You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Well it's irrelevant, regardless of what you, me, or man in Bangladesh says. The UK has found her technically entitled to Bangladesh citizenship and has thus been able to legally strip her of her UK citizenship. And the Appeals Commission agrees with them. These are the facts. This has happened has it not?
I understand that you and others think that it is wrong. But that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I think the key word here is technically.
Perhaps the young lady and her lawyers could try the Bangladeshi decision next.
Perhaps the young lady and her lawyers could try the Bangladeshi decision next.
Why? She has no connection to the country beyond her parents being born there.
She’s never lived there, never had citizenship there. She’s a Brit. She’s our problem.
I don't know f all about the case but she can't be the only one. Smells of media manipulation of the masses to me.
Only issue I can see is she now considered a risk to to deep indoctrination (as she went out so young and is now considered "too far gone") but pressing any charges would be difficult? I have no idea about the law on this or how the other in a similar situation are being dealt with.
Perhaps the young lady and her lawyers could try the Bangladeshi decision next.
Explain why you think that would be appropriate - she is British not Bangladeshi.
She was born in Britian not Bangladesh. Do you know if she has ever been to Bangladesh or even speaks Bangladeshi?
I suspect that your sentiments are basically racist - ie she isn't proper British because her parents were immigrants from a former British colony.
Although I am happy to hear why you think she might be more Bangladeshi than British.
Why? She has no connection to the country beyond her parents being born there.
I've absolutely no idea. You'd have to ask the government lawyers for an explanation. I suspect it'll be some morally-dubious crafty little technicality.
Explain why you think that would be appropriate
To get out of the Syrian camp she's in of course. The rest of your post is irrelevant, see the first half of this post.
I’ve absolutely no idea.
Well that is honest and fair self-criticism, I won't deny that.
Although I am happy to hear why you think she might be more Bangladeshi than British.
She's clearly British. Not that it matters one iota, my opinion is irrelevant. I imagine all of the government lawyers arguing that she was Bangladeshi also thought she was British.. but they argue something else in order to get the desired result. That's what lawyers do. Christ, is there some kind of cognitive dissonance going on? Is it me? Do you think OJ's lawyers actually bel... oh never mind.
I suspect that your sentiments are basically racist – ie she isn’t proper British because her parents were immigrants from a former British colony.
Oh go and have a sit down or something.
She’s clearly British.
So what exactly are you arguing about?
I thought, apparently erroneously, that you were backing the government's position on Shamima Begum's case.
It turns out that you actually agree with most other people on this thread and believe that "she's clearly British".
Wouldn't it have been easier to make that point before, or did you suddenly change your opinion halfway through the thread?
She's more English than Prince Philip ever was.
That will get you lots of hate on the DM 😆
Can I suggest to anyone who's parents were born abroad that you could be next, and you don't need to have committed a crime, one can be 'allocated'.
Oh, and can the incoming Labour Govt start with Priti Patel and Suella Braverman please, just because.
Can I suggest to anyone who’s parents were born abroad that you could be next
I was born abroad to British parents, I was pleasantly surprised my British passport got renewed so quickly.
And yet,
This isn’t the first time a legal challenge by Ms Begum’s lawyers has failed. In February 2020 the same commission rejected her team’s argument that she had been made “de facto stateless” when her citizenship was removed.
It agreed with the Home Office’s position that since she was technically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, it wasn’t legally obliged to allow her to keep her UK rights.
– BBC article on their front page.
And yet.
We removed her citizenship. She is now stateless. She would not get Bangladeshi citizenship if she applied for it. It is acknowledged even by the very powers that stripped her of her citizenship that she would very likely be executed should she enter Bangladesh.
All the argument in the world will not change those facts.
She’s a Brit. She’s our problem.
I suspect there's a low chance of any kind of conviction in UK court, due to her being a minor at the time and the coercion/grooming elements of the case.
