1 minute ago, Sujo said:

She is also one of our citizens.

She was, at this very moment in time she is not, the Home Secretary revoked her citizenship and most people will hope it stays that way.

8 hours ago, baansgr said:

Various funded human rights organisations have backed her. Appeals have been overthrown befor, so an appeal to overthrow this appeal is in the making. UK is a soft touch but not stupid...she's not going anywhere

I hope your right. The British public is very angry over this. She is also a war criminal according to those that new her and were terrified by her.

9 hours ago, tribalfusion001 said:

This takes biscuit, ISIS scum and the judges think it's ok to let her back.

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.

8 hours ago, jaiyen said:

And I suppose the UK government will charter a private jet to bring her to London ? And put her up in a nice hotel ?

Why would you suppose any of that?

5 hours ago, lemonjelly said:

As far as I know, she was an impressionable normal young teenager who was unfortunately brainwashed and radicalized and then to Syria to become a bride, not a fighter. She’s lost a couple of kids in refugee camps. Lass needs repatriation and de radicalizing, she needs to live a normal life again, get away from the Sharia nonsense,  that would send a powerful message to Islamic extremists. She, as a teenager made a mistake, it’s up to the British public to be big and forgive. 

The Scots tried to get voting for 16 years olds, supported by the communists in the Labour Party. How does that work with your argument?  If she is old enough to vote, old enough to leave the country and denounce her homeland,  have kids, old enough to actively support murders and terrorists and to marry one, she does not belong in a civilised society. Let her stay where apparently she wanted to be, Stateless in an Arab society.  She is one of the few exceptions to the rule that 16 years olds should be treated as children.  

More off topic and inflammatory removed

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

She's a British citizen.

 

No, she isn't a British citizen, currently, that's the point!

From the BBC website

Quote

How do you lose your citizenship?

In the UK, someone can have their citizenship stripped by the home secretary, for the following reasons:

• It is "for the public good" and would not make them stateless
• The person obtained citizenship through fraud
• Their actions could harm UK interests and they can claim citizenship elsewhere

Ms Begum was stripped of her citizenship for the public good reason.

Under international law, it is legal to remove someone's citizenship if they are entitled to citizenship of another country.

In February, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent".

So why has she not gone to Bangladesh ?

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

7 hours ago, baansgr said:

No, as she is no longer a British Citizen. 

Incorrect. She still is a British citizen, that is what this case is about. She can't be stripped of citizenship without the option to appeal.

She is not currently a British citizen, she has had her citizenship removed and is now trying to get it reinstated, that is what this case is about at this stage.

I have seen the video of what she did. She is a terrorist. She should never be allowed back in the UK

 

This shows that UK law does NOT protect the people by allowing trash like this back. Makes me sick.

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

7 hours ago, baansgr said:

The case is actually about her wanting her British Citizenship reinstated so in fact she is no longer a British Citizen

Not true, read the op. 

The OP categorically states that her British citizenship was removed in 2019.

7 minutes ago, Bob A Kneale said:

She is not currently a British citizen, she has had her citizenship removed and is now trying to get it reinstated, that is what this case is about at this stage.

Technically you're correct, but in explaining the process that would be too difficult for many to understand. They don't even understand why a British citizen is allowed to return.

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

9 minutes ago, Bob A Kneale said:

She is not currently a British citizen, she has had her citizenship removed and is now trying to get it reinstated, that is what this case is about at this stage.

Technically you're correct

"Technically", my a_rse, I am correct.

19 minutes ago, johng said:

From the BBC website

So why has she not gone to Bangladesh ?

um, cause she isn't a citizen there. The British government have just assumed she is.

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

The decision to strip was deemed unlawful, so she is British citizen until the decision to strip is upheld.

No, it was not "deemed unlawful"!   The removal of her citizenship stands unless the review finds in her favour.

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Putting aside she was a captured prisoner of war and hence shooting her would have been a war crime, in what twist of logic can she be a traitor if she is not a citizen?

 

 

How a prisoner of war, the caliphate was not a recognized country. Mossad would have taken her out years ago and rightly so, shame the SAS or MI6 didn't.

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

Of course they can throw her out again. If the decision to remove her British citizenship is deemed legal, she can be removed to Bangladesh.

 

Of course how?

 

Once she sets foot in the UK, she won't go anywhere.

