Shamima Begum

[Baron99 779]

2 minutes ago, El Cid said:

We can go against the human rights act refusing her entry into the UK and spend loads of money on solicitors, but she could probably just get back into the country and no one would notice.

Truly a Europe of open borders, even though the UK isn't part of the Schengen Agreement & therefore she should have had the stolen UK passport checked as she made her way across Europe & when she entered Turkey. 

[janie48 95]

39 minutes ago, bendix said:

 

I wasn't aware she has committed any crime. Has she been charged with something?  Genuine question.

 

yes, she is an idiot.  She did a stupid thing.  The correct course of action is to allow her to return to the UK, investigate what happened and what she did there, and then deal with it accordingly.  Dealing with it accordingly might mean any number of things, ranging from using intelligence briefings to help fight ISIS, assess what criminal charges are necessary and/or work on integrating her back into society, if that's the right thing.

 

A blanket 'revoke citizenship' move might placate the Daily Mail / Sheffield Forum mob mentality, but it does more harm than good in the long run.

I agree. 

When I first saw the interview I thought she appeared cold and unfeeling, but then it occurred to me that the reason for that was because she was severely traumatised  and incapable of showing emotional feelings. 

I now realise she is one of the many victims who have been  groomed by ISIS  propaganda. They are very skilled at manipulating young people because they've been trained how to operate. 

Edited February 20, 2019 by janie48

[Waldo 96]

There is a lot I'm struggling with here...

 

For example, the comparison between the Manchester bombing and the bombing of civilians in Syria that she mentions. People seem outraged that she made such a comparison; but what criteria do we use to determine that one is wrong and the other is right?

 

Okay, there's a difference between intentional murder of innocents, and collateral damage while targeting combatants.

 

But...

 

If we measure how evil a regime is by the number of innocent non-combatant civilians killed (murdered) in a campaign of terror against a country; how do we compare and contrast the killing of innocents in, for example, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc?

 

Is it wrong to even ask these questions?

 

I get the impression here, that some think it is; and that we should never examine ourselves for wrong-doing, rather, we should blindly accept our own government's narrative, and consider our enemies as being blacker than black and ourselves whiter than white. Isn't that what we should do?

[Shunter 0]

6 minutes ago, Waldo said:

There is a lot I'm struggling with here...

 

For example, the comparison between the Manchester bombing and the bombing of civilians in Syria that she mentions. People seem outraged that she made such a comparison; but what criteria do we use to determine that one is wrong and the other is right?

 

Okay, there's a difference between intentional murder of innocents, and collateral damage while targeting combatants.

 

But...

 

If we measure how evil a regime is by the number of innocent non-combatant civilians killed (murdered) in a campaign of terror against a country; how do we compare and contrast the killing of innocents in, for example, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc?

 

Is it wrong to even ask these questions?

 

I get the impression here, that some think it is; and that we should never examine ourselves for wrong-doing, rather, we should blindly accept our own government's narrative, and consider our enemies as being blacker than black and ourselves whiter than white. Isn't that what we should do?

The Christian world has committed some awful acts in history, but that is where they have stayed. The majority of civilisation has evolved into rational peaceful people, with the exception of the usual nutters. Any deaths and atrocities caused by the modern world are usually attributed to recognised war or religious fanaticism. Both terrible but only one is done in the open.

[geared 303]

1 hour ago, bendix said:

 

I wasn't aware she has committed any crime. Has she been charged with something?  Genuine question.

Isn't being part of a terrorist organisation illegal?

[Waldo 96]

Another situation  (not specifically related to the topic at hand, but makes a point) that occurs to me is the Somali pirates hijacking situation.

 

If you just look at the surface of it, you may think, oh, pirates with guns taking container ships and oil tankers by force in order to make money, why not  just machine gun them? But when you consider the wider context your view may change...

 

A massively impoverished, civil war torn country, next to no fertile land for growing food, it's pretty hot, and the only thing they have going for them is their long coastline; but wait, foreign companies dumping pollution in their waters and illegally fishing there; so not so much fish left for the Somalians...

 

The pirates are just the foot soldiers (warlords organising the raids are making the real money), way down in the pecking order, just trying to feed their families no doubt. What are they supposed to do?

