comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Remember that Begum has been proven innocent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine question cos I don't know all the facts but I don't remember a trial - what was she proven innocent of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as far as Im aware its illegal to join the Islamic State terrorist group. She has admitted this already she is a member and continues to be and does not regret joining.
granted it hasnt went to trial but she has literally admitted it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Innocent until proven guilty.
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Remember that Begum has been proven innocent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine question cos I don't know all the facts but I don't remember a trial - what was she proven innocent of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as far as Im aware its illegal to join the Islamic State terrorist group. She has admitted this already she is a member and continues to be and does not regret joining.
granted it hasnt went to trial but she has literally admitted it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Innocent until proven guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Remember that Begum has been proven innocent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine question cos I don't know all the facts but I don't remember a trial - what was she proven innocent of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as far as Im aware its illegal to join the Islamic State terrorist group. She has admitted this already she is a member and continues to be and does not regret joining.
granted it hasnt went to trial but she has literally admitted it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Innocent until proven guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are plenty if examples throughout history if people admitting to things they didn't do. Everyone deserves the right to have their human rights respected. The fact that you can't see this suggests you see others as less than human.
Would you not rather she had a trial in the UK and was locked up here rather than trying to come across illegally in a boat and doing terrorisms? You know, like your main fear in life?
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Ten Hag Bald is Best Ball at its Facking Finest (U17054)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
I want to kill people, but if caught I want you to respect my human rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, 100%.
Because human rights include the right to a fair and public hearing and just treatment under the law, the right to be protected from torture or inhuman treatment, and the right to be protected from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. None of that changes because you’ve broken the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For those unmoved by the moral argument for the universality of human rights, it's worth bearing in mind that they also serve to protect everyone. If you don't extend the right of a fair trial to a suspected killer, you run the risk of not only punishing innocent people, but failing to catch and imprison the actual killers. We've seen this so many times in any country where there aren't rigorous checks and balances. It creates a space in which lazy or corrupt law enforcers can send the wrong people to prison (or the electric chair) and guilty people walk free. And you could be the wrongly convicted person or the next victim of the killer who walked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s what’s so worrying about the authoritarian behaviour of the Tories. And how the press have framed it as terrorist apology, rather than wanting to hold up the institution of human rights to protect everyone.
Without wishing to digress too much our UK government has just denied the Scots their human rights to self-determination as enshrined in the UN charter.
Front 3 for next season:
Rashford-----Greenwood-----Begum
Under Qatari ownership. Who are we to say what other cultures should do? Also there have been white terrorists in the UK so we're not much better.
And innocent until proven guilty
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 17 minutes ago
You start applying restrictions on citizenship that only applies to dual nationals (or people you claim are dual nationals) you create two classes of citizenship, and by extension two classes of citizens, those whom you can decide without trial to arbitrarily remove their citizenship, and those who are, for want of a better word, pure in their sole British citizenship. That’s a deeply unsettling implication of the actions of the home office.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sole 😆😆😆
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
Front 3 for next season:
Rashford-----Greenwood-----Begum
Under Qatari ownership. Who are we to say what other cultures should do? Also there have been white terrorists in the UK so we're not much better.
And innocent until proven guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop press, the Qataris don't want to invest in a corrupt and evil legislature that denies basic human rights.
Oh, and can you be innocent and still be a risk. Much like Putin.
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 17 minutes ago
You start applying restrictions on citizenship that only applies to dual nationals (or people you claim are dual nationals) you create two classes of citizenship, and by extension two classes of citizens, those whom you can decide without trial to arbitrarily remove their citizenship, and those who are, for want of a better word, pure in their sole British citizenship. That’s a deeply unsettling implication of the actions of the home office.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sole 😆😆😆
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are trying to spell this time?
