45 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

So what you're saying is that it would be very hard to convict her if she was allowed to come back to the UK. 

That means she'd most likely be free to roam the streets of the UK. And in her state of mind she might decide to carry out (or help carry out) a terrorist attack on innocent people, possibly killing children in the UK. 

 

But at least we would be sticking with the law and adhering to human rights guidelines. Bravo. 

 

I hope you'll feel good about yourself if/when this happens.  

Erm no, that’s not what I’m saying.

 

But din’t Let that stop you imagining things.

 

 

9 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

I have never expressed hatred of Muslims, <SNIP>

LOL - Muslims follow the Islamic religion according to their individual path. You repeatedly express hatred of all of Islam (ergo Muslims) and never differentiate between Islamists and peaceful practitioners. FYI Islam does have a strong spiritual component. For the future you may wish to differentiate between Islamist ideologues and other branches of Islam.

23 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

What is wrong with having competent and capable lawyers? If I was appearing in court I would wish talented representation, as I am sure you would too. 

"What is wrong with having competent and capable lawyers?"

The big question is who is paying for this? She should not even be allowed back in the UK. Every fairminded person knows this.

8 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

"What is wrong with having competent and capable lawyers?"

The big question is who is paying for this? She should not even be allowed back in the UK. Every fairminded person knows this.

No a fair minded person would say she deserves to come back, have a fair trial and be locked away for a good portion of her natural life. 

Off topic posts and replies regarding the BLM/KKK in the USA have been removed.

 

A post using a trolling video has been removed.

 

Some troll posts and replies have been removed. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, samran said:

No a fair minded person would say she deserves to come back, have a fair trial and be locked away for a good portion of her natural life. 

I believe the issue with this is she hasn't really committed any serious crime by UK law. Joining a terrorist organization carries something like a max 10 year sentence, out after a few years. If they can even prove that. Plus there will be the excuse she was just a child of 15 years when she ran off to join the islamic state. Apparently a child of 15 is able to be a top world climate expert, yet is unable to be fully held accountable for her behavior on account of still being a child.

 Better she is tried under Syrian law where she committed her crimes and punished over there, like everybody else in the world. I hear they don't do slapped wrists over there. It would be firing squad or something befitting. After that, we can talk.

17 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I believe the issue with this is she hasn't really committed any serious crime by UK law. Joining a terrorist organization carries something like a max 10 year sentence, out after a few years. If they can even prove that. Plus there will be the excuse she was just a child of 15 years when she ran off to join the islamic state. Apparently a child of 15 is able to be a top world climate expert, yet is unable to be fully held accountable for her behavior on account of still being a child.

 Better she is tried under Syrian law where she committed her crimes and punished over there, like everybody else in the world. I hear they don't do slapped wrists over there. It would be firing squad or something befitting. After that, we can talk.

No one even thinks a 15 year old is a climate expert. No idea where you got that from, maybe a trump tweet.

 

So you want to pick and chose what citizens should be subject to laws.

 

The issue is nothing about what she will get. The issue is whether the govt had a right to take away her citizenship.

1 hour ago, possum1931 said:

"What is wrong with having competent and capable lawyers?"

The big question is who is paying for this? 

Ethnic grudge groups, apparently. 

 

On 7/17/2020 at 6:45 AM, nemo38 said:

British justice is the best that money can buy. She will have the best lawyers paid for by ethnic grudge groups. When decisions don't go their way, for instance with Jez Turner, grudge groups have the finances for private prosecutions.

 

1 hour ago, possum1931 said:

She should not even be allowed back in the UK. Every fairminded person knows this.

Fair-minded is, of course, a subjective concept. I suspect that your and my assessments of what makes one fair-minded will differ somewhat. So I would argue that your last sentence is a nonsense. 

29 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I believe the issue with this is she hasn't really committed any serious crime by UK law. Joining a terrorist organization carries something like a max 10 year sentence, out after a few years. If they can even prove that. Plus there will be the excuse she was just a child of 15 years when she ran off to join the islamic state. Apparently a child of 15 is able to be a top world climate expert, yet is unable to be fully held accountable for her behavior on account of still being a child.

 Better she is tried under Syrian law where she committed her crimes and punished over there, like everybody else in the world. I hear they don't do slapped wrists over there. It would be firing squad or something befitting. After that, we can talk.

