Shamima Begum

[motorbiking]

Criminals are equally entitled to justice, whatever their misdeeds.
Otherwise the government picks and chooses who is entitled to justice and who isn't.

In addition, when countries agree to, and sign international conventions, they are expected to honour their commitments. If they don't they're setting bad examples for others to follow, and they've lost the moral high ground.

She's getting access to justice. about 1/2 a million quids worth so far.
The Government had the right to revoke her citizenship on security grounds in the knowledge that she was a dual national. Once revoked it is the other state that cannot follow the same. It has nothing to do with Bangladeshi law. It does seem a harsh thing to do to a young person, but it is within the law. Her legal team seem to have given up on the argument it was unlawful, instead they are following an appeal that the grounds where not sufficient/fair/reasonable and so far that isn't going well. You don't need detailed assessment of the closed material, you find some other way to say the Home Secretary got it wrong, or you mount a campaign directly to the home secretary to reconsider. Further, I suspect she is at risk, not because she is now a westernised woman (how convenient), but because she is openly offering to be a grass.

 

[AngleEyes]

Your post is to long so never read it
Why can’t you just keep it brief

I'll be patient with you.
You are suggesting that you don't have the patience to read my posts, beyond a few words.
And you then claim you understand more about national security than I?

fact is you don’t understand any of this secret squirrel caper

not your fault tis a lack of education IMO you need to wind yer neck in

You suggest I am poorly educated, and you repeatedly misspell 'your', and 'once'.
In fact, your posts are littered with spelling mistakes.
You're such a clown, just not funny.

 

[AngleEyes]

She's getting access to justice. about 1/2 a million quids worth so far.

She is in prison camp potentially surrounded by others sympathetic to ISIS.
She is not allowed to speak in person with her legal advisers, that's not justice, that's a sever limitation of confidentiality.

The Government had the right to revoke her citizenship on security grounds in the knowledge that she was a dual national.

You keep trotting out the same old nonsense, she wasn't, isn't and never has been a Bangladeshi citizen. It is only a UK interpretation of another country's regulations that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. UK have no authority to apply other country's laws.
You cannot make legal decisions such as removing someone's entitlement to protection based on the perception that they may be entitled to that protection from another source. You are relying on the compliance of another country over which you have no jurisdiction.

Once revoked it is the other state that cannot follow the same. It has nothing to do with Bangladeshi law.

Shamima did not have Bangladeshi citizenship, therefore Bangladesh are not revoking her citizenship, they are denying her application, if she did apply, and she has no intention of doing that. They have every right to deny an application on whatever grounds they see fit.

It does seem a harsh thing to do to a young person, but it is within the law.

It is against international law to make someone stateless. A flimsy idea that they are entitled to citizenship somewhere else does not excuse such behaviour.

Her legal team seem to have given up on the argument it was unlawful, instead they are following an appeal that the grounds where not sufficient/fair/reasonable and so far that isn't going well.

They cannot appeal the decision that made her stateless in a UK court. They need to appeal such a decision in an international court.
Therefore they are appealing in a UK court, that which can be appealed in a UK court.

You don't need detailed assessment of the closed material, you find some other way to say the Home Secretary got it wrong, or you mount a campaign directly to the home secretary to reconsider.

Of course you need to know the details of the revocation of her citizenship, otherwise how can you feasibly appeal against it?
Even the judge does not know the grounds for the revocation of her citizenship other than it was based on national security concerns.

Further, I suspect she is at risk, not because she is now a westernised woman (how convenient), but because she is openly offering to be a grass.

She has always been at risk, merely because she wants to return to UK, and there has been a risk from other ISIS sympathisers in the camp.

 

[transam]

The way I see it

I could not careless if they let her back into the UK or not

she may be fit but let’s face it she is a fruit cake

I would be a bit wary of her staying around my place tbh

 

[Notch7]

She's getting access to justice. about 1/2 a million quids worth so far.
The Government had the right to revoke her citizenship on security grounds in the knowledge that she was a dual national. Once revoked it is the other state that cannot follow the same. It has nothing to do with Bangladeshi law. It does seem a harsh thing to do to a young person, but it is within the law. Her legal team seem to have given up on the argument it was unlawful, instead they are following an appeal that the grounds where not sufficient/fair/reasonable and so far that isn't going well. You don't need detailed assessment of the closed material, you find some other way to say the Home Secretary got it wrong, or you mount a campaign directly to the home secretary to reconsider. Further, I suspect she is at risk, not because she is now a westernised woman (how convenient), but because she is openly offering to be a grass.

As you say, it may be harsh, but it is the law…..although whether it would’ve got to that stage without the huge media coverage, I’m not so sure.


The point I was making earlier in this thread was really about whether she was truly an evil terrorist or a teenager that got brainwashed. I actually don’t know, but I don’t think it’s as simple as people believe.

