National News Govt lose in Court again

Essexyellows said:
Tasnime Akunjee has been representing Begum and her family since 2015 thanks to the wonderful legal aid system.

There has been plenty of time and the where with all to apply for her Bangladeshi citizenship, her birth right, prior to her 21st birthday.

When the Government removed her British citizenship she still had the choice to apply to Bangladesh, she didn`t.

The Government has not made her stateless her actions, or lack of, have.

She found it easy enough to slip into Syria and, if she wished, could just as easily returned like many others to face justice.

She chose not too.
Click to expand...
Oh come off it. It’s ok to remove her citizenship because she could apply for citizenship elsewhere to avoid being made stateless. Ridiculous.
 
Marked Ox said:
Again from what you've said, she'd have to apply which means she didn't have Bangladesh citizenship. The Bangladeshi Govt would also have to approve that application, they wouldn't. The Bangladeshi Govt have said she doesn't have citizenship therefore our Govt has made her stateless which is against international law.

I could apply for US citizenship, just because I apply doesn't make me a US citizen.

She is being held in a prison camp, it is in the media reports, just like the lawyers can't get access, she can't just walk out.
Click to expand...
No she doesn’t have Bangladeshi citizenship be t I think on her father side she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship but the Bangladeshis have said no.
 
OUFCGav said:
Bit if she is knowingly in the relationship what would be the difference?

But as she has been made stateless she cannot return so the arrest and charge cannot happen. How many other people that have committed crimes has this country made stateless? Why this particular girl?
Click to expand...
It was because of why she left she went to join a very dangerous terrorist organisation. No she can’t be arrested as she is stateless but if she were allowed to return then if she did she should be arrested when she sets from ot of the plane and charged accordingly.
 
bazzer9461 said:
It was because of why she left she went to join a very dangerous terrorist organisation. No she can’t be arrested as she is stateless but if she were allowed to return then if she did she should be arrested when she sets from ot of the plane and charged accordingly.
Click to expand...
But she was underage, had been groomed - seems like one rule for some and another for others. The white supremacist terrorist teenager recently was treated differently.

Exactly what I am saying is that the stupid sub-Daly Mail political point scoring of removing the nationality of her birth (incorrectly quoting that she has another) that leaves her stuck in Syria is wrong. The right thing to do is to allow her to return, present actual evidence (rather than hearsay) in court, and have her punished in the appropriate way under the law of the land.
 
chuckbert said:
Oh come off it. It’s ok to remove her citizenship because she could apply for citizenship elsewhere to avoid being made stateless. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yep.
Actions have consequences and it is about time folk learnt that.
She despises everything about "us" and believes that her Medieval religion is a good thing and wanted to join in beheading folk, sewing folk into suicide vests and other niceties. Reports from Raqqa suggest she was a religious "enforcer" when ISIL were in charge.
Well she is now learning the party is over, there is no victory and she`s living in a tent in Syria.
Her actions had consequences...... collateral damage.
 
OUFCGav said:
But she was underage, had been groomed - seems like one rule for some and another for others. The white supremacist terrorist teenager recently was treated differently.

Exactly what I am saying is that the stupid sub-Daly Mail political point scoring of removing the nationality of her birth (incorrectly quoting that she has another) that leaves her stuck in Syria is wrong. The right thing to do is to allow her to return, present actual evidence (rather than hearsay) in court, and have her punished in the appropriate way under the law of the land.
Click to expand...
Ok bring her home and lock her up for life with a minimum 25 year sentence, she said she saw severed heads and wasn’t bothered by them and supported the Manchester bombing and the deaths it caused. Of course that was her grooming but she said that quite openly to the BBC reporter and now she realises she did wrong.......yeah right
 
bazzer9461 said:
Ok bring her home and lock her up for life with a minimum 25 year sentence, she said she saw severed heads and wasn’t bothered by them and supported the Manchester bombing and the deaths it caused. Of course that was her grooming but she said that quite openly to the BBC reporter and now she realises she did wrong.......yeah right
Click to expand...
"ock her up for life with a minimum 25 year sentence" - if that is what the actual evidence proves and a court decides....
 
I‘m assuming that no one posting on here actually knows this woman personally and whether at 15 she was actually capable of making a conscious decision to leave the UK?
Probably not, so as much as I respect the range of views on this issue, we are discussing newspaper level reporting regarding key factors in her leaving the UK.
The supreme court clearly had all the necessary information, confidential or not, about the case and the process and made the right decision. There could well be intelligence and evidence that we quite rightly are not privy to.
If she was initially groomed, she then continued to pursue the lifestyle until the organisation was dismantled, the novelty wore off and she quite incredibly sought a return to a life in the country she sought to tear apart.
We should never forget what she wanted to do to you, me and our families.
 