We don't know the full story. Why has she not been found guilty? They clearly don't have enough evidence. Who are we to judge until we know the full story? We can't just have trial by social media. This may have all just been one big seex game.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Remember that Begum has been proven innocent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine question cos I don't know all the facts but I don't remember a trial - what was she proven innocent of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as far as Im aware its illegal to join the Islamic State terrorist group. She has admitted this already she is a member and continues to be and does not regret joining.
granted it hasnt went to trial but she has literally admitted it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Innocent until proven guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are plenty if examples throughout history if people admitting to things they didn't do. Everyone deserves the right to have their human rights respected. The fact that you can't see this suggests you see others as less than human.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you plead guilty there is no trial
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 6 minutes ago
We don't know the full story. Why has she not been found guilty? They clearly don't have enough evidence. Who are we to judge until we know the full story? We can't just have trial by social media. This may have all just been one big seex game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly you know better than our intelligence services.
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
Bring her back, lock her up until trial and then keep her locked up and throw away the key.
There are some mitigating factors but ultimately you know that the ISIS rhetoric & actions are pure evil, even at 15/16/17.
As others have mentioned she doesn’t seem to have much remorse.
I won’t lose sleep either way though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Until she is deemed no longer a significant threat to the wider public. If through whatever we can do through the prison system we are able to rehabilitate her, she should be assessed through the normal parole procedures.
We have a prison system that has dealt with and continues to deal with terrorists. Use it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure sure but with terrorists, I won’t lose sleep over it either way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I lose sleep over many things, and won’t on the case of an individual like this. What I am concerned about is the treatment of people who have dual nationality, like my daughter for example. The implication of this is that one can have their British nationality revoked if they could also conceivably have another nationality, that’s a two-tier approach to nationality in this country which I do object to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think this is the dangerous precedent that many are predicting & worrying it will be. It’s not going to affect normal, well-behaved citizens. It won’t descend into ‘any type of criminal will have their citizenship revoked’. We’re talking about terrorists.
I still think we should deal with her but I wouldn’t worry about this affecting your family.
One thing you may need to think about is when your daughter is 18 and if she decides to study over here but if you guys moved abroad until then - boom International student fees. £24,000 a year please - cheers
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 6 minutes ago
We don't know the full story. Why has she not been found guilty? They clearly don't have enough evidence. Who are we to judge until we know the full story? We can't just have trial by social media. This may have all just been one big seex game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly you know better than our intelligence services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
close the thread
comment by .Gaffer Pranks. (U22336)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 6 minutes ago
We don't know the full story. Why has she not been found guilty? They clearly don't have enough evidence. Who are we to judge until we know the full story? We can't just have trial by social media. This may have all just been one big seex game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly you know better than our intelligence services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
close the thread
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never mind the "grooming" excuses. She was prepared to commit horrific atrocities to kill innocent people.
As parents we "groom" our children to grow up to be responsible citizens, not to be murderous terrorists, and hopefully to know the difference.
Lock her up for life because a death penalty would just make her a martyr to her misguided cause.
comment by goadocwatson (U1016)
posted 12 minutes ago
Never mind the "grooming" excuses. She was prepared to commit horrific atrocities to kill innocent people.
As parents we "groom" our children to grow up to be responsible citizens, not to be murderous terrorists, and hopefully to know the difference.
Lock her up for life because a death penalty would just make her a martyr to her misguided cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, from what I've read her parents tried to do a decent job and are as appalled as anyone though there may be mitigation for themselves in that too afaik the authorities have no issue?
What has appalled me is people blaming our state security for 'letting it happen'. Zero about personal responsibility. For all we know Begum was #9000 on a long list of possible ISIS recruits and we don't have infinite resources far less suspect a 15yo schoolie?
Anyway, hey ho.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
Bring her back, lock her up until trial and then keep her locked up and throw away the key.
There are some mitigating factors but ultimately you know that the ISIS rhetoric & actions are pure evil, even at 15/16/17.
As others have mentioned she doesn’t seem to have much remorse.
I won’t lose sleep either way though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Until she is deemed no longer a significant threat to the wider public. If through whatever we can do through the prison system we are able to rehabilitate her, she should be assessed through the normal parole procedures.
We have a prison system that has dealt with and continues to deal with terrorists. Use it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure sure but with terrorists, I won’t lose sleep over it either way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I lose sleep over many things, and won’t on the case of an individual like this. What I am concerned about is the treatment of people who have dual nationality, like my daughter for example. The implication of this is that one can have their British nationality revoked if they could also conceivably have another nationality, that’s a two-tier approach to nationality in this country which I do object to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think this is the dangerous precedent that many are predicting & worrying it will be. It’s not going to affect normal, well-behaved citizens. It won’t descend into ‘any type of criminal will have their citizenship revoked’. We’re talking about terrorists.
