Shamima Begum

Channel 4 News reporting the baby has died.

https://www.channel4.com/news/shamima-begums-baby-son-has-died-say-sdf

 

Oh well. Not like we could have done anything about it.

 

Tragic story all round.

 

Report on the news this morning that the family could start legal proceedings against the government. She was in a camp inaccessible to the UK authorities, she chose to go to a war zone, she chose her path, it's her responsibility, ultimately her fault. Case closed.

 

Why do I have to see her dog ugly pig thick face every time I look at any news website?

 

It's just a tragic story all round.

 

Covering a lot of bases there from misogyny onwards.

If you don't want to read about her, don't. Clearly you do though or you wouldn't be on this page commenting on her and there's your reason why she makes so many newspapers. She fulfils at least the role of allowing you to vent some righteous bile.

 

Her pr is good.

The final chapter in the Max Clifford casebook?

 

Annoying thing is the govt will be made out to be the baddies in this by anyone opposed to them.

I'm fully behind them doing fark all to help her. She deserves absolutely no help.

But no doubt the govt will back down under pressure and the vile little arse will be back here soon enough.

 

It'd be interesting to note your response if it was your 15yr old daughter who was groomed into putting her life in danger in a warzone, losing just a couple of days ago at the age of 19 the third child she had been brainwashed into having just after having her British citizenship arbitrarily revoked. Then facing 'pig-thick, dog-ugly' misogynistic and possibly racist commentary by people presuming guilt before having the fair trial that the British criminal justice system is supposedly founded on.

 

Possibly? Was it racist or wasn't it?

 

There were some problematic tropes in there (I'm just going full tumbler on this one)

 

So, the Supreme Court says she can't come home to fight for her right to British citizenship.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56209007

It overturned a Court of Appeal ruling which said she should be allowed in to protect her right to a fair trial/hearing.

 

What's her next step: the ECtHR?

But she can still fight for her British citizenship?

 

I think only Article 6 may apply to her, "the right to a fair trial", she could argue by not being here meant she couldn't get a fair trial but there's nothing in the articles that directly say she couldn't be stripped of her citizenship.

 

I'm sure she'll be off there next although, as with the rights of prisoners to vote, the government can just ignore unfavourable judgments if it thinks it'll have public support in doing so.

I don't think the outcome of this case stops her contesting the decision to strip her of her British citizenship. But presumably the case she's been making over the past 18+ months was based on arguments about the difficulties or near impossibility of her being able to do so fairly. The Supreme Court has put the onus back on her now and basically said if that's her concern, she's needs to postpone her fight until a time when she thinks it is fair.

 

She's a piece of ****.

 

But she's *our* "piece of ****"

 

A 15-year-old girl encounters adults online who are looking to exploit her. Over weeks and months, they send her messages and pictures, telling her that if she does what they want, her life will be better. They tell her that she is smart, beautiful and that she is important. She matters. If she ignores her teachers, her friends, even her family and just follows their instructions, then she will get what she has always wanted: someone to love her, maybe get married and have children and the adventure of a lifetime. They lie to her throughout. She succumbs and goes to meet the boyfriend. She becomes a sex slave but doesn't see it that way because of the grooming. She was married to a man much older than her, she was raped and she was indoctrinated into a death cult, one whose control even now she struggles to shake off.

If that 15yr old was a white British girl, people would give her whatever support necessary to rescue her, bring her back home and help her deal with the horrific experience she was duped into. Many months, if not years, of counselling would be needed to de-indoctrinate her.

If that 15yr old was a British Asian girl, people would vilify, condemn her and blame her for her predicament; 'she made her bed, she's got to lie in it'. Some want her and her family - who knew nothing about her grooming - dead. Some complain of 'wasting tax-payers money' on her and claim she only wants to come back to go on benefits.

Shamima Begum was 15. She is despised and insulted (eg. called 'a piece of ****') for what she was groomed into by people forgetting the fact she was groomed online as a vulnerable child in the first place.

Child abuse is never the child's fault. Never.

 

I don't mind if she comes back if the government sends the Muff squad in exchange

 

Absolutely. But in this case it’s not our fault either, is it? The Security Service has determined we can’t adequately manage the risk she poses and, as there was/is a way of eliminating that risk, it’s right the government takes it. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission found she was a national of Bangladesh and no court, up to and including the Supreme Court, has disagreed with that.

