Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 203

Thread: Shamima Begum

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pendeford
    Posts
    63,665
    I would imagine so. And then that country would deport her to us, or we would have her extradited.
    I'm looking California

    I'm feeling Minnesota

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Lupo View Post
    Pretty much this

    The fact that she has shown no remorse and admits to not being fazed by the sight of decapitated heads says a lot about her. These types of people cannot be allowed to just waltz in and out of the country as they wish.
    There are 100s of people who went over to ISIS currently serving prison sentences so they hardly just waltz back into the country. Why should this person be treated differently than others unless it is just so that politicians can satisfy public opinion?

    If, as a country, we believe that people who makes these decisions should never be allowed back then government should change the law. However, I find it sad that people seem to believe she is beyond redemption based on a few comments to a journalist.
    No.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pendeford
    Posts
    63,665
    She is a British Citizen

    She has the right to return.
    She has the expectation to be arrested should she do so.
    She has the right to a fair trial under the British Legal system.
    She has the right to a competent defence, and for a lawyer to be appointed on her behalf if she cannot afford one.
    She has the right, should she be convicted, to serve any prison time in a British prison, and to be given adequate protection while in that system.

    Everything about this screams trial by media at the moment.
    I'm looking California

    I'm feeling Minnesota

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    spiderland
    Posts
    4,011
    i don’t find it as simple as trial by media having heard her interviewed. If outside of what I heard she expressed a different view in private to the interviewer because she feared for her safety and it wasn’t reported, then fair enough. But it sounded to me like she was disappointed that what she referred to as the Caliphate has failed, with no suggestion she rejected any of the ideology. She’s naturally concerned for the safety of her unborn child and that seems to be driving her desire to come home, rather than any remorse about what her shared ideology with IS has done to people. I’d sooner have real victims of IS be considered for a place here than someone who chose to side with them tbh, ‘brit’ or no brit,
    it is not that I have no past. rather, it continually fragments on the terrible and vivid ephemera of now.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    spiderland
    Posts
    4,011
    just to add, I’m not sure about the relevance of her statement about not being phased by severed heads and so. I’m sure there could be an argument that such a reaction could be part of a trauma and, as I said, there are people more qualified than me to judge that.
    it is not that I have no past. rather, it continually fragments on the terrible and vivid ephemera of now.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pendeford
    Posts
    63,665
    Yeah - she actually could have become inured to that by regular exposure to it, rather than other ideas that could be implied by the statement. It's ambiguous on that point and impossible to call it really.

    She is a British Citizen and she should be treated as any other British citizen.
    I'm looking California

    I'm feeling Minnesota

  7. #37
    Kenny's Avatar
    Kenny is online now Post Sponsored by the creators of the Gallimore Scale
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    42,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Paddingtonwolf View Post
    She is a British Citizen

    She has the right to return.
    She has the expectation to be arrested should she do so.
    She has the right to a fair trial under the British Legal system.
    She has the right to a competent defence, and for a lawyer to be appointed on her behalf if she cannot afford one.
    She has the right, should she be convicted, to serve any prison time in a British prison, and to be given adequate protection while in that system.
    .
    This is pretty much it. Regardless of what we think should be done it is the above that should happen.

    I am making an effort to avoid reading comments on Social Media on this subject. Any sane voices on the subject will be lost

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    2,350
    Quote Originally Posted by nimrod View Post
    just to add, I’m not sure about the relevance of her statement about not being phased by severed heads and so. I’m sure there could be an argument that such a reaction could be part of a trauma and, as I said, there are people more qualified than me to judge that.
    Precisely, if you read the testimonials of child soldiers from DRC, Uganda etc their indifference to violence and what they had committed was staggering but crucially it was framed as they were victims under UNROC as they were recruited into state or none state military groups under 18. Aside from that in full agreement with Paddy.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Bilston,jewel of the empire
    Posts
    1,928
    I'm sort of split between let her stay out there,or allowing her back tbh,we used to be a country known for compassion and welcoming people of all faiths and colours,if she comes back she stands a chance of getting help to get over what has undoubtedly been a horrific experience,get deradicalised as it were,and maybe have information on others out there that may be of interest and already in the country.
    The other side of letting her back,is the possibility of her being responsible for future terror attacks,and if she goes on trial the whole Tommy Robinson/Britain first circus that will certainly be camped outside the court spouting their hate speech under the guise of patriotism and Britain should be white Christian shit
    See post #5516 of ex wolf watch to find out why in my house,i hate Kenny Miller