If her appeal is accepted, then she may be face charges regarding her ISIS membership etc.

If her appeal is denied, she can't be deported elsewhere without destination country accepting charge, and deemed safe. The latter can be challenged on multiple grounds.

 

As far as I understand Bangladesh declined already. Similarly, it would be nigh impossible deporting her to Syria, Iraq or similar destinations.

58 minutes ago, Sujo said:

She is also one of our citizens.

Not anymore she ain't and never was in the first place.

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Putting aside she was a captured prisoner of war and hence shooting her would have been a war crime, in what twist of logic can she be a traitor if she is not a citizen?

 

 

 

I don't think the charge of treason goes away even if citizenship was cancelled/renounced. It's more to do with the time in which actions were taken. Wouldn't know that she qualifies anyway.

3 minutes ago, tribalfusion001 said:

How a prisoner of war, the caliphate was not a recognized country. Mossad would have taken her out years ago and rightly so, shame the SAS or MI6 didn't.

 

Maybe in your fantasies. In reality, there were some Israeli citizen who joined ISIS and traveled to Syria/Iraq. Unless mistaken, most were sent back when captured, faced trial etc. No such service would run silly risks disposing of such small fish.

13 minutes ago, samran said:

um, cause she isn't a citizen there. The British government have just assumed she is.

I thought it was because they didn't want her either ?

 

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

As far as I understand Bangladesh declined already. Similarly, it would be nigh impossible deporting her to Syria, Iraq or similar destinations.

Nobody wants her !  and after watching the video interview   where she says seeing decapitated heads thrown in a dustbin  didn't phase her  is anyone surprised ?

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Of course how?

 

Once she sets foot in the UK, she won't go anywhere.

If her appeal is accepted, then she may be face charges regarding her ISIS membership etc.

If her appeal is denied, she can't be deported elsewhere without destination country accepting charge, and deemed safe. The latter can be challenged on multiple grounds.

 

As far as I understand Bangladesh declined already. Similarly, it would be nigh impossible deporting her to Syria, Iraq or similar destinations.

If her appeal is denied she'd be stateless apparently, which is not a legal option.

24 minutes ago, Bob A Kneale said:

"Technically", my a_rse, I am correct.

In the full post, a big part of which you omitted, it is clear what I meant.

8 minutes ago, johng said:

I thought it was because they didn't want her either ?

 

Nobody wants her !  and after watching the video interview   where she says seeing decapitated heads thrown in a dustbin  didn't phase her  is anyone surprised ?

According to bangladeshis authorities she is not a Bangladesh citizen. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47312207

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

If her appeal is denied she'd be stateless apparently, which is not a legal option.

 

The end result is the same. Once she's on UK soil, she's not going to be deported anywhere, regardless of anything. So while all the other stuff about process, rights and whatnot may be to the point, comments regarding the possibility of her being deported or expelled are nonsense.

 

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

32 minutes ago, Bob A Kneale said:

"Technically", my a_rse, I am correct.

In the full post, a big part of which you omitted, it is clear what I meant.

Yes, I am correct, whatever you meant, without needing to rely on an alleged technicality.

12 minutes ago, johng said:

I thought it was because they didn't want her either ?

 

Nobody wants her !  and after watching the video interview   where she says seeing decapitated heads thrown in a dustbin  didn't phase her  is anyone surprised ?

The law is that she can't have her UK citizenship stripped if she ends up as stateless.

 

In this case the UK government has gone - well her dad is from Bangladesh, she must also be a citizen there - strip away. Bangladesh have said she isn't.

 

It be a bit like Thailand unilaterally deciding someone's a UK citizen without the UK's involvement. It just doesn't make sense.

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

According to bangladeshis authorities she is not a Bangladesh citizen

Well apparently she is until 21 years of age.

 

Quote

Lawyers have told the BBC that under Bangladesh law, a UK national born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen - a dual national - but the Bangladeshi authorities assert that's not the case for Ms Begum.

Under this "blood line" law, Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapse when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make active efforts to retain it.

 

9 hours ago, jaiyen said:

And I suppose the UK government will charter a private jet to bring her to London ? And put her up in a nice hotel ?

Well that's what they do for her kind is it not? It is only a matter of time before Britain is under Islamic rule, in fact it is almost there already.

Seeing as the country getting more divided by the day, letting her back in would stoke up tensions even more. I'm sure the UK government will drag this out as long as possible.