 

Sorry for going off topic everyone. I'm just trying to suggest that, well, things are not always so black and white and clear cut, and maybe we'd do well to avoid simplistic black and white thinking?

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Waldo

[nikki-red 307]

Im sure I read somewhere that there are certain countries/areas that its now illegal to travel to unless you have a valid, genuine reason.

I cant remember if it said when this was brought in tho, so maybe she travelled out there before?

Is using someone elses passport not a crime?

[bendix 10]

6 minutes ago, gaz 786 said:

I always thought so... Unless europrats legalised it to keep world peace. 

Scotland Yard have already said that unless it can be proven she has committed illegal acts in Syria, she currently faces no terrorism charges by simply going there.

3 minutes ago, nikki-red said:

Im sure I read somewhere that there are certain countries/areas that its now illegal to travel to unless you have a valid, genuine reason.

I cant remember if it said when this was brought in tho, so maybe she travelled out there before?

Is using someone elses passport not a crime?

 

On your first point, absolutely not.  It is perfectly legal to travel anywhere.

 

On the second, yes.  She would have been travelling with false documents so that could be thrown at her.  At best it would be a fine.

As I have said, as a UK citizen she should be allowed to return and be investigated to see what charges can be brought, if any.   Revoking her citizenship is likely illegal and has been done to pander to base instincts. 

Edited February 20, 2019 by bendix

[nikki-red 307]

4 minutes ago, bendix said:

Scotland Yard have already said that unless it can be proven she has committed illegal acts in Syria, she currently faces no terrorism charges by simply going there.

 

On your first point, absolutely not.  It is perfectly legal to travel anywhere.

 

On the second, yes.  She would have been travelling with false documents so that could be thrown at her.  At best it would be a fine.

As I have said, as a UK citizen she should be allowed to return and be investigated to see what charges can be brought, if any.   Revoking her citizenship is likely illegal and has been done to pander to base instincts. 

 

Maybe it didnt say actually illegal then. I know the article did say it would make it really difficult for Aid-Workers etc to fly to certain countries tho?

 

[alchresearch 214]

6 minutes ago, bendix said:

As I have said, as a UK citizen she should be allowed to return and be investigated to see what charges can be brought, if any.  

Probably none, but she will be monitored.   All extra cost to the taxpayer.  

 

But this article says that we don't have the capacity to monitor:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/terrorists-uk-prisons-released-anjem-choudary-islamist-extremism-slip-through-net-muslim-gangs-a8549376.html

[bendix 10]

2 minutes ago, nikki-red said:

 

Maybe it didnt say actually illegal then. I know the article did say it would make it really difficult for Aid-Workers etc to fly to certain countries tho?

 

The Foreign Office issues travel advisories where they talk about avoiding certain countries - this can be for a variety of reasons, usually relating to safety.

 

But they can't legislate to prevent a British citizen from attempting to go. The receiving country can of course make it difficult to enter.  

[crazyhorse 37]

1 hour ago, bendix said:

 

I wasn't aware she has committed any crime. Has she been charged with something?  Genuine question.

 

yes, she is an idiot.  She did a stupid thing.  The correct course of action is to allow her to return to the UK, investigate what happened and what she did there, and then deal with it accordingly.  Dealing with it accordingly might mean any number of things, ranging from using intelligence briefings to help fight ISIS, assess what criminal charges are necessary and/or work on integrating her back into society, if that's the right thing.

 

A blanket 'revoke citizenship' move might placate the Daily Mail / Sheffield Forum mob mentality, but it does more harm than good in the long run.

Unfortunately all the support you mention above will take resources that we as a country can ill afford.

There are many more useful things that could be done in society with the resources we save by cutting her loose.

Perhaps we could afford to spend those resources on a single individual a few decades ago, but not now.

There are many more challenges down the road we must face (climate change, improving education, maintaining our welfare state), that will need those resources.

There are many people who deserve a better chance in Britain.

She had her chance.

She lived in an open, tolerant, society that tried to give her a decent life...and she turned against it.

There are responsibilities we must accept to live in Britain.

She did not honour those and must never be allowed back.