National News Govt lose in Court again

Even when/if they are released, they will under constant supervision. They won't just be allowed to wander off and do what they want.

You can't sanction executions. History (and recent history at that) has shown us that even cases where the evidence *seems* overwhelming can be found to be very different when examined closely. The pressure on police and security services to 'get a result' has resulted in some very dodgy convictions.
 
So they go into a dark hole for up to 40 years. I suspect they'd end up in one of the special units in Belmarsh or such like if found tried in this country. I think I'd rather be dead quickly than spend 25 years+ in prison.
But if they’re guilty then they must be punished it just depends which country tries them as punishments differ
 
But if they’re guilty then they must be punished it just depends which country tries them as punishments differ

You think 25 years-40 years* in prison (probably in a restrictive unit in the prison) isn't a punishment?

*As a guess and that also assumes they will be released which isn't a given.
 
You think 25 years-40 years* in prison (probably in a restrictive unit in the prison) isn't a punishment?

*As a guess and that also assumes they will be released which isn't a given.
Life in these sort of cases if proven should mean life and a full life sentence if they’re tried nd found guilty in this country
 
Even when/if they are released, they will under constant supervision. They won't just be allowed to wander off and do what they want.

You can't sanction executions. History (and recent history at that) has shown us that even cases where the evidence *seems* overwhelming can be found to be very different when examined closely. The pressure on police and security services to 'get a result' has resulted in some very dodgy convictions.

I give you the two most recent "lone wolf" attacks in London.

It doesn`t work.

Someone find me a recent "unsafe" terrorist conviction that isn`t from 1970 as the technology and evidence of guilt has moved on a fair bit since then.
 
She made the choice, she lives with the consequences.


Of course that won`t stop the Liberty`s of this world trying to justify why she should be allowed back....
exaclty the soft lefty lovvies will want her back and her to win in court probably .
 
I think the judges made it abundantly clear that the protection of 67 million people far outweighs resolving the particular problematic situation that one individual put themselves in.
The fact she can not participate in a court case is a choice of her doing.
The fact she is a prisoner in a foreign country is a choice of her doing.
The fact she is in a hostile, war torn environment is a choice of her doing.

Actions have consequences.
 
She made the choice, she lives with the consequences.


Of course that won`t stop the Liberty`s of this world trying to justify why she should be allowed back....

I can see the dilemma both ways. This potentially sets a dangerous precedent about basic human rights that more unscrupulous politicians could use but I can understand why people don't want her back as she enabled Daesh.

I am uncomfortable that basic human rights/rule of law, ie. the right to a fair trial if accused of something*, which we as a country are supposed to stand for and have a go at others for not following, is potentially being eroded. Also, others have been brought back in similar cases as Begum already iirc what I've previously read.

It should be remembered that she was 15 when she went and a 15 year old boy, with neo-nazi views got convicted recently of terrorist charges. He started at 13 and had set up a neo-nazi group at 14. He got a 2 year youth rehabilitation order yet she was groomed at 15 and has been made stateless (Bangladesh deny she has citizenship) and can't have a fair trial+.

Also, basically this decision has passed our problem onto the Syrian Kurds who don't have the resources or infrastructure for this. This seems to have been forgotten.

On balance, I would prefer she was brought back and faced the law here. And we as a country actually walked the walk, rather than just talk the talk criticising other countries.

* Begum after all hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.
+ Her lawyers can't represent her currently as they can't get into the camp to speak to her.

 
Last edited:
I can see the dilemma both ways. This potentially sets a dangerous precedent about basic human rights that more unscrupulous politicians could use but I can understand why people don't want her back as she enabled Daesh.

I am uncomfortable that basic human rights/rule of law, ie. the right to a fair trial if accused of something*, which we as a country are supposed to stand for and have a go at others for not following, is potentially being eroded. Also, others have been brought back in similar cases as Begum already iirc what I've previously read.

It should be remembered that she was 15 when she went and a 15 year old boy, with neo-nazi views got convicted recently of terrorist charges. He started at 13 and had set up a neo-nazi group at 14. He got a 2 year youth rehabilitation order yet she was groomed at 15 and has been made stateless (Bangladesh deny she has citizenship) and can't have a fair trial+.

Also, basically this decision has passed our problem onto the Syrian Kurds who don't have the resources or infrastructure for this. This seems to have been forgotten.

On balance, I would prefer she was brought back and faced the law here. And we as a country actually walked the walk, rather than just talk the talk criticising other countries.

* Begum after all hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.
+ Her lawyers can't represent her currently as they can't get into the camp to speak to her.

100% agree with due legal process in the UK.
In this case that due legal process is being followed and the rule of law.
The ruling says that she cannot re-enter the country to appeal against removal of her citizenship as she is a risk to national security.
The removal of her citizenship was a perfectly legal move by the Home Secretary as she had dual citizenship, although Bangladesh disagree on that.

Her ending up in a Syrian camp is entirely of her choosing, tough luck.
If she is stuck there for another 10, 15, 20 years..... tough luck
It also seems her legal team, who are probably funded by us the taxpayer, took the wrong route, tough luck again.
"As Ms Begum did not advance that argument before the Court of Appeal, her appeal against the LTE decision should have been dismissed."

As Sajid Javid said: "There are no simple solutions to this situation, but any restrictions of rights and freedoms faced by this individual are a direct consequence of the extreme actions that she and others have taken"

And for balance......

In the liberal world of Twatter:
"Human rights group Liberty tweeted: “The right to a fair trial protects all of us. Stripping someone’s citizenship without due process sets a dangerous precedent."

However there was due process.
Bangladeshi national law states that citizenship is given automatically at birth through bloodline (jus sanguinis), giving them dual nationality.
Unless they make an active effort to retain it, however, their Bangladeshi citizenship effectively becomes dormant at the age of 21.
Her ability to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship through her parental citizenship makes the removal of her British citizenship lawful.
That she chooses not to is not the UK`s problem.
 
100% agree with due legal process in the UK.
In this case that due legal process is being followed and the rule of law.
The ruling says that she cannot re-enter the country to appeal against removal of her citizenship as she is a risk to national security.
The removal of her citizenship was a perfectly legal move by the Home Secretary as she had dual citizenship, although Bangladesh disagree on that.

Her ending up in a Syrian camp is entirely of her choosing, tough luck.
If she is stuck there for another 10, 15, 20 years..... tough luck
It also seems her legal team, who are probably funded by us the taxpayer, took the wrong route, tough luck again.
"As Ms Begum did not advance that argument before the Court of Appeal, her appeal against the LTE decision should have been dismissed."

As Sajid Javid said: "There are no simple solutions to this situation, but any restrictions of rights and freedoms faced by this individual are a direct consequence of the extreme actions that she and others have taken"

And for balance......

In the liberal world of Twatter:
"Human rights group Liberty tweeted: “The right to a fair trial protects all of us. Stripping someone’s citizenship without due process sets a dangerous precedent."

However there was due process.
Bangladeshi national law states that citizenship is given automatically at birth through bloodline (jus sanguinis), giving them dual nationality.
Unless they make an active effort to retain it, however, their Bangladeshi citizenship effectively becomes dormant at the age of 21.
Her ability to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship through her parental citizenship makes the removal of her British citizenship lawful.
That she chooses not to is not the UK`s problem.

It isn't a fair trial if she is incapable of putting a defense forward as she can't even see her lawyers in the camp to put a case forward and therefore we as a country are denying her due process. If the UK made the effort to ensure she could make a defence remotely (ie. video conferencing etc with her lawyers and with the court) then I could see the argument but currently it is not a fair trial.

And again, Bangladesh have denied she has citizenship and as you say she'd have to apply anyway (she is also 21 now I believe anyway) which will be turned down. She is for all intents and purposes stateless which is against international law that we as a country support. This also doesn't change that we have ignored our own problem and palmed it off on the Syrian Kurds who don't have the infrastructure or resources to cope with such cases or that in similar circumstances others have been brought back to the UK.
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
It isn't a fair trial if she is incapable of putting a defense forward as she can't even see her lawyers in the camp to put a case forward and therefore we as a country are denying her due process. If the UK made the effort to ensure she could make a defence remotely (ie. video conferencing etc with her lawyers and with the court) then I could see the argument but currently it is not a fair trial.

And again, Bangladesh have denied she has citizenship and as you say she'd have to apply anyway (she is also 21 now I believe anyway) which will be turned down. She is for all intents and purposes stateless which is against international law that we as a country support. This also doesn't change that we have ignored our own problem and palmed it off on the Syrian Kurds who don't have the infrastructure or resources to cope with such cases or that in similar circumstances others have been brought back to the UK.
If she was to be allowed to come back, she would have to arrested and detained until such time a court hearing could take place. She would be charged under some terrorist law and if found guilty it would be a very long time with a minimum term.
It might sound harsh but she knew what she was doing when she went to Syria. I don’t go by any of this “ she was brainwashed and didn’t know what she was doing “ malarky.
 
