OV9

There's a lot of noise out there on this story. Some saying she holds dual nationality already, some saying she could become a Bangladeshi citizen.

IANAL, but simply saying that she doesn't, for example, already hold a Bangladeshi passport doesn't mean that she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen (at least in part). Also, she doesn't technically have a UK passport anyway - she left using her sister's one.

I'm torn by this story. When I watched her interview on the Beeb website, I see a girl who is: Naive, uneducated, a bit brainwashed, pretty callous, and in some ways 'not all there'. On the other hand in her own words she said the Manchester bombing was "fair justification because of the women and children dying in, (for example) Baguhz". She also has a newborn baby who obviously didn't choose any of this.

What's the right course of action? I genuinely don't know. Removing her citizenship sends a strong message, and when I think about the effort and costs we're undergoing to get the O/H (a model citizen) her citizenship (we'll be in for £10k+ by the end of it all), I don't care so much about this girl with her actions, but on the other hand I want the UK to be seen to be acting by the letters of the law. It'll be interesting to see how the court case plays out.

Also, I see that Apple can't resist a bit of free PR... (look at the chair)



Disgusting.

Grrrr - the Begum story, or most specifically the response to it is pissing me off massively.

We have a criminal justice system. If the authorities believe you've done something wrong, the police/CPS gather evidence, you go to court, present your own evidence, along with any mitigation, and a judge and jury decide on your guilt and appropriate sentence. That's how it works.

The way it specifically shouldn't work is that the general population gets to make a knee-jerk decision on your right to fair trial based on your perceived sincerity/contrition in a couple of media interviews.

Is this the new post-Brexit lynch-mob justice system, where guilt is determined by how closely your appearance/political views align with the Facebook majority?

Then my suggestion of beheading the cunt and giving the kid to a couple who deserve it probably won't please you too much.

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:45 am Then my suggestion of beheading the cunt and giving the kid to a couple who deserve it probably won't please you too much.

You're not the first person I've seen to advocate summary execution. And that scares me far more than any bombers.

I really, really hope your post is hyperbole for dark comedic effect.

It is I did feel my stabbing hand itch when I first read about it then realises I was being manipulated and moved past it.

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:07 am It is I did feel my stabbing hand itch when I first read about it then realises I was being manipulated and moved past it.

The manipulation is also scary. Given that there must be hundred/thousands of cases of former IS members wanting to return to the UK, why has this specific case been chosen to set the tone of public opinion? Because its the most marginal. Female, non-combatant, under-age at time of UK departure, now with child. If the collective lynch-mob decide she's getting it, then every single other case has automatically also been tried and sentenced.

There are very few sensible voices out there - whether or not she has dual nationality, why is it a good thing to strip her of British citizenship?

From Twitter:

I think it was more her total lack of remorse and her glibly describing scenes of beheading as commonplace but then decided that the ISIS healthcare cover wasn't very good so now she's English again.

It's a purely political move that slakes the thirst of those wanting retribution of some sort. It doesn't really matter that it might be illegal and be overruled down the line in the courts. The politicians will then just hold their hands up and state that they did what they could.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:41 am It's a purely political move that slakes the thirst of those wanting retribution of some sort. It doesn't really matter that it might be illegal and be overruled down the line in the courts. The politicians will then just hold their hands up and state that they did what they could.

They will, and ironically they actually seem to be doing what they can't - not dealing with her as they should. It's not as if she'd get an easy ride if she came back to the UK; there's plenty of legislation for dealing with terrorists.

I guess the government can’t face the headlines from the Express, Mail etc telling us what a cushy life she’s living in British prison

You know, life of luxury, four two week holidays a year, king sized bed, 70” tv in her room, with the full sky package and 7 meals a day like off of cruise ships.

The fundamental problem is that the sanctions under the criminal justice system in the UK simply don't reflect the seriousness of this kind of act.

Under the legislation in force at the time she left, I believe the maximum likely sentence (according to a legal analysis I read) would be 5 years. So potentially out in 2.5 and free to carry on fraternising with extremists in the UK and declaring that ISIS is fine because what they did was not haram under sharia law. Very much inadequate.

There is a more recent (Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019) legislation that take a more Australian style approach and adds to current legislation in order to:

- confer extra-territorial jurisdiction on a number of further offences to ensure that individuals abroad can be prosecuted for having encouraged or carried out acts of terror overseas; and

- provide for a new offence of entering or remaining in an area outside the United Kingdom that has been designated in regulations by the Secretary of State in order to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.

These would seem to do the job for Begum as far as ensuring she doesn't slip below the factual burden of proof for other existing offences (still TBC whether sentencing would continue to be derisory), but questions are obvious around the ability to apply retrospectively despite the wording around "remaining in an area". She is currently no longer in ISIS territory but a refugee camp as I understand it.

Was she born here?

Yep.

Anna Sourberries has joined them (the 7). Happy days. Can't stand her.

3 Tories now too...

Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen

GG. wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:41 amYep.

Then she’s our problem to deal with, isn’t she?

Bring her back, if she wants to come back

Presumably she’ll be arrested at the border, if not escorted to the border for arrest from wherever she is

Broccers wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:11 am Anna Sourberries has joined them (the 7). Happy days. Can't stand her.

8 Labour MPs as of last night. With the three tories they're now equal in size to the Lib Dims under Vince Columbo - sorry, Cable.

Richard wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:27 am

GG. wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:41 amYep.

Then she’s our problem to deal with, isn’t she?

Bring her back, if she wants to come back

Presumably she’ll be arrested at the border, if not escorted to the border for arrest from wherever she is

This is where the "our problem" argument becomes a bit more difficult as she's not "at the border". She's in a territory where we offer no consular assistance as it is a war zone, so she's effectively asking for us to rescue her, not just to allow her back in. Sending a military unit with consular officials to extract her is not exactly appetising. It's not clear whether she has the wherewithal to get to somewhere where we do offer assistance.