 

Is removing citizenship from notorious accused child groomer and rapist Ghislaine Maxell deemed in the public interest (she also has French citizenship) or is it only in the public interest when it's a groomed Asian girl where it may be illegal to do so and the government can drag out the court case wasting public money on lawyers, so the Tory's can win support from their new voter base by looking tough on immigrants and lefty do good lawyers??

 

What risk does she possess and how does offloading her to Bangladesh rather than giving her a trial in the UK reduce that risk?

 

Wouldn't she be arrested and stand trial if she returned?

 

But they haven’t applied a public interest test to Begum, so the comparison with Maxwell doesn’t work.

You’ll have to direct your question to the Security Service. I understand she has experience handling firearms and preparing suicide bombers, and still expresses some level of sympathy for ISIS’ aims. So I can certainly see how preventing her being physically in the country substantially reduces the risk she poses. It doesn’t stop her being used to recruit others as some sort of martyr, but then I think that would work on the types of losers attracted to killing others for dubious religious reasons whether she was here or not.

 

That's a particularly perverse way of presenting everything and ignores all of her own agency in the time since she arrived in the IS and reached majority, but never sought to return to the UK until her cushy life of watching beheadings and cursing the dying innocent victims of terror attacks in the UK was disrupted.

 

Yeah right. Even for the comparatively brief duration of her appeal*. After which she is either here and goes on trial or is deported if her appeal fails. Calling bullsh1t.

*You would think if she is serious about overturning the decision she might want to keep her nose clean for a few months.

 

Undoubtedly. But once out of prison I suspect she’d need lifelong surveillance and that’s incredibly resource intensive. She would also likely be subject of threats from the extremists on the other side and that would put obligations on the state to protect her too. Again, at cost to us in resources that might be better deployed elsewhere.

 

Deported where? The government knows full well it can’t leave her in some sort of Tom Hanks-style limbo in the Heathrow departure lounge in perpetuity. As long as she’s not in the country then issue of whether she’s got somewhere else to go is moot.

 

The security services have always expressed the opinion that she's a security risk. Incidently they 'said' this at her first appeal.

You might as well add she wears mismatched colours and bakes awful muffins - the security service report details are never released. The speculation is just that - idle speculation.

ISTR that one of Priti "Awful" Patel's first changes to the deportation law was "deport fist - appeal later" (a shyte summary of a very nasty rule change). You didn't have to be resident in the UK to challenge this decision?

Also the comments about her being groomed are very important - she left the UK when she was 15. It's never be ascertained how long she was on-line groomed for. I presume it wasn't for a couple of days before she left for Turkey...

 

Yes, the ‘I understand’ bit was based on media reports. It could be cobblers, it could be strategically leaked by the people in the know. I don’t know.

It’s sad that she was groomed but the method of her indoctrination doesn’t alter the risk she now poses.

 

Interestingly Tom Tugendhat mentioned that she was a security risk (ISTR something along the lines of "...you haven't seem the security briefings that I have...") when he was interviewed by Matt Forde (primality on the Russain report) just after Begum's team won her first appeal.

Remind me: it was during the French Revolutionary trials for treason when the defendant could not present any evidence to contradict the prosecution's evidence as that could lead to the treasonous ideas that the individual was on trial for spreading to the wider public?

 

She was indoctrinated as a child and the process can only have been intensified once she got to Syria - part of which would be the deliberate desensitisation to beheadings. Once there she wouldn't have had much choice about what she could or couldn't do, it won't have been what she was promised when being groomed online. She may well have said she agreed with the Manchester bombing, but was that really her talking? Radicalisation doesn't just switch off or quickly diminish once a person reaches adulthood - it is deep-rooted. Even those in Britain deemed only 'at risk of radicalisation' can get lengthy programmes aimed at gradually undoing the harm done.

Whatever she is accused of she deserves the chance to be heard within the British justice system that is supposed to be impartial and the best in the world. 'Innocent until proved guilty' seems to have been forgotten in this case simply because of the evil regime that indoctrinated her as a minor.

 

She is our responsibility not Bangladesh's this much is true .
But please stop bringing race\colour into it .
Very few have sympathy for Karen Matthews\Mick Philpott\ etc etc

 

Absolutely. When she satisfies the Security Service and very senior judges, or possibly the Home Secretary of the day, that she’s no longer a substantial risk to national security she will earn her chance to prove her innocence, as is her right.