Nick
Administrator
Terrorists usually are brainwashed.
Shamima Begum (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sky Blue Pete
- Start date
Terrorists usually are brainwashed.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
was the Ira bomber Paul O Connor groomed?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Terrorists usually are brainwashed.
But we have different laws on children and grooming
But we have different laws on children and grooming
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
She just needs to get in the next dingy available and hey presto the Coventry hill hotel awaits.
An alternative she could be a test case for Rwanda.
An alternative she could be a test case for Rwanda.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I doubt she'd kick up too much fuss about going to Rwanda if the Coventry Hill was her only other option.
Even if you decide she is legally responsible she should be tried here. She was radicalisedand/or groomed here and was a British citizen. Why should any other country have to deal with this?
This was a populist political decision and I am surprised at the outcome of the appeal. Making someone stateless has to be illegal.
Leaving people like her stateless in a camp in Syria is likely to create a breading ground for more radicalised groups. By playing to populism at home we are storing up problems for the future.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
The Off Topic Chat has covered itself in glory again today it seems.
Some of you seem really desperate to try and get her back, and it's fucking weird. It's like the fact she was a bit younger gives some of you the right to say 'oh just let her off'. It's pathetic. It's also obvious If she was 18 you would all come out with another excuse. She didn't just run away from home for a few days and go to Magaluf, she joined a terrorist organisation and has been involved in their dealings.
We should absolutely be taking a hard line zero tolerance approach to this.
Some of you seem really desperate to try and get her back, and it's fucking weird. It's like the fact she was a bit younger gives some of you the right to say 'oh just let her off'. It's pathetic. It's also obvious If she was 18 you would all come out with another excuse. She didn't just run away from home for a few days and go to Magaluf, she joined a terrorist organisation and has been involved in their dealings.
We should absolutely be taking a hard line zero tolerance approach to this.
So we should leave people like this in camps in the Middle East to start the next ISIS, rather than bring them to justice? We have to take responsibility like other countries have done rather than seeking short term populist solutions that claim to be about protection of the public but which actually do the exact opposite. The problem is our politicians just seek short term answers that they think will bring them support from people who don't think these things through.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
No one is saying any of that
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I might take the comment "Short Term populist solutions" more seriously if not for the fact most people on another thread lap up such rhetoric.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
What will justice be here a soft prison for a short term and then be allowed out to carry on if nothing has happened, maybe justice is staying in some shitty camp in Syria.
What has some people's views on totally separate matter got to do with this?
Do you deny it is a short term populist approach? And one that increases the likelihood of future extremism and potential terrorism rather than decreasing it?
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Give over. Half the people on this thread are inferring she has diminished responsibility. There's a thirst to get her back in the UK and give her a ticking off, at most. It's absolutely clear as day, and anyone with half a brain cell can see it. It doesn't matter if someone says openly 'let her off', or makes it out using a variety of semantics. Most people aren't stupid. The rage isn't about the justice system, it's about being on the losing side of the decision. There are some people (many found on this off topic chat), who are so soft they hide behind pretending to be 'compassionate', and in the process think they can take the side of an evil piece of shit unchallenged.
Shimima Begum joined a terrorist organisation. If you want to play being compassionate, have a think about those poor blokes in orange jump suits on their knees, about to have their heads cut off. Many of which were volunteers trying to help others. She was complicit in that.
Even when I have said that should she have been 18, there would have been another excuse, my immediate post was met with... Another excuse: 'She might start a new terrorist movement'. Well, five minutes ago you were pleading that she was showing remorse, and we should let her back in. Which is it then? No answer obviously, because it is just any excuse you can grab, the age being the current most convenient one.
The authorities have made their decision, and it is absolutely the correct one. Shame on you.
So if every country takes this approach you leave all these potential extremists in insecure camps together. How does that help? How about we take responsibility as a country and deliver justice in relation to anyone from the UK who was involved with ISIS.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
The people who have been watching her must believe she is still a danger, I would imagine they are keeping a close eye on her family as well.
You're the one saying do nothing. Leave her alone, and presumably others involved in ISIS, all together to plot the next extremist group.
Every country needs to take responsibility and deal with their own cases and bring them to trial. It's called justice.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Its entirely to do with it, the very same people who instigated this are the same ones who make stupid comments regarding the war.
Blair and Cameron and their stupid alliances with Bush and co in the Middle East have caused the terrorist threat - and again oddly most lapped it up. The other day Jacqui Smith even had the gall to say a person who dared to challenge Ukraine and its Human Rights history as some kind of Russian apologist. She allied herself to a warmonger and a liar - someone put that to her and she didn't even seem to think the accusation was legitimate.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Well if she is a danger she's more dangerous in a non secure camp in Syria, with other former members of ISIS, than in prison here.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
But the justice here won’t be real justice and she will have a group of lawyers trying to get her out and costing us.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
It can be made secure and the people can inside should be told any attempt to escape will only mean one thing.
Justice and a fair trial requires both the prosecution and defence having legal representation. It's a cornerstone of democracy. And it's better autocracy.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
I remember lots of marches against Iraq. Are you sure you can say that was 'lapped up' as it were?!?
I don't disagree with you about Blair and Cameron btw, for clarity. We are where we are though, and the removal of citizenship I do find a little disquieting, I must admit.
By whom? And why would they? On our behalf when we can't be bothered?
I believe she is in effect in a refugee camp in a Kurdish area of Syria. Why would they lock her up?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I am sure the Good Law Project crowd funding fox murdering twerp will be looking at another big payday
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Can her and her family afford to fund it if not bad luck, I am sure her family must want her back and would sell everything they have to do it. If she has to have something Lionel Hutz will be her man.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I am not overly keen on it as I have said and ideally she would be returned to face trial. It is however a very tricky situation. Should she be left in a Syrian camp - probably not. If she returns can she be tried for anything in reality? I do not think stripping citizenship is a great thing in a democracy and could set a precedent - the irony is I expect Starmer - given his record at the CPS when he was very happy to throw British Citizens to the wolves - privately will agree with the decision
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
That's what they really want, though. They're just pretending to be compassionate and come up with 'bring her to justice here' in order to not get called out. Give it five minutes if that happened and it would change to 'she was groomed, give her a second chance'.
It's shameful. The lives of people like this were taken by the people she choose to involve herself with. It's disgusting.
There’s an awful lot of projection here (ranging from a thirst for clemency, to rage, to fake compassion, to….sympathies with terrorists?) but ultimately I think she should face justice, like any other British person. As unpalatable to you as they may be, the arguments being made in her defence by her lawyers are part of that process. If the case is as much of a slam dunk as you believe it to be then you have little to fear from that. Washing our hands of the situation instead is a strange way of holding an accused terrorist to account.
I don’t see any outcome as being a winner or a loser for me personally - I don’t care if she spends her life in prison or gets fully acquitted, as long as justice properly runs its course. So I’m not sure why you’re framing this as something where people are just sore about being on one side or another - I don’t see why this has to be a tribal thing. It’s just the overall principle of stripping someone of their citizenship in this way which sits uneasily with me.
So you're saying that anyone from the UK who was involved in this should be let off and left in Syria to potentially re-form another ISIS like group rather than face trial?
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
She effectively is being 'let off' as she's not being taken to proper trial in front of the UK courts for her crime.
I'm sure you're quite happy with the power to remove citizenship from an individual being vested in an individual Home Secretary (imcumbent Suella Braverman) but I'm not.
