|
Post by ravey123 on Feb 22, 2023 19:11:21 GMT
Have to say I am pleasantly astonished, not because I thought she should win, more a case of being convinced a judgement in her favour was inevitable. Still, there will no doubt be an appeal as her lawyers have said. This isn't over and won't be until she's allowed back in. The cynic in me thinks the judge has been influenced to find against her in the short term so as to repel the growing reballion around an alternative to ECHR for which there would have been an outcry had she won. Its just cosily on the back burner and once she appeals and wins, the long term aims for the powers that be will be to have squared any displeasure at ECHR away. It's hard to show any level of sympathy for this deeply unpleasant person. However my understanding (I'm no stranger to being wrong) is that under present and proposed (Nationalities and Borders Bill) UK Law it is not legal to deprive someone of Citizenship if it makes them Stateless, which is what has happened. Briefly reading through the Judgement it is evident from the wording that this is very much round 1. The Immigration Tribunal Court concluded that its scope was narrow and constrained to considering whether she should be allowd entry to UK and not whether the revocation was legal in the first place or indeed if the case was proven that she was a threat to National Security or not. In fact it concluded that other eminent people reviewing the evidence presented to Javid when he revoked her Citizenship might well reach a different conclusion There were many references to the Supreme Court and Article 8 ECHR which is inevitably where this is heading I find it uneasy if their is a case which can be proved that Begum is a threat to National Security why not try her in a British Court, "in camera" if necessary It is ironic that many who trumpet "innocent until proven guilty" in other circumstances see no conflict in applauding this Judgement I suspect this will run and run for some time yet It’s a hell of a nice little earner for the lawyers
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Feb 22, 2023 19:16:32 GMT
If she can’t be executed she should rot in Syria
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Feb 22, 2023 19:53:30 GMT
My view is she’s made her bed and should lie in it but also think we should all just accept that this is a process and eventually she will return to these shores
It’s as inevitable as night follows day
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 22, 2023 22:11:07 GMT
Don't we as a nation have an international obligation to take her back?
She was born here, educated here and radicalised here, why should she become Syria's problem, they didn't invite her?
What I mean is, imagine if the boot was on the other foot? What if she had been born in Syria and she was here? There would be tabloid headlines every day, demanding that we send her back, why should she become OUR problem?
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Feb 22, 2023 22:37:35 GMT
Don't we as a nation have an international obligation to take her back? She was born here, educated here and radicalised here, why should she become Syria's problem, they didn't invite her? What I mean is, imagine if the boot was on the other foot? What if she had been born in Syria and she was here? There would be tabloid headlines every day, demanding that we send her back, why should she become OUR problem? If the boot was on the other foot she would be using every legal means under the sun to try and stay here and spin it out as long as possible. Pretty much what the UK government are doing now.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 22, 2023 22:46:57 GMT
Don't we as a nation have an international obligation to take her back? She was born here, educated here and radicalised here, why should she become Syria's problem, they didn't invite her? What I mean is, imagine if the boot was on the other foot? What if she had been born in Syria and she was here? There would be tabloid headlines every day, demanding that we send her back, why should she become OUR problem? If the boot was on the other foot she would be using every legal means under the sun to try and stay here and spin it out as long as possible. Pretty much what the UK government are doing now. Indeed, if we won't take her back, why should we expect other countries to take back people we don't want here? What happens when the next Abu Hamza turns up on our shores? (Look how long it took to get rid of him). Other countries are taking back their ISIS fighters, what makes us a special case, so we don't have to?
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Feb 22, 2023 22:54:39 GMT
With the exception of her family, any friends she has left and her legal team there isn't a person in the country who wants to see her back on these shores.
However, washing our hands of responsibility of her weakens us on the international stage. Couple that with the poetic conclusion of Western democratic justice being delivered upon terrorists is how this should end.
No great rush, mind.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Feb 23, 2023 10:10:51 GMT
even though i wouldn't mind giving her one i'd be worried in case i was found the next morning without my head attached .