I still think we should deal with her but I wouldn’t worry about this affecting your family.
One thing you may need to think about is when your daughter is 18 and if she decides to study over here but if you guys moved abroad until then - boom International student fees. £24,000 a year please - cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorists for now, but what about when its applies to homosexuals, people of colour, certain religions?
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
Bring her back, lock her up until trial and then keep her locked up and throw away the key.
There are some mitigating factors but ultimately you know that the ISIS rhetoric & actions are pure evil, even at 15/16/17.
As others have mentioned she doesn’t seem to have much remorse.
I won’t lose sleep either way though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Until she is deemed no longer a significant threat to the wider public. If through whatever we can do through the prison system we are able to rehabilitate her, she should be assessed through the normal parole procedures.
We have a prison system that has dealt with and continues to deal with terrorists. Use it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure sure but with terrorists, I won’t lose sleep over it either way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I lose sleep over many things, and won’t on the case of an individual like this. What I am concerned about is the treatment of people who have dual nationality, like my daughter for example. The implication of this is that one can have their British nationality revoked if they could also conceivably have another nationality, that’s a two-tier approach to nationality in this country which I do object to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think this is the dangerous precedent that many are predicting & worrying it will be. It’s not going to affect normal, well-behaved citizens. It won’t descend into ‘any type of criminal will have their citizenship revoked’. We’re talking about terrorists.
I still think we should deal with her but I wouldn’t worry about this affecting your family.
One thing you may need to think about is when your daughter is 18 and if she decides to study over here but if you guys moved abroad until then - boom International student fees. £24,000 a year please - cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorists for now, but what about when its applies to homosexuals, people of colour, certain religions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why would it? Don't join terrorist organisations and you won't get thrown out.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ten Hag Bald is Best Ball at its Facking Finest (U17054)
posted 12 seconds ago
“Begum herself can say whatever she wants, but in reality it doesn't matter if she speaks Bengali, if she was born in Bangladesh, or if she has ever been there since it is entirely possible to have Bangladeshi citizenship without fulfilling any of those criteria.”
Legally, no, it doesn’t necessarily matter. Ethically, morally, it absolutely does matter, unquestionably in my mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, absolutely. I don't support the governments position on this whatsoever. I'm just discussing the claim that they broke the law and illegally stripped citizenship.
Something being written into law doesn't make it more or ethical, and there should always be scope to criticise and campaign against laws that are deemed unjust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the legal question marks all seem to be around technicalities in Bangladeshi law as it pertains to citizenship rights. (There are also questions around the legal rights of the UK govt to unilaterally strip citizenship from British citizens it claims are dual citizens; but those I don’t think are really at the centre of what we’ve been discussing.)
Beyond the legal *rights* of governments (the UK govt in this case) to act in such a way - and it has been argued that it is a right, and not that it is a requirement; there is inarguably no legal *requirement* for the UK govt to act as it has - there is the moral question as to whether it should seek to act whether the law furnishes it with the power to do so or otherwise.
Beyond even the troubling precedent we’re talking about them setting, stripping her of her citizenship should never even have been on the table in this case, IMO. It’s grossly and indefensibly unfair and unjust to the Bangladeshi state and its people, for starters.
Yeah Bangladesh shouldn’t bear any responsibility for Begum.
A kid is born and grows up in this country. Never having been to another. They suddenly grow up and join a terrorist group or kill and blow up the citizens in this country. How is that the responsibility of another country?
I was 6 when I came to the UK. Am now 50. Total time being back where I'm from is less than 6 months in 44 years.
Any act of violence or god forbid terrorism I may engage in has feck all to do with my country of birth.
We need to look closer to home and see why this chit is happening to "our" kids.
Begums case may be unpalatable but it's our problem.
