Shamima Begum

[mikesjn]

Nicked this off facebook......
Making a mistake at fifteen is being caught smoking by your dad,
not joining F******** Isis.

Again we agree, I have thought about this and yes she was 15, but has apparently shown no regret. What about the 15 year old, nicks his dads car for the night, gets drunk and runs someone over, even if he shows regret, where do you stop? At what point does it become stupidity? I also agree with Dominic on this one as well, she is the UK's problem, whilst I think no effort should be made to find and repatriate her. If you get stranded abroad the FCO will lend you the money to return, so if her family want to stump up for her to be returned to the UK, in a manner that puts no one else at risk, fine. She should them be charged with whatever crimes she has committed and even if she played no active part she has by her own admission committed serious offences, she should then be subject to the judicial system. The child, for it's own sake should be removed and placed with another family, it is so young that I doubt it would remember - that child is the one I feel sorry for.

[mikesjn]

Born in the UK so what. Then defend it or fu.ck off and you did so stay f.ucked off.

From her perspective I actually agree with you. I would have no issues with her dying. But the issues I have with the death penalty are not moral, they are the fact that mistakes are a bit hard to rectify and I think it would be a dangerous precedent. Trust me, I am not touchy feely, but we could open a can of worms that is disastrous for the future. I would have no issues outsourcing her lifetimes imprisonment to Thailand, but only on long tarrifs, you have to be careful of precedent or you get caught speeding and you end up in a Thai jail, that is how our laws are defined. Gina Miller, I have no time for the woman and I don't believe a word that she was thinking this at the time, it just happened to be true in hindsight, said “If a prime minister had been able to use the royal prerogative... to alter people’s rights,” she explained, it would have “set a precedent that a future prime minister could also do that. Labour could [have] come in with Mr Corbyn having that power. “I was more worried about him than... Brexit.”. She was trying to overturn Brexit by dubious methods, it just so happens what she has just said is also true, taken her a while to work it out though, May uses it for something which I have no issue with, someone else uses it to overturn democracy or at least nibble away at it. That is all that concerns me.

[Firefly]

Mikesjn

My thank you to your previous post was done in error, that's a mistake.

As I see it, the law must change to protect our people, and punish those who would murder us on our own streets. Apparently that view is seen by some as extreme

Now we will have the bleeding hearts brigade trying to reverse the decision.

Jackie

[Dominic]

Now we will have the bleeding hearts brigade trying to reverse the decision.

Jackie

And if they don't, will you be making a post apologising to the bleeding hearts brigade?

[mikesjn]

Mikesjn

My thank you to your previous post was done in error, that's a mistake.

As I see it, the law must change to protect our people, and punish those who would murder us on our own streets. Apparently that view is seen by some as extreme

Now we will have the bleeding hearts brigade trying to reverse the decision.

Jackie

You don't have to agree with me, I respect your position and I hope you can respect mine. If we had a true democracy we would reach a mutually agreed position where we were all fairly okay with the result. Problem is we don't have that. I don't see your position as extreme, I just have reservations. The other issue is these people are still at large, what if she is a killer, it seems getting into the UK is a piece of pee. I could tell you a story, I can swear on anything you like that it is true, about how a Middle Eastern/Egyptian young woman obtained a British passport in a false name, even went through the first passport interview, it has been reported and she is still at large, hopefully they are tracking it, I wouldn't stake a fingernail on that. Perhaps keeping your enemies closer has a place.

[Firefly]

Mikesjn

I wasn't referring to you, there are others however who do think my stance extreme in denying re-entry to the UK by terrorist and their families.

I do respect your view, in fact I agree with you mostly except 'keep your enemies closer' we have done that to our cost. The parents of the eight year old little girl killed in the Manchester bombing may also not agree with you. It seems that I am not alone in thinking that we are mad to allow re-entry, at last someone, a Muslim, has taken the decision to strip her of her British citizenship, nor is she stateless.

Dominic

Not much point in answering your question, they already are !

Jackie

[Kili01]

Whether she’s the UK’s responsibility or not, I support the decision to strip her of her British nationality which she doesn’t deserve to have. She left the UK to join the IS Caliphate. She condoned and was unmoved by the way IS treated their British prisoners. She lived with the enemy, in simple terms her behavour amounts to treachery and treason. In an earlier time she would have been tried and executed. She was stupid and irresponsible to have run away to Syria. Now, the country owes her nothing. Revoking her British nationality seems the best option.
Also, this will be seen as a deterrent to anyone else who is thinking of copying such behaviour.
The UK has ben pussy footing with these extreemists for too long.

Dee

[boycott]

No doubt it will all end up in the court system(s) so I wonder who is going to pay the legal bill - thank goodness for the UK legal aid system!

[mikesjn]

Mikesjn

I wasn't referring to you, there are others however who do think my stance extreme in denying re-entry to the UK by terrorist and their families.

