Shamima Begum: East London schoolgirl loses appeal against removal of UK citizenship

[CG1 Blue]

21 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Then again, allowing her back will send a message that terrorists will be forgiven if they go abroad and commit terrorism and they can just come back to the UK as if nothing had happened 

Agreed

[stevenl]

29 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The OP!  

Thanks. I presumed you were referring to her appeal that decision. Otherwise it was a superfluous post 

[stevenl]

36 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Then again, allowing her back will send a message that terrorists will be forgiven if they go abroad and commit terrorism and they can just come back to the UK as if nothing had happened 

Easily solved by a trial.

[Nick Carter icp]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Easily solved by a trial.

 

   Its not possible to present evidence and witnesses to a U.K Court 

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She’ll eventually win her case.

 

Stripping a person of their citizenship on the basis of their actions as a child will clearly not stand, not should it.

 

 

She was indeed a child when she joined IS. However, she continued to be part of IS into adult hood.

 

She has not been stripped of citizenship solely for joining IS. It's for being a member of IS, which she has been whilst the law says she was an adult.

[mfd101]

Lots of vengeful & spiteful people on AN. Some of them no doubt think of themselves as Christians.

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, mfd101 said:

Lots of vengeful & spiteful people on AN. Some of them no doubt think of themselves as Christians.

People just have an opinion that you disagree with , no need to personally abuse them because of a differing opinion 

[brewsterbudgen]

I suspect the Supreme Court will overrule again.  I hope so.  She deserves punishment but it should be handed out in a court of law, not by disgraceful politicians.

[James105]

15 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

She deserves punishment but it should be handed out in a court of law

 

Which court? Where?  

[herfiehandbag]

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She's not "stateless", she is entitled to citizenship/passport of the country from where her parents brought her before they settled in the UK.  If she only had entitlement to UK citizenship, the UK could not remove that citizenship.

She was born in the UK. Therefore she was entitled, by birth, to British citizenship. Her parents came to the UK from Bangladesh. The then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, revoked her British Citizenship within 24 hours of her being found alive in a Syrian refugee camp. He did so on the basis that she also had Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh however denied that she was a Bangladeshi citizen, and they should know!

 

The UK could not remove that citizenship, but they did, which leaves her stateless.

 

The UK should not have removed her citizenship, she is British by birth. I have already explained that I am no particular fan of her actions, I have already explained why, and how I think she should be treated.

The basic fact remains that it was  unlawful to remove her citizenship.

Edited February 24 by herfiehandbag

[CG1 Blue]

22 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

The basic fact remains that it was  unlawful to remove her citizenship.

So why does she keep losing the appeals?

[tgw]

8 hours ago, mfd101 said:

So a 15-year-old's stupid decision & its on'n on consequences are to be held against her forever?

 

On that basis there's barely a 20-year-old anywhere in the whole world who deserves to be alive.

 

how is it being held against her?

the world is open to her, just not the part where she is considered a security risk.

[it is what it is]

6 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

how is it being held against her?

the world is open to her, just not the part where she is considered a security risk.

 

er, no,  could you travel the world without a passport? well neither can she. she is effectively stateless.

[Wobblybob]

5 minutes ago, it is what it is said:

 

er, no,  could you travel the world without a passport? well neither can she. she is effectively stateless.

Does it worry you? She obviously doesn't belong in the UK or else she wouldn't have travelled to join an organisation that believes cutting peoples heads off is the norm. When she saw heads of decapitated westerners in a rubbish bin she was quoted as saying that it didn't "faze" her. 

[brewsterbudgen]

8 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Does it worry you? She obviously doesn't belong in the UK or else she wouldn't have travelled to join an organisation that believes cutting peoples heads off is the norm. When she saw heads of decapitated westerners in a rubbish bin she was quoted as saying that it didn't "faze" her. 

She's a fool and was a dangerous fool who deserves to be punished.  But making her stateless is wrong and a purely political decision.  I have faith that the UK Supreme Court will overrule.

[roo860]

Personally I hope she spends the rest of her life in some rat hole.