It isn't a fair trial if she is incapable of putting a defense forward as she can't even see her lawyers in the camp to put a case forward and therefore we as a country are denying her due process. If the UK made the effort to ensure she could make a defence remotely (ie. video conferencing etc with her lawyers and with the court) then I could see the argument but currently it is not a fair trial.

And again, Bangladesh have denied she has citizenship and as you say she'd have to apply anyway (she is also 21 now I believe anyway) which will be turned down. She is for all intents and purposes stateless which is against international law that we as a country support. This also doesn't change that we have ignored our own problem and palmed it off on the Syrian Kurds who don't have the infrastructure or resources to cope with such cases or that in similar circumstances others have been brought back to the UK.

She`s not having a trial she just can`t, currently, appeal against the removal of her citizenship.

We are not denying her due process it is just not possible for her at the moment through her own choices.
She can wait, we know where she is, there is no rush.

If she hasn`t applied for Bangladeshi citizenship it is she that has made herself stateless as she was fully aware & adult enough to understand her British citizenship had been removed, surely her legal team would have told her that?

I have no discomfort with the way the case is being handled.
 
If she was to be allowed to come back, she would have to arrested and detained until such time a court hearing could take place. She would be charged under some terrorist law and if found guilty it would be a very long time with a minimum term.
It might sound harsh but she knew what she was doing when she went to Syria. I don’t go by any of this “ she was brainwashed and didn’t know what she was doing “ malarky.
It might sound harsh but she knew what she was doing when she went to Syria.

She was 15! Look at your own children or even yourself at 15 and ask could you make sound, informed, rational, life affecting political and social judgements at that age.

If your answer is yes, then fair enough, but then all 15 year olds must have the vote.
 
If she was to be allowed to come back, she would have to arrested and detained until such time a court hearing could take place. She would be charged under some terrorist law and if found guilty it would be a very long time with a minimum term.
It might sound harsh but she knew what she was doing when she went to Syria. I don’t go by any of this “ she was brainwashed and didn’t know what she was doing “ malarky.

So you mean she'd face justice with due process. Sounds good to me on balance as we are upholding that what we as a country lambast others for not doing, and we aren't dumping it on the Syrian Kurds who have enough problems already.

Also, she was groomed online as a 15 year old. Kids get groomed, in this instance the process isn't any different to what some paedophiles do, so are the kids who get sexually abused at fault?
 
She`s not having a trial she just can`t, currently, appeal against the removal of her citizenship.

We are not denying her due process it is just not possible for her at the moment through her own choices.
She can wait, we know where she is, there is no rush.

If she hasn`t applied for Bangladeshi citizenship it is she that has made herself stateless as she was fully aware & adult enough to understand her British citizenship had been removed, surely her legal team would have told her that?

I have no discomfort with the way the case is being handled.

If she can't appeal then she is being denied due process. The justification is a political decision about national security which sets a potentially dangerous precedent.

And you now agree that she didn't have Bangladeshi citizenship so no this Govt has made her stateless as she had British citizenship. When exactly was she able to be instructed by her legal team? Considering her legal team haven't been able to get access to her in the camp she's in.
 
A fitting sacrifice to Jingoism. Behold the future of our insular nation.

To hell with judicial process, revenge is purer.

Or, it seems a shame that we devolve justice to a shithole country that we neither recognise or support.
 
If she can't appeal then she is being denied due process. The justification is a political decision about national security which sets a potentially dangerous precedent.

And you now agree that she didn't have Bangladeshi citizenship so no this Govt has made her stateless as she had British citizenship. When exactly was she able to be instructed by her legal team? Considering her legal team haven't been able to get access to her in the camp she's in.

She can appeal as & when she becomes accessible.
She had Bangladeshi citizenship from birth as well as British citizenship.
Between her birth and reaching 21 she could have applied for her Bangladeshi citizenship.
She chose not to do that and, in the interim, lost her British citizenship.
She made herself stateless by her own actions.

Her legal team must have contact with her to progress the cases in the Supreme Court or are they just acting in her interest without proper instruction?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom