Shamima Begum...

[1602Mark]

Northernboy said:

1602Mark said:

This. Add the PTSD from the things she will have seen and suffered herself and it's not really that surprising that she reacts as she does when questioned. These kids are groomed in much the same way and using the same techniques as peadophiles. Some are clearly more sophisticated than others but they prey on the vulnerable. Social media has such a massive influence over these kids and they fall for a narrative. It's not just here in the UK either.

Could you have been groomed at sixteen, in the UK, living at home, to want to burn people to death in cages, and murder gay men by throwing them off buildings?

I don’t believe that that’s possible, in your case or hers. She wanted to take part in the slaughter, to pretend it’s not her fault is ridiculous.

You might be surprised at the things people can be persuaded to do in the name of belief. I work with clients that will do all manner of things, such as putting the safety of a small baby ahead of that of a man who's repeatedly punched, kicked and burnt her with cigarettes. Or excused repeated violent rapes by her partner (and his friends) because it was a demonstration of how much she meant to him. Outrageous cases of extreme violence that become normalised and every day to some, yet are incredulous to people not directly involved.

[anonymoususer]

I will NEVER forget the gullibility of the UK authorities when they eloped.
The parents were invited to a House of commons committee thing with all expenses paid
We had the sight of some Police Chief apologising for these people leaving the UK
We then had the spectacle of one of the parents clutching a teddy bear (you really couldn't make this up)

Then one of those pesky right wing fascist newspapers uncovered footage of the caring parent being present at some meeting of the mullahs where a flag was burnt.
Oh how we laughed at these minor details oh how enriched we felt that these people live amongst us

[PeteinSQ]

F1GTRUeno said:

You missed my point entirely, it wasn't a comparison.

Just that they've been given ammo by us stripping her of her citizenship and everyone commenting with the likes of 'fk her, she can rot and die', we're not excatly proving ourselves to be the just nation or rational, understanding, educated society that we think we are. We're just cavemen savages.

She should've been brought back and then put on trial and then to prison. All this does is blot our copybook and feed our worst instincts of lacking humanity and empathy. ISIS and the likes can use that to recruit by showing that we're terrible.

Anyone can be radicalised at any time but imagine being a 15-year old Muslim kid in Britain with not a lot going for her and no real feeling of belonging to society and suddenly someone offers her a chance of something other than utter ste for the rest of her life? I'd have probably taken it in her position. That's prime conditions for someone to completely brainwash you into believing in something that if thought of rationally, you wouldn;t.

We've seen just how bad social media is for brainwashing people and bolstering echo chambers, to be 15 year old and make heads or tails of the world in amongst current life is hard enough, then add in factors that Begum has unique to her position in life.

She was a monumental fking idiot, but I don't think she's evil, she just hasn't been given the opportunity to realise how much of a monumental fking idiot she is. Even with stripping of citizenship and barring her from entry, the fact that she still believes what she believes shows just what an effective job they did to her. That would require a lot of work to reset.

Edited by F1GTRUeno on Sunday 28th February 01:12

What would she actually put on trial for? Has she actually killed anyone or attempted to kill anyone? I think this is at least half of the problem, it would be a lot easier to have her come back here if there was a realistic possibility that she could be sent to jail for any length of time. The fact is she would come back, most likely not go to prison (or if she did it wouldn't be for that long) and we'd then have to follow her around for the rest of her life on the off chance she decided to commit an act of terror.

I'm certainly not mourning the fact she can't come back. She made her daft life choice and as far as I'm concerned she can live with the consequences.

[Northernboy]

1602Mark said:

You might be surprised at the things people can be persuaded to do in the name of belief. I work with clients that will do all manner of things, such as putting the safety of a small baby ahead of that of a man who's repeatedly punched, kicked and burnt her with cigarettes. Or excused repeated violent rapes by her partner (and his friends) because it was a demonstration of how much she meant to him. Outrageous cases of extreme violence that become normalised and every day to some, yet are incredulous to people not directly involved.

