Shamima Begum...
Discussion
MC Bodge said:
eldar said:
MC Bodge said:
eldar said:
Allah is God's spokesperson, much as Jesus. Both Christian and Moslem have the same God, just different PR organisations.
Absolutely not an ecumenical matter.
I think you'll find that the prophet is the spokesman for the Abrhamic god known as Allah.Absolutely not an ecumenical matter.
Just to be clear, I think that all religions are equally untrue.
loafer123 said:
MC Bodge said:
It's almost as if some people don't actually care about the process, or the knock-on effects, just about one person being symbolically prevented from re-entering the country for a undefined reasons, on the whim of a home secretary.
It is quite concerning.
As the court has found, the Home Secretary has acted entirely in accordance with the law.It is quite concerning.
You are the one wishing to circumvent it.
Biggy Stardust said:
Mrr T said:
She had her citizenship revoked by the government on a technicality which has still to be tested in court. She did not legally renounce her citizenship.
She informally renounced it, the government ratified her decision. It's all good. 
ATG said:
loafer123 said:
MC Bodge said:
It's almost as if some people don't actually care about the process, or the knock-on effects, just about one person being symbolically prevented from re-entering the country for a undefined reasons, on the whim of a home secretary.
It is quite concerning.
As the court has found, the Home Secretary has acted entirely in accordance with the law.It is quite concerning.
You are the one wishing to circumvent it.
MC Bodge said:
It's almost as if some people don't actually care about the process, or the knock-on effects, just about one person being symbolically prevented from re-entering the country for a undefined reasons, on the whim of a home secretary.
It is quite concerning.
I don't think the Courts will allow cases on "undefined reasons", nor will they make judgements on "undefined reasons", as it goes against the very ethos of Law. (although IANAL) It is quite concerning.
Also, your claim of it being a "whim" of a home secretary is somewhat disingenuous, given that he could get himself in pretty hot water by making whimsical decisions.
whimsical /w?m?z?-k?l, hw?m?-/
adjective
Characterized by, arising from, or subject to whimsy.
"a whimsical decision."
Playful or fanciful, especially in a humorous way. Full of, or characterized by, whims; actuated by a whim; having peculiar notions; queer; strange; freakish.
Nothing humorous , queer or strange about his decision. Probably based on intelligence, facts and information us mere mortals are not party to.
However, as an edit in, that doesn't mean he wasn't useless like the rest of them at the time or the current shower we have in Govt. Just thought I'd add that.,
Edited by texaxile on Sunday 25th February 21:11
Edited by texaxile on Sunday 25th February 21:13
ATG said:
Duh, you think? The point being made is that it's dangerous to give the Home Secretary power like this, because even when you've got a vaguely sensible Home Secretary you still end up getting politicised decisions that ought to be objective. And it has been a long time since we've had a decent Home Secretary. Obviously it's legal, but it shouldn't be.
Is it more or less dangerous to the general public than giving terrorist supporters, sympathisers and with practical terrorist knowledge and skills free rein to return to this country?MC Bodge said:
ATG said:
loafer123 said:
MC Bodge said:
It's almost as if some people don't actually care about the process, or the knock-on effects, just about one person being symbolically prevented from re-entering the country for a undefined reasons, on the whim of a home secretary.
It is quite concerning.
As the court has found, the Home Secretary has acted entirely in accordance with the law.It is quite concerning.
You are the one wishing to circumvent it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
F1GTRUeno said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
MC Bodge said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
As I said a while back, I think most of us, if we set aside our anger and hatred, know that she's British, she's a product of British society, and it's our mess to clear up and we should be taking her back and dealing with her thru the UK courts. That seems bloody obvious to me.
But having said that, I still think the govt are right to play this game and delay her return for as long as possible. Refugee camps are dangerous places, there's disease, poor hygiene, malnutritian and food poisoning, not to mention outbreaks of random violence. The longer we can kick the can down the road and keep her there, the greater the chance that something fatal will befall her and the problem resolves itself.
So you do know that it's wrong, but you just hope that she will die to solve the problem?But having said that, I still think the govt are right to play this game and delay her return for as long as possible. Refugee camps are dangerous places, there's disease, poor hygiene, malnutritian and food poisoning, not to mention outbreaks of random violence. The longer we can kick the can down the road and keep her there, the greater the chance that something fatal will befall her and the problem resolves itself.