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    black country
    Posts
    4,368
    Strange that she (its Shamima by the way not Stamina!) didnt want to come back when she was popping out the other 2 kids, however now her dutch fella
    has been caught she wants to come back...hmm.
    Regardless, she will be here before soon and no doubt Channel 4 will be making some shit docu drama about her and she will be on Strictly (very Strictly) come Dancing by Christmas.
    "It was dear old sweet dumpy Wolverhampton"

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cannock
    Posts
    6,456
    We're alright now as Danny Dyer is wading in to the argument
    Your friends list is empty

  12. #42
    YoungWolf's Avatar
    YoungWolf is online now World Cup 2014 PTG Champion - Not actually that Young, don't be confused by the pre-teen posting style.
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    23,443
    Who seems to bring a more balanced view than most bizarrely...

  13. #43
    Kenny's Avatar
    Kenny is online now Post Sponsored by the creators of the Gallimore Scale
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    42,285
    Dyer for PM

    Asked whether the UK should allow back Begum, who has given birth to a baby boy, Dyer replied: “Yes, because I feel she needs a chance, maybe to explain what was going on and maybe we can understand a little bit more about how they got to her and how she felt it was the right move to jump on a plane and leave this country at 15 years of age.

    “She is still a young girl – who was looking after her? Maybe we can learn from it.”

  14. #44
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Bilston,jewel of the empire
    Posts
    1,928
    How mad is it that a professional cockernee geeza speaks more sense than politicians and media
    See post #5516 of ex wolf watch to find out why in my house,i hate Kenny Miller

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northallerton, North Yorkshire
    Posts
    25,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Keef View Post
    How mad is it that a professional cockernee geeza speaks more sense than politicians and media
    Well he is Royalty, so...
    Wolves have ambition and wit... why is it such a crime?

  16. #46
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    North Dorset
    Posts
    19,694
    Quote Originally Posted by darlowolf64 View Post
    Well he is Royalty, so...
    We all are somewhere in the dim & distant past.

    Re the individual concerned then think that we need to allow her back with immediate arrest on landing. Child will go into care & she has an intensive discussion with the security services.

    If there is enough evidence to prosecute then we need to do that. We should show compassion, but also apply the law to it's full extent.
    This year we will mainly be conquering Europe

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,013
    Quote Originally Posted by playtheace View Post
    Strange that she (its Shamima by the way not Stamina!) didnt want to come back when she was popping out the other 2 kids, however now her dutch fella
    has been caught she wants to come back...hmm.
    Regardless, she will be here before soon and no doubt Channel 4 will be making some shit docu drama about her and she will be on Strictly (very Strictly) come Dancing by Christmas.
    That's bloody auto correct on the tablet and you can't edit titles. Soz. Perhaps an admin will change.

    We are a compassionate country. We will still look to let in genuine cases. None of that will change I am sure. What we dont want back are borderline traitors, radicalised or not, especially those who show no remorse and still look at the UK they turned their back on as an easy touch.

    She will get back here. I am certain the authorities are looking at every which way to get her charged and convicted of something but I fear they may struggle. There is no offence of collaboration with the enemy. Shagging and isis fighter isn't enough and if she proves marriage she can't give evidence against him even if that were an option.

    My money is on she gets back,she gets charged, she gets off and we pay for a new life. Shit if we did that for the likes of the Bulger murderers and Maxine Carr she has to have a chance of it. Sticks in my craw but that's my guess.
    Remember, remember we are doing OK this November .

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    33,025

    Shamima Begum

    Not sure the BBC interview has done her any favours with her comments regarding the Manchester bombing.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Newcastle under Lyme
    Posts
    24,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Penk Wolf View Post
    Not sure the BBC interview has done her any favours with her comments regarding the Manchester bombing.
    I don't think it changes the fact she's a UK citizen. I think she'll be arrested, put on trial, found guilty and will spend the rest of her life in a cell.

    I guess the child needs to be taken into care and not allowed to grow up knowing who its parents are just for the sake of its own protection.
    Nothing to see here...... can't offend sensitive souls.

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny75 View Post
    I don't think it changes the fact she's a UK citizen. I think she'll be arrested, put on trial, found guilty and will spend the rest of her life in a cell.

    I guess the child needs to be taken into care and not allowed to grow up knowing who its parents are just for the sake of its own protection.
    I really doubt she will spend the rest of her life in a cell. The first woman jailed after returning from Isis was released on licence after serving 3 years of a 6 year sentence. Would expect something similar in this case as our current laws do not allow for much else. Worst case scenario for her is a charge of aiding and abetting or membership of a proscribed organisation and the sentencing guidelines that accompany that charge.
    No.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,518
    Can we do an exchange? Her for Danny Dyer? Well he wants to learn about it. Wanker.
    'I never predict anything and I never will'......Paul Gascoigne.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Stafford
    Posts
    13,279
    She's on about coming back to the UK not Ireland.
    )

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,013
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny75 View Post
    I don't think it changes the fact she's a UK citizen. I think she'll be arrested, put on trial, found guilty and will spend the rest of her life in a cell.

    I guess the child needs to be taken into care and not allowed to grow up knowing who its parents are just for the sake of its own protection.
    Of what?

    Substantive terrorism offences
    In recent years a number of offences and powers have been designed to counter the activities of terrorists. Before their creation these had not been addressed by permanent legislation. They include, but are not limited to, offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000) and Terrorism Act 2006 (TA 2006).
    Preparation of terrorist acts (S.5 TA 2006)
    Section 5 makes it an offence for a person to engage in the preparation of acts of terrorism, or to assist others in preparation of acts of terrorism. This includes attempts. It is an offence which requires proof that an individual had a specific intent to commit an act or acts of terrorism and can encompass a wide range of different levels of criminality, from a minor role in relation to intended acts all the way through to the planning of multiple murders.
    The maximum sentence in respect of section 5 is a sentence of imprisonment for life. In the absence of Sentencing Council guidelines the Court of Appeal identified general principles on sentencing under section 5.
    Examples of prosecution in these cases include Mohammed Rehman and Sana Ahmed Khan, and Yahya Rashid. 25 people were convicted under section 5 in the year ending September 2016, up from 11 in the previous 12 months.
    Read more about the Preparation of terrorist acts (S.5 TA 2006)
    Collecting Information (S.58 TA 2000)
    Section 58 makes it an offence to collect or make a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or to possess a document or record containing information of that kind. The maximum sentence in respect of s58 is 10 years' imprisonment. Examples include cases such as R v Mustafa Abdullah. Eight people were convicted of s58 in the year ending September 2016.

    Dissemination of terrorist publications (S.2 TA 2006)
    Section 2 makes it an offence to distribute a terrorist publication with the intention of encouraging acts of terrorism. A terrorist publication is one which could be useful to a person in the commission or preparation of acts of terror. Examples include R v Abdul Miah and the maximum sentence in respect of this offence is seven years' imprisonment.
    Read more about Dissemination of terrorist publications (S.2 TA 2006)
    Other common offences
    • Membership of a Proscribed Organisation (S.11 TA 2000)
    • Supporting a Proscribed Organisation (S.12 TA 2000)
    • Wearing a Uniform (S.13 TA 2000)
    • Finance and Money Laundering in relation to terrorism acts (S15-S17 and S18 TA 2000)
    • Weapons Training (S.54 TA 2000)
    • Directing a Terrorist Organisation (S.56 TA 2000)
    • Possession of an article for Terrorist Purposes (S.57 TA 2000)
    • Encouragement of Terrorism (S.1 TA 2006)
    • Dissemination of Terrorist Publications (S.2 TA 2006)
    • Providing or Receiving Instruction or Training for Terrorism (S.6 TA 2006)
    • Attendance at a place for Terrorist Training (S.8 TA 2006)


    The likely one on that list is membership but even thats tenuous. I reckon she is going to walk.
    Remember, remember we are doing OK this November .

