Judges Rule Shamima Begum Should Be Allowed Back In The Uk

[iansheff 84]

Judges have ruled she should be allowed back in the UK to fight the government's decision to remove her UK citizenship. This will overrule the then Home Secretary's decision to strip her right to being a UK citizen if she wins the appeal. I wonder if there will be any costs awarded to her.  Her barrister pointed out that Ms Begum, who remains in the al-Roj camp in Syria, was only 15 when she left the UK, saying: "She had not even taken her GCSE exams."

Well whose fault was that, she wanted to leave, no one forced her to go.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53427197

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-schoolgirl-shamima-begum-who-22364861#source=breaking-news

Edited July 16, 2020 by iansheff
Bit more information that was not on one of the links.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Because she was a child. If she was 25 your argument would hold water.

[Lex Luthor 10]

I'm a little torn on this.  I'm not a great fan of terrorism or religious extremism and I didn't enjoy her interview due to the views she still held.

 

However, I'm not a fan of vulnerable kids being groomed and brainwashed on the internet by evil, dangerous adults either, and I think our government should have done more to protect our children from it.

[the_bloke 17]

The three reasons for the appeal don't mention her age, so the fact she was 15 is irrelevant. 

 

`Ms Begum's legal team was challenging the government's decision to revoke her citizenship on three grounds - that it was unlawful because it left her stateless; it exposed her to a real risk of death or inhuman and degrading treatment; and she could not effectively challenge the decision while she was barred from returning to the UK.`

 

I hope she returns to the UK, loses any further court challenges and is deported to be honest.

[Pyrotequila 401]

If she has no passport, would she still be allowed to travel?

 

Horrible little beast made her choice to leave to go and join the terrorists, she can stay there and rot.

[iansheff 84]

Will the taxpayers be footing the bill for all this or is someone else going to be paying for her appeal?

Edited July 16, 2020 by iansheff

[nightrider 13]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

The three reasons for the appeal don't mention her age, so the fact she was 15 is irrelevant. 

 

`Ms Begum's legal team was challenging the government's decision to revoke her citizenship on three grounds - that it was unlawful because it left her stateless; it exposed her to a real risk of death or inhuman and degrading treatment; and she could not effectively challenge the decision while she was barred from returning to the UK.`

 

I hope she returns to the UK, loses any further court challenges and is deported to be honest.

We won't be able to. She is British and its illegal to remove citizenship, unless said person has citizenship of another country (which she does not).

[El Cid 210]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

The three reasons for the appeal don't mention her age, so the fact she was 15 is irrelevant.

I hope she returns to the UK, loses any further court challenges and is deported to be honest.

This is the sort of thing that some people thought leaving the EU would solve. There really is nothing to solve.

Its our problem, because she is one of ours.

What should we have done differently, better social services, more intelligence, better faith integration, better regulation of faith schools or maybe better border checks would have stopped her leaving.

We need to make sure we dont make things worse, by stirring up more hattred.

[ECCOnoob 1,013]

41 minutes ago, iansheff said:

Be a nice pay day for the barristers, all paid for by the tax payers of course.

......and?   It is a legal action involving the government   We taxpayers fund the government. Who else do you think should pay for it?   

 

They cannot be made immune from any legal actions brought against them nor in turn can they be restricted from seeking and pursuing their own legal actions just because of costs.  

[butlers 259]

I think several hundred people who actually fought for ISIS have returned  home so seems she has been discriminated against.

She's hardly a sympathetic figure and strikes me as a bit dense from her interview.

As the woman are more or less housebound it's not like she was on the frontline with a rpg

On balance we are a country of laws rather than dictat of politicians.

[butlers 259]

We can all get ham-strung by our biases though

[L00b 441]

2 hours ago, iansheff said:

Be a nice pay day for the barristers, all paid for by the tax payers of course.

I don't believe you are much informed -at all- about the reality of Legal Aid in the UK in 2020.

 

You could do worse than catch the series of 4 documentaries about the UK's current criminal justice system, very shortly to be aired on Channel 4. Completely representative.

 

Don't brew a cuppa. Wouldn't risk you choking, when you realise how wrong you are in the above, and how far you've fallen as a country still chest-beating its due process.

 

As for the topic. The law preserved the law. A good thing, even if one disagrees because of the claimant's past and/or particulars.