the wedge
User avatar
Dominic
Site Admin
Posts: 14931
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:00 pm
Location: Polemi
Contact:

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by Dominic »

Given that the girl in question was 17 at the time of the alledged incident, I do think the people calling Andrew a nonce are a bit wide of the mark.

As to the people being arrested for holding up blank sheets of paper? Were any actually arrested? I thought the person in question was told he would be arrested if he wrote "Not My King" on the paper. I may be wrong though, as I only saw the story flash by on twitter.

With regards to Civil Liberties, what about Civil Duties? Like the duty to respect the rest of the nation if it chooses to have a period of mourning for its departed Queen? Why should their right to mourn be trampled on by some childish idiot's right to protest?
Web Designer / Developer. Currently working on Paphos Life.
Living in Polemi, Cyprus with my wife and daughter.
tonee
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:18 pm

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by tonee »

Jim B is an out and out left winger,detests the tories and present goverment,gave up answering to his comments yonks ago,probaly wishes Corbyn was PM. :lol:
Firefly
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:08 pm
Location: Hereford UK

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by Firefly »

God forbid !
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
Poppy
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:49 am

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by Poppy »

Oh my goodness tonee that made me smile and as Firefly says God forbid!! Although I have heard today that he is still trying to get back into the Labour party!!
wantoosoon
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 10:05 pm

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by wantoosoon »

Jim B wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 2:45 pm
Poppy wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:51 pm Oh for goodness sake Jim this is getting really tedious. You accuse the then Home Secretary of not having a clue as he was merely a banker! You accuse the Courts even the Supreme Court of making political decisions etc. You accuse the current Home Secretary of being a fanatic!! ( Not sure why you think she is a fanatic unless it be because she is determined to stop illegal immigration of which decision I can tell you that 99% of UK residents are fully behind) You also say that the UK cannot dispute citizenship but that Bangladesh can - does that really make sense? No of course it does not! I told you earlier that she was not trafficked out of the UK and has admitted that she made her own way freely to Turkey en route to Syria. Finally let me tell you this if I had done anything that she has actually agreed that she has done I would expect my citizenship to be revoked. She has agreed that she has assisted in acts of treason against the UK, She has no rights whatsoever.
Yes it is tedious. I said Javid made a decision on popular politics , not on law to please the mob. He was told by numerous
Law Experts he would be breaking international law but he carried on regardless that is why the girl can contest the decision at the Supreme Court, as I said the only decision the Supreme Court made in favour of the government was that due to Security concerns she can't contest it in the UK and has to do it from Syri where she's presently held prisoner.
The girl was not born in Bangladesh nor does she have a passport or citizenship from there so how can she be classed as a citizen of a country she has no connection to.
Suella Bravaman many times under the Johnson government was quite prepared to support breaking national and international law to support the government when it was her job to advise the government of its legal obligations.
As said, if they can get away with making this girl stateless without legal recourse then they can do it to anyone and everyone.
It's not about the girl per se, it's about the law.
There's no point in arguing with these people, Jim. They seem incapable of separating general principles from their own biases and emotions. They don't care that Begum is stripped of citizenship without holding another one but they would all be up in arms if it happened to someone they supported or knew. It's a fundamentally dishonest position, just like when they purposely misunderstand the facts of the Supreme Court ruling.

These are the people that the last few Tory governments have attempted to impress with their authoritarian populist policies, and the ploy is clearly succeeding. Who needs a working economy, a properly resourced legal system, freedom of movement, a decent standard of living or an operational healthcare system when they can own the libtards on online forums instead? The Tories will pull down everything they claim to care about if it means they can stay in power for one day longer. The Conservative Party hasn't been conservative since Thatcher took power. It's been the Neoliberal Party in all but name ever since. Thank God the tide of public opinion in the UK is finally turning and voters are starting to see these people for who they really are.
Firefly
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:08 pm
Location: Hereford UK

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by Firefly »

Wantoosoon

You say that we don't care that Begum is stripped of citizenship, in my case you are correct, I do not.

You say that we would be up in arms if it happened to someone we supported or knew, you are wrong, I for one would never support a terrorist, and if I knew one, I would distance myself from them, pdq.

There should be no safe place for terrorists, nor their supporters.
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
User avatar
Devil
Forum Curmudgeon
Posts: 3940
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:34 am
Location: Mosfiloti

Re: Shamima Begum: arch villain or unwitting patsy?

Post by Devil »

Isn't it a bit late to chip in on a subject that had died a couple of weeks ago? Particularly, when the subject of the thread had nothing to do with your screed on UK politics?
Post Reply