But then we don’t let the people off who did this, saying that they had a bad upbringing, or knew no better. I’m not sure why people are so keen to excuse this woman’s activities.

[PeteinSQ]

We don't tend to let people off the hook exactly, but we don't throw the key away either. If whatever crime she is being accused of was committed here she'd be sent to prison and they'd have a bash at rehabilitating her before releasing her.

What crime is she actually supposed to have actually done though? I don't think there's much evidence to say that she actually harmed anyone is there?

[speedyman]

PeteinSQ said:

We don't tend to let people off the hook exactly, but we don't throw the key away either. If whatever crime she is being accused of was committed here she'd be sent to prison and they'd have a bash at rehabilitating her before releasing her.

What crime is she actually supposed to have actually done though? I don't think there's much evidence to say that she actually harmed anyone is there?

Ask Lord Haw Haw what harm he did. Germany calling, Germany calling. Hanged for treason, never fired a shot.

[Vanden Saab]

It is interesting that the same people who believe that actions have consequences in the case of alleged racists or anti-trans or even those flying an all lives matter banner then turn a full 180 degrees and suggest that going to a war zone to support a bunch of religious fanatics can be consequence free. Such is the utter hypocrisy of the woke.

[PeteinSQ]

I'm certainly not saying there shouldn't be consequences (I'm not even saying that personally I'm bothered about her coming back), but whilst discussing it on here usually british citizens face consequences by being sent to prison. She's being banished which seems like a new one.

[PeteinSQ]

speedyman said:

Ask Lord Haw Haw what harm he did. Germany calling, Germany calling. Hanged for treason, never fired a shot.

But she wasn't a propagandist? She went to live in the caliphate, not fight for it or broadcast on its behalf so I'm not sure that is the right comparison. Stupidly she wanted to live in the islamic fantasy world. Were there any british people that went to live in Nazi Germany during the war because they thought fascism was smashing but didn't actively take part in propaganda etc?

[anonymous-user]

PeteinSQ said:

She's being banished which seems like a new one.

So what part of the law and supreme judgement do you disagree with. Lets cut all through the ''brain washing,'' ''grooming'' ''wacist'', and get down to the detail.

Are the defenders of her liability saying the courts are wrong, they know more than the law, what is it then want to say?

[eldar]

speedyman said:

Ask Lord Haw Haw what harm he did. Germany calling, Germany calling. Hanged for treason, never fired a shot.

Interesting case, that. We probably hanged a foreign citizen for treason.

[Vanden Saab]

PeteinSQ said:

I'm certainly not saying there shouldn't be consequences (I'm not even saying that personally I'm bothered about her coming back), but whilst discussing it on here usually british citizens face consequences by being sent to prison. She's being banished which seems like a new one.

it is not new at all people have been having their UK citizenship revoked for over 100 years. She wasn't banished either she left of her own free will and we are just denying her the means to return.

[PeteinSQ]

The Spruce Goose said:

So what part of the law and supreme judgement do you disagree with. Lets cut all through the ''brain washing,'' ''grooming'' ''wacist'', and get down to the detail.

Are the defenders of her liability saying the courts are wrong, they know more than the law, what is it then want to say?

I'm not even taking issue with the law. Just think it's an interesting discussion.

[anonymous-user]

PeteinSQ said:

I'm not even taking issue with the law. Just think it's an interesting discussion.

The thing is, the judgement might align with peoples thoughts on her, but it doesn't make the judgement less worthy because it goes against her supporters viewpoint.

The court surely must have taken all factors into play before setting this precedent, which is why cut all the emotive bks away, what legal precedent is at fault here?

[AJL308]

PeteinSQ said:

speedyman said:

Ask Lord Haw Haw what harm he did. Germany calling, Germany calling. Hanged for treason, never fired a shot.

But she wasn't a propagandist? She went to live in the caliphate, not fight for it or broadcast on its behalf so I'm not sure that is the right comparison. Stupidly she wanted to live in the islamic fantasy world. Were there any british people that went to live in Nazi Germany during the war because they thought fascism was smashing but didn't actively take part in propaganda etc?

The key point is that she went there to support it. She was there to provide kids to populate the caliphate and as a regular fk for it's fighters. Being a member of ISIL is almost certainly an offence here too.

[AJL308]

eldar said:

speedyman said:

Ask Lord Haw Haw what harm he did. Germany calling, Germany calling. Hanged for treason, never fired a shot.

Interesting case, that. We probably hanged a foreign citizen for treason.

There were questions asked about his case but he left the UK on the basis of displaying a British passport. If he was happy to use a UK passport to enable him to travel, the purpose of which was to undermine the war effort, then he was obliged to adhere to it's conditions and to the law of the UK.

[skwdenyer]

AJL308 said:

PeteinSQ said:

speedyman said:

Ask Lord Haw Haw what harm he did. Germany calling, Germany calling. Hanged for treason, never fired a shot.

But she wasn't a propagandist? She went to live in the caliphate, not fight for it or broadcast on its behalf so I'm not sure that is the right comparison. Stupidly she wanted to live in the islamic fantasy world. Were there any british people that went to live in Nazi Germany during the war because they thought fascism was smashing but didn't actively take part in propaganda etc?

The key point is that she went there to support it. She was there to provide kids to populate the caliphate and as a regular fk for it's fighters. Being a member of ISIL is almost certainly an offence here too.

As has been said elsewhere, when a 15 year old white girl is groomed into an entirely new belief set, we call her a victim.

The offence SB committed was committed as a child. There's a reason many US status have sealed records for juveniles - offences committed when young should not be excused, but should not haunt one forever. It is something I fundamentally disagree with in this country, that we do not follow suit.

Since then, what has happened? Some here seem to be suggesting that, now older, SB should have somehow "got over it" and be now showing remorse; if not, she's evil. That's not how grooming or programming works.

SB may have been silly at 15. She's also clearly a victim of circumstance. For as long as the UK denies her the right to return, to be helped, she's not going to soften her views - after all, the UK is now avowedly her enemy. All for something she did as a child when, it is seemingly beyond doubt, under the influence of people who had no right to be messing with the head of a teenager. What she did once she arrived there was a consequence of what took her there in the first place. Is that so very hard to see?

Read up on cults across the world; survivors need to be rescued, deprogrammed, supported. At the point of rescue, many show affinity for their captors / abusers / groomers. If we judged them on the remorse (or lack of) they showed, we'd never move forward. This thread seems dominated by people entirely unable to comprehend that others' experience of the world may not be the same as theirs.

If the UK had spent 1/100 of the amount they have on trying to keep her out on bringing her back and helping her, she'd be able to have a productive life. If she didn't happen, by accident of birth, to have some potential claim to some other citizenship, there'd be no question but that we'd take her back. Honestly, if she were white I don't think we'd be where we are either.

The whole sorry case tells us a great deal about who we are as a society; I'm honestly pretty sad about the implications.

[loafer123]

If people can leave the country to act as terrorists and return home with open arms, more will do so.

By removing her citizenship and making it clear she isn’t welcome back, others considering the same thing will think twice and will dwell upon the benefits of our way of life and what they stand to lose.

[anonymous-user]

fesuvious said:

Maybe we're starting to recognise the Islamist belief system as so extreme and incompatible governments will treat it separately.

If you want to declare loyalty to a caliphate then you've declared that you are in no way compatible with a free way if life. Moreover the risks associated with allowing you to spread your beliefs are such that we don't want you.

In a nuttshell and rightly so.

[LukeBrown66]

I would also suggest she has a Muslim lawyer who is trying very hard to get her back, thereby making his life notably better in the future!