Last edited:
Here is a thought...........

We are told that 16 year old Shamima didn`t know what she was doing.

We are also told 16 year old Greta knows how to solve all the world`s problems.

Spot the inconsistency of the arguments
 
OUFCGav said:
"ock her up for life with a minimum 25 year sentence" - if that is what the actual evidence proves and a court decides....
Click to expand...
She has openly said in a tv interview that seeing severed heads and the deaths of those victims in Manchester was retribution. It was f*****g terrorism and she should be dealt with accordingly.
 
Eaststanding said:
I‘m assuming that no one posting on here actually knows this woman personally and whether at 15 she was actually capable of making a conscious decision to leave the UK?
Probably not, so as much as I respect the range of views on this issue, we are discussing newspaper level reporting regarding key factors in her leaving the UK.
The supreme court clearly had all the necessary information, confidential or not, about the case and the process and made the right decision. There will be intelligence and evidence that we quite rightly are not privy to.
If she was initially groomed, she then continued to pursue the lifestyle until the organisation was dismantled, the novelty wore off and she quite incredibly sought a return to a life in the country she sought to tear apart.
We should never forget what she wanted to do to you, me and our families.
Click to expand...
The court decision was correct because the case was not about whether she should be a British citizen or not, it was about whether she should be able to return to the UK to defend herself. Because Preti Patel has stripped her of her British citizenship she not entitled return.
 
Essexyellows said:
Here is a thought...........

We are told that 16 year old Shamima didn`t know what she was doing.

We are also told 16 year old Greta knows how to solve all the world`s problems.

Spot the inconsistency of the arguments
Click to expand...

A small point but legally important, she was 15, not 16 when groomed.
 
QR said:
The court decision was correct because the case was not about whether she should be a British citizen or not, it was about whether she should be able to return to the UK to defend herself. Because Preti Patel has stripped her of her British citizenship she not entitled return.
Click to expand...
Don't my points apply either way; whether trying to regain British citizenship or a return to the UK.
 
Essexyellows said:
Yep.
Actions have consequences and it is about time folk learnt that.
She despises everything about "us" and believes that her Medieval religion is a good thing and wanted to join in beheading folk, sewing folk into suicide vests and other niceties. Reports from Raqqa suggest she was a religious "enforcer" when ISIL were in charge.
Well she is now learning the party is over, there is no victory and she`s living in a tent in Syria.
Her actions had consequences...... collateral damage.
Click to expand...
"Reports from Raqqa suggest she was a religious "enforcer" when ISIL were in charge." - how would the apparently "medieval' religion deal with a woman being an enforcer - sounds unlikely....
 
QR said:
The court decision was correct because the case was not about whether she should be a British citizen or not, it was about whether she should be able to return to the UK to defend herself. Because Preti Patel has stripped her of her British citizenship she not entitled return.
Click to expand...
Is was Sajid Javid not Patel.
It has been shown to not be legal to strip her of the citizenship of her place of birth because the original argument was that she could become a citizen of the place of birth of her parents - which Bangladesh has denied is possible.
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
bazzer9461 said:
But tbf she certainly knew what she was doing when interviewed
Click to expand...

Maybe but then it could be argued she'd had another 4 or 5 years of brainwashing by then.

As said previously, on balance I'd prefer she faced due process/justice in this country for her actions whatever they actually were. I'd prefer that our country lived up to its obligations under international law that it condemns others for not following.
 
Essexyellows said:
Yep.
Actions have consequences and it is about time folk learnt that.
She despises everything about "us" and believes that her Medieval religion is a good thing and wanted to join in beheading folk, sewing folk into suicide vests and other niceties. Reports from Raqqa suggest she was a religious "enforcer" when ISIL were in charge.
Well she is now learning the party is over, there is no victory and she`s living in a tent in Syria.
Her actions had consequences...... collateral damage.
Click to expand...
If she were to have been shot and killed in a war she chose to attend it would be straightforward to say that her actions have had consequences. If she were tried and convicted it would be straightforward to say that her actions have had consequences. To remove citizenship in these circumstances is just passive-aggressive bullshit. Playing silly buggers with nationality laws is ridiculous.

Out of interest, how far does freedom of speech go? Sure if she’s inciting or facilitating violence or terrorism that’s prosecutable, but I hope you aren’t suggesting that people should be forbidden from being citizens because they despise the way a country runs, or because they follow a particular religion? That approach has failed spectacularly in the past,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gofish2
National News Supreme court ruling
4 5 6
Replies
109
Views
11K
SteMerritt
SteMerritt
Back
Top Bottom