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

[Opl]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

She will most probably be in jail. But thats a seperate matter.

where she'll be given all consideration as a heroine both for joining ISIS and defeating the UK,  and in position to spread ISIS ideology back home.. that's how the plan works when you compromise 

[7by7]

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

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?

Not the article; the first part in which you refer to and copy an image from a post deleted as off topic.

 

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

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

 Nice try, but, as ever, you've failed.

 

BTW, unlike you, I do not hit the report button at every opportunity.

Edited July 19, 2020 by 7by7
Addendum

[CorpusChristie]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Perhaps this post where you accuse her.

No, there is no accusation there 

[evadgib]

31 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Not the article; the first part in which you refer to and copy an image from a post deleted as off topic.

 

 Nice try, but, as ever, you've failed.

 

BTW, unlike you, I do not hit the report button at every opportunity.

How could I recover an image from a post that had been deleted? A photo of Starmer kneeling is readily available & I had no problem locating or using it no matter how hard you cry foul...

As for your final point; I'd be happy for the times I have used the report button to be made public as long as it appears next to yours.

Edited July 19, 2020 by evadgib

[7by7]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

How could I recover an image from a post that had been deleted? A photo of Starmer kneeling is readily available & I had no problem locating or using it no matter how hard you cry foul...

Yes, it is a public image, which when you posted the first time was declared off topic.

 

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

As for your final point; I'd be happy for the times I have used the report button to be made public...as long as it appears next to yours.

No problem; Mods, can that be done?

[metisdead]

A post using a trolling meme has been removed.

 

A post with a disguised link to an unapproved YouTube source has been removed:

 

18) Social Media content is not to be used as  source material unless it is from a recognized or approved news media source,  the source of any such material (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube  etc.) should always be shown.

[transam]

14 hours ago, Sujo said:

So she has no other citizenship or pp. So the govt acted illegally.

I am not a lawyer, perhaps you are, the gov took her PP away, bloody great.

She doesn't want to go to Bangles because will not get looked after.

She married ISIS murderers, let their country take care of her....

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, transam said:

I am not a lawyer, perhaps you are, the gov took her PP away, bloody great.

She doesn't want to go to Bangles because will not get looked after.

She married ISIS murderers, let their country take care of her....

This has nothing to do with who she married, who she did or didnt kill etc, its about whether the UK govt legally revoked her citizenship.

 

It has nothing to do with whether she wants to go to bangladesh, they simply refuse to grant her citizenship so refuse her entry. She has no choice in that.

 

The UK cannot revoke citizenship if it leaves the person stateless. They thought she automatically had bangladesh citizenship so proceeded. But bangladesh said no she is not.

 

So the issue now is that the UK govt did not allow her an appeal on that decision even after it seemed an error.

 

So thats where it is, in the court to decide.

[katana]

Shamima Begum: Supreme Court to rule on her fate
The Supreme Court is to rule later [today] whether the runaway schoolgirl Shamima Begum should be

allowed back into the UK from Syria.
Continued https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56202315 (26/02/21)

Edited February 26, 2021 by katana

[Kwasaki]

Just heard on LBC she can't come back to UK. 

[katana]

Update: Shamima Begum cannot return to UK, Supreme Court rules:
"The court said in a unanimous ruling that her rights were not breached when she was refused permission to return."
If she had been allowed back in, wouldn't have put it past her and her lawyers to file some sort of monetary compensation claim for breaching her human rights, all financed by legal aid.

Continued: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56209007 (26/02/21)

Edited February 26, 2021 by katana

[Martin71]

Result....

[polpott]

On 7/17/2020 at 2:09 AM, dexterm said:

Did any member here ever do anything stupid when you were a teenager?

 

If at 20 she's a security threat or she has committed any offences while overseas, she should face the consequences in a UK court. She's a British citizen.

 

If you throw UK law and order out the window, you are no better than the scum ISIS.

She was a British citizen born and bred. The government unilaterally revoked her British citizenship when she originally applied to return. This act was against international law and is the subject of the current appeal.

 

If she wins, she fully accepts that she will be tried for her crimes committed in Syria when she returns.

[polpott]

17 minutes ago, Martin71 said:

Result....

Not really. The appeal against the revocation of her British citizenship continues but without her presence in court.

[RichardColeman]

Excellent - as this also shuts out another 150 ISIS terrorists we don't want back either.

 

 

 

[sanuk711]

To-days paper

Barred from Britain: Supreme Court rules ISIS bride Shamima Begum, 21, CAN'T return to UK to fight for her British citizenship after losing battle with government

Today, the UK's highest court (inset, Lord Reed) ruled Begum should not be granted leave to enter the UK to pursue her appeal against the deprivation of her British citizenship.

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9302709/Shamima-Begum-21-return-UK-fight-British-citizenship.html

 

 

[sungod]

19 minutes ago, polpott said:

The government unilaterally revoked her British citizenship

Wrong, she revoked it herself when she joined a barbaric terrorist organistation.

 

Get back and hug your trees.

[polpott]

2 minutes ago, sungod said:

Wrong, she revoked it herself when she joined a barbaric terrorist organistation.

 

Get back and hug your trees.

As opposed to you swinging from trees? 555

[sungod]

2 minutes ago, polpott said:

As opposed to you swinging from trees? 555

555, people who laugh at their own jokes.....................

[Kwasaki]

41 minutes ago, polpott said:

She was a British citizen born and bred. The government unilaterally revoked her British citizenship when she originally applied to return. This act was against international law and is the subject of the current appeal.

 

If she wins, she fully accepts that she will be tried for her crimes committed in Syria when she returns.

More to the decision made than that, born but bred by Bangladeshis parents.

Well she cannot return and at 15 years old leaving UK her parents were negligent in control of a child who they are responsible for.