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    spiderland
    Posts
    4,011
    you wrote "supporting a proscribed organisation" under membership, which she must be nailed on for.

    we don't know what literature and/or messages she has been sending back so there is possible recruitment issues as well as handling terrorist publications/literature etc.

    and membership seems pretty clear, to me at least
    it is not that I have no past. rather, it continually fragments on the terrible and vivid ephemera of now.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,013
    Quote Originally Posted by nimrod View Post
    you wrote "supporting a proscribed organisation" under membership, which she must be nailed on for.

    we don't know what literature and/or messages she has been sending back so there is possible recruitment issues as well as handling terrorist publications/literature etc.

    and membership seems pretty clear, to me at least
    Support.

    (1)A person commits an offence if—

    (a)he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and

    (b)the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).

    (2)A person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is—

    (a)to support a proscribed organisation,

    (b)to further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or

    (c)to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.

    (3)A person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting and the purpose of his address is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or to further its activities.

    (4)Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2)(c) in respect of a private meeting it is a defence for him to prove that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the address mentioned in subsection (2)(c) would support a proscribed organisation or further its activities.

    (5)In subsections (2) to (4)—

    (a)“meeting” means a meeting of three or more persons, whether or not the public are admitted, and

    (b)a meeting is private if the public are not admitted.

    (6)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

    (a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, to a fine or to both, or

    (b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

    Membership.

    (1)A person commits an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.

    (2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove—

    (a)that the organisation was not proscribed on the last (or only) occasion on which he became a member or began to profess to be a member, and

    (b)that he has not taken part in the activities of the organisation at any time while it was proscribed.

    (3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

    (a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, to a fine or to both, or

    (b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.


    In bold are the defences. I reckon 3 kids in 3 years would back her up in the defence that she wasnt a member , merely married to a member. Its going to be bloody hard to get her on the arranging meetings one too.

    Lets say we do find the evidence and because of the profile she gets found guilty and sentenced. Firstly she is under 21 so not likely to get the maximum sentence. Then she will have spent time on remand awaiting trial. Then she will get time reduced for good behaviour. Shes out in 3 years max, costing the tax payer to give her a new identity and protect her from" vigilantes" which would be ironic.

    I am still convinced she walks. I am cynical and tarnished granted.
    Remember, remember we are doing OK this November .

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    spiderland
    Posts
    4,011
    cyber, i share your cynicism. this is more my thoughts than how the legal position will end up.

    the defence above is that she's a "housewife" and so technically not a member, only married to one
    firstly, i don't see why being a housewife prevents membership of something. you don't have to be actively carrying out particular tasks to have a membership
    secondly, IS is not a recognised state, and i presume is still considered a terrorist organisation. but one of its activities was to take on the "persona" of a state, which naturally involves normal day to day activities of its alleged "citizens". It's how it sought legitimacy. the very act of voluntarily getting to IS was to seek membership, and any willing participation in its overall activities is taking part in their activities.
    i'm sure a defence would try to narrow the definition of activities to those of military or murder, as you might be inferring above, but i think that rather misses the whole point of what IS was about or what it was trying to achieve.
    it is not that I have no past. rather, it continually fragments on the terrible and vivid ephemera of now.

  27. #57
    Kenny's Avatar
    Kenny is online now Post Sponsored by the creators of the Gallimore Scale
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    42,285
    Her British Citizenship has been removed by the Government.

    Interesting move as the Government admitted the other day they couldn't legally do that.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Bilbrook
    Posts
    86,577
    Not keen on that. Making someone effectively stateless is a shithouse move.

    If she's committed a crime, prosecute her.
    The rain falls hard on a humdrum town.

    http://oscillatingwildly.net
    Twitter
    Facebook

  29. #59
    Kenny's Avatar
    Kenny is online now Post Sponsored by the creators of the Gallimore Scale
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    42,285
    I presume the Home Sec has some sound legal advice and we are not going to see a shit ton of money wasted through the courts fighting this only to be told, as per International Law you can't do that.

    Unless of course she has got dual citizenship then its all good and the matter is closed

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pendeford
    Posts
    63,665
    That is a low move indeed. Not what I would expect from this supposedly liberal society we projected for years. Absolutely what I would expect from the current bunch of utter wankers in power here. Pandering to the fucking red tops again.

    I also believe that taking citizenship from someone born a British citizen is basically constitutionally illegal.
    I'm looking California

    I'm feeling Minnesota

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •