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

[proton]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nice little fantasy you’ve got going on there.

 

Unfortunately the courts might not agree.

 

Not as big a fantasy as this terrorist traitor and baby abuser being let back in, people would not stand for it.

[youreavinalaff]

Just now, proton said:

 

Not as big a fantasy as this terrorist traitor and baby abuser being let back in, people would not stand for it.

You let yourself down, and open yourself up for criticism, by making disparaging, untrue, Islamophobia comments.

 

Stick to the facts. You'll get by much better.

[proton]

31 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You let yourself down, and open yourself up for criticism, by making disparaging, untrue, Islamophobia comments.

 

Stick to the facts.You'll get by much better.

The facts are she is a terrorist a traitor and has lost endless court action by leftist lawyers to get her back where she does not belong. There is no such thing as islamophobia, a word made up by muslims to demonise any opposition to it's nasty belief system and the disgusting life led by its founder. Phobia is an irrational fear, fear of a cult which wants to take over your country and way of life is not irrational.

[Chomper Higgot]

42 minutes ago, proton said:

The facts are she is a terrorist a traitor and has lost endless court action by leftist lawyers to get her back where she does not belong. There is no such thing as islamophobia, a word made up by muslims to demonise any opposition to its nasty belief system and the disgusting life led by its founder. Phobia is an irrational fear, fear of a cult which wants to take over your country and way of life is not irrational.

Best of luck with these compelling and rational legal arguments

[youreavinalaff]

46 minutes ago, proton said:

The facts are she is a terrorist a traitor and has lost endless court action by leftist lawyers to get her back where she does not belong. There is no such thing as islamophobia, a word made up by muslims to demonise any opposition to it's nasty belief system and the disgusting life led by its founder. Phobia is an irrational fear, fear of a cult which wants to take over your country and way of life is not irrational.

Those are not facts. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe the UK rulings are correct, but your arguments are not facts.

[vinny41]

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

 

I stand by my opinion that Begum is entitled to citizenship,  and if there are moves to take it away, then they should follow due process, and should follow a conviction in a British court, under British Law, not a knee jerk reaction, within 24 hours of the matter becoming known, by the Home Secretary.

That in my opinion is in line with our culture and values, inconvenient or distasteful as it may be.

 

Of course I may be a soppy hand wringer, partially responsible for having led the UK to the appeased dhimmi status it is in now, groveling before the Islamist assault on our culture and values and feeling all virtuous, tolerant and liberal for it!

 

I also served as a soldier, and fought against the Islamist assault, in the initial rounds of what turned into a long war...

 

Did you, or has all your combat in defence of our culture and values been from behind a keyboard?

Shamima Begum interview by the Times was published February 13th 2019

According to court documents published 22 February 2023

On 18th February 2019 the Secretary of State was provided with a Ministerial Submission, backed by other statements and assessments, recommending that Ms Begum be deprived of her British citizenship. The Secretary of State accepted that recommendation and on 19th February he decided to make a deprivation order under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Shamima-Begum-OPEN-Judgment.pdf

Timeline is 6 days not the 24 hours that you posted

 

[proton]

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Those are not facts. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe the UK rulings are correct, but your arguments are not facts.

what is not a fact?

[youreavinalaff]

27 minutes ago, proton said:

what is not a fact?

She's never been accused, let alone charged, with terrorism. I don't recall her being accused of abusing babies, she can't go to Bangladesh right now, not sure why you think she wears curtains, prove she'd  become a 2nd or third wife and spend the rest of her life cooking, cleaning and breeding. Does Allah knows best after all.?

 

Just for a start.

[proton]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

She's never been accused, let alone charged, with terrorism. I don't recall her being accused of abusing babies, she can't go to Bangladesh right now, not sure why you think she wears curtains, prove she'd  become a 2nd or third wife and spend the rest of her life cooking, cleaning and breeding. Does Allah knows best after all.?

 

Just for a start.

Anyone who joined Isis is a terrorist by default, she does not have to be charged and cannot be in the UK as the offences were committed abroad. It's documented she helped with suicide vests and was not phased by beheadings, rapes and slavery. Anyone who loses three babies within the space of a few years is abusing them. No reason why she cannot apply for a Bangladeshi passport. Oh no benefits and free housing there though.

[youreavinalaff]

8 minutes ago, proton said:

Anyone who joined Isis is a terrorist by default, she does not have to be charged and cannot be in the UK as the offences were committed abroad. It's documented she helped with suicide vests and was not phased by beheadings, rapes and slavery. Anyone who loses three babies within the space of a few years is abusing them. No reason why she cannot apply for a Bangladeshi passport. Oh no benefits and free housing there though.