Personally I don't think this is about her anyway. Apparently she can't be charged with much. This is about the British and Canadians allowing this to happen whilst aware. She comes back and faces court it's about our services and govt that gets exposed
comment by Ten Hag Bald is Best Ball at its Facking Finest (U17054)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ten Hag Bald is Best Ball at its Facking Finest (U17054)
posted 12 seconds ago
“Begum herself can say whatever she wants, but in reality it doesn't matter if she speaks Bengali, if she was born in Bangladesh, or if she has ever been there since it is entirely possible to have Bangladeshi citizenship without fulfilling any of those criteria.”
Legally, no, it doesn’t necessarily matter. Ethically, morally, it absolutely does matter, unquestionably in my mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, absolutely. I don't support the governments position on this whatsoever. I'm just discussing the claim that they broke the law and illegally stripped citizenship.
Something being written into law doesn't make it more or ethical, and there should always be scope to criticise and campaign against laws that are deemed unjust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the legal question marks all seem to be around technicalities in Bangladeshi law as it pertains to citizenship rights. (There are also questions around the legal rights of the UK govt to unilaterally strip citizenship from British citizens it claims are dual citizens; but those I don’t think are really at the centre of what we’ve been discussing.)
Beyond the legal *rights* of governments (the UK govt in this case) to act in such a way - and it has been argued that it is a right, and not that it is a requirement; there is inarguably no legal *requirement* for the UK govt to act as it has - there is the moral question as to whether it should seek to act whether the law furnishes it with the power to do so or otherwise.
Beyond even the troubling precedent we’re talking about them setting, stripping her of her citizenship should never even have been on the table in this case, IMO. It’s grossly and indefensibly unfair and unjust to the Bangladeshi state and its people, for starters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I completely agree with your last two paragraphs. As I said, I was only discussing the legalities of the decision as I understand it rather than the morality.
I think it's a grossly unjust decision, and doing it without so much as a trial and a guilty verdict sets a horrific precedent.
Sign in if you want to comment
Shamima Begum
Page 14 of 32
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
posted on 22/2/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Remember that Begum has been proven innocent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine question cos I don't know all the facts but I don't remember a trial - what was she proven innocent of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as far as Im aware its illegal to join the Islamic State terrorist group. She has admitted this already she is a member and continues to be and does not regret joining.
granted it hasnt went to trial but she has literally admitted it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Innocent until proven guilty.
posted on 22/2/23
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Remember that Begum has been proven innocent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine question cos I don't know all the facts but I don't remember a trial - what was she proven innocent of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as far as Im aware its illegal to join the Islamic State terrorist group. She has admitted this already she is a member and continues to be and does not regret joining.
granted it hasnt went to trial but she has literally admitted it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Innocent until proven guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
posted on 22/2/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Remember that Begum has been proven innocent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine question cos I don't know all the facts but I don't remember a trial - what was she proven innocent of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as far as Im aware its illegal to join the Islamic State terrorist group. She has admitted this already she is a member and continues to be and does not regret joining.
granted it hasnt went to trial but she has literally admitted it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Innocent until proven guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are plenty if examples throughout history if people admitting to things they didn't do. Everyone deserves the right to have their human rights respected. The fact that you can't see this suggests you see others as less than human.
posted on 22/2/23
Would you not rather she had a trial in the UK and was locked up here rather than trying to come across illegally in a boat and doing terrorisms? You know, like your main fear in life?
posted on 22/2/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Ten Hag Bald is Best Ball at its Facking Finest (U17054)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
I want to kill people, but if caught I want you to respect my human rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, 100%.
Because human rights include the right to a fair and public hearing and just treatment under the law, the right to be protected from torture or inhuman treatment, and the right to be protected from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. None of that changes because you’ve broken the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For those unmoved by the moral argument for the universality of human rights, it's worth bearing in mind that they also serve to protect everyone. If you don't extend the right of a fair trial to a suspected killer, you run the risk of not only punishing innocent people, but failing to catch and imprison the actual killers. We've seen this so many times in any country where there aren't rigorous checks and balances. It creates a space in which lazy or corrupt law enforcers can send the wrong people to prison (or the electric chair) and guilty people walk free. And you could be the wrongly convicted person or the next victim of the killer who walked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s what’s so worrying about the authoritarian behaviour of the Tories. And how the press have framed it as terrorist apology, rather than wanting to hold up the institution of human rights to protect everyone.
posted on 22/2/23
*uphold
posted on 22/2/23
Without wishing to digress too much our UK government has just denied the Scots their human rights to self-determination as enshrined in the UN charter.
posted on 22/2/23
Front 3 for next season:
Rashford-----Greenwood-----Begum
Under Qatari ownership. Who are we to say what other cultures should do? Also there have been white terrorists in the UK so we're not much better.
