Bring Shamima Begum Home!

MOnica, it is impossible for all known or suspected terrorists to be kept under surveillance 24/7, for ever, as we have seen with unfortunate consequences. Good luck to you living next door to one.

tickingbird

Monica

They jumped into cars, went into houses and accepted alcoholic drinks. The same level of dicsion making is required for both, especially if you live in London.

Disgraceful victim blaming. One girl was threatened with being set on fire, they were injected with heroin, beaten up, raped and forcibly pimped out.

Shame on you!

The only comparison between SB and the children trafficked into sexual exploitation is some of them were 15. The so called Rochdale girls were often groomed at age 11. They were from neglectful, abusive backgrounds. Victim blaming of the worst kind to say ‘they jumped into cars…… etc. Some of the perpetrators were given prison sentences.

Monica

They jumped into cars, went into houses and accepted alcoholic drinks. The same level of dicsion making is required for both, especially if you live in London.

Disgraceful victim blaming. One girl was threatened with being set on fire, they were injected with heroin, beaten up, raped and forcibly pimped out.

Shame on you!

M0nica

flappergirl As i said in thepost above yours. You are safer living next to a known terrorist under police surveillance than almost anywhere else.

Really? There have been several cases where those who committed terrorist attacks had been known to the police or indeed, under surveillance.

It's a strange concept to "punish" someone for what they "might"do. I "might do" all sorts of things but no one's taken away my British citizenship. I used to trust our authorities but tbh I now understand that the motives given are often not genuine. Bring her home, charge her for joining a proscribed organization,serve her sentence and then monitor her if necessary.

flappergirl As i said in thepost above yours. You are safer living next to a known terrorist under police surveillance than almost anywhere else.

At this stage Australia leaves them in Syria. A few lucky ones were repatriated but they are unusual. They never get round to that sort of thing, they have enough trouble trying to sort themselves out and run the country! The British seem to be better organised.

What about those children born since their mothers left the UK and who live in the detention camps? Are they stateless?

Exactly, Callistemon.

I didn’t say she was a Bangladeshi citizen. She was entitled to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore at the time her British citizenship was revoked she was not rendered stateless. How many times must I point out that the court has confirmed that the Home Secretary acted lawfully?

Chardy

International law makes it illegal for a country to revoke citizenship where it would leave an individual stateless.

I don't remember any other govt in my lifetime flouting international law.

And of course if they set a precedent to make a British citizen stateless, who else will they do it to?

International law makes it illegal for a country to revoke citizenship where it would leave an individual stateless.

Yes, but that was not the case here at the time.

The court has upheld the government’s action so it clearly isn’t indefensible Casdon. I am not given to using ‘emotive claptrap’. I think that’s the province of those who talk about what is ‘morally right’ and of abdicating responsibility for and abandoning an evil terrorist.

Germanshepherdsmum

At the time she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship and the court has confirmed that revocation of her British citizenship was lawful. It did not flout international law.

She was not a Bangladeshi citizen. She had one citizenship, which was British. Trying to pass her off to Bangladesh was another reprehensible act.

That was in answer to Chardy.

All the buggers who leave the country to join a terrorist organisation, I hope!

Germanshepherdsmum

So you would justify putting us all at risk on the grounds that it’s ‘morally right’ and we mustn’t abdicate responsibility for this evil woman or abandon her, Casdon. Thank the Lord the Home Secretary had the balls to do what was right in the interest of the safety of all of us, including you.

I certainly wouldn’t use emotive claptrap to defend the indefensible actions of the government, I assume that’s what you mean.

At the time she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship and the court has confirmed that revocation of her British citizenship was lawful. It did not flout international law.

International law makes it illegal for a country to revoke citizenship where it would leave an individual stateless.

I don't remember any other govt in my lifetime flouting international law.

And of course if they set a precedent to make a British citizen stateless, who else will they do it to?

So you would justify putting us all at risk on the grounds that it’s ‘morally right’ and we mustn’t abdicate responsibility for this evil woman or abandon her, Casdon. Thank the Lord the Home Secretary had the balls to do what was right in the interest of the safety of all of us, including you.

Do you know what is happening with women and children in the camps who are Australian citizens nanna8, are they also stuck without citizenship?

There are many others who need help in Syria who have not been part of a terrorist organisation. Help them instead.

Germanshepherdsmum

I assume you would be happy to have this woman living next to you or your children Casdon. I prefer to place my trust in the security services. I have already said that ‘dealing with her’ would mean only a short sentence for joining a proscribed organisation. Then what? She is free. Good luck with that.

None of that detracts from what is the morally right way to deal with her Germanshepherdsmum. Abdicating responsibility for UK citizens and abandoning them in other countries is just wrong. .

Ok gsm that makes more sense

The legislation doesn’t provide for that JJ. She would be given a short sentence for joining a proscribed organisation given mitigating factors such as her age at the time and would then be free.

The court disagrees with you MOnica. They have decided that revocation of her citizenship was lawful. And what do you not understand about what I have said about the sentence she would receive if prosecuted?

M0nica

GSM I assume that if she returned to Britain she would be thoroughly investigated by the security services.

It would not bother me ata ll to have her living next door to me or my children or grandchildren. What harm could she do us?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, I think that's an incredibly naive point of view MOnica. How many people in history have uttered the words "what's the worst that can happen".

I'm erring on the side of the British security services knowing rather more than we do. I'm happy to be proved wrong but not at the expense of my children or grandchildren.