Not facts. Mostly opinions.

 

However, one point that most definitely is made up by you, she cannot apply for Bangladeshi passport. She lost that right when she became 21.

 

BTW, she didn't join ISIS.

 

Edited February 25 by youreavinalaff

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/24/2024 at 6:35 PM, prakhonchai nick said:

Why would any self respecting UK lawyer want to represent her?

I think enough money will make any lawyer work for a bad person. They'll make excuses for doing so of course.

Edited February 25 by thaibeachlovers

[Cory1848]

19 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

  It might make you feel warm and smug and morally superior ,  but it would make any right minded person physically sick.  It would also demonstrate to the islamist savages how pathetic the UK has become and further fuel their enthusiasm to continue their assault on the west. 

Just listen to yourself. “Islamist savages.” Sure, some Muslims are violent thugs, simply because they’re human, and violence is a uniquely human trait. Many non-Muslims are violent thugs, too. Did you know that twice as many Iraqi civilians were killed during the initial “Shock and Awe” campaign of Bush II’s unprovoked attack on that country, as died on 9/11? Or, for a specifically British example, there’s always Colonel Reginald Dyer, who ordered his troops to fire on a peaceful crowd at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar in 1919, killing as many as 1,500. The number surely would have been higher had Dyer been able to get two armored cars into the bagh, but the entry gate was too narrow. Just one episode of the UK’s centuries-long “assault” on the developing world during the era of colonial settlement and exploitation.

 

The statement “We have met the enemy, and he is us,” used by everyone from Walt Kelly to Oliver Stone, comes to mind: trying pondering on that for a few moments at least before launching into your next racist screed.

Edited February 25 by Cory1848

[James105]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I think enough money will make any lawyer work for a bad person. They'll make excuses for doing so of course.

 

I don't think lawyers in the UK get much of a choice when it comes to representing the worst dregs of society.  Everyone is entitled to a fair trial with legal representation, no matter how rich or poor they are, with taxpayer funded legal aid provided when they cannot afford it.  

 

I think most people are on board with the legal aid system in the UK and its overall aims to provide representation to those who otherwise could not afford it when accused of a serious crime, no matter how reprehensible the crime.   However, this should be restricted to 1 defence and 1 appeal.   After this it should be down to the individual to fund it.  Now that Begum has lost the appeal and is legally not a British citizen, it should not be down to the UK taxpayer to fund this.  She seems to have a lot of support from the large number of useful idiots in the UK and if those useful idiots want to pay money for her seemingly endless appeals then I have no problem with the funds being raised via the GoFundMe route.  

[brewsterbudgen]

On 2/25/2024 at 9:16 AM, 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

 

 

 

 

 

Then she should be convicted in a UK court and locked up.  The key can be thrown away for all I care.  I think you have missed the point!

[Scouse123]

9 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

Then she should be convicted in a UK court and locked up.  The key can be thrown away for all I care.  I think you have missed the point!

 

 

Shamima Begum committed the crimes abroad, she can face justice abroad.

 

She was stripped of her nationality because she was and is a danger to the national security of the UK, and at that time, she had options to gain nationality in other countries that would not make her' stateless ' 

 

Begum deliberately did not apply for it to Bangladesh, because she wanted to put pressure on the UK's soft option society, to go back to a private cell, with shower and phone, family visits and early parole.

 

I didn't miss the point.

 

The amounts of money invested by our stretched security forces and Police keeping these useless pieces of human rubbish under surveillance is ridiculous.

 

 Meanwhile, our armed services are cut back every year leaving us, our people and our borders, vulnerable and weak, because of this filth.

[James105]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

Then she should be convicted in a UK court and locked up.  The key can be thrown away for all I care.  I think you have missed the point!

 

If a UK citizen commits a serious crime in Thailand where do you think they should have their day in court and serve their sentence if convicted?

 

a) Thailand

b) UK

 

If you answer was (a) you would be correct as that is where the crimes were committed!   I remain bemused as to why people continue to state that she should be tried and sentenced in a UK court for crimes she committed abroad.  

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

If a UK citizen commits a serious crime in Thailand where do you think they should have their day in court and serve their sentence if convicted?

 

a) Thailand

b) UK

 

If you answer was (a) you would be correct as that is where the crimes were committed!   I remain bemused as to why people continue to state that she should be tried and sentenced in a UK court for crimes she committed abroad.  

 

Because she joined a Terrorist organisation and allegedly served in the Islamic State's 'morality police' and recruited other young women to join the jihadist group. Separate intelligence reports claimed she stitched suicide bombers into explosive vests, a potential offence of preparation of terrorist acts.

 

Thus...  her crime is 'terrorism' and she can be tried anywhere.... Just as those guilty of War-Crimes are not tried in the country in which they commit said crime... 

 

Hopefully with this explanation the over simplified and dumbed down folly of your argument that she committed her crimes abroad and should be tried there is something you now understand. 

 

 

 

[Arindos]

The merry-go-round of the pro-immigration establishment in the UK is insane when you consider that not only are most British people opposed to immigration, but also that the majority of non-whites (at least the non muslim) in the UK are also opposed to immigration (non-muslim ethnic minorities have been opposed to immigration for at least a decade, and I believe even a few polling now shows Muslims swinging in favour of anti-immigration policies).

 

This has to be the only policy that has come of the Conservatives which is actually anti-immigration and hence I support it. If the UK wanted to leave the EU because of immigration and the migration crisis, then why is the Conservative party not doing more to tackle immigration and migration?

 

Canada recently stopped giving out student visas like candy and maybe the UK should do the same too.

[Scouse123]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Because she joined a Terrorist organisation and allegedly served in the Islamic State's 'morality police' and recruited other young women to join the jihadist group. Separate intelligence reports claimed she stitched suicide bombers into explosive vests, a potential offence of preparation of terrorist acts.

 

Thus...  her crime is 'terrorism' and she can be tried anywhere.... Just as those guilty of War-Crimes are not tried in the country in which they commit said crime... 

 

Hopefully with this explanation the over simplified and dumbed down folly of your argument that she committed her crimes abroad and should be tried there is something you now understand. 

 

 

 

 

 

She is no longer a British citizen, so no point in her coming to the UK to be tried in a court of law.

 

She might as well, as a stateless person, be tried where she is.

 

Who should decide if she comes back to the UK to be tried in a court of law, as now, a non-British person?

 

a.) The British law courts in their entirety.

 

b) You.

 

Well, the British courts have decided that the government acted within the law.

 

I bet you would be one of the first blasting the government if she was allowed back, released on parole and then committed a terrorist act where your immediate family or relatives were the victims.

 

I hope she dies in a filthy, squatter tent in the detention camp, where she belongs along with any other ISIS filth.

 

People who have met her, interviewed her, spent long periods of time with her and those that know far more than is allowed in the press state she is dangerous, a manipulator, and still a threat to UK security.

 

 However, you feel you know better?

[youreavinalaff]

57 minutes ago, Arindos said:

The merry-go-round of the pro-immigration establishment in the UK is insane when you consider that not only are most British people opposed to immigration, but also that the majority of non-whites (at least the non muslim) in the UK are also opposed to immigration (non-muslim ethnic minorities have been opposed to immigration for at least a decade, and I believe even a few polling now shows Muslims swinging in favour of anti-immigration policies).

 

This has to be the only policy that has come of the Conservatives which is actually anti-immigration and hence I support it. If the UK wanted to leave the EU because of immigration and the migration crisis, then why is the Conservative party not doing more to tackle immigration and migration?

 

Canada recently stopped giving out student visas like candy and maybe the UK should do the same too.

Universities rely on foreign students. Without them, fees would need to increase for home grown students. The government would then likely need to subsidise, costing the tax payer.

 

Immigration is needed to bridge the gap between workforce and job vacancies. With out immigration, many places, namely most NHS facilities and health care establishments would not be able to operate.

 

I doubt very much "most British people are opposed to immigration", especially when they have a foreign national treating/caring for them or their family members in a hospital or care home.

 

 

Edited February 26 by youreavinalaff

[daveAustin]

Good. Not a nice person. Britain has been a soft touch for too long, overlooking its own people for the good of the few. There are enough problems there already without adding little shyster terrorists like her back into the fold. Of course, the misguided Left (usually) will plead for her citizenship. 

[richard_smith237]

20 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I doubt very much "most British people are opposed to immigration", especially when they have a foreign national treating/caring for them or their family members in a hospital or care home.

 

100% agree....   I don't think the British Public are against Immigration at all...  

 

... But they are against boat loads of only men coming to the British shores and the ensuing problems and reliance on the soft policy at the high cost of the British Tax payer. 

 

I don't think the British Public have anything against genuine refugees either, families through official channels, not just 'only men' groups terrorising lorry drivers.

 

And, I think the British Public certainly welcome the qualified 'immigrants' who arrive in the UK and support the community, integrate, pay taxes and contribute to the wonderful cultural colour of the nation.

 

This is certainly not a black and white subject - but it the solutions need more discretional resources, some of which need to be very very hard lined, while others need to be a lot more considerate of genuine cases. 

 

 

Our family Dr. in the UK was an Indian Gentleman, the only non-white family for miles around in a very white area of the UK, he was not only respected, but very well liked by everyone in the community as an elevated member of the community, and this is because of what he contributed to the community - he was never considered an immigrant in the terms thrown around today.... 

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

100% agree....   I don't think the British Public are against Immigration at all...  

 

... But they are against boat loads of only men coming to the British shores and the ensuing problems and reliance on the soft policy at the high cost of the British Tax payer. 

 

I don't think the British Public have anything against genuine refugees either, families through official channels, not just 'only men' groups terrorising lorry drivers.

 

And, I think the British Public certainly welcome the qualified 'immigrants' who arrive in the UK and support the community, integrate, pay taxes and contribute to the wonderful cultural colour of the nation.

 

This is certainly not a black and white subject - but it the solutions need more discretional resources, some of which need to be very very hard lined, while others need to be a lot more considerate of genuine cases. 

 

 

Our family Dr. in the UK was an Indian Gentleman, the only non-white family for miles around in a very white area of the UK, he was not only respected, but very well liked by everyone in the community as an elevated member of the community, and this is because of what he contributed to the community - he was never considered an immigrant in the terms thrown around today.... 

 

 

It's a shame the media only seem to print the pictures of the "men only" boats.

 

It certainly sways people's opinions.

 

They seem to miss the "drowning deaths including children" or "women missing in the channel" stories.

[brewsterbudgen]

18 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's a shame the media only seem to print the pictures of the "men only" boats.

 

It certainly sways people's opinions.

 

They seem to miss the "drowning deaths including children" or "women missing in the channel" stories.

Pretty much the entire media reporting of the issue in the UK is disgraceful.  Anyone would think there's an election coming.

[richard_smith237]

25 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's a shame the media only seem to print the pictures of the "men only" boats.

 

It certainly sways people's opinions.

 

They seem to miss the "drowning deaths including children" or "women missing in the channel" stories.

 

Oh don't know about that.... The 'drowned babies' stories have certainly done the rounds in the media too...   we're getting the mix of info, propaganda, and misinformation from both sides and the truth is in there somewhere.

 

 

We (or rather the British Government) firstly has a humanitarian crisis that as a responsible developed nation needs to respond to...  but it is also fighting a massive abuse of immigration - its a very delicate playing field not helped by the extreme's in the media (extremes on both sides).

 

 

One question that is raised a lot - why are all these refugee migrants passing through so many nations to get to countries such as the UK, when their culture is so alien, wouldn't they be better suited migrating and seeking refugee status countries closer to their own culture ?....   The answer of course as we all know is on of economics - while the plight of many migrants is genuine, so is their understanding that the standard of living they secure in the UK is far greater than that in other Arab nations... 

... Think Syrians coming to the UK instead of Iraq (and there are many who also go to Iraq).

 

 

As far as this young girl is concerned - of course she should not be left stateless.

But, as she turned 21 because of Bangladesh's citizenship laws she has lost her Bangladeshi citizenship. 

IF the UK has relinquished her citizenship, she then falls within the rights to regain her Bangladeshi citizenship, if she wants it. 

OR... face Terrorism charges in the UK for her actions.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26 by richard_smith237

[Chomper Higgot]

21 hours ago, proton said:

 

Not as big a fantasy as this terrorist traitor and baby abuser being let back in, people would not stand for it.

Well I’m sure you’d spew some online rage, but ai doubt you rant for anyone but yourself.

[FruitPudding]

I have mixed views on this.

 

While I think the world would be a much better (safer) place without Islam at all - and wouldn't lose any sleep if the religion ceased to exist - she was only 15 at the time and brainwashed since birth (as Muslims are), so the verdict may be a little harsh.

 

[youreavinalaff]

3 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

I have mixed views on this.

 

While I think the world would be a much better (safer) place without Islam at all - and wouldn't lose any sleep if the religion ceased to exist - she was only 15 at the time and brainwashed since birth (as Muslims are), so the verdict may be a little harsh.

 

Brain washed from birth? I haven't seen that report. Do you have a link?

[Chomper Higgot]

19 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I think enough money will make any lawyer work for a bad person. They'll make excuses for doing so of course.

It seems you’ve been out of the UK so long you’ve forgotten how legal representation works and why it works that way.

[Cake Monster]

On 2/24/2024 at 4:34 PM, transam said:

At the mo she hasn't got any, but if she was let back in, I have no doubt she would be straight on social Security teamed up with another religious wannabe Rambo fruitcake.........🥴

I thought she had several kids by different IS fighters

I know at one stage she played the Rape card