Shamima Begum...

[biggbn]

Brooking10 said:

Mark Benson said:

sugerbear said:

Dromedary66 said:

Sickening, and the people who make it their life's work to help out scum like this are a massive part of the problem.

.

Barristers dont get to pick and choose who they help. The law is all we have to protect us, just remember that before you go off on one.

I said many pages ago that the SJ's actions in this case would end up costing taxpayers millions because he is playing fast and loose with the law and has chosen a course which was always likely to be challenged in court (and taxpayers pay for those courts). SJ chose the popular option, not the right one.

Now we get to pick up the tab - I don't blame the lawyers/barristers, I place the blame 100% on the shoulders of the home secretary for his stupidity in choosing the course of action he did.

I'm 100% in agreement with this. The law must apply equally to all, whether we like it or not but this decision was based on rescuing falling popularity and a possible leadership contest rather than pragmatism I fear.

Add another supporting voice.

Several of us made exactly these points at the start of this thread.

Regrettably we were, and continue to be , branded “hand wringers”, “sympathisers”, “do gooders” etc.

Yet more agreement, for consistency if nothing else

[biggbn]

skwdenyer said:

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.

Thank you for this thoughtful post.

[biggbn]

skwdenyer said:

Biggy Stardust said:

One went abroad to help terrorists, the others were victimised. It's fairly easy to differentiate between them if you use that metric.

Interesting. Was ISIS in that area a terrorist organisation, or an ethno-religious group establishing territory by conquest (just like, say, the Taliban who we’re now happy to endorse as the Government of Afghanistan)?

The world simply isn’t black and white. I didn’t like ISIS, nor did I support them, but that’s a long way from grounds for what we’ve done to Begum.

Do people not grasp that we win by being better than others, not by stopping to their level? We’d have done far more good in the world by allowing her back and, if necessary, trying her in a British court.

100%

[biggbn]

There are several threads here where people defend the views and actions of others because 'they were young/stupid/now realise their mistake' but in cases like this that kind of 'defence' is simply deemed unacceptable?

[biggbn]

Biggy Stardust said:

biggbn said:

There are several threads here where people defend the views and actions of others because 'they were young/stupid/now realise their mistake' but in cases like this that kind of 'defence' is simply deemed unacceptable?

I stupidly supported Derby County when I was ten but I'd suggest that joining an organisation that beheads people when significantly older is in a different league.

Not quite the same fella.

[biggbn]

eldar said:

biggbn said:

There are several threads here where people defend the views and actions of others because 'they were young/stupid/now realise their mistake' but in cases like this that kind of 'defence' is simply deemed unacceptable?

Those live with the unwise choices they make, and as the adults they now are realise the errors they made.

Ms Begum wishes to wind back time, rather than live with choice she made.

Explain further please?

[biggbn]

Biggy Stardust said:

biggbn said:

Biggy Stardust said:

biggbn said:

There are several threads here where people defend the views and actions of others because 'they were young/stupid/now realise their mistake' but in cases like this that kind of 'defence' is simply deemed unacceptable?

I stupidly supported Derby County when I was ten but I'd suggest that joining an organisation that beheads people when significantly older is in a different league.

Not quite the same fella.

I agree with you totally; one is a small kid's stupidity, the other is a significantly older kid's decision to break many laws to join an evil organisation & support it for years until it suddenly wasn't winning.

We all have the potential to be better than the worst thing we have ever done.

[biggbn]

eldar said:

biggbn said:

eldar said:

biggbn said:

There are several threads here where people defend the views and actions of others because 'they were young/stupid/now realise their mistake' but in cases like this that kind of 'defence' is simply deemed unacceptable?

Those live with the unwise choices they make, and as the adults they now are realise the errors they made.

Ms Begum wishes to wind back time, rather than live with choice she made.

Explain further please?

You've made your bed, lie on it.

Plus the question of how much of a threat is she to the UK population. Is her demand for dual UK and Bangladeshi citizenship superior to the UK citizen's ability to live safely.

The case is about the current situation, not history.

So, in your view, there is simply no way back for anyone who has made poor or dangerous decisions early in their life?

[biggbn]

Biggy Stardust said:

biggbn said:

So, in your view, there is simply no way back for anyone who has made poor or dangerous decisions early in their life?

You seem to believe that she's capable of reform. Others believe that she isn't.

I believe anyone has the potential to reform, others don't. I'm not sure why in this case in particulalr, she is/was young, impressionable, she was allegedly groomed so if she could be 'educated' one way, why not the other? Or are people saying once one falls under the power of dangerous, powerful people there is no way back? Think about the repercussions if that is the case?

[biggbn]

Smiler. said:

biggbn said:

So, in your view, there is simply no way back for anyone who has made poor or dangerous decisions early in their life?

Yes, there has to be. And not limited to early life, at any time in a life.

But the trust needed to accept former perpetrators is not on their terms & has to be earned.

Agreed

[biggbn]

Don Roque said:

skwdenyer said:

I only hope you're never on the wrong end of that stick.

She made her choice when she ran off to join ISIS. There is no coming back from that.

So, again, you believe that a decision taken at a young age should define you for the rest of your life, no chance of rehabikiration, no chance of living a life, a decision taken at 15 defines an individual for life? We have people on threads about far right activists and terrorists saying 'ah, but that post was 15 years ago, we've all made mistakes haven't we?'

Seems like double standards at play. I'm glad I have not been judged on my previous actions or and I am eternally grateful to have been given second chances, my life would be immeasurably different had that not happened

[biggbn]

dundarach said:

I'm still to be convinced that what we've done to her isn't anything more than the actions of a populist coward!

She's our problem, we raised her, we schooled her, we created her and we washed our hands of the problem we created.

Our response was and is, an embarrassment.

I appreciate I'm in a minority and I'm using the collective 'we'.

No you're not brother man.

[biggbn]

loafer123 said:

skwdenyer said:

Biggy Stardust said:

skwdenyer said:

Biggy Stardust said:

skwdenyer said:

I don't think you understand the law as it is written.

I don't think you understand (or perhaps don't accept) the way that the law is written; SB had her citizenship legally rescinded even though you don't like it.

That wasn't what I was replying-to.

My comments stand.

Fair enough. Then you understand that there was no opportunity for her to present mitigating circumstances, since there has been no hearing in which such submissions would have been accepted.

So what?

The revocation of her citizenship was legal, and is supported by a significant majority of the population.

It therefore appears that you are the one with the problem.

'If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind'

J.S.Mill.

I agree with skwdenyer.

[biggbn]

loafer123 said:

skwdenyer said:

loafer123 said:

So what?

The revocation of her citizenship was legal, and is supported by a significant majority of the population.

It therefore appears that you are the one with the problem.

"Legal" under the UN Convention? That's debatable. "Legal" under the HRA/ECHR? That's also debatable - because all the hearings have been held whilst she's outside the country, and after being stripped of citizenship, etc. - it will be for the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to decide that.

As regards public opinion, there's no doubt “ISIS wife”, “Jihadi bride”, etc. have converted her in to a social pariah. I see you're advocating mob rule - shall we go back to "no blacks, no Irish" signs again, too?

Her return to the country is not in the interests of the public, and according to our security services, for whom I have a very considerably higher regard than I do for you, and who have much better information than you or me, consider her a security risk to the country.

As I said, this is a “you problem”, and your tiresome “whataboutery” in multiple posts is disingenuous at best.

As I have posted several times today, this IS a discussion forum isn't it? Or would people prefer to use it as a cathartic release for like minded opinions, a primal scream of unanimity? If that's the case, I ain't buying that brand of group think Jack.

[biggbn]

DeejRC said:

If one has actually studied Mill then you would know he must be read in conjunction with Bentham at least and can’t be read in isolation. Generally speaking he is also taught to be read with Hobbes and Locke. The four of them together basically being regarded as the foundation basis for all of the evolution of British social contract thinking between States and individuals since and therefore, also the basis of American thoughts on this.

All the legalese arguments currently being bandied about are effectively tenuous continuation arguments of the above.
My own thoughts happen to lie somewhere in the middle. Were I actually involved in the practical governance/administration of this matter, I’d simply have had her quietly slotted a cpl of yrs ago when nobody gave a fk about her cos we all had more important news cycles.

I think I'd disagree with the notion that any philosopher should be read with or alongside another, one shoukd feel at liberty, no pun intended, to read whomever one wants whenever one likes. I much prefer Mill to Bentham, whose idea of utilitarianism would have led us to an ignorant, indolent populace. Mills idea of making the higher pleasures available to more of the population appeals to me much more, free art galleries, opera etc...., as he said to counter Benthams 'pig in a trough' approach, 'It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question' I think Mills stands alone, head and shoulders above the others as an emancipatory free thinker who inspres through encouraging freedom of thought rather than association.

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 23 November 19:05

[biggbn]

DeejRC said:

biggbn said:

DeejRC said:

If one has actually studied Mill then you would know he must be read in conjunction with Bentham at least and can’t be read in isolation. Generally speaking he is also taught to be read with Hobbes and Locke. The four of them together basically being regarded as the foundation basis for all of the evolution of British social contract thinking between States and individuals since and therefore, also the basis of American thoughts on this.

All the legalese arguments currently being bandied about are effectively tenuous continuation arguments of the above.
My own thoughts happen to lie somewhere in the middle. Were I actually involved in the practical governance/administration of this matter, I’d simply have had her quietly slotted a cpl of yrs ago when nobody gave a fk about her cos we all had more important news cycles.

I think I'd disagree with the notion that any philosopher should be read with or alongside another

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 23 November 19:05

Well that is your prerogative, but you would fail every degree course in the country which teaches this stuff. It is the basis for all the arguments currently on going and they would fail you because they would consider you to have insufficiently read, contemplated and studied the subject matter.
I’m not defending the academic position on this, my old dept would deny all knowledge of my existence, I hold similar views about them and I absconded to the engineering world as fast I possibly could once I’d suffered my time with them.
It just is what it is. It’s precisely why I *dont* get involved in these debates. I wasn’t then, I’m not now, nor will I ever enough of an idealist to give much of a fk about things either way. I default to the practical pov - which is probably why I became an engineer!
For the record though I am somewhat glad that the sanctimonious, pretentious, whinging, awkward, idealogical types like yourself and Skw exist to care about this stuff, precisely because someone should do. Someone should fight the fight, that fact alone keeps the debate alive. The governorship of the country should never ever be left to the likes of me. Frankly it’s why I never ever want Michael Gove in No10!!

Perhaps you have been 'academically conditioned' to read things a certain way? I have a first class honours degree in philosophy and English lit brother man, probably well beneath your qualifications; and I mean that, I'm sure we have discussed philosophy before and your grasp of the subject is beyond mine, which at degree level is a whistle stop tour of the big hitters, but for me my approach served me well. I'm not sure your description of me is fair, but that is your prerogative. Take care, gbn x

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 23 November 19:50

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 23 November 19:56

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 23 November 20:46

[biggbn]

skwdenyer said:

biggbn said:

DeejRC said:

biggbn said:

DeejRC said:

If one has actually studied Mill then you would know he must be read in conjunction with Bentham at least and can’t be read in isolation. Generally speaking he is also taught to be read with Hobbes and Locke. The four of them together basically being regarded as the foundation basis for all of the evolution of British social contract thinking between States and individuals since and therefore, also the basis of American thoughts on this.

All the legalese arguments currently being bandied about are effectively tenuous continuation arguments of the above.
My own thoughts happen to lie somewhere in the middle. Were I actually involved in the practical governance/administration of this matter, I’d simply have had her quietly slotted a cpl of yrs ago when nobody gave a fk about her cos we all had more important news cycles.

I think I'd disagree with the notion that any philosopher should be read with or alongside another

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 23 November 19:05

Well that is your prerogative, but you would fail every degree course in the country which teaches this stuff. It is the basis for all the arguments currently on going and they would fail you because they would consider you to have insufficiently read, contemplated and studied the subject matter.
I’m not defending the academic position on this, my old dept would deny all knowledge of my existence, I hold similar views about them and I absconded to the engineering world as fast I possibly could once I’d suffered my time with them.
It just is what it is. It’s precisely why I *dont* get involved in these debates. I wasn’t then, I’m not now, nor will I ever enough of an idealist to give much of a fk about things either way. I default to the practical pov - which is probably why I became an engineer!
For the record though I am somewhat glad that the sanctimonious, pretentious, whinging, awkward, idealogical types like yourself and Skw exist to care about this stuff, precisely because someone should do. Someone should fight the fight, that fact alone keeps the debate alive. The governorship of the country should never ever be left to the likes of me. Frankly it’s why I never ever want Michael Gove in No10!!

Perhaps you have been 'academically conditioned' to read things a certain way? I have a first class honours degree in philosophy and English lit brother man, probably well beneath your qualifications but for me my approach served me well. I'm not sure your description of me is fair, but that is your prerogative. Take care, gbn x

The irony is I hold a 1st in Mechanical Engineering, but I'm the "sanctimonious, pretentious, whinging, awkward, idealogical type" whose role it is to help protect the country from the engineers

People will form their own opinions and there is nothing I can do about that, I would strongly refute being sanctimonious, pretentious, whinging, awkward or ideological but freely admit to being an idealist who sees the good in situations and people. It took me a long time to get here but here is where I am. I love the fact people judge each other, I am bound to be guilty of it myself, yet the reality of one's situation rarely meets the expectations of the imagined persona. I've spent 30 years working doors and lived a violent life for many years, all of which helped me decide, eventually, that it wasn't my bag. But it's in there. And it always will be. But I prefer being viewed as an idealist fool online than a mindless thug having been on the other side of both perceptions.

Stay safe all, I've enjoyed this chat, peace, gbn x

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 23 November 20:38

[biggbn]

Pupp said:

biggbn said:

People will form their own opinions and there is nothing I can do about that, I would strongly refute being sanctimonious, pretentious, whinging, awkward or ideological but freely admit to being an idealist who sees the good in situations and people. It took me a long time to get here but here is where I am. I love the fact people judge each other, I am bound to be guilty of it myself, yet the reality of one's situation rarely meets the expectations of the imagined persona. I've spent 30 years working doors and lived a violent life for many years, all of which helped me decide, eventually, that it wasn't my bag. But it's in there. And it always will be. But I prefer being viewed as an idealist fool online than a mindless thug having been on the other side of both perceptions.

Stay safe all, I've enjoyed this chat, peace, gbn x

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 23 November 20:38

Clearly very far from mindless fella; as to thug we might need more insight. Start another thread (and PM me the link)!

[biggbn]

The immense pride I feel in being part of an advanced, diverse, tolerant society that encourages rehabilitation and welcomes disenfranchised and persecuted peoples from around the world lessens daily as these high standards are eroded and become less valued by an ever larger section of society.

[biggbn]

Great debate on LBC right now about this, David Davis particulalry impressive