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 23, 2023 13:59:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 23, 2023 14:28:23 GMT
And he's completely correct.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 23, 2023 14:31:55 GMT
It's all rather disconcerting, this is the second time in the last few days I have agreed with Rees-Mogg The previous time I put it down to stopped clock syndrome It's some state of affairs that a former DPP and current Leader of the Labour Party takes the establishment viewpoint Even worse as a trained legal expert he disingenuously attempts to justify the position by saying the decision was right as the Court looked at the evidence Indeed it did and concluded that based on the evidence on which Javid removed Begums Citizenship he could see many other eminent people reaching a different decision Ultimately the Court reached its decision based on the narrow remit it is allowed. This constant drip drip of Starmer taking populist positions completely reversing his previous position is troublesome
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 23, 2023 15:38:27 GMT
It's all rather disconcerting, this is the second time in the last few days I have agreed with Rees-Mogg The previous time I put it down to stopped clock syndrome It's some state of affairs that a former DPP and current Leader of the Labour Party takes the establishment viewpoint Even worse as a trained legal expert he disingenuously attempts to justify the position by saying the decision was right as the Court looked at the evidence Indeed it did and concluded that based on the evidence on which Javid removed Begums Citizenship he could see many other eminent people reaching a different decision Ultimately the Court reached its decision based on the narrow remit it is allowed. This constant drip drip of Starmer taking populist positions completely reversing his previous position is troublesome He also mentioned being able to look at new evidence which just isn’t true is it?
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Feb 23, 2023 15:45:36 GMT
It's all rather disconcerting, this is the second time in the last few days I have agreed with Rees-Mogg The previous time I put it down to stopped clock syndrome It's some state of affairs that a former DPP and current Leader of the Labour Party takes the establishment viewpoint Even worse as a trained legal expert he disingenuously attempts to justify the position by saying the decision was right as the Court looked at the evidence Indeed it did and concluded that based on the evidence on which Javid removed Begums Citizenship he could see many other eminent people reaching a different decision Ultimately the Court reached its decision based on the narrow remit it is allowed. This constant drip drip of Starmer taking populist positions completely reversing his previous position is troublesome He also mentioned being able to look at new evidence which just isn’t true is it? Doesn’t know his arse from his elbow that Tory ( whoops sorry ) Labour leader
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 23, 2023 16:39:43 GMT
It's all rather disconcerting, this is the second time in the last few days I have agreed with Rees-Mogg The previous time I put it down to stopped clock syndrome It's some state of affairs that a former DPP and current Leader of the Labour Party takes the establishment viewpoint Even worse as a trained legal expert he disingenuously attempts to justify the position by saying the decision was right as the Court looked at the evidence Indeed it did and concluded that based on the evidence on which Javid removed Begums Citizenship he could see many other eminent people reaching a different decision Ultimately the Court reached its decision based on the narrow remit it is allowed. This constant drip drip of Starmer taking populist positions completely reversing his previous position is troublesome He also mentioned being able to look at new evidence which just isn’t true is it? Apologies i didn't see his interview, but i think in this case he may be correct. The Court was only able to examine whether procedurally Javid made the correct decision based on the evidence available The Court came to like a Scottish "Not Proven" Verdict. It found that Javid had not acted unreasonably but that others eminently qualified people could reasonably reach a different conclusion The basis on which Begum based her claim was that she was trafficked as a child and sexualy exploited. The basis of her claim was that an IS People Smuggler Muhammad Al-Rasheed arranged her travel from Turkey into Syria. It was subsequently discovered that Al-Rasheed was working undercover for Canadian Security Intelligence Services (CSIS) and Scotland Yard were informed. Officially Javid was not aware of this at the time he made his decision to revoke her Citizenship The Government’s position in Court was that Al-Rasheed's involvement was incidental as Begum had been radicalised while she was in UK The Courts decision, having already cast doubt on Javid's original decision was that it could not rule on whether Javid would have made a different decision if he was aware of this information (he couldn't read his mind essentially) and it was up to the present Home Secretary.... Gawd help us So here we have a UK Child being Trafficked into a War Zone by an Intelligence Agent of a fellow Member of the Five Eyes and which Scotland Yard and obviously Government were made aware of and everything is Jake It's a Murky old World we live in
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 23, 2023 16:48:01 GMT
He also mentioned being able to look at new evidence which just isn’t true is it? Apologies i didn't see his interview, but i think in this case he may be correct. The Court was only able to examine whether procedurally Javid made the correct decision based on the evidence available The Court came to like a Scottish "Not Proven" Verdict. It found that Javid had not acted unreasonably but that others eminently qualified people could reasonably reach a different conclusion The basis on which Begum based her claim was that she was trafficked as a child and sexualy exploited. The basis of her claim was that an IS People Smuggler Muhammad Al-Rasheed arranged her travel from Turkey into Syria. It was subsequently discovered that Al-Rasheed was working undercover for Canadian Security Intelligence Services (CSIS) and Scotland Yard were informed. Officially Javid was not aware of this at the time he made his decision to revoke her Citizenship The Government’s position in Court was that Al-Rasheed's involvement was incidental as Begum had been radicalised while she was in UK The Courts decision, having already cast doubt on Javid's original decision was that it could not rule on whether Javid would have made a different decision if he was aware of this information (he couldn't read his mind essentially) and it was up to the present Home Secretary.... Gawd help us So here we have a UK Child being Trafficked into a War Zone by an Intelligence Agent of a fellow Member of the Five Eyes and which Scotland Yard and obviously Government were made aware of and everything is Jake It's a Murky old World we live in Thanks for clarifying……
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 24, 2023 7:58:46 GMT
And he's completely correct. Perhaps Jakey is thinking ahead and worried that the next targets for this kind of action might be non-doms or those who use offshore trust funds to avoid paying tax to the UK? Something like if you don't love the country enough to contribute to its well-being through your tax contributions we don't want you.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Feb 24, 2023 8:08:21 GMT
And he's completely correct. Perhaps Jakey is thinking ahead and worried that the next targets for this kind of action might be non-doms or those who use offshore trust funds to avoid paying tax to the UK? Something like if you don't love the country enough to contribute to its well-being through your tax contributions we don't want you. All those dessert shop, European food stores and han car washes best start worrying if it's going to be based on tax contributions 🙄
|
|
|
Post by BlurtonRed on Feb 24, 2023 8:36:01 GMT
She needs too stay where she is. The lack of emotion when she was talking about her dead children showed what a cold, heartless individual she is.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Feb 24, 2023 13:23:45 GMT
If they do send her to Bangladesh, the problem will be solved within a week or so and everyone will forget who she was the day after.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 24, 2023 13:29:50 GMT
She needs too stay where she is. The lack of emotion when she was talking about her dead children showed what a cold, heartless individual she is. I think Blurton may have inadvertently hit upon something here There is a chronic backlog in England and Wales Crown Court Cases, 62K at the last count If a TV Show we're devised where the accused were asked a series of say 10/12 Questions. Removing the need for a Judge, viewers could easily gauge their Guilt or Innocence by their body language and response. The Viewers could then text in their verdict to a number appearing on screen with the usual warning that they will be charged for call but their vote won't count If outside the allotted time to reach a Verdict. I think a working title of "Judge Punch and Judy - The People's Verdict" An added advantage would be to deprive Lefty Lawyers Legal Aid Fees whose only purpose is to get their innocent clients off the hook I'm not sure the BBC could be trusted to host such a Show, I think GB News would be ideal and an early evening Nightly Show would be a big hit and ensure the right type of Viewers I've not fully worked out all the details, I'm sure others can offer improvements
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Feb 24, 2023 13:47:38 GMT
She needs too stay where she is. The lack of emotion when she was talking about her dead children showed what a cold, heartless individual she is. I think Blurton may have inadvertently hit upon something here There is a chronic backlog in England and Wales Crown Court Cases, 62K at the last count If a TV Show we're devised where the accused were asked a series of say 10/12 Questions. Removing the need for a Judge, viewers could easily gauge their Guilt or Innocence by their body language and response. The Viewers could then text in their verdict to a number appearing on screen with the usual warning that they will be charged for call but their vote won't count If outside the allotted time to reach a Verdict. I think a working title of "Judge Punch and Judy - The People's Verdict" An added advantage would be to deprive Lefty Lawyers Legal Aid Fees whose only purpose is to get their innocent clients off the hook I'm not sure the BBC could be trusted to host such a Show, I think GB News would be ideal and an early evening Nightly Show would be a big hit and ensure the right type of Viewers I've not fully worked out all the details, I'm sure others can offer improvements Seems like a ridiculous over exaggeration of the current issue. Shamima Begum’s first interview with Anthony Lloyd revealed she had no regrets for joining ISIS. It could be that she was “brainwashed” or it could be that she thought that the UK was weak and she could say what she wanted and still expect to come “home”. Would you feel comfortable living next door to her after she spends a couple of years in a UK prison and is declared “reformed”? She’ll come in, go to prison, cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands to do so. She’ll likely live a better life in a British prison than she will in a Syrian refugee camp. Then she can just go about the rest of her days as if she didn’t join a terror organization hell bent on destroying the country she calls “home”.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2023 14:08:16 GMT