That would be embarasing for the establishment, (imagine the headlines in the Express!) so easier just to keep her out.
not read any of this thread, too long, dont want to get in any debates.
my twopenneth, because i have been following her case on the news.
the government released 428 convicted terrorists, including 143 life term terrorists, with the good friday agreement.
but a girl who was 15 at the time of her obvious brainwashed error of judgement, is now denied entry to her own country, because she is deemed a threat, even though she has not commited a crime.
something is wrong with the world i think.
Spot on Ton. She was a bright but silly and exploited kid who escaped one form of oppression for a worse form in the name of liberation. Very mistaken but does not deserve a whole life sentence.
Agree entirely with Ton - a very succinct summary of a complex situation. It stinks… The BBC podcast on it is really interesting by the way…
I suspect there’s a low chance of any kind of conviction in UK court, due to her being a minor at the time and the coercion/grooming elements of the case.
The problem for the UK government isn't necessarily just the lack of conviction, it is also that a court case would almost certainly expose the fact that she, as a child,, and her two friends, were trafficked for sexual exploitation by a Canadian government agent, all in the name of "intelligence gathering".
As a member of the intelligence alliance "Five Eyes" the UK will have been kept fully informed of British citizens trafficked into Syria by a Canadian secret service agent.
Which could be very awkward and embarrassing for the UK government. Better she is never made to stand trial in the UK.
Shamima Begum as a child was a victim of traffickers and those who exploited her - both western intelligence and ISIS. Today as a woman she is the victim of disgraceful state-sponsored injustice.
And yet we know that Begum is innocent of any crime because under UK law everyone is innocent, until it is proved that they are guilty.
The BBC podcast on it is really interesting by the way…
I listen to it this afternoon while out on the bike and it is a truly desperate situation that this young girl found herself. She was one year older than my daughter when she left, I can’t begin to believe that she set out to harm anyone and was radicalised in England where she, as a child should have been protected.
There are certainly other examples of people who have joined IS and returned to the UK(or other countries of birth) ,where they have faced a jail term.
This All-Party Parliamentary Group report is brutally damning:
https://appgtraffickedbritons.org/press-release-inquiry-into-trafficked-britons-in-syria/
I find the deep frustration of the UK government's behaviour expressed by the United States government particularly interesting :
The UK’s refusal to repatriate its nationals is causing consternation among our allies, particularly the US. In July 2019, US representatives told BBC News they were “extraordinarily frustrated with Britain’s failure” to take back its detainees.
The current US Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Special Envoy for the Defeat ISIS Coalition, John Godfrey, told the APPG that the “revocation of individuals’ citizenship defers the problem and puts the burden on local partners and the international community, which has neither the mandate nor the tools needed to successfully resolve such cases,” adding that “the US Government urges countries of origin to repatriate, reintegrate and, where appropriate, prosecute and incarcerate foreign fighters and their family members.”
Well that is honest and fair self-criticism, I won’t deny that.
Meow! A little odd comment considering I didn't offer any opinion against her.
I think more people should admit that they are commenting from a point of absolut ignorance.
Facts:
1. She was a British citizen.
2. She wasn't a Bangladeshi citizen.
3. We removed her citizenship.
4. She became stateless.
5. This is illegal under international law.
Whether should could apply, be accepted, be executed in Bangladesh is all irrelevant. Personally I really don't want her back so can live with the consequences of her serious actions but that's not the law based country I want to live in. Which can't choose when to apply laws on a citizen by citizen basis.
This is all purely government propaganda, more positive headlines doing this than doing the right thing.
Facts:
1. She was a British citizen.
2. She wasn’t a Bangladeshi citizen.
3. We removed her citizenship.
4. She became stateless.
5. This is illegal under international law.
6. She was trafficked/misled as a minor.
0. She is non-white.
The problem for the UK government isn’t necessarily just the lack of conviction, it is also that a court case would almost certainly expose the fact that she, as a child,, and her two friends, were trafficked for sexual exploitation by a Canadian government agent, all in the name of “intelligence gathering”.
As a member of the intelligence alliance “Five Eyes” the UK will have been kept fully informed of British citizens trafficked into Syria by a Canadian secret service agent.
Which could be very awkward and embarrassing for the UK government. Better she is never made to stand trial in the UK.
Shamima Begum as a child was a victim of traffickers and those who exploited her – both western intelligence and ISIS. Today as a woman she is the victim of disgraceful state-sponsored injustice.
I've read this before somewhere (probably earlier in this thread?) if that is all true, is it the publicising of that potential involvement/complicity of UK/Canadian intelligence in her original trafficking/indoctrination/abuse that is being referred to as a "National Security risk"? If that's the case it's even more bloody shameful...
TheBrick Free Member
Meow! A little odd comment considering I didn’t offer any opinion against her.
Even odder is that you think it was aimed at you. It was very obviously aimed at jamboree as I directly quoted him.
that is being referred to as a “National Security risk”?
We, the public, are not allowed to know why she poses a national security risk. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is allowed to know the details, which is why yesterday's appeal was in fact semi-secret.
However my understanding is that the SIAC is not allowed to decide whether the Home Secretary's decision that she poses a national security risk is reasonable, they only need to be satisfied that the decision was based on national security.
They are not allowed to assess how much of a threat Shamima Begum allegedly posses as it is claimed that they lack expertise in matters related to national security.
With the recent revelations, esp the involvement of the Canadians, I am even more repulsed by the outcome now.
The US govt thinks we are arseholes for doing this, not just morally, but also because we push the problem we have created elsewhere. It is seen as shirking our responsibilities.
Effen Torys. Bunch of arses.
we push the problem we have created elsewhere
It has been described as human flytipping – taking our problems and illegally dumping them on other countries.
She was born, raised, and radicalised in the UK, but the UK government is claiming that she is Bangladesh's problem.
Even odder is that you think it was aimed at you. It was very obviously aimed at jamboree as I directly quoted him.
100% appologies. I am not only clueless but confused. The ease of misunderstandings shown once again.
On subject why has she been singled out above and beyond all the other people who went out? Both adults and other children? Is it 100% media choice / a story that gained popularity and the government has played or did the government push her case into the media as they felt it could be good for titivating some members society?
Facts:
1. She was a British citizen.
2. She wasn’t a Bangladeshi citizen.
3. We removed her citizenship.
4. She became stateless.
5. This is illegal under international law.
Fact:
So far every court that has being asked to judgement on this case, seeing way more of the evidence than we have, has concluded that the government has acted legally and within in its powers set out in Statute
We can argue all day long about whether we agree with either the judgements of the courts or the laws that exist that lead to those judgements.
I suspect there is far more to this than we are allowed to know involving the UK and other five eyes intelligence services which probably has more to do with why they dont want her in a UK court than anything else. That an the political brownie points scored with the Party faithful and the Mail fan club
Translation: the government can do what they want, the courts can't stop them.
Result: Javid didn't get to become PM anyway.
So far every court that has being asked to judgement on this case, seeing way more of the evidence than we have, has concluded that the government has acted legally and within in its powers set out in Statute
Has anyone suggested that the Home Secretary did not act within statute? The very fact that it is all perfectly legal under UK law (more questionable under international law) actually makes it even more unacceptable for most reasonable people, not better, as you seem to think.
Also no court appears to have been asked to judge whether Shamima Begum actually poses a national security risk, which forms the whole basis of the government's argument.
I might not have access to the same intelligence as the current Home Secretary but I am not alone in refusing to believe that someone who was trafficked as a child for sexual exploitation does not pose a national risk which cannot be managed.
I certainly don't believe that if she does it is somehow another country's problem.
Has anyone suggested that the Home Secretary did not act within statute? The very fact that it is all perfectly legal under UK law (more questionable under international law) actually makes it even more unacceptable for most reasonable people, not better, as you seem to think.
Exactly, the point is the govt changed the law so they could do this, so of course it is "legal".
The argument has been made that terrorists considered a threat to the UK are more of a risk when they're outside our borders and much harder to keep track of.
The law was changed to deal with Abu Hamza I think, and the govts failure to deal with him properly is the source of all the anti EHRC and general anti human rights rhetoric every since. I think we can blame T May for that.
