I would imagine they are pretty confidential
Do you think? Well that shocks me. So you’re asking whether anyone has seen reports none of us can see, and to believe judgements have been made based on those reports we have no idea even exist let alone what is in them, who wrote them, on what basis they came to their findings, or if the findings were actually used in coming to the decision they did. Almost wasn’t worth mentioning then.
It was an idea I picked up from Twitter to point out there could be more reasons for the decision than we are privy to but no you are right it wasn’t worth mentioning
You’re 100% correct though that I’m sure there are many, many things which we have no idea about in this case, which is is why I’ve tried to stay vaguely neutral. This seems like a far too complex issue to just say “she’s a threat, she must stay out” as it is to say “she’s a sweet girl who was manipulated” Despite what the press and government narrative is desperate to convince (and has done a pretty good job) the reality is likely to be far more complex, and somewhere between the two extremes.
This pretty much sums up my view…
One important aspect it highlights is that the government seems to be creating a difference in fundamental rights between different ‘classes’ of British citizens: those born of British parents, and those whose parents were born abroad.
My daughter#5 was born in France, unlike her older sisters, to 2 British citizens one of whom has dual nationality by birth, not that that should make a difference. Her future children won’t automatically get British citizenship, unlike her sisters’ future children.
(By contrast: I have French citizenship by virtue of having a French mother, so as far as France is concerned I am 100% French and so are my children, and yet I wasn’t born in France, my mother was born in Vietnam, her mother and father were born in Vietnam and China, one set of great-grandparents was born in Africa and Vietnam, the other in Corsica).
Missed the trial.
She wasn’t allowed back in the end was she?
I doubt this will change anybody’s mind - looking back over old threads the subject was pretty polarising even on SF.
This popped up on the BEEB - I wonder where she is - the Sun was reporting as recently as this morning that she was still in a Syrian refugee camp but her dress looks too western in this video
Unless she’s offering to shop everyone involved in her radicalisation, recruitment into ISIS and her activities in Syria to MI5/6; she can rot where she is.
Don’t hold back there, say it how you really feel
She’s starting to come across as less of a spoiled kid though.
I think it was rich removing her UK Citizenship as she had a passport for another country.
Many people have more that 1 citizenship (eg Johnson) - is the suggestion that if you commit a crime then you citizenship can be withdrawn if you have another citizenship?
Let’s just say you were implicated in the deaths of over 130,000 UK citizens - should your citizenship be withdrawn if you have another?
The problem was that second citizenship was very much in dispute, I’m not sure if she managed to get a Bangladeshi passport but the UK made her stateless which is illegal.
Yes, you certainly can have citizenship removed if you commit a crime.
Johnson, however, already renounced his US citizenship for tax reasons (i.e. they were chasing him for US taxes).
Seems so unfair doesn’t it - my hubby’s mum and family forever all born in France and he can’t get his Frenchness
I’d forgotten that rule about the kids, my older boys won’t be able to pas son either their English OR Aussie passports. Sso what would happen to them if they were living in a country that doesn’t give out nationality from being born to foreign parents (like here)? The baby could become stateless!!! The little one was born in Oz so he’ll get another generation from there!
As long as you have another one. Under international agreements no country can make a person stateless.
Now I am picturing a situation where a really undesirable citizen has two nationalities and the two countries concerned are racing to be the first to get shot and leave the other country stuck with him or her. No idea if this actually does or could happen.
I do wonder if Begum should be given a second chance at this point. The point has been made. She has presumably done a lot of thinking over the last few years, she is saying the right things and it may be genuine.
I think the Romans had the best system to prevent enemies of the state and the people re-offending.
Not supposed to anyway - it didn’t stop the UK removing her UK citizenship on the shaky claim that she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship - when that claim was contested by Bangladesh itself.
Sounds like it could.
Right or wrong that is going to be a contentious view. Yes, there seems to be much more maturity and introspection going on - the last interview I saw (she was about 19 at the time) did her no favours at all but this one is in a different ball park.
Some will say that she can never safely be deradicalised, personally I would like to think the situation was not without hope that she could be brought back into society but in practice it is going to be very difficult.
Maybe - they also thought it was a good idea to put two people in an arena for them to fight to the death as public entertainment - I’d like to think we have moved on from Roman levels of brutality.
OK here are the problems.
- When Shamima left to join ISIS she was above the age of criminal responsibility.
- She went clandestinely so she knew she was breaking the law.
- The first thing anyone joining ISIS had to do was renounce all other citizenships and destroy their passports. So she of her own free will renounced citizenship.
- What she did was commit acts of treason against the UK.
So she had already placed herself outside the limits of UK citizenship.
The UK cannot revoke her citizenship if it will make her stateless.
However, as the daughter of a Bangladeshi citizen (which her father is) she inherits the right to Bangladeshi citizenship even if she hasn’t applied for it.
So depriving her of UK citizenship does not invalidate her right to Bangladeshi citizenship even if that government don’t want her.
We are only having these discussions because ISIS lost, otherwise she would still be there.
Welcome. Quite the first post…
I hope that you enjoy robust but friendly debate.
True although it is too low in England and out of line with other developed nations, it’s even worse in Scotland.
That said reform would only raise it to 12 - still younger than Begum was at the time, however, whatever the age of criminal responsibility she was still a minor.
It is also clear that she was groomed and radicalised, this can happen even to adults, it is not clear how much she, or her companions, knew about what they were doing or what lay in store for them.
She didn’t tell her family but it is not at all clear whether she knew she was acting illegally. The girls made no attempt to hide their exit from the UK. They were obviously shepherded from Turkey to Syria by others so they did not act alone.
A symbolic but not legally binding act unless she informed the British government of her wish to renounce UK citizenship.
There is no evidence of this, she says that she did not commit any terrorist attacks herself although this is disputed (but clearly became inured to what was going on around her - not uncommon in individuals exposed to that degree of atrocity) - she was used as an Isis baby factory. Have you ever lost a child? Because it sucks and this poor girl watched three of hers die.
You seem to have stopped counting so I’ll continue for you.
As I said, legally she had not informed the government of her desire to renounce citizenship so she was (at that point) still a UK citizen.
She was *eligible* for Bangladeshi citizenship but was not a Bangladeshi citizen until she applied, and the automatic right lapsed when she turned 21
“The right to” doesn’t mean anything if the Bangladeshi government decide to say no - only actual, accepted, recognised citizenship counts for point 6.
Yes, possibly - she might have stayed brainwashed. Who knows?
It’s complex, like a lot of things anybody who thinks they have quick simple answers hasn’t thought things through - as an aside that’s the problem with the UK government at the moment, no depth; you see this in software - Johnny come lately types who bemoan the complexity of the system and try to reimplement it with “simple, clean, code” - only to discover the 1000 special cases their cursory understanding of the requirements missed, but I digress.
I do not think that there is any practical way she could return to the UK. She has no qualifications, she’s not a UK citizen so can’t work here unless she is awarded a visa which she won’t get. Any return would have to be heavily policed at great cost and no gain to anyone.
She has seriously fsked her life, she (might) finally becoming to that realisation, I don’t know what to do with her - any more than you do - but any life thrown away is cause for reflection. Donne was always, and will always be, bang on.
She did better than the other two though, in that she’s still alive to be having her current problems.