If you can't take my passport away then why should you be able to take someone else's away? Probably got someting to do with me not being a radicalised Muslim who actively supports a terror organisation who are intent on killing this countries citizens on a mass scale. He's talking shit on that part. Fuck her, not literally, I'm glad we are finally showing some bollocks (although it probably won't last), she's made her bed she can lie in it in some shit hole country that she decided to go and fight for.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 24, 2023 14:26:27 GMT
I think Blurton may have inadvertently hit upon something here There is a chronic backlog in England and Wales Crown Court Cases, 62K at the last count If a TV Show we're devised where the accused were asked a series of say 10/12 Questions. Removing the need for a Judge, viewers could easily gauge their Guilt or Innocence by their body language and response. The Viewers could then text in their verdict to a number appearing on screen with the usual warning that they will be charged for call but their vote won't count If outside the allotted time to reach a Verdict. I think a working title of "Judge Punch and Judy - The People's Verdict" An added advantage would be to deprive Lefty Lawyers Legal Aid Fees whose only purpose is to get their innocent clients off the hook I'm not sure the BBC could be trusted to host such a Show, I think GB News would be ideal and an early evening Nightly Show would be a big hit and ensure the right type of Viewers I've not fully worked out all the details, I'm sure others can offer improvements Seems like a ridiculous over exaggeration of the current issue. Shamima Begum’s first interview with Anthony Lloyd revealed she had no regrets for joining ISIS. It could be that she was “brainwashed” or it could be that she thought that the UK was weak and she could say what she wanted and still expect to come “home”. Would you feel comfortable living next door to her after she spends a couple of years in a UK prison and is declared “reformed”? She’ll come in, go to prison, cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands to do so. She’ll likely live a better life in a British prison than she will in a Syrian refugee camp. Then she can just go about the rest of her days as if she didn’t join a terror organization hell bent on destroying the country she calls “home”. Seems like a ridiculous over simplification of the current issue This may come as a shock to you but Murderers often show no regret for the crimes they have committed.... they are still entitled to their day in Court and if convicted receive an appropriate sentence I suppose it depends on what type of Society people wish to live in. I know this present administration has scant regard for the Law in regards to their own behaviour or in this case how they apply it to break UK Law against a UK Child. No I wouldn't particularly want to live next door to her, but that is not the point. Having an a la carte application of the Law is the preserve of Totalitarian States
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Feb 24, 2023 14:33:01 GMT
I think Blurton may have inadvertently hit upon something here There is a chronic backlog in England and Wales Crown Court Cases, 62K at the last count If a TV Show we're devised where the accused were asked a series of say 10/12 Questions. Removing the need for a Judge, viewers could easily gauge their Guilt or Innocence by their body language and response. The Viewers could then text in their verdict to a number appearing on screen with the usual warning that they will be charged for call but their vote won't count If outside the allotted time to reach a Verdict. I think a working title of "Judge Punch and Judy - The People's Verdict" An added advantage would be to deprive Lefty Lawyers Legal Aid Fees whose only purpose is to get their innocent clients off the hook I'm not sure the BBC could be trusted to host such a Show, I think GB News would be ideal and an early evening Nightly Show would be a big hit and ensure the right type of Viewers I've not fully worked out all the details, I'm sure others can offer improvements Seems like a ridiculous over exaggeration of the current issue. Shamima Begum’s first interview with Anthony Lloyd revealed she had no regrets for joining ISIS. It could be that she was “brainwashed” or it could be that she thought that the UK was weak and she could say what she wanted and still expect to come “home”. Would you feel comfortable living next door to her after she spends a couple of years in a UK prison and is declared “reformed”? She’ll come in, go to prison, cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands to do so. She’ll likely live a better life in a British prison than she will in a Syrian refugee camp. Then she can just go about the rest of her days as if she didn’t join a terror organization hell bent on destroying the country she calls “home”. Wait til you find out about the Manchester Bomber.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Feb 24, 2023 14:33:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Feb 24, 2023 14:44:16 GMT