Thankfully, the UK is not as barbaric as you seem to think it is or want it to be. 

10 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

19 hours ago, Bob A Kneale said:

The decision was that she should be allowed back only for the judicial review of the decision of SIAC Special Immigration Appeals Commission, not that she should be allowed back permanently, or get her citizenship reinstated.

Maybe so, but once she gets here we all know she'll stay here for good, either in prison poisoning fellow inmates' minds, or being 'rehabilitated' among the community. Why do we need that added risk? 

"...we all know she'll stay here for good..."

You are entitled to think that but, no "we all" don't know that, we're not all in your little club .

Off topic baiting posts and the off topic replies have been removed. 

 

 

She is not coming back to the UK ,to face any charges ? am i correct ?

she is coming back to try and get her British citizenship back ,if she

does not get it,authorities will have a job deporting her again.

regards Worgeordie

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Remind us, what did Magna Carta say about ‘Banishment’, Exile’ and the ‘Right to come and go without let or hinder’?

 

 

 

I'll remind you that she is not just a devious ISIS housewife, she served in the "ISIS morality police", was allowed to carry a Kalashnikov rifle, and also tried to recruit other young women to join the jihadist group, She puts Sharia first, to be clear. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/shamima-begum-isis-syria-morality-police-suicide-belts-a8869016.html

12 minutes ago, Opl said:

I'll remind you that she is not just a devious ISIS housewife, she served in the "ISIS morality police", was allowed to carry a Kalashnikov rifle, and also tried to recruit other young women to join the jihadist group, She puts Sharia first, to be clear. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/shamima-begum-isis-syria-morality-police-suicide-belts-a8869016.html

I don't believe that there is any situation where the principles of English Law are modified depending upon the crime allegedly committed.

Multiple of topic posts generalizing  about Muslims and deflecting the topic to include grooming gangs have been removed, please stay on topic or your post will be removed and you will be going on holiday as this is trolling:

 

UK-born Islamic State recruit can return from Syria to challenge citizenship removal

3 hours ago, worgeordie said:

She is not coming back to the UK ,to face any charges ? am i correct ?

she is coming back to try and get her British citizenship back ,if she

does not get it,authorities will have a job deporting her again.

regards Worgeordie

HMG are under no obligation to grant her a passport or to physically go and get her but nothing would surprize me these days.

In the 21st century I see no reason why she or her legal team can't access the court remotely as happens routinely with ODC's ('Ordinary Decent Criminals' as they are commonly referred). 

22 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

But she hasn't killed anybody,

How do you know that She hasnt killed anybody ?

Was the Kalashnikov she carried around with her her just a fashion accessory ?

4 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

How do you know that She hasnt killed anybody ?

Was the Kalashnikov she carried around with her her just a fashion accessory ?

Are you American? Maybe if she open carried an AR15 it would be OK?

 

She was 15 when she left the UK. 15.

Off topic post removed also reply and the poster suspended as previously advised !!

1 minute ago, teatime101 said:

Are you American? Maybe if she open carried an AR15 it would be OK?

 

She was 15 when she left the UK. 15.

It matters not what make of rifle she carried with her .

She was carrying a rifle with her whilst enforcing Sharia law .

Her sole reason for carrying a weapon was to use it if other people didnt comply to her demands .

Maybe she didnt use it, maybe she did ?

  But you cannot realistically state that she didnt use it , because you dont know .

I am not saying that she did use it to kill anyone, because, I dont know either .

Leaving the UK at 15 doesnt mean that you can go abroad and do whatever you want 

 

22 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

Are you American? Maybe if she open carried an AR15 it would be OK?

 

She was 15 when she left the UK. 15.

She made the political choice, living in the UK, to pledge loyalty to ISIS, it's not exactly like running away with a boyfriend

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

HMG are under no obligation to grant her a passport or to physically go and get her but nothing would surprize me these days.

 HMG do not intend to reinstate her British citizenship and so grant her a British passport. If they did, then there would be no need for her appeal!

 

Whether that appeal is successful or not is a matter for the courts. I, for one, am glad to live in a democracy where the rule of law applies to all and everyone has access to the courts; even those whose ideologies I find abhorrent.

 

I have seen no reports that HMG intend to go and get her or even pay for her to return to the UK. If you have such, no doubt you can produce it.

 

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

In the 21st century I see no reason why she or her legal team can't access the court remotely as happens routinely with ODC's ('Ordinary Decent Criminals' as they are commonly referred). 

Yes, there are cases where witnesses in criminal cases who are outside the UK can give their evidence via video link: Witnesses outside the United Kingdom - video link. But as can be seen, this does not apply to the defendant. For the defendant to appear before the court via video link they have to be in custody in the UK.

 

However, all that is moot because this is a civil case, not a criminal one. Whilst video conferencing can be used in civil cases, the following applies

Quote

The Access to Justice Act, 1999 allows VC to be used for civil hearings, e.g. case management conferences, ancillary relief hearings, overseas or remote witnesses or in any civil cases in which the court directs the use of video and the parties involved consent to its use.

(Source)

 

Note it says "overseas or remote witnesses." Begum is not a witness, she is the plaintiff.

 

If the court were to consider directing the use of video conferencing, both the plaintiff, Begum, and the defendant, HMG, would have to agree to it's use.

9 hours ago, worgeordie said:

She is not coming back to the UK ,to face any charges ? am i correct ?

she is coming back to try and get her British citizenship back ,if she

does not get it,authorities will have a job deporting her again.

regards Worgeordie

That doesnt make sense.

 

They cannot strip citizenship if it leaves a person stateless.

 

If she doesnt get her citizenship it will have been proved she is not stateless so can be deported to that country.

6 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

How do you know that She hasnt killed anybody ?

Was the Kalashnikov she carried around with her her just a fashion accessory ?

The onus is on the accuser to say she has.

Is she feeling so homesick that she wants her stripped UK citizenship back or is it for the benefits attached to the status ?

 

On 7/17/2020 at 9:33 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

Nonsense. She would NEVER be expelled/deported again from the UK. You know this.

For sure, once this person has shown up in the UK, and had several days in Court, the Human Rights Brigade will campaign for her to stay.

Who is going to pick up  the bill for her protection ?. From the moment she steps off a Plane. 

This Woman will need 24 Hour 365 Day protection for the rest of her natural life if she tries to remain in the UK, such will be the level of hatred toward her for Her actions and lack of remorse.

If she is given a Prison Sentence, she will have to spend all of that in Solitary for her own protection.

Bagum will not be able to walk in the open Air, as other people do.

I know its not an easy subject to deal with, but the Government have really opened a can of worms on this one. 

 

 

Topical update of particular interest to the poster who Rhubarbed the use of this image earlier in the thread:

Quote

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer led the charge to allow Islamic State bride Shamima Begum to return to the UK last year – despite fears she would endanger British lives.

As a member of Jeremy Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet, Sir Keir said in March 2019 that stripping Begum of her British citizenship ‘was the wrong decision’ and ‘a rushed decision’.

The Mail on Sunday later published details of top-secret briefings about the Bethnal Green runaway....

Revealed: Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer led the charge to allow ISIS bride Shamima Begum to return to Britain amid signs of a split among Tory MPs

19 hours ago, Sujo said:

The onus is on the accuser to say she has.

Who has accused her of killing anyone ?

As teatime101 categorially stated that She hadnt killed anyone, surely its down to him to prove that statement, rather than being down to me to disprove it ?

12 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Topical update of particular interest to the poster who Rhubarbed the use of this image earlier in the thread:

Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee

Revealed: Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer led the charge to allow ISIS bride Shamima Begum to return to Britain amid signs of a split among Tory MPs

 Did you read the article in your rush to repost a part of a post which was deleted because it was off topic?

 

Doubtful, for had you done so you would have seen that many Tory MPs, including Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee, agree with him!

 

Even if you hadn't bothered to read the article, there's a big hint in the headline!

20 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Did you read the article in your rush to repost a part of a post which was deleted because it was off topic?

 

Doubtful, for had you done so you would have seen that many Tory MPs, including Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee, agree with him!

 

Even if you hadn't bothered to read the article, there's a big hint in the headline!

Nice try 49 but the article is dated TODAY therefore cannot possibly have been reposted. Given your hair-trigger do you seriously think I'd offer myself on a platter?