I do respect your view, in fact I agree with you mostly except 'keep your enemies closer' we have done that to our cost. The parents of the eight year old little girl killed in the Manchester bombing may also not agree with you. It seems that I am not alone in thinking that we are mad to allow re-entry, at last someone, a Muslim, has taken the decision to strip her of her British citizenship, nor is she stateless.

Dominic

Not much point in answering your question, they already are !

Jackie

Hi Jackie,
Just though I would let you know, before I stop wasting my time and do the many things I have to and want to do, that whilst I have reservations, your option is the only option, it is the fault of the very people that would decry you. We do have killers walking amongst us, to suggest at least one of returnees would not be just defies common sense, they should be locked up. Shame people don't suffer from their own decisions, tons of Twitter likes in support of this woman and they take "the bullet", shame is it will be some poor sod that didn't want her back.

Monty Python looking into the future: social media brain dead swarm.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail - Witch Scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf71YotfykQ

it should be just another great communication tool and prove the infinite monkey theorem is correct, it hasn't. Just heard from my right ear, Jussie Smollett has just been charged with filing a false report, first saw him on Empire, he is a gay actor and a great musician, the world should be at his feet, in my opinion. When it was first reported about a homophobic attack on SM the brain dead swarm were calling for the perpetrators to be strung up, seems at best he is the perpetrator. Ergo I can assume the brain dead swarm wants him strung up then, unless Kim's latest surgical implant tells them otherwise. It really was a crap film, but Idiocracy was just so true, terrifying.

HTTP://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

[Jimgward]

At 15 years old, she will likely be classed as a minor groomed and indoctrinated and therefore Trafficked under International law.

If she had been a minor, groomed by a paedophile, then we would understand Stockholm syndrome and more.

Now that won’t sit well with us and I include me. But I’ve seen it discussed as a likelihood.

We should also bear in mind that this girl is a distraction and should be media ignored. It is helping in radicalisation of others.

[Firefly]

Hudswell

She might well be a "rallying point" for the radicalisation of others in the UK, should she return. I think she may well be a physical danger to us, why not ? Just imagine if she planted the next ISIS bomb in the UK, which I think she is more than capable of.

She was brought up in a home where the head of the house, her father, was/is a terrorist supporter, it's no secret, the photos are out there for everyone to see. She was fifteen, so what, she is now nineteen, shows no remorse and even seems to justify the Manchester bombing, planted by one we allowed back into the UK, we have to send a message to others, no more.

I see Trump is also refusing to allow terrorists to return to the USA.

Jackie

[boycott]

Guess what the Labour Party and Diane Abbott say that this lovely lady should be allowed back into the UK, no real surprise I suppose.

Maybe they can find some more terrorist(s) to allow back into the UK.

[WHL]

My take on this is, the baby will be allowed back, then after a few months, every human rights group will be saying its inhuman for the mother and child to be kept apart, she will then be allowed back to be reunited with the child..... it is what it is folks, Politicians without balls, simple.

[trevnhil]

And do you think it will be safe for the mother to live in the UK, when the majority of people in the streets are against her being there..

[Lofos-5]

On the subject, from today’s Economist:

Returning jihadists
When the bad guys come home

As Islamic State is defeated, governments around the world are struggling to deal with returning jihadists

In the first heady days of their self-proclaimed caliphate, foreigners who joined Islamic State (is) gleefully renounced their ties to the West. Jihadists from France, Canada and other countries filmed themselves burning their passports. But as is nears its defeat, once-belligerent radicals act now like aggrieved tourists stranded on a package holiday. A Canadian man complains that his embassy has not been in touch. A British woman who had “a good time” in Raqqa wants help to return to London.

These is members are a serious problem for their home countries. More than 41,000 foreigners travelled to Syria and Iraq to join the group. By the middle of last year 7,366 had returned home, according to the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, a think-tank in London. Thousands more died on the battlefield. What remains are around 850 men and a few thousand women held in makeshift camps scattered across eastern Syria.

Until recently their home countries were happy to leave them there. Then came President Donald Trump’s decision in December to withdraw American troops from Syria. The Kurdish-led forces who control the area are already ill-equipped to hold thousands of prisoners. It will become nigh-on impossible after America pulls out. Mr Trump wants foreign governments to repatriate their citizens. “The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them,” he tweeted. A bad alternative indeed—but so are the others.

The simplest is to make the detainees someone else’s problem. A law passed in 2015 lets Australia strip citizenship from people who join terrorist groups. It was first used in 2017 against Khaled Sharrouf, a Lebanese-Australian man who photographed his young son holding a Syrian soldier’s severed head. International law frowns on making people stateless; Australia’s law applies only to dual-nationals.

Britain has no such hang-ups. It has cancelled the nationality of Shamima Begum, who joined is as a teenager, on the ground that her Bangladeshi mother makes her eligible for citizenship there. Mr Trump says an American-born woman who was a propagandist for is will not be allowed home. Courts may overturn these decisions. Even if they do not, it is unseemly for Western governments to dump their citizens on other states. Western countries are surely better equipped to handle them than, say, Lebanon or Bangladesh.

Saudi Arabia takes a different tack. In 2004, after a wave of domestic terrorist attacks, it created a rehabilitation centre for extremists. Detainees are held in a pleasant compound with a swimming pool and art therapy. Conjugal visits are allowed. Such efforts are expensive, though. They require prolonged, one-on-one attention from teachers and clerics, and are likely to be unpopular in the West. France set up its own deradicalisation centre three years ago in a chateau in the Loire Valley. Residents studied history and philosophy and met an imam to discuss religion. They were meant to stay for ten months, but the centre was closed after locals protested against the radicals in their midst.

It is also impossible to know whether these schemes work. Scholars disagree on how people become radicalised or even how to define the term. Saudi Arabia claims that less than 20% of its 3,000-plus graduates returned to jihad—which means its curriculum failed hundreds of times. A Somali-American man arrested at the airport in Minnesota, on his way to Syria, was released from custody in 2017 after a seemingly successful year in rehab. What worked for him may not work for hardened fighters who massacred and enslaved innocent people. Sentencing them to a glorified summer camp feels unjust.

Yet putting them on trial is complicated. America has a decent record. One man was sentenced to 20 years in prison and a second was indicted in June. But it was unable to try a third suspect for lack of evidence. He was released after more than a year in custody. Heiko Maas, the German foreign minister, says his country faces a similar problem. Testimony from battlefield interrogations is inadmissible in court. Documents recovered by Kurdish fighters have no chain of custody.

Australia has a useful tool: the “declared-area offence”, which makes it a crime to enter proscribed areas. Only Mosul and Raqqa were labelled as such, however. To use the law, prosecutors must prove that suspects entered those cities. Even that can be difficult. Once they are convicted, states must decide where to hold them. America provided no more than 300 fighters and even fewer came back. Jailing them is easy. Not so in Europe, where the numbers are often greater. Some European countries already have problems with radicalisation in their prisons. Adding returned fighters to the mix could incubate the next round of extremists.

Faced with such problems, politicians understandably throw up their hands. If their citizens committed crimes abroad, should they not be tried there? But eastern Syria’s Kurdish-led administration is not a state. Its rudimentary courts lack due process and may not exist much longer. With their American protectors gone, the Kurds will face attacks by both Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the Turkish army. They will probably cut a deal with Mr Assad. If their detainees wind up in Syrian jails, history suggests what may happen next. Mr Assad’s dungeons have produced generations of radicals, who are occasionally set free when politically expedient.

That leaves one last option. “The Pentagon was very clear with us that there’s a good chance they get sent to Guantánamo,” says a congressional staffer. America has not added prisoners to the camp since 2008. President Barack Obama spent eight years trying to close it, and its population has shrunk from 242 detainees in 2009 to just 40 today. Democrats will probably oppose any attempt to reverse the trend.

Dealing with those who return will require a mix of trials, monitoring and rehabilitation. Police will need resources, and prosecutors ways to introduce sensitive evidence in open court. Deradicalisation programmes have merit, especially in prisons and for those brought to Syria and Iraq against their will or as children.

No Western politician wants to be responsible for bringing potentially dangerous radicals back home. But leaving them in Syria or dumping them on developing countries does not make the problem go away. It also sends a message that Western governments do not care about the millions of Syrian and Iraqi lives their citizens helped to destroy.

[WHL]

And do you think it will be safe for the mother to live in the UK, when the majority of people in the streets are against her being there..

Of Course it will be safe for her, the first time she is threatened, then expect our pathetic authorities, to give her a new identity, new area, new house, protection you and me can only dream about, sick twisted world we live in.

[Firefly]

Has anyone seen this baby ? I have seen her holding a 'bundle' but it could be anything.

WHL

Not often I agree with you, however you have just posted my thoughts also.

Jackie

[Jimgward]

She showed her baby off on the news last night

[WHL]

I would have no problem if the baby was brought back to the UK and then given to a family who would bring it up , no way should it be brought up by the mother's fanatical parents, their partly responsible for the mess their daughters in.

[Dominic]

On the subject, from today’s Economist:

Returning jihadists
When the bad guys come home

As Islamic State is defeated, governments around the world are struggling to deal with returning jihadists

...

No Western politician wants to be responsible for bringing potentially dangerous radicals back home. But leaving them in Syria or dumping them on developing countries does not make the problem go away. It also sends a message that Western governments do not care about the millions of Syrian and Iraqi lives their citizens helped to destroy.

This sums up my thoughts. It is our problem. However, she is guilty of treason, so should go to jail for a long time.