Seems like a ridiculous over exaggeration of the current issue. Shamima Begum’s first interview with Anthony Lloyd revealed she had no regrets for joining ISIS. It could be that she was “brainwashed” or it could be that she thought that the UK was weak and she could say what she wanted and still expect to come “home”. Would you feel comfortable living next door to her after she spends a couple of years in a UK prison and is declared “reformed”? She’ll come in, go to prison, cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands to do so. She’ll likely live a better life in a British prison than she will in a Syrian refugee camp. Then she can just go about the rest of her days as if she didn’t join a terror organization hell bent on destroying the country she calls “home”. Seems like a ridiculous over simplification of the current issue This may come as a shock to you but Murderers often show no regret for the crimes they have committed.... they are still entitled to their day in Court and if convicted receive an appropriate sentence I suppose it depends on what type of Society people wish to live in. I know this present administration has scant regard for the Law in regards to their own behaviour or in this case how they apply it to break UK Law against a UK Child. No I wouldn't particularly want to live next door to her, but that is not the point. Having an a la carte application of the Law is the preserve of Totalitarian States She’s not a child anymore. She was 20 when Javid stated she couldn’t return. Perhaps if they adjusted the law, I’d feel more comfortable with her returning to go to live in relative comfort in prison. I believe that prison should mean life for some crimes. People that I think don’t deserve to sample free air again: murderers, rapists, child sex offenders, terrorists. She’ll come back, spend a few years there and then be free to do whatever. Great message to send to other young people considering plotting to destroy the country that raised them.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 24, 2023 14:58:06 GMT
Seems like a ridiculous over simplification of the current issue This may come as a shock to you but Murderers often show no regret for the crimes they have committed.... they are still entitled to their day in Court and if convicted receive an appropriate sentence I suppose it depends on what type of Society people wish to live in. I know this present administration has scant regard for the Law in regards to their own behaviour or in this case how they apply it to break UK Law against a UK Child. No I wouldn't particularly want to live next door to her, but that is not the point. Having an a la carte application of the Law is the preserve of Totalitarian States She’s not a child anymore. She was 20 when Javid stated she couldn’t return. Perhaps if they adjusted the law, I’d feel more comfortable with her returning to go to live in relative comfort in prison. I believe that prison should mean life for some crimes. People that I think don’t deserve to sample free air again: murderers, rapists, child sex offenders, terrorists. She’ll come back, spend a few years there and then be free to do whatever. Great message to send to other young people considering plotting to destroy the country that raised them. If you want to split hairs over her age fine she was a child in the eyes of the Law when she committed her alleged offences, I say alleged because she has never been charged with anything I might share your opinions on the Criminal Justice System The point is that your views do not apply .... yet
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Feb 24, 2023 16:54:52 GMT
She’s not a child anymore. She was 20 when Javid stated she couldn’t return. Perhaps if they adjusted the law, I’d feel more comfortable with her returning to go to live in relative comfort in prison. I believe that prison should mean life for some crimes. People that I think don’t deserve to sample free air again: murderers, rapists, child sex offenders, terrorists. She’ll come back, spend a few years there and then be free to do whatever. Great message to send to other young people considering plotting to destroy the country that raised them. If you want to split hairs over her age fine she was a child in the eyes of the Law when she committed her alleged offences, I say alleged because she has never been charged with anything I might share your opinions on the Criminal Justice System The point is that your views do not apply .... yet I see your overall argument. I don’t necessarily agree with it on this individual case basis. But I do understand that I’m wrong.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 24, 2023 17:53:58 GMT
If you want to split hairs over her age fine she was a child in the eyes of the Law when she committed her alleged offences, I say alleged because she has never been charged with anything I might share your opinions on the Criminal Justice System The point is that your views do not apply .... yet I see your overall argument. I don’t necessarily agree with it on this individual case basis. But I do understand that I’m wrong. Oh believe me my natural instincts would not be very far from your own in this particular case The problem is if we allow people with lower morals diminish our own they win Additionally if this verdict is allowed to stand it sets a legal precedent for the future
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 26, 2023 16:41:56 GMT
Can anyone explain why Shamima Begum poses UK such an existential threat above the 400+ other returnees including IS fighters didn't to warrant their Citizenship to be removed This is just a Government Political Stunt in a very high profile case without regard for the rule of law www.ibanet.org/article/518e56a1-801d-4118-a47f-385d7eb9fce4
|
|