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

She was born in the UK. Therefore she was entitled, by birth, to British citizenship. Her parents came to the UK from Bangladesh. The then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, revoked her British Citizenship within 24 hours of her being found alive in a Syrian refugee camp. He did so on the basis that she also had Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh however denied that she was a Bangladeshi citizen, and they should know!

 

The UK could not remove that citizenship, but they did, which leaves her stateless.

 

The UK should not have removed her citizenship, she is British by birth. I have already explained that I am no particular fan of her actions, I have already explained why, and how I think she should be treated.

The basic fact remains that it was  unlawful to remove her citizenship.

She is Bangladeshi by descent. The Bangladeshi government obviously deny this as they don't want her either.

 

She is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. Therefore, the UK government and courts have done nothing unlawful.

Edited February 24 by youreavinalaff

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

She's a fool and was a dangerous fool who deserves to be punished.  But making her stateless is wrong and a purely political decision.  I have faith that the UK Supreme Court will overrule.

She is not stateless. She's Bangladeshi by descent.

[Wobblybob]

8 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

She's a fool and was a dangerous fool who deserves to be punished.  But making her stateless is wrong and a purely political decision.  I have faith that the UK Supreme Court will overrule.

There are many Begins in the UK that show no loyalty and even hate the country and the population they chose to live in, we are far too tolerant as a nation, now our police have lost control of our streets. 

[herfiehandbag]

7 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

She is Bangladeshi by descent. The Bangladeshi government obviously deny this as they don't want her either.

 

She is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. Therefore, the UK government and courts have done nothing unlawful.

It is not a question of being Bangladeshi by descent, and therefore (possibly, I don't know Bangladeshi law) entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. She held British citizenship by virtue of being born in Britain.

 

After all, I have one Irish grandparent, technically I am entitled to apply for Irish Citizenship. That does not mean that the UK can decide to strip me of my citizenship. Conversely my daughter, born in Thailand but of "British descent", will not be granted British citizenship.

 

She held British citizenship. The then Home Secretary, in a knee jerk reaction, took that away ignoring the consequences - which were that it was illegal. The courts have for reasons unknown (but I suspect heavily influenced by the tabloid press) allowed that decision to stand. 

 

If the British government believes that she is to be punished it should be by a British court, under a British law. They shy away from that because it is by no means clear, either under which laws or with what evidence. In fact what has happened is that an administrative fiat by the Home Secretary has denied that, and replaced the due legal process.

Edited February 25 by herfiehandbag

[Wobblybob]

32 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

It is not a question of being Bangladeshi by descent, and therefore (possibly, I don't know Bangladeshi law) entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. She held British citizenship by virtue of being born in Britain.

 

After all, I have one Irish grandparent, technically I am entitled to apply for Irish Citizenship. That does not mean that the UK can decide to strip me of my citizenship. Conversely my daughter, born in Thailand but of "British descent", will not be granted British citizenship.

 

She held British citizenship. The then Home Secretary, in a knee jerk reaction, took that away ignoring the consequences - which were that it was illegal. The courts have for reasons unknown (but I suspect heavily influenced by the tabloid press) allowed that decision to stand. 

 

If the British government believes that she is to be punished it should be by a British court, under a British law. They shy away from that because it is by no means clear, either under which laws or with what evidence. In fact what has happened is that an administrative fiat by the Home Secretary has denied that, and replaced the due legal process.

The British lawmakers have the power to remove citizenships in certain circumstances and Begin certainly fits into that criteria.

 

"The government has the power to remove someone's UK citizenship in certain circumstances:"

 

• If 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 could claim citizenship elsewhere

https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53428191

[herfiehandbag]

25 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

The British lawmakers have the power to remove citizenships in certain circumstances and Begin certainly fits into that criteria.

 

"The government has the power to remove someone's UK citizenship in certain circumstances:"

 

• If 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 could claim citizenship elsewhere

https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53428191

It has made her stateless.

 

She did not obtain citizenship through fraud.

 

She could not claim citizenship elsewhere. 

 

On the last point, the decision to revoke her citizenship was taken so quickly ( within 24 hours of her being found to be alive in the camp) that it is inconceivable that there was any consultation with Bangladesh.

Why should Bangladesh pick up the pieces of the UK's mess?

[vinny41]

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

It is not a question of being Bangladeshi by descent, and therefore (possibly, I don't know Bangladeshi law) entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. She held British citizenship by virtue of being born in Britain.

 

After all, I have one Irish grandparent, technically I am entitled to apply for Irish Citizenship. That does not mean that the UK can decide to strip me of my citizenship. Conversely my daughter, born in Thailand but of "British descent", will not be granted British citizenship.

 

She held British citizenship. The then Home Secretary, in a knee jerk reaction, took that away ignoring the consequences - which were that it was illegal. The courts have for reasons unknown (but I suspect heavily influenced by the tabloid press) allowed that decision to stand. 

 

If the British government believes that she is to be punished it should be by a British court, under a British law. They shy away from that because it is by no means clear, either under which laws or with what evidence. In fact what has happened is that an administrative fiat by the Home Secretary has denied that, and replaced the due legal process.

she held  Bangladeshi provisional  citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951 she needed to apply for full Bangladesh Citizenship before the age of 21

When the UK removed her   British citizenship she was not stateless as she had access to Bangladesh Citizenship. She has made herself stateless by not applying for full Bangladesh Citizenship before the age of 21

In your example your British citizenship could be removed as you have access to Irish citizenship by your grandfather . If you didn't have access to Irish citizenship then the UK wouldn't be permitted to remove your UK citizenship 

[Scouse123]

12 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

I suspect the Supreme Court will overrule again.  I hope so.  She deserves punishment but it should be handed out in a court of law, not by disgraceful politicians.

 

Those disgraceful politicians you refer to, and I remember this case well, had first-hand knowledge of what this misfit did.

 

They stated at the time, if the British public had access to the information that they had, nobody would be giving her an ounce of sympathy.

 

This information was held by the judges at her hearing, hence many things were redacted, and a closed judgement issued for national security reasons.

 

This included participating and witnessing decapitation of aid workers, and she said at the time when ISIS was flying high that she was totally unfazed by it.

 

Furthermore, at the time, it was known that she was in a high position in the equivalent of the Women's morality ' police force ' set up to ensure all were following ISIS twisted version of Shariah law, again something she participated in willingly.

 

So all you bleeding hearts on AN can do one! 

 

They should put themselves in the position of the families, and reserve their outpourings of sympathy for the of murder of innocent civilian aid workers, not a disgusting creature like this.

 

What she did supporting ISIS, she did knowingly and willingly, and this continued well into adulthood. She only played the victim, claiming she was trafficked when the tide of the war turned.

 

She wasn't trafficked, she overcame many obstacles to get there and join them, well she can bloody stay there.

 

Her own parents had begged her not to go and join them, which she and her two friends took no notice of.

 

Likewise, she had ample opportunity to apply for her Bangladeshi citizenship before she turned 21, which she chose to ignore and do nothing.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-uncovered/how-all-female-isis-morality-police-khansaa-brigade-terrorized-mosul-n685926

 

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/comment/59540/why-shamima-begum-cant-be-allowed-to-return

 

https://news.sky.com/video/is-bride-a-lot-of-people-should-have-sympathy-for-me-11640208

 

https://www.arabnews.pk/node/1708041/world

 

 

 

 

[transam]

13 hours ago, mfd101 said:

Lots of vengeful & spiteful people on AN. Some of them no doubt think of themselves as Christians.

Why bring religion into the thread, one does not have to have a religion, like me, to keep this murderous regime collaborator lady out of the UK.............

[transam]

I thought this story funny, more or less the same reason London has Sadiq Khan as Mayor.....😂

 

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/welcome-her-back-bethnal-green-203654133.html

[quake]

Ah, A good news thread. 

 

[Scouse123]

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

The courts have for reasons unknown (but I suspect heavily influenced by the tabloid press) allowed that decision to stand. 

 

If the British government believes that she is to be punished it should be by a British court, under a British law. They shy away from that because it is by no means clear, either under which laws or with what evidence. In fact what has happened is that an administrative fiat by the Home Secretary has denied that, and replaced the due legal process.