Question - If she was smuggled back to the UK and turned up on a boat in Dover what would happen?
She can't be deported as technically is now stateless? I guess put in a detention centre? Could she apply for asylum? She hasn't been convicted of any crime here so why not?
Maybe this is what should happen (not saying its an easy journey, must be horrendous for people).
So far every court that has being asked to judgement on this case, seeing way more of the evidence than we have, has concluded that the government has acted legally and within in its powers set out in Statute
We can argue all day long about whether we agree with either the judgements of the courts or the laws that exist that lead to those judgements.
Inarguable. However:
1 - it's illegal to make someone stateless.
2 - we removed her citizenship.
3 - she is now stateless.
The "it's been justified by the courts" argument is a little bit "Lance has never failed a drugs test" for me.
If she can be made stateless because she could potentially apply for citizenship elsewhere, we all can.
Assuming 'we all' are technically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship of course.
Assuming ‘we all’ are technically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship of course.
Why does that matter? She couldn't get it even if she wanted it.
Bangladeshi law does not allow dual citizenship. Although it is prepared to make exceptions for dual citizenship with certain countries, including the UK. However this is not automatic and the Bangladeshi government must approve it first.
Saying "technically entitled" is stretching it a bit. She was, until the age of 21, technically allowed dual Bangladeshi-UK citizenship, if the Bangladeshi government had approved. It was not an automatic entitlement.
Her parents have or held dual national status did they/do they not? Therefore, regardless of whether she was born outside of Bangladesh and irrespective of whether Bangladesh actually want her, the citizenship act inherited from ****stan in the 50s means that by law she's entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. The fact that she doesn't yet have it is again irrelevant from a point of law. If the UK strips her citizenship, she's no longer a dual national and thus by writ of the citizenship act, is entitled to Bangladeshi status. In essence, by stripping her citizenship, the UK made it easier for her to have Bangladeshi citizenship as it removes the difficulty of dual national status.
Perhaps this is the legal thinking behind the judgement. Morally objectionable? Perhaps. Legal? Probably.
Daffy, you’ve just argued very forcibly that Javid did make her stateless, but that she’s now free to apply for citizenship elsewhere. Still been made stateless. All other states could refuse her citizenship. Including Bangladesh, where she has never lived, and who have said they would refuse her.
The “it’s been justified by the courts” argument is a little bit “Lance has never failed a drugs test” for me.
Saudi Arabia publicly flogs or stones adulterers, cuts hands off robbers, and heads off homosexuals, but it's OK because it's justified by their courts / within their legal system?
Especially since we changed the law to allow this situation to occur.
It might technically be legal but when the authority defining "legal" is not controlled properly, where are we?
Is she stateless if she has almost guaranteed Bangladeshi citizenship were she to apply for it or is she just temporarily stateless?
I'm not sure Javid even knew about the laws pertaining to this before he acted. Certainly the Tories have a history of speaking first and worrying about the consequences later. But in this case, I'm relating it more to the recent judgement that it was deemed to be legal. There must be something allows them to firmly support the decision to strip her citizenship and I'm wondering if this might be the crux of the matter.
Ironic that they never managed to deport Captain Hook's daughter-in-law even though she is Moroccan born and did time for trying to smuggle him a sim card in Belmarsh.
Still been made stateless. All other states could refuse her citizenship. Including Bangladesh, where she has never lived, and who have said they would refuse her.
The question is, now that the UK has acted, can they deny her? It would be Bangladesh not the UK making her stateless by denying her rights under the law.
It would be Bangladesh not the UK making her stateless
Don’t you mean “keeping” her stateless, by not granting her citizenship? She is currently stateless, and was made so by Javid, a UK politician.
But in this case, I’m relating it more to the recent judgement that it was deemed to be legal.
It's not illegal for politicians/MP's/Cabinet/PM to lie...
Like this decision though or looking for loopholes in the NI-Brexit saga it just shows the rest of the world not to trust us.
She was born here and our problem..
Like this decision though or looking for loopholes in the NI-Brexit saga it just shows the rest of the world not to trust us.
She was born here and our problem..
So much this, I just hope if we ever get rid of these arseholes that the rest of the world can see past one administration and welcome another.
I feel like we have permanently tarnished brand Britain though.
Sometime parody is the best way to explain it: https://twitter.com/rosieisaholt/status/1628672239267639297?s=46&t=2W4dR2XvGd5QGeMW8w8HJw
5plusn8
So much this, I just hope if we ever get rid of these arseholes that the rest of the world can see past one administration and welcome another.
I feel like we have permanently tarnished brand Britain though.
If only it was so simple... look at the USA as a parallel.
Biden can say and do whatever but any agreements/treaties etc. beyond the next election they have shown their political system to support a politician like Trump... so someone who might take over and just disregard/ignore the agreements/treaties etc.
Unless other nations believe our political system would protect them against a return of a regime I think we'll find it hard to get longer term trust.
I feel like "she's our problem" should be the primary consideration, and should have been even if she had actual dual citizenship anyway. Stripping citizenship rather than dealing with our own messes is a terrible approach.
While I am disgusted with the Tory government for doing this, sadly I doubt I'd have been surprised back in the day if Jack Straw or David Blunkett had done something similar.
If there wasn't a person at the centre of this (for whom I have a lot of sympathy - married off at 15 - statutory rape in most places) I would suggest that she gets on a boat and sneaks into the UK and let's go from there...
Who knows what her next move is, she is stuck in a terrible place, lost her son etc.
To be honest Im surprised she is still alive to have this debate.
Many women/girls (who were trafficked from the UK as girls by the same team, a team that included that Canadian spy) are not alive. Death was the most likely outcome for them by some margin. An utterly depressing story of radicalisation and needless and senseless loss all around.
Starmer has just done another u-turn. ****.
4h ago
09.45 GMT
Starmer defends court saying Shamima Begum shouldn't regain citizenship, arguing 'national security has to come first'In an interview with BBC Breakfast this morning Keir Starmer defended the special immigration appeals commission (Siac) decision yesterday to refuse Shamima Begum’s appeal against the decision to remove her British citizenship. Starmer said “national security has to come first”.
'Should Shamima Begum be allowed back in order to face justice in the UK?'
Labour leader Keir Starmer was questioned on #BBCBreakfast after Shamima Begum lost her latest legal challenge over the decision to deprive her of British citizenship https://t.co/ISCqbCQjbg pic.twitter.com/eF3DTSSEa4
— BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) February 23, 2023Yesterday, after the Siac decision was announced, the Conservative party was tweeting a clip from an interview that Starmer gave to Sophy Ridge on Sky News in March 2019 saying that the decision by the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, to deprive Begum of her citizenship was “wrong”.
🚨 REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain pic.twitter.com/wUo7a6sfhh
— CCHQ Press (@CCHQPress) February 22, 2023This comment was put to Starmer in his interview this morning. Describing the decision yesterday as “the right decision”, he did not explain why he had changed his mind since four years ago, although he did refer obliquely to Siac considering evidence that was not available in 2019.
The court has reached its decision. It has looked at all the evidence. I support that decision. As I say, national security has to come first.
Starmer’s comment this morning opens him up to the charge of doing a U-turn, and this morning CCHQ has been using emojis to accuse him of flip-flopping.
🩴🩴🩴🩴 https://t.co/VMIJ77N6iq
— CCHQ Press (@CCHQPress) February 23, 2023But Starmer may have decided that it is better to be accused of being inconsistent than to be accused of being weak on national security issues.
It is being weak on national security issues if you claim that she can't be repatriated and dealt with here. What happens about all those who will be radicalised in the UK but don't leave the country? Do we not have what it takes to deal with them here...?
That BBC breakfast clip...
https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1628666086785961984?s=20
I disagree with him. Wrong decision by the government. Not interested in the courts taking the "right decision"... they probably did given the law. It's Javid's decision that was wrong, and the Labour leader should be saying so.
Bangladeshi law does not allow dual citizenship. Although it is prepared to make exceptions for dual citizenship with certain countries, including the UK. However this is not automatic and the Bangladeshi government must approve it first.
Saying “technically entitled” is stretching it a bit. She was, until the age of 21, technically allowed dual Bangladeshi-UK citizenship, if the Bangladeshi government had approved. It was not an automatic entitlement.
Yes, you keep saying this. So assuming you're not just a man on the internet but the chairman of a court higher than the one that decided she is technically entitled (and the commission that agreed with them). Why don't you have the decision overturned? Or tell their lawyers that they are mistaken.
I understand if you mean that you don't agree with the decision, or that you just don't like it. But to present it as fact is misleading. The UK government found a crafty way to revoke her citizenship as they found she was <i>technically </i>entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. That there is the fact. Whether you or Bangladesh like it or not. Technically it's Bangladesh who are potentially leaving her stateless as the UK moved first so tough tits. And ranting that they'll execute her if she arrives is just childish temper tantrums
Technically it’s Bangladesh who are potentially leaving her stateless as the UK moved first so tough tits.
Well, this is nonsense. She has never had Bangladeshi citizenship, therefore how could they "move first"?
The UK is signed up to:
https://www.unhcr.org/un-conventions-on-statelessness.html
The courts obviously didn't take that into account considering themselves above the UN.
I don't know! Ask the bloody lawyers that found the loophole.
Well, this is nonsense. She has never had Bangladeshi citizenship, therefore how could they “move first”?
From a common sense POV it's nonsense. However from a last one to leave forgot to turn off the lights POV then Bangladesh are saying "but we didn't turn the bloody lights on" we (UK Govt not us) are saying "So we said last one turn off the lights"
From a how does this look POV ... looks like we (UK Govt not us) are trying to go lower the bar on Bangladesh for human rights.
Starmer has just done another u-turn. ****.
Starmer's current position was very much predicted a couple of months before he became Labour Party leader in this article by another left-wing barrister who knew him well.
Renton particularly pointed out that there was a risk that Starmer would not mount principled defence of victims of injustice but instead say whatever the right-wing press wanted to hear:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/keir-starmer-past-scrutiny
Note the last paragraph in the article:
Starmer’s enthusiasm while DPP for using mundane news events to feed the press with rightwing talking points is a possible concern for Labour members. If such a leader was faced with news of an injustice in the future – the consequence of a change to immigration rules, say, or of a strike in public services – Starmer’s approach to the press as DPP might raise worries that he would not give a principled defence of the victims but would tell the press whatever it wanted to hear.
It is almost as if Starmer has followed the script written by David Renton KC
From a common sense POV it’s nonsense
Oh yeah, agree. The law doesn't always work on common sense though. That's why if you have the cash you can hire Mr Loophole to get you off your drink driving charge due to a technicality.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">From a how does this look POV … looks like we (UK Govt not us) are trying to go lower the bar on Bangladesh for human rights.</span>
Matter of opinion. A lot of people don't agree. Including Sir Keir Starmer. It's an interesting topic. A real polarising one too. There are two camps; those who think she's an innocent child trafficked away, indoctrinated and kept against her will. And those who think that's a load of rubbish. I'm afraid I fall into the latter camp. I think if ISIS weren't routed, this young lady would still be living her islamic wife best-life whilst hubby's at work chucking gay people off the roof. And turning up on a BBC documentary in aviators and a baseball cap isn't fooling anybody.
I support the government's decision on this, not as a punishment to her, I feel sorry for her personally. But to discourage others and to avoid setting a precedent for future Jihadis returning to the UK.
There are two camps; those who think she’s an innocent child trafficked away, indoctrinated and kept against her will. And those who think that’s a load of rubbish.
Well, that's quite binary, isn't it. She was a British child trafficked way. She could also now be a risk to national security. Both could be true. She may well have also broken laws, but she's innocent until proven guilty, and the whole discussion about judgement and sentencing (if it comes to that) may or may not have to take into account her radicalisation and trafficking as a child. But it still comes down to should she be handled here, or do we wash our hands of her and make her another nation's problem... despite being British... irrespective of being the child of immigrants.
to discourage others
A child being radicalised in such a way against the UK, and prepared to go and join a group like ISIS... when making that choice at the age of 15 or whatever... they really aren't going to care that they risk losing UK citizenship... they're running away from the UK to a new life (built on lies and grooming).
What crimes is she alleged to have committed anyway? Certainly none in the UK surely? So why bring he back to face justice? For what? If she's been up to no good in the Islamic State or Syria then surely that's for them to deal with?
ISIS weren’t routed
Were they!? News to me but that might take this thread off course.
Even if she was "living her Islamic wife best-life" does it change how she ended up there? If I child is kidnapped and raised by another family is it the child's fault? I honestly don't think this will discourage others because at the time people have been groomed to do something they are not thinking about the consequences of the action.
Well, out of Raqqa I mean, or wherever it was she was living. Of course I realise they're still an entity.
I support the government’s decision on this
Apparently today you do but it appears to depend on what day of the week it is.
Yesterday you were claiming that "she's clearly British" which is obviously at odds with a government which has revoked her British citizenship and washed their hands of her.
You added that your opinion was irrelevant, which strongly suggests that you were fully aware that it was at odds with the government's.
This is what you wrote yesterday:
jambourgie Free Member
She’s clearly British. Not that it matters one iota, my opinion is irrelevant.
Today you have decided to support the government. Any ideas what your position tomorrow will be?
What crimes is she alleged to have committed anyway? Certainly none in the UK surely? So why bring he back to face justice? For what? If she’s been up to no good in the Islamic State or Syria then surely that’s for them to deal with?
Definitely not my specialist subject but I think you can commit offences against the UK whilst physically outside the territory of the UK. She was allegedly a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation. Some of the offences in the terrorism act apply universally, some apply to British citizens regardless of where they are located and some only apply when someone was in the UK at the time. She may even have committed offences before she left, simply by making travel arrangements to go and meet proscribed terrorists.
However go watch this to the end: https://twitter.com/rosieisaholt/status/1628672239267639297?s=46&t=2W4dR2XvGd5QGeMW8w8HJw/a > you might see a wee problem with your logic - if someone travels to a third country and then commits a crime and their home state can simply disown them - we end up with a lot of "foreign national" criminals in the UK who we can't deport. So the logical choice is: 1. Accept that a small number of brits will come back and we have to deal with them, their crimes and the risk they might represent OR 2. Accept that all foreign nationals who commit offences here are our problem forever. We can't have it both ways.
Today you have decided to support the government. Any ideas what your position tomorrow will be?
For a start. I reserve the right for my views and opinions to change over time. It's one of the good reasons to frequent this 'chat forum' as opposed to echo chamber hellholes like FB. One can read other, different opinions which can challenge one's own. (Unless it's Tj ranting at you, then it just makes you want to think the opposite, whatever it may be) 😉
But also, it's not binary, it's almost well, parallel. Doublethink if you will. I agree with the government's position, whilst fully agreeing that she is British, as in talks the language, grew up here etc. But accept that in order to keep her out they had to come up with some crafty legal loophole to make her Bangladeshi. 'The end justifies the means'. So now she's Bangladeshi. I know that she's British. But she's technically now Bangladeshi.
Cake and eat it.
( could be referring to the excellent Rosie Holt clip, could be referring to Jambourgie's journey )
to discourage others
Unfortunately this kind of treatment actually aids recruitment (radicalisation) for terrorist groups, they can now just point at this and say "you will never be treated the same, you can be cast aside with impunity because they don't consider you one of them"
If this is meant to discourage it is likely to have the opposite effect.
On the subject of Starmer then I see 2 possibilities.
The first is this is just a PR stunt so the Tories / right wing media cant attack him on being soft on terrorists etc.
The second is that as the Leader of the Opposition he has seen/been briefed by the security services and knows alot more about her that the combined minds of this forum.
Or probably both. Take your pick
70/30