The parents should be sent back to Bangladesh and she can leave Syria and meet them there. 

 

[lungbing]

I must adnit I am pleasantly surprised.  The UK Supreme Court usually take great delight in bring in a verdict exactly opposite of what the  people and the goverment would like.  They seem to see themselves as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

[Chomper Higgot]

This raises a very important issue, dealt with in magna carta:

 

The removal of citizenship and banishment of an individual for views/actions that are deemed unacceptable by the crown/executive.

 

I make no defense of her actions, but stripping people of their nationality and banishment was  frequently used prior to magna carta and for hundreds of years England and the UK had no use of stripping people of citizenship and banishment, relying rather on criminal justice before juries of the accused’s peer.

 

Now think of the hundreds of years to come, how British society might change and what ideas or actions might warrant stripping an individual of their citizenship and bannishment?!

 

This young woman should be subjected to the process of criminal justice, and should not be used as a precedent for stripping people of their most basic rights.

 

If left standing this precedent will be used against people fighting for the very rights and values Britain is founded on.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This raises a very important issue, dealt with in magna carta:

 

The removal of citizenship and banishment of an individual for views/actions that are deemed unacceptable by the crown/executive.

 

I make no defense of her actions, but stripping people of their nationality and banishment was  frequently used prior to magna carta and for hundreds of years England and the UK had no use of stripping people of citizenship and banishment, relying rather on criminal justice before juries of the accused’s peer.

 

Now think of the hundreds of years to come, how British society might change and what ideas or actions might warrant stripping an individual of their citizenship and bannishment?!

 

This young woman should be subjected to the process of criminal justice, and should not be used as a precedent for stripping people of their most basic rights.

 

If left standing this precedent will be used against people fighting for the very rights and values Britain is founded on.

 

Only she was pretty much fighting against the very rights and values Britain is founded on. I get your point that a precedent might be a two-edged sword. But then, wouldn't this apply to any precedent? That may be a thing for future legal systems and experts to deal with. Instances involving capital punishment may be a different class, but something which is conceivably reversible? Not sure it's quite the legal tectonic movement implied.

[Rookiescot]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This raises a very important issue, dealt with in magna carta:

 

The removal of citizenship and banishment of an individual for views/actions that are deemed unacceptable by the crown/executive.

 

I make no defense of her actions, but stripping people of their nationality and banishment was  frequently used prior to magna carta and for hundreds of years England and the UK had no use of stripping people of citizenship and banishment, relying rather on criminal justice before juries of the accused’s peer.

 

Now think of the hundreds of years to come, how British society might change and what ideas or actions might warrant stripping an individual of their citizenship and bannishment?!

 

This young woman should be subjected to the process of criminal justice, and should not be used as a precedent for stripping people of their most basic rights.

 

If left standing this precedent will be used against people fighting for the very rights and values Britain is founded on.

 

Sorry Chomper. We will have to disagree on this one.

She knew EXACTLY what she was getting into when she travelled to join ISIS.

Everyone was already well aware of the atrocities they were carrying out based on the sole reason of peoples religion. She knew that.

Now if she now finds herself in a difficult position I suggest she asks ISIS or indeed its backers for some kind of aid.

The UK owes her no favours at all.

She got what she voted for. 

[stereolab]

8 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

Sorry Chomper. We will have to disagree on this one.

She knew EXACTLY what she was getting into when she travelled to join ISIS.

Everyone was already well aware of the atrocities they were carrying out based on the sole reason of peoples religion. She knew that.

Now if she now finds herself in a difficult position I suggest she asks ISIS or indeed its backers for some kind of aid.

The UK owes her no favours at all.

She got what she voted for. 

Let her apply for Syrian social security and a 2 bedroom tent sans running water.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

Sorry Chomper. We will have to disagree on this one.

She knew EXACTLY what she was getting into when she travelled to join ISIS.

Everyone was already well aware of the atrocities they were carrying out based on the sole reason of peoples religion. She knew that.

Now if she now finds herself in a difficult position I suggest she asks ISIS or indeed its backers for some kind of aid.

The UK owes her no favours at all.

She got what she voted for. 

 

Disagree all you like. 

 

I hold the view that handing the crown/executive the power to strip someone of their citizenship, banish them is a power the crown/executive should not have, the authors of magna cart agree, and for good reason.

 

What she did was already against UK law, she should be dealt with by criminal justice system, a system which has stood the test of over 800 years of criminal law, courts and justice.

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Only she was pretty much fighting against the very rights and values Britain is founded on. I get your point that a precedent might be a two-edged sword. But then, wouldn't this apply to any precedent? That may be a thing for future legal systems and experts to deal with. Instances involving capital punishment may be a different class, but something which is conceivably reversible? Not sure it's quite the legal tectonic movement implied.

She wasn’t actually fighting in any shape or form.

 

Put her crimes before an English court of law and let her be judged by a jury of her peers.

 

Like criminals and traitors have been tried for centuries.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She wasn’t actually fighting in any shape or form.

 

Put her crimes before an English court of law and let her be judged by a jury of her peers.

 

Like criminals and traitors have been tried for centuries.

 

I'm not versed in historical precedent. Are there many such cases of people aligning themselves with an enemy, change of heart when things don't go as planned, than ask to be taken into the fold once more? Also, as far as I understand, the issue decided was with regard to her returning to the UK to fight her case, not the matter of her revoked citizenship itself. She can still pursue legal action, but from abroad.

[katana]

Latest news is she's just bought a dinghy.

[Gracas]

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Put her crimes before an English court of law and let her be judged by a jury of her peers.

 

Like criminals and traitors have been tried for centuries.

Yes let her be tried for her crimes, maybe she will receive the punishment she deserves.

 

Hung, Drawn and Quartered.... There is something to be said for the good old days.