 

What a load of absolute rubbish!

 

You way underestimate the level and standards of understanding of British courts.

 

They were not influenced by the British press, they had full access to what she had been doing with ISIS (and a lot more information than the public had, which we were told at the time) whilst extolling the virtues of her ISIS memberships, including beheading of civilians.

 

Nothing has replaced the British legal process, hence this case is still ongoing appeal after appeal at the expense of the British taxpayer, due to the hag having legal aid.

 

Of course, people in the bleeding hearts club on here want her punished under British law, where she goes to a cushy woman's prison with TV and shower in her cell and a phone, and then let out as ' allegedly ' rehabilitated in two years, to then covertly assist her terrorist friends, claiming benefits and planning attacks from within the UK, whilst having the protection of UK laws and soft liberals supporting her.

 

Then the additional costs of surveillance and keeping track of her and her movements.

 

 

[Scouse123]

13 minutes ago, transam said:

Why bring religion into the thread, one does not have to have a religion, like me, to keep this murderous regime collaborator lady out of the UK.............

 

Well said.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

 

Those disgraceful politicians you refer to, and I remember this case well, had first-hand knowledge of what this misfit did.

 

They stated at the time, if the British public had access to the information that they had, nobody would be giving her an ounce of sympathy.

 

This information was held by the judges at her hearing, hence many things were redacted, and a closed judgement issued for national security reasons.

 

This included participating and witnessing decapitation of aid workers, and she said at the time when ISIS was flying high that she was totally unfazed by it.

 

Furthermore, at the time, it was known that she was in a high position in the equivalent of the Women's morality ' police force ' set up to ensure all were following ISIS twisted version of Shariah law, again something she participated in willingly.

 

So all you bleeding hearts on AN can do one! 

 

They should put themselves in the position of the families, and reserve their outpourings of sympathy for the of murder of innocent civilian aid workers, not a disgusting creature like this.

 

What she did supporting ISIS, she did knowingly and willingly, and this continued well into adulthood. She only played the victim, claiming she was trafficked when the tide of the war turned.

 

She wasn't trafficked, she overcame many obstacles to get there and join them, well she can bloody stay there.

 

Her own parents had begged her not to go and join them, which she and her two friends took no notice of.

 

Likewise, she had ample opportunity to apply for her Bangladeshi citizenship before she turned 21, which she chose to ignore and do nothing.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-uncovered/how-all-female-isis-morality-police-khansaa-brigade-terrorized-mosul-n685926

 

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/comment/59540/why-shamima-begum-cant-be-allowed-to-return

 

https://news.sky.com/video/is-bride-a-lot-of-people-should-have-sympathy-for-me-11640208

 

https://www.arabnews.pk/node/1708041/world

 

 

 

 

Those disgraceful politicians you refer to, and I remember this case well, had first-hand knowledge of what this misfit did.

 

 

 

They stated at the time, if the British public had access to the information that they had, nobody would be giving her an ounce of sympathy.

 

 

 

This information was held by the judges at her hearing, hence many things were redacted, and a closed judgement issued for national security reasons.

 

 

 

This included participating and witnessing decapitation of aid workers, and she said at the time when ISIS was flying high that she was totally unfazed by it.

 

 

 

Furthermore, at the time, it was known that she was in a high position in the equivalent of the Women's morality ' police force ' set up to ensure all were following ISIS twisted version of Shariah law, again something she participated in willingly.

 

 

 

So all you bleeding hearts on AN can do one! 

 

 

 

They should put themselves in the position of the families, and reserve their outpourings of sympathy for the of murder of innocent civilian aid workers, not a disgusting creature like this.

 

 

 

What she did supporting ISIS, she did knowingly and willingly, and this continued well into adulthood. She only played the victim, claiming she was trafficked when the tide of the war turned.

 

 

 

She wasn't trafficked, she overcame many obstacles to get there and join them, well she can bloody stay there.

 

 

 

Her own parents had begged her not to go and join them, which she and

her two friends took no notice of.

 

All totally unimportant in relation to the legal decision to revoke her citizenship.

Morality and legality don't always match.