And innocent until proven guilty
posted on 22/2/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 17 minutes ago
You start applying restrictions on citizenship that only applies to dual nationals (or people you claim are dual nationals) you create two classes of citizenship, and by extension two classes of citizens, those whom you can decide without trial to arbitrarily remove their citizenship, and those who are, for want of a better word, pure in their sole British citizenship. That’s a deeply unsettling implication of the actions of the home office.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sole 😆😆😆
posted on 22/2/23
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
Front 3 for next season:
Rashford-----Greenwood-----Begum
Under Qatari ownership. Who are we to say what other cultures should do? Also there have been white terrorists in the UK so we're not much better.
And innocent until proven guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop press, the Qataris don't want to invest in a corrupt and evil legislature that denies basic human rights.
Oh, and can you be innocent and still be a risk. Much like Putin.
posted on 22/2/23
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 17 minutes ago
You start applying restrictions on citizenship that only applies to dual nationals (or people you claim are dual nationals) you create two classes of citizenship, and by extension two classes of citizens, those whom you can decide without trial to arbitrarily remove their citizenship, and those who are, for want of a better word, pure in their sole British citizenship. That’s a deeply unsettling implication of the actions of the home office.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sole 😆😆😆
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are trying to spell this time?
posted on 22/2/23
We don't know the full story. Why has she not been found guilty? They clearly don't have enough evidence. Who are we to judge until we know the full story? We can't just have trial by social media. This may have all just been one big seex game.
posted on 22/2/23
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Remember that Begum has been proven innocent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine question cos I don't know all the facts but I don't remember a trial - what was she proven innocent of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as far as Im aware its illegal to join the Islamic State terrorist group. She has admitted this already she is a member and continues to be and does not regret joining.
granted it hasnt went to trial but she has literally admitted it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Innocent until proven guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are plenty if examples throughout history if people admitting to things they didn't do. Everyone deserves the right to have their human rights respected. The fact that you can't see this suggests you see others as less than human.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you plead guilty there is no trial
posted on 22/2/23
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 6 minutes ago
We don't know the full story. Why has she not been found guilty? They clearly don't have enough evidence. Who are we to judge until we know the full story? We can't just have trial by social media. This may have all just been one big seex game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly you know better than our intelligence services.
posted on 22/2/23
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
Bring her back, lock her up until trial and then keep her locked up and throw away the key.
There are some mitigating factors but ultimately you know that the ISIS rhetoric & actions are pure evil, even at 15/16/17.
As others have mentioned she doesn’t seem to have much remorse.
I won’t lose sleep either way though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Until she is deemed no longer a significant threat to the wider public. If through whatever we can do through the prison system we are able to rehabilitate her, she should be assessed through the normal parole procedures.
We have a prison system that has dealt with and continues to deal with terrorists. Use it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure sure but with terrorists, I won’t lose sleep over it either way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I lose sleep over many things, and won’t on the case of an individual like this. What I am concerned about is the treatment of people who have dual nationality, like my daughter for example. The implication of this is that one can have their British nationality revoked if they could also conceivably have another nationality, that’s a two-tier approach to nationality in this country which I do object to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think this is the dangerous precedent that many are predicting & worrying it will be. It’s not going to affect normal, well-behaved citizens. It won’t descend into ‘any type of criminal will have their citizenship revoked’. We’re talking about terrorists.
I still think we should deal with her but I wouldn’t worry about this affecting your family.
One thing you may need to think about is when your daughter is 18 and if she decides to study over here but if you guys moved abroad until then - boom International student fees. £24,000 a year please - cheers
posted on 22/2/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 6 minutes ago
We don't know the full story. Why has she not been found guilty? They clearly don't have enough evidence. Who are we to judge until we know the full story? We can't just have trial by social media. This may have all just been one big seex game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly you know better than our intelligence services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
close the thread
posted on 22/2/23
comment by .Gaffer Pranks. (U22336)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 6 minutes ago
We don't know the full story. Why has she not been found guilty? They clearly don't have enough evidence. Who are we to judge until we know the full story? We can't just have trial by social media. This may have all just been one big seex game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly you know better than our intelligence services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
close the thread
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 22/2/23
Never mind the "grooming" excuses. She was prepared to commit horrific atrocities to kill innocent people.
As parents we "groom" our children to grow up to be responsible citizens, not to be murderous terrorists, and hopefully to know the difference.
Lock her up for life because a death penalty would just make her a martyr to her misguided cause.
posted on 22/2/23
comment by goadocwatson (U1016)
posted 12 minutes ago
Never mind the "grooming" excuses. She was prepared to commit horrific atrocities to kill innocent people.
As parents we "groom" our children to grow up to be responsible citizens, not to be murderous terrorists, and hopefully to know the difference.
Lock her up for life because a death penalty would just make her a martyr to her misguided cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, from what I've read her parents tried to do a decent job and are as appalled as anyone though there may be mitigation for themselves in that too afaik the authorities have no issue?
What has appalled me is people blaming our state security for 'letting it happen'. Zero about personal responsibility. For all we know Begum was #9000 on a long list of possible ISIS recruits and we don't have infinite resources far less suspect a 15yo schoolie?
Anyway, hey ho.
posted on 22/2/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
Bring her back, lock her up until trial and then keep her locked up and throw away the key.
There are some mitigating factors but ultimately you know that the ISIS rhetoric & actions are pure evil, even at 15/16/17.
As others have mentioned she doesn’t seem to have much remorse.
I won’t lose sleep either way though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Until she is deemed no longer a significant threat to the wider public. If through whatever we can do through the prison system we are able to rehabilitate her, she should be assessed through the normal parole procedures.
We have a prison system that has dealt with and continues to deal with terrorists. Use it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure sure but with terrorists, I won’t lose sleep over it either way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I lose sleep over many things, and won’t on the case of an individual like this. What I am concerned about is the treatment of people who have dual nationality, like my daughter for example. The implication of this is that one can have their British nationality revoked if they could also conceivably have another nationality, that’s a two-tier approach to nationality in this country which I do object to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think this is the dangerous precedent that many are predicting & worrying it will be. It’s not going to affect normal, well-behaved citizens. It won’t descend into ‘any type of criminal will have their citizenship revoked’. We’re talking about terrorists.
I still think we should deal with her but I wouldn’t worry about this affecting your family.
One thing you may need to think about is when your daughter is 18 and if she decides to study over here but if you guys moved abroad until then - boom International student fees. £24,000 a year please - cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorists for now, but what about when its applies to homosexuals, people of colour, certain religions?
posted on 22/2/23
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
Bring her back, lock her up until trial and then keep her locked up and throw away the key.
There are some mitigating factors but ultimately you know that the ISIS rhetoric & actions are pure evil, even at 15/16/17.
As others have mentioned she doesn’t seem to have much remorse.
I won’t lose sleep either way though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Until she is deemed no longer a significant threat to the wider public. If through whatever we can do through the prison system we are able to rehabilitate her, she should be assessed through the normal parole procedures.
We have a prison system that has dealt with and continues to deal with terrorists. Use it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure sure but with terrorists, I won’t lose sleep over it either way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I lose sleep over many things, and won’t on the case of an individual like this. What I am concerned about is the treatment of people who have dual nationality, like my daughter for example. The implication of this is that one can have their British nationality revoked if they could also conceivably have another nationality, that’s a two-tier approach to nationality in this country which I do object to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think this is the dangerous precedent that many are predicting & worrying it will be. It’s not going to affect normal, well-behaved citizens. It won’t descend into ‘any type of criminal will have their citizenship revoked’. We’re talking about terrorists.
I still think we should deal with her but I wouldn’t worry about this affecting your family.
One thing you may need to think about is when your daughter is 18 and if she decides to study over here but if you guys moved abroad until then - boom International student fees. £24,000 a year please - cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorists for now, but what about when its applies to homosexuals, people of colour, certain religions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why would it? Don't join terrorist organisations and you won't get thrown out.
posted on 22/2/23
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ten Hag Bald is Best Ball at its Facking Finest (U17054)
posted 12 seconds ago
“Begum herself can say whatever she wants, but in reality it doesn't matter if she speaks Bengali, if she was born in Bangladesh, or if she has ever been there since it is entirely possible to have Bangladeshi citizenship without fulfilling any of those criteria.”
Legally, no, it doesn’t necessarily matter. Ethically, morally, it absolutely does matter, unquestionably in my mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, absolutely. I don't support the governments position on this whatsoever. I'm just discussing the claim that they broke the law and illegally stripped citizenship.
Something being written into law doesn't make it more or ethical, and there should always be scope to criticise and campaign against laws that are deemed unjust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the legal question marks all seem to be around technicalities in Bangladeshi law as it pertains to citizenship rights. (There are also questions around the legal rights of the UK govt to unilaterally strip citizenship from British citizens it claims are dual citizens; but those I don’t think are really at the centre of what we’ve been discussing.)
Beyond the legal *rights* of governments (the UK govt in this case) to act in such a way - and it has been argued that it is a right, and not that it is a requirement; there is inarguably no legal *requirement* for the UK govt to act as it has - there is the moral question as to whether it should seek to act whether the law furnishes it with the power to do so or otherwise.
Beyond even the troubling precedent we’re talking about them setting, stripping her of her citizenship should never even have been on the table in this case, IMO. It’s grossly and indefensibly unfair and unjust to the Bangladeshi state and its people, for starters.
posted on 22/2/23
Yeah Bangladesh shouldn’t bear any responsibility for Begum.
posted on 22/2/23
A kid is born and grows up in this country. Never having been to another. They suddenly grow up and join a terrorist group or kill and blow up the citizens in this country. How is that the responsibility of another country?
I was 6 when I came to the UK. Am now 50. Total time being back where I'm from is less than 6 months in 44 years.
Any act of violence or god forbid terrorism I may engage in has feck all to do with my country of birth.
We need to look closer to home and see why this chit is happening to "our" kids.
Begums case may be unpalatable but it's our problem.
Personally I don't think this is about her anyway. Apparently she can't be charged with much. This is about the British and Canadians allowing this to happen whilst aware. She comes back and faces court it's about our services and govt that gets exposed
posted on 22/2/23
comment by Ten Hag Bald is Best Ball at its Facking Finest (U17054)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ten Hag Bald is Best Ball at its Facking Finest (U17054)
posted 12 seconds ago
“Begum herself can say whatever she wants, but in reality it doesn't matter if she speaks Bengali, if she was born in Bangladesh, or if she has ever been there since it is entirely possible to have Bangladeshi citizenship without fulfilling any of those criteria.”
Legally, no, it doesn’t necessarily matter. Ethically, morally, it absolutely does matter, unquestionably in my mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, absolutely. I don't support the governments position on this whatsoever. I'm just discussing the claim that they broke the law and illegally stripped citizenship.
Something being written into law doesn't make it more or ethical, and there should always be scope to criticise and campaign against laws that are deemed unjust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the legal question marks all seem to be around technicalities in Bangladeshi law as it pertains to citizenship rights. (There are also questions around the legal rights of the UK govt to unilaterally strip citizenship from British citizens it claims are dual citizens; but those I don’t think are really at the centre of what we’ve been discussing.)
Beyond the legal *rights* of governments (the UK govt in this case) to act in such a way - and it has been argued that it is a right, and not that it is a requirement; there is inarguably no legal *requirement* for the UK govt to act as it has - there is the moral question as to whether it should seek to act whether the law furnishes it with the power to do so or otherwise.
Beyond even the troubling precedent we’re talking about them setting, stripping her of her citizenship should never even have been on the table in this case, IMO. It’s grossly and indefensibly unfair and unjust to the Bangladeshi state and its people, for starters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I completely agree with your last two paragraphs. As I said, I was only discussing the legalities of the decision as I understand it rather than the morality.
I think it's a grossly unjust decision, and doing it without so much as a trial and a guilty verdict sets a horrific precedent.
Page 14 of 32
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19