Shamima Begum

If it ain't amber or ain't football then it belongs here!
no avatar
User

UPTHEPORT

Location

The Republic of Malpas

Shamima Begum

Postby UPTHEPORT » February 26th, 2021, 11:51 am

Fantastic news
no avatar
User

mad norm

Location

In a Station Lane not as long as Warnhams

Re: Shamima Begum

Postby mad norm » February 26th, 2021, 12:02 pm

Can't argue with that
no avatar
User

DT1892

Re: Shamima Begum

Postby DT1892 » February 26th, 2021, 6:31 pm

She was born here, she was a British citizen at the time she was groomed and she was radicalised here. She's our problem.
no avatar
User

Exile 1976

Location

MT

Re: Shamima Begum

Postby Exile 1976 » February 26th, 2021, 6:43 pm

Leave her there. She made her bed, lie in it
no avatar
User

Stan A. Einstein

Re: Shamima Begum

Postby Stan A. Einstein » February 26th, 2021, 10:23 pm

DT1892 wrote:She was born here, she was a British citizen at the time she was groomed and she was radicalised here. She's our problem.


I agree. If she has committed a criminal act then she should be tried before a criminal court. It may be that she is not a very attractive personality, it may be that her crimes were reprehensible, it is true that though nobody likes to admit it, when she left the UK she was 15 years old, a child.

If any society forgets that everyone is entitled to justice, then the terrorists have won. In my view the Supreme Court disgraced the UK today.
User avatar
User

Marky

Location

Mazeglaas

Re: Shamima Begum

Postby Marky » February 28th, 2021, 3:21 pm

This has cost us millions for what exactly? Our criminals are our responsibility, even the brown Muslim ones.
no avatar
User

pembsexile

Location

Sunny and warm Pembrokeshire

Re: Shamima Begum

Postby pembsexile » February 28th, 2021, 7:46 pm

This is a complicated issue. It revolves around her apparent right to return to challenge the decision by the Home Secretary about removing her British citizenship. She cannot get access to lawyers at her camp as the ‘authorities’ there, won’t allow them in. Seems unfair.

However, Lord Reed has announced that her right to a fair hearing did not trump all other considerations such as the safety of the public.

I am entirely glad that our Judiciary and Legislature/Executive are separate. I am just profoundly pleased that the authorities have put the safety of my family and loved ones (and yours) above her right to a fair hearing. She will get one, just not under the present conditions.
no avatar
User

Stan A. Einstein

Re: Shamima Begum

Postby Stan A. Einstein » February 28th, 2021, 8:17 pm

pembsexile wrote:This is a complicated issue. It revolves around her apparent right to return to challenge the decision by the Home Secretary about removing her British citizenship. She cannot get access to lawyers at her camp as the ‘authorities’ there, won’t allow them in. Seems unfair.

However, Lord Reed has announced that her right to a fair hearing did not trump all other considerations such as the safety of the public.

I am entirely glad that our Judiciary and Legislature/Executive are separate. I am just profoundly pleased that the authorities have put the safety of my family and loved ones (and yours) above her right to a fair hearing. She will get one, just not under the present conditions.


Hi Mike,

Like you I would put the family first I'm sure we all do. But I do need to ask this. If Begum were returned to the UK she would undoubtedly be arrested on arrival and charged with a very serious criminal offence. I have no doubt she could and would be remanded in custody until such time as she was tried and on the overwhelming evidence I have seen would be looking at a substantial sentence if convicted.

I genuinely don't see what threat she now poses to anyone.

We have a similar problem this side of the Irish sea. A woman and former member of the Defence Forces of Ireland did pretty much the same thing. Because she is 'one of ours' the attitude of the government here was get her back and put her on trial. Which is exactly what is happening.

As the very famous, at least in legal terms, hugely respected and much missed human rights QC Peter Duffy once told me, anyone can defend the angels right to human rights. To truly believe in those rights you have to uphold the rights of those who are clearly not angels.
no avatar
User

pembsexile

Location

Sunny and warm Pembrokeshire

Re: Shamima Begum

Postby pembsexile » February 28th, 2021, 9:01 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
pembsexile wrote:This is a complicated issue. It revolves around her apparent right to return to challenge the decision by the Home Secretary about removing her British citizenship. She cannot get access to lawyers at her camp as the ‘authorities’ there, won’t allow them in. Seems unfair.

However, Lord Reed has announced that her right to a fair hearing did not trump all other considerations such as the safety of the public.

I am entirely glad that our Judiciary and Legislature/Executive are separate. I am just profoundly pleased that the authorities have put the safety of my family and loved ones (and yours) above her right to a fair hearing. She will get one, just not under the present conditions.


Hi Mike,

Like you I would put the family first I'm sure we all do. But I do need to ask this. If Begum were returned to the UK she would undoubtedly be arrested on arrival and charged with a very serious criminal offence. I have no doubt she could and would be remanded in custody until such time as she was tried and on the overwhelming evidence I have seen would be looking at a substantial sentence if convicted.

I genuinely don't see what threat she now poses to anyone.

We have a similar problem this side of the Irish sea. A woman and former member of the Defence Forces of Ireland did pretty much the same thing. Because she is 'one of ours' the attitude of the government here was get her back and put her on trial. Which is exactly what is happening.

As the very famous, at least in legal terms, hugely respected and much missed human rights QC Peter Duffy once told me, anyone can defend the angels right to human rights. To truly believe in those rights you have to uphold the rights of those who are clearly not angels.


Evening Brendan,

I think the key word in your reply was ‘threat’. This is what the Supreme Court commented upon. The Home Office appealed to the Supreme Court to consider the Court of Appeals judgement arguing her return would create a significant national security risk. They stated that the CoA did not give the Home Secretary assessment of the risk of her return the respect it should have received given their accountability to Parliament. I am pleased with their judgement.

We both know that she will get a fair hearing. Eventually. Just not now. I shed no tears for her. I take enormous satisfaction from the fact that the Home Office in their assessment have decided ultimately that she still poses a significant risk and that this has eventually convinced the Judiciary that my family’s safety (and others, society at large actually) are more important than her right to a hearing. Just for now.

It’ll change. It always does. After all, people have ‘rights’. Even though those ‘rights’ could have awful consequences. Well done the Supreme Court. For now.
no avatar
User

Stan A. Einstein

Re: Shamima Begum

Postby Stan A. Einstein » February 28th, 2021, 10:14 pm

pembsexile wrote:
Stan A. Einstein wrote:
pembsexile wrote:This is a complicated issue. It revolves around her apparent right to return to challenge the decision by the Home Secretary about removing her British citizenship. She cannot get access to lawyers at her camp as the ‘authorities’ there, won’t allow them in. Seems unfair.

However, Lord Reed has announced that her right to a fair hearing did not trump all other considerations such as the safety of the public.

I am entirely glad that our Judiciary and Legislature/Executive are separate. I am just profoundly pleased that the authorities have put the safety of my family and loved ones (and yours) above her right to a fair hearing. She will get one, just not under the present conditions.


Hi Mike,

Like you I would put the family first I'm sure we all do. But I do need to ask this. If Begum were returned to the UK she would undoubtedly be arrested on arrival and charged with a very serious criminal offence. I have no doubt she could and would be remanded in custody until such time as she was tried and on the overwhelming evidence I have seen would be looking at a substantial sentence if convicted.

I genuinely don't see what threat she now poses to anyone.

We have a similar problem this side of the Irish sea. A woman and former member of the Defence Forces of Ireland did pretty much the same thing. Because she is 'one of ours' the attitude of the government here was get her back and put her on trial. Which is exactly what is happening.

As the very famous, at least in legal terms, hugely respected and much missed human rights QC Peter Duffy once told me, anyone can defend the angels right to human rights. To truly believe in those rights you have to uphold the rights of those who are clearly not angels.


Evening Brendan,

I think the key word in your reply was ‘threat’. This is what the Supreme Court commented upon. The Home Office appealed to the Supreme Court to consider the Court of Appeals judgement arguing her return would create a significant national security risk. They stated that the CoA did not give the Home Secretary assessment of the risk of her return the respect it should have received given their accountability to Parliament. I am pleased with their judgement.

We both know that she will get a fair hearing. Eventually. Just not now. I shed no tears for her. I take enormous satisfaction from the fact that the Home Office in their assessment have decided ultimately that she still poses a significant risk and that this has eventually convinced the Judiciary that my family’s safety (and others, society at large actually) are more important than her right to a hearing. Just for now.

It’ll change. It always does. After all, people have ‘rights’. Even though those ‘rights’ could have awful consequences. Well done the Supreme Court. For now.


Evening Mike,

A lesson to others in how to debate on a subject on which we have a fundamental disagreement.

Justice delayed is justice denied. A principle of jurisprudence. But I must ask this, how to you think a lawfully detained Ms Begum can pose any threat to you, your family or anyone else?
no avatar
User

pembsexile

Location

Sunny and warm Pembrokeshire

Re: Shamima Begum

Postby pembsexile » March 1st, 2021, 8:23 am

Morning Brendan,

I have no idea how the woman can be perceived as a threat should she return. I have opinions, but they are just that, opinions. Probably wrong as well.

However, the authorities, acting on our behalf, ultimately accountable to Parliament, have decided that she will be a perceived threat. That is good enough for me. We live in a Parliamentary democracy, and, heaven help us if we don’t trust the authorities to do their work, particularly with regards to public safety.

The Security services work under the cloak of secrecy. Thank goodness for that. Personally, I don’t need to know why she is still perceived to be a threat, I just want to be protected. I stand with the decision of the Supreme Court that societies safety is more important now than her right to a fair trial.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Powered by phpBB ®