I was quite pleased when they fished the Clapham chemical attacker out of the Thames the other day too.
Parts of inner city Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool & London have a much lower average life expectancy than Kensington & Chelsea, or Virginia Water. Have they been given the death penaly too?
Just because I'm against the death penalty doesn't mean I'm not allowed to hope someone dies. Those a two entirely different things.
What would be the point of being against the death penalty if you hope people die anyway? Does that extremely thin layer of removal from you actually killing them to sending them out and hoping they die help in some way?
You're either for people dying because of who they are and their actions or you're against it. I don't think you get to split hairs on that. It's bulls
t trying to feel slightly morally superior for not wanting the penalty if you're happy for people to die, you just don't want to feel completely (just 99% instead) responsible for the death.Also says a lot that you're happy to hope someone dies.
Levin said:
It's interesting that you describe her as 'rather foolish', because that's exactly how Andrew Drury initially described her in The Sun when he met her in a refugee camp. In fact, Drury initially believed she was likely a victim of trafficking, an impression he rescinds in the same article. The impression he gives is that she is a manipulator. The final judgment makes clear that Begum is not a foolish girl, having been on track for all A and A* grades at GCSE before she flew to Turkey.
By February 2015, ISIS activities were blatantly obvious. The media wing had been producing very slickly edited videos of various atrocities. The spate of beheadings by 'Jihadi John' began in August 2014 and much ink was spilt on the topic. It is inconceivable that the Bethnal Green girls - including Sharmeena Begum (no relation to Shamima), who left months earlier - could not have known what the group was involved in. I remember ISIS propagandists being very active on Twitter during the period too, though of course given those accounts are banned it's very hard to illustrate that.
Is there not the possibility that you can be intellectually bright enough to get A/A* GCSE's and be people wise-enough to manipulate them knowingly and still be manipulated and foolish yourself?By February 2015, ISIS activities were blatantly obvious. The media wing had been producing very slickly edited videos of various atrocities. The spate of beheadings by 'Jihadi John' began in August 2014 and much ink was spilt on the topic. It is inconceivable that the Bethnal Green girls - including Sharmeena Begum (no relation to Shamima), who left months earlier - could not have known what the group was involved in. I remember ISIS propagandists being very active on Twitter during the period too, though of course given those accounts are banned it's very hard to illustrate that.
The those that honestly think that you're capable of making rational decisions at 15/16, how f
king old are you? Like you've completely forgotten what it's like to be a teenager or what teenagers are like in general. Even the smart ones are fking idiots.Laws exist to cater for everyone in a rational and moral way. This whole thing stinks of emotional views sabotaging rationality and morality in the law.
It doesn't reflect well on us that we're willing to strip products of our own society of their citizenship. Shows a complete lack of ability to reflect internally at what went wrong and do something properly about everything that caused it because it's a lot harder than destroying one individual instead.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Monday 26th February 02:02
TriumphStag3.0V8 said:
MC Bodge said:
ATG said:
loafer123 said:
MC Bodge said:
It's almost as if some people don't actually care about the process, or the knock-on effects, just about one person being symbolically prevented from re-entering the country for a undefined reasons, on the whim of a home secretary.
It is quite concerning.
As the court has found, the Home Secretary has acted entirely in accordance with the law.It is quite concerning.
You are the one wishing to circumvent it.
I've been looking at both sides of the debate on this one.
Much as I detest IS & all the other terror outfits, on balance I think Begum should have her day in court.
As others have pointed out, she is a product of our society & cannot simply be banished, much like one would be banished from one's hometown in the dark ages.
Much as I detest IS & all the other terror outfits, on balance I think Begum should have her day in court.
As others have pointed out, she is a product of our society & cannot simply be banished, much like one would be banished from one's hometown in the dark ages.
MC Bodge said:
ATG said:
loafer123 said:
MC Bodge said:
It's almost as if some people don't actually care about the process, or the knock-on effects, just about one person being symbolically prevented from re-entering the country for a undefined reasons, on the whim of a home secretary.
It is quite concerning.
As the court has found, the Home Secretary has acted entirely in accordance with the law.It is quite concerning.
You are the one wishing to circumvent it.
A HS has the right to revoke citizenship of a person who has dual citizenship for many reasons, mainly some criminal act. Such an action can be appealed, often under HRA right to family life. Her citizenship was revoked even though there are questions as to whether she really had Bangladesh citizenship. She is not now able to apply. There was an attempt to appeal the decision but her circumstances meant she could not instruct council so the case could not proceed. The decision to revoke has never been reviewed by the court.
The HS has an absolute right to ban any non citizen from entering the country. She was banned so she could not return to fight the decision to revoke.
I care little for this woman but I do dislike the idea that all UK citizens of Bangladeshi parents are less UK citizens than others.
Biker 1 said:
I've been looking at both sides of the debate on this one.
Much as I detest IS & all the other terror outfits, on balance I think Begum should have her day in court.
She has had several days in court already, represented by her lawyers.Much as I detest IS & all the other terror outfits, on balance I think Begum should have her day in court.
If you mean criminal charges the issue these is that the burden of proof is high - beyond reasonable doubt - for crimes committed in a warzone where many of the witnesses are dead. I am perfectly happy with her being deprived of UK citizenship instead. Problem solved. She obviously hated the UK so now she no longer has to live here.
ATG said:
loafer123 said:
MC Bodge said:
It's almost as if some people don't actually care about the process, or the knock-on effects, just about one person being symbolically prevented from re-entering the country for a undefined reasons, on the whim of a home secretary.
It is quite concerning.
As the court has found, the Home Secretary has acted entirely in accordance with the law.It is quite concerning.
You are the one wishing to circumvent it.
In 2019, 78% of people polled supported the then Home Secretary's decision, and subseuqent court cases have repeatedly referenced information from the secret services that she is a danger to the country.
People that don't agree have that right, but are a minority.
F1GTRUeno said:
It feels a lot like semantics.
What would be the point of being against the death penalty if you hope people die anyway? Does that extremely thin layer of removal from you actually killing them to sending them out and hoping they die help in some way?
You're either for people dying because of who they are and their actions or you're against it. I don't think you get to split hairs on that. It's bullst trying to feel slightly morally superior for not wanting the penalty if you're happy for people to die, you just don't want to feel completely (just 99% instead) responsible for the death.
Also says a lot that you're happy to hope someone dies.
I think that's complete rubbish. There's a massive difference between killing someone and hoping they die. I think the law agrees with me, as I'm currently not languishing in Jail, despite being a mass "hoping people die-er". I've got a list of about 30, including a bloke who lives a few doors down from my mum and is an absolute What would be the point of being against the death penalty if you hope people die anyway? Does that extremely thin layer of removal from you actually killing them to sending them out and hoping they die help in some way?
You're either for people dying because of who they are and their actions or you're against it. I don't think you get to split hairs on that. It's bulls
t trying to feel slightly morally superior for not wanting the penalty if you're happy for people to die, you just don't want to feel completely (just 99% instead) responsible for the death.Also says a lot that you're happy to hope someone dies.
, and makes everyone's life in that street a complete misery. Beats his wife too.As for "Also says a lot that you're happy to hope someone dies", you're right. It says I'm honest and quite normal. If you weren't pleased to hear about the death of Osama Bin Laden, Robert Mugabe, and if you won't be happy to hear about the death of Putin, then I think it's you that needs to take a long hard look at yourself, not me.
Not sure if it's been mentioned elsewhere, and the legal niceties are different, but France has just deported an Imam for hate speech who's been living and raising a family there for more than forty years:
https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20240223-tunisi...
Not saying that's good, bad, or likely to solve much long term, but maybe it increases their domestic security short term.
Edit: what I found hopeful is that the Imam has said he's been misquoted / misunderstood, which kind of suggests when things get real maybe some of these fervent beliefs aren't quite as rigid as they appear.
https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20240223-tunisi...
Not saying that's good, bad, or likely to solve much long term, but maybe it increases their domestic security short term.
Edit: what I found hopeful is that the Imam has said he's been misquoted / misunderstood, which kind of suggests when things get real maybe some of these fervent beliefs aren't quite as rigid as they appear.
Edited by Hammersia on Monday 26th February 10:32
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff