Shemima Begum

Yes I feel it's very dangerous in terms of child safeguarding, as once you say she knew what she was doing in terms of someone being groomed you set a very dangerous precedent.

The one thing I do find inexcusable is the school giving HER the letter warning her parents of the danger she was becoming radicalised. Obviously she destroyed it. It’s this kind of naiveté that concerns me.

Yes that was a safeguarding failure because she was 15, that's the point some of us are making.

foxie48

tickingbird my understanding is that the Supreme Court initially over ruled the govt, then changed on appeal of national security but SB can appeal that verdict and the current situation is one of being paused until a way can be found for her to represent her case. If the Supreme court over rules her appeal, then that will be that but I will still feel very uncomfortable about this particular situation. Anyone who works in schools or has contact with children will have undertaken Safeguarding training and will have some knowledge with regard to the "Prevent" programme. This programme recognises the extent to which vulnerable children can be groomed into terrorist organisations. In the future it might mean that any child groomed in this way is not seen as a victim but as a risk to national security and stripped of their nationality. I worry that this would be a step too far.

Well said

Initially she challenged Mr Javid’s decision before the Special Immigration Appeal Commission. The commission ruled against her, finding the Home Secretary was allowed to remove her citizenship. She then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The C of A ordered that Begum must be allowed to return to appeal against the decision to remove her nationality. This ruling by the C of A was then appealed in the Supreme Court. The SC then decided she does not have the right to return in order to appeal against the decision to deprive her of citizenship. The SC found that the SIAC had applied the correct standards when reviewing her earlier appeal. The SC also held that the C of A should have given greater respect to the national security assessment of the Home Secretary.

Basically the SC have said she can have a fair hearing in court but that she has no right to return here in order to do so. Whether it can be done some other way remains to be seen.

tickingbird "Basically the SC have said she can have a fair hearing in court but that she has no right to return here in order to do so. Whether it can be done some other way remains to be seen"

She has lawyers in this country to represent her - she could "attend" via Zoom or some other secure internet platform. Many trials have been conducted via Zoom in the last couple of years

I suppose what bothers me most is that once a child is seen as in danger of being radicalised, then they are seen as vulnerable and in need of counselling, support and monitoring. SB's school had concerns that she was being radicalised but unfortunately no action was taken. If they are not prevented from leaving the country and fly to Turkey, they are met by an ISIS contact, they then effectively lose their autonomy and at that point will be seen as a terrorist. I don't know what made these girls decide to go to Syria. Perhaps along side the grooming there were family pressures related to an arranged marriage, who knows? Once in Syria, all three girls would have lost any opportunity to change their mind and return to the UK. They did what they had to to survive and SB is a survivor. At what point did she stop being a vulnerable child and become a danger to the state? tbh I think she was more vulnerable once she reached Syria than she was in the UK because by then she had no chance of changing her mind and was effectively under the control of ISIS.

foxie48

tickingbird my understanding is that the Supreme Court initially over ruled the govt, then changed on appeal of national security but SB can appeal that verdict and the current situation is one of being paused until a way can be found for her to represent her case. If the Supreme court over rules her appeal, then that will be that but I will still feel very uncomfortable about this particular situation. Anyone who works in schools or has contact with children will have undertaken Safeguarding training and will have some knowledge with regard to the "Prevent" programme. This programme recognises the extent to which vulnerable children can be groomed into terrorist organisations. In the future it might mean that any child groomed in this way is not seen as a victim but as a risk to national security and stripped of their nationality. I worry that this would be a step too far.

Foxie, you put is so well.

In the Court of Public Opinion there are no rules of evidence, no burdens of proof, no cross-examinations, and no standards of admissibility. There are no questions and also no answers. Also, please be aware that in the Court of Public Opinion, choosing silence or doubt is itself a prosecutable offense…the Court of Public Opinion is what we used to call villagers with flaming torches. It has no rules, no arbiter, no mechanism at all for separating truth from lies. It allows everything into evidence and has no mechanism to separate facts about the case from the experiences and political leanings of the millions of us who are all acting as witnesses, judges, and jurors.

[source: Dahlia Lithwick “Woody Allen v. Dylan Farrow: The Court of Public Opinion is now in session.”]

We aren’t dealing with the court of public opinion though; it’s The Supreme Court. The highest court in the land.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

tickingbird, that’s the main problem on GN. We are a forum of grans posting our own points of view. Sometimes, as in real life we think others are right or wrong, and under the cover of a pseudonym, we can say so, calmly or dramatically or even with vitriol!

And not one of us has access to ALL the information required to make such a decision. So yes, just points of view.

It seems OK to judge some people in the "Court of Public Opinion" but not others. How many of those accusing others of judging Shemima Begum without proof, have happily joined in the threads attacking Harry and Meghan.

Mollygo

tickingbird, that’s the main problem on GN. We are a forum of grans posting our own points of view. Sometimes, as in real life we think others are right or wrong, and under the cover of a pseudonym, we can say so, calmly or dramatically or even with vitriol!

Not all of us are offering an opinion. We are asking for a court of law to provide a legal one. Many of us are very aware that we do not know the facts. If we are not to take away one persons human rights that is what we need. If she is as some describe and that breaks the law I think we all accept that some form of justice is needed. What that will be is not offered as an opinion by many either; only by some.

The problem with taking away any one persons human rights is that it becomes a slippery slope.

We are a forum of grans -or not, posting our points of view, our feelings and what we think should be happening.
We can disagree or agree, or say how dangerous something is. We can even say we are asking for something to be done, but unless we are actively out there doing something about it, we’re still just a forum of grans.

Oldwoman70

It seems OK to judge some people in the "Court of Public Opinion" but not others. How many of those accusing others of judging Shemima Begum without proof, have happily joined in the threads attacking Harry and Meghan

Prince Andrew? I haven’t seen much complaining about the court of public opinion when he’s being judged and branded a paedophile on GN.