 

[Notch7]

I would be a bit wary of her staying around my place tbh

It was very good of you to invite her around for Crimbo, does the wife approve?

 

[AngleEyes]

As you say, it may be harsh, but it is the law…..although whether it would’ve got to that stage without the huge media coverage, I’m not so sure.


The point I was making earlier in this thread was really about whether she was truly an evil terrorist or a teenager that got brainwashed. I actually don’t know, but I don’t think it’s as simple as people believe.

The fact that over 400 other ex-ISIS fighters have been allowed to return, who were not subjected to a media campaign, and Shamima, being the only one subjected to such a campaign is the one who has been stripped of her citizenship on secret national security concerns.

And how can she possibly appeal on the details which are kept secret from her, her legal advisers and even the judges who may sit in judgement on the case.

 

[johnny2007]

I wonder how some snowflakes can understand the legal system and national security matters better than judges and experts in national security.
Why are they not employed in courts, MI5/MI6???
What are they doing on a DIY forum typing millions of words of nonsense every day and night???

Get this post removed asap.

 

[AngleEyes]

In addition, Bangladesh have a death penalty for terrorism, and they have stated that if Shamima entered Bangladesh, she would be tried and if found guilty, would receive the death penalty.

 

[transam]

In addition, Bangladesh have a death penalty for terrorism, and they have stated that if Shamima entered Bangladesh, she would be tried and if found guilty, would receive the death penalty.

blimey I never knew that

well send her there than if found guilty of terrorism

sorted

simples

 

[AngleEyes]

blimey I never knew that

well send her there than if found guilty of terrorism

sorted

simples

Then UK would be not only stripping a British national of their citizenship, they would also be colluding in them receiving the death penalty.

UK supposedly does not return criminals if they are likely to face the death penalty. But that is effectively what it has done in Shamima's case.
It wouldn't have even considered the idea if Shamima had been white, and/or male.
That suggests both a racial, and a gender undertone to the decision to revoke her citizenship.
It also exemplifies the two tier approach to the UK's notion of citizenship. Those born to immigrants must behave themselves otherwise their citizenship will be revoked, despite then not having dual nationality. Whereas, those born to indigenous white parents will be safe from such treatment.
Even if the children born to immigrant parents do behave themselves, they can still be stripped of citizenship, hence the Windrush victims.
Britain's colonial past is still very much in evidence and its attitudes practised.

 

[transam]

Only read first few lines

but nonsense bung her out to Bangladesh there legal
System is up to snuff if she is guilty well ***t happens

the fact that they will bump her off well Er

as said ***t happens and Transam
Gives not a jot tbh

 

[AngleEyes]

Only read first few lines

And yet you consider yourself well informed.

Did you just read the first few lines of the manual about transitioning into a panda.
You should read the rest, you'd have realised it's species dysphoria which is a psychological problem.

 

[transam]

And yet you consider yourself well informed.

Did you just read the first few lines of the manual about transitioning into a panda.
You should read the rest, you'd have realised it's species dysphoria which is a psychological problem.

of course I am well informed

and


Sticks and stones etc etc

 

[motorbiking]

She is in prison camp potentially surrounded by others sympathetic to ISIS.
She is not allowed to speak in person with her legal advisers, that's not justice, that's a sever limitation of confidentiality.


You keep trotting out the same old nonsense, she wasn't, isn't and never has been a Bangladeshi citizen. It is only a UK interpretation of another country's regulations that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. UK have no authority to apply other country's laws.
You cannot make legal decisions such as removing someone's entitlement to protection based on the perception that they may be entitled to that protection from another source. You are relying on the compliance of another country over which you have no jurisdiction.


Shamima did not have Bangladeshi citizenship, therefore Bangladesh are not revoking her citizenship, they are denying her application, if she did apply, and she has no intention of doing that. They have every right to deny an application on whatever grounds they see fit.


It is against international law to make someone stateless. A flimsy idea that they are entitled to citizenship somewhere else does not excuse such behaviour.


They cannot appeal the decision that made her stateless in a UK court. They need to appeal such a decision in an international court.
Therefore they are appealing in a UK court, that which can be appealed in a UK court.


Of course you need to know the details of the revocation of her citizenship, otherwise how can you feasibly appeal against it?
Even the judge does not know the grounds for the revocation of her citizenship other than it was based on national security concerns.



She has always been at risk, merely because she wants to return to UK, and there has been a risk from other ISIS sympathisers in the camp.

I don't know if you choose not to understand, or simply don't understand. I invite you to prove your arguments, please quote references as you go.

The key arguments:
- UK acted unlawfully in revoking her citizenship
- UK's motive was political not national security
- Banladesh has a lawful basis for rejecting her citizenship application had it been done in time.

You are aware that a person can renounce their citizenship and become stateless?