|
|
Post by ARENA on Jul 16, 2020 11:07:39 GMT
Ms Begum, now 20, was one of three schoolgirls who left London to join the Islamic State group in Syria in 2015.
She is being granted permission to appeal against being stripped of her British citizenship.
Should she be allowed to appeal?
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jul 16, 2020 11:17:29 GMT
Ms Begum, now 20, was one of three schoolgirls who left London to join the Islamic State group in Syria in 2015. She is being granted permission to appeal against being stripped of her British citizenship. Should she be allowed to appeal?
Yes. If she'd been groomed into sex at that age she would have been considered the victim. Here she was groomed into something much more damaging and has been made to take all responsibility herself.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy2020 on Jul 16, 2020 12:37:00 GMT
Isn't it an offence to encourage terrorism which the Court is basically doing by ruling today that she should be allowed to return to the UK to fight her appeal
I have no sympathy with her whatsoever, she is a war criminal. Calling her a school girl is ridiculous, she knew exactly what she was doing. If he was not dead I suppose they would let that Brit that chopped heads off and burned people alive would be allowed back
What next, William Joyce given a posthumous knighthood
|
|
|
|
Post by jonjel2 on Jul 16, 2020 15:30:04 GMT
Ms Begum, now 20, was one of three schoolgirls who left London to join the Islamic State group in Syria in 2015. She is being granted permission to appeal against being stripped of her British citizenship. Should she be allowed to appeal? The main issue I think is not that she is allowed to appeal, but that appeal will have to be heard in the UK. Therefore she will have to come back to the UK, and under current legislation should that appeal fail, then we can not deport her to a country where she could be sentenced to death. And I rather doubt a 'neutral' country would want to take her.
I understand the government is appealing the decision of the High Court, and I very much hope they win. She was not the innocent little girl she was portrayed to be. She and her companions knew exactly what they were doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jul 16, 2020 15:46:53 GMT
Ms Begum, now 20, was one of three schoolgirls who left London to join the Islamic State group in Syria in 2015. She is being granted permission to appeal against being stripped of her British citizenship. Should she be allowed to appeal? The main issue I think is not that she is allowed to appeal, but that appeal will have to be heard in the UK. Therefore she will have to come back to the UK, and under current legislation should that appeal fail, then we can not deport her to a country where she could be sentenced to death. And I rather doubt a 'neutral' country would want to take her.
I understand the government is appealing the decision of the High Court, and I very much hope they win. She was not the innocent little girl she was portrayed to be. She and her companions knew exactly what they were doing.
She was 15. If she'd run away from home instead and hired herself out for sex then the men who paid her for that sex would be liable for prosecution, not her; she would have been a victim, even if it could be shown that she knew exactly what she was doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonjel2 on Jul 16, 2020 16:02:03 GMT
The main issue I think is not that she is allowed to appeal, but that appeal will have to be heard in the UK. Therefore she will have to come back to the UK, and under current legislation should that appeal fail, then we can not deport her to a country where she could be sentenced to death. And I rather doubt a 'neutral' country would want to take her.
I understand the government is appealing the decision of the High Court, and I very much hope they win. She was not the innocent little girl she was portrayed to be. She and her companions knew exactly what they were doing.
She was 15. If she'd run away from home instead and hired herself out for sex then the men who paid her for that sex would be liable for prosecution, not her; she would have been a victim, even if it could be shown that she knew exactly what she was doing.
So you think she should be allowed to come back Aubrey, and all is forgiven? Then of course we house her and her offspring, and of course feed them. I would actually have her children back, but not her. And who is paying for her lawyers and everything else? Maybe if she is allowed to appeal we should have that by video-link. After all lots of people 'appear' in court that way when they are in prison, so I don't see any particular issue with that. |
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Jul 16, 2020 16:05:09 GMT
I remember when this started and Rees-Mogg said that as she was a child when she was groomed and enticed to leave the UK she would have to be brought back. As I recall he noted that the family and the school had expressed concern and referred her to the PREVENT Team in her area but there was a significant delay and paperwork was not completed by the school correctly by which time she had gone.
As soon as she was gone her family notified the police and Home Office, who contacted Turkish authorities to try and get her back. This failed and then we heard nothing until she appeared in the camp.
She has never been kept in a camp for hard-line ISIS supporters and indeed was transferred to a secret location as her life was being threatened by others who are hard-line. They have at least two camps where fanatical and hard-line female followers are held. She is not and never has been in either of these.
Her case will have to follow the law as will any charges against her once she is here. I am unaware of any evidence that has her as anything other than a wife and mother, albeit as an ISIS supporter, in their strongholds. If there is evidence that has her doing anything more than that then charges can be brought. Charges can be brought anyway, but those could be added to them.
We have to remember that we have already allowed hundreds of men who also left, come back under probationary conditions. We shouldn't make her the single object of hatred when there are others already serving long sentences here that we have barely heard of, who haven't had reams of media coverage despite what they did. Some of these people who have been found guilty of heinous crimes and we've never even seen a photo of them. She was a child under the law, she was a UK citizen and her case will be held here. She will be kept in custody whilst it takes place and may have criminal proceedings after that. If she is guilty she will be facing a long time in prison and deservedly so. Her youth does not preclude a lengthy sentence.
We mustn't however treat her worse than others because she was young and female. The press have a huge tendency to treat women so much worse in their coverage. She will be treated equally under the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Jul 16, 2020 16:06:41 GMT
She doesn't have children JJ, her children all died.
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jul 16, 2020 16:17:03 GMT
She was 15. If she'd run away from home instead and hired herself out for sex then the men who paid her for that sex would be liable for prosecution, not her; she would have been a victim, even if it could be shown that she knew exactly what she was doing.
So you think she should be allowed to come back Aubrey, and all is forgiven? Then of course we house her and her offspring, and of course feed them. I would actually have her children back, but not her. And who is paying for her lawyers and everything else? Maybe if she is allowed to appeal we should have that by video-link. After all lots of people 'appear' in court that way when they are in prison, so I don't see any particular issue with that. Of course not; just allowed back to a proper trial or whatever is decided, as Hildie says. I'd say the stuff about paying for housing and a lawyers etc. is really irrelevant; access to justice should not be reliant on whether the defendant is able to pay or not. I mean, it is, but it shouldn't be.
Sending her to Bangladesh would not get rid of the problem; it would just mean that Bangladesh would have to deal with it, and in May they said they'd execute her.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy2020 on Jul 16, 2020 17:42:51 GMT
This ruling is to allow her to contact lawyers to conduct her appeal because she can't do so from where she is now
Funny that she's been able to contact them to conduct this appeal
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy2020 on Jul 16, 2020 17:52:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ARENA on Jul 16, 2020 18:19:21 GMT
Let's get this right , she is not appealing for a council house and benefits.She is appealing for reinstatement of her nationality.
If she is successful she will be leaving herself open to a long prison sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Jul 16, 2020 19:45:14 GMT
Exactly she would be held in custody during the case about her citizenship- and if she loses that she will be deported, perhaps to Bangladesh perhaps she will try Holland. Either way she would still face terrorism and criminal charges here and I think the minimum sentence is 10 years, so that first then deported.
We would not deport her to Bangladesh if they were intent on execution.
We can only claim to be a country that believes in the rule of law if we follow it, but that doesn't mean leniency. Even planning terrorism without putting any plans into action e.g not purchasing anything, not meeting anyone else gets you a prison sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy2020 on Jul 17, 2020 7:40:09 GMT
Exactly she would be held in custody during the case about her citizenship- and if she loses that she will be deported, perhaps to Bangladesh perhaps she will try Holland. Either way she would still face terrorism and criminal charges here and I think the minimum sentence is 10 years, so that first then deported. We would not deport her to Bangladesh if they were intent on execution. We can only claim to be a country that believes in the rule of law if we follow it, but that doesn't mean leniency. Even planning terrorism without putting any plans into action e.g not purchasing anything, not meeting anyone else gets you a prison sentence. Why should we pay for what will become the endless legal arguments and appeals for someone who chose to leave this country to go and join a terrorist organisation that was determined to destroy us |
|
|
|
Post by jonjel2 on Jul 17, 2020 8:37:11 GMT
One argument I saw was she had to come back as it was impossible for her to consult her lawyers from where she is. That is a bit suspect because where she is did not prevent her from having a long interview on TV. If she is now in a 'safe' camp then I would have thought that a secure satellite phone was an option, and a lot cheaper than the air fare from there to here.
And why have Bangladesh said they would execute her? As far as I am aware she did not commit any crimes either in Bangladesh or against their citizens. |
|
