“Subscribe

The snivelling cockney

Filbo65

Thatched roofer
The Supreme Court has backed the Home Secretary in banning Ms Beggum from coming back to the UK to argue her citizenship case.
Anyone disagree, I wonder?
 

Foxgolfer

Bill Poster
Bit worrying that a home secretary can strip anyone of British citizenship isn’t it ?
Ms Begum may well have committed crimes for which she should be rightly punished but not comfortable a politician has the right to take away British citizenship .
 

sixthswan

Mod Roofer
I'm happy with the decision. She relinquished her British citizenship, when going on a jolly with terrorists who behead people and want to bring an end to western democracy.

Bye Bye Begum 👋
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Bit worrying that a home secretary can strip anyone of British citizenship isn’t it ?
Ms Begum may well have committed crimes for which she should be rightly punished but not comfortable a politician has the right to take away British citizenship .
They hav'nt done anything of the sort.

They have simply said that her safety could not be guaranteed if she returned to the UK to plead her case in person. They have put the case in abeyance until that situation is resolved.

Looks a bit like the court found a procedural way to avoid making a decision that might come back to haunt them.
 

Foxgolfer

Bill Poster
They hav'nt done anything of the sort.

They have simply said that her safety could not be guaranteed if she returned to the UK to plead her case in person. They have put the case in abeyance until that situation is resolved.

Looks a bit like the court found a procedural way to avoid making a decision that might come back to haunt them.
I think you’ll find the reason the court ruled the government is within its rights to say she can’t return,is that she is no longer a British citizen .
Remove the emotive subject from the thread and my point is , I’m not comfortable that a Home Secretary has the power to tell anyone you’re not British any more .
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Not sure that is the case. Todays decision is to deny her entry on security grounds, she wanted to appear in person to plead her case that she be allowed back into the UK on a permanent basis. This is not going to happen until the security situation changes.

As far as I am aware, she remains both a Bangladeshi and a British citizen.
 

SteveYork

Subscribed
Not sure that is the case. Todays decision is to deny her entry on security grounds, she wanted to appear in person to plead her case that she be allowed back into the UK on a permanent basis. This is not going to happen until the security situation changes.

As far as I am aware, she remains both a Bangladeshi and a British citizen.
She was deprived of her British citizenship, that's the decision she's appealing against.
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
She was deprived of her British citizenship, that's the decision she's appealing against.
Yes. Digging back I just realised that. The decision today was to stop her appealing in person, my error.

I wonder if she can still appeal 'in absentia' so to speak?
 

SteveYork

Subscribed
Yes. Digging back I just realised that. The decision today was to stop her appealing in person, my error.

I wonder if she can still appeal 'in absentia' so to speak?
Yes she can. One of the questions though is whether and how she can instruct her legal team properly while in the camp in Syria - supposedly she is at risk if she communicates from there. Hence the court's suggestion that any final appeal could wait until that situation changes - when and how that might happen is obviously uncertain.
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Yes she can. One of the questions though is whether and how she can instruct her legal team properly while in the camp in Syria - supposedly she is at risk if she communicates from there. Hence the court's suggestion that any final appeal could wait until that situation changes - when and how that might happen is obviously uncertain.
So, 'kicking the can down the road' in a devious and rather clever way.

By the way, would that be the legal team paid for by the British tax payer? (Asking for a friend.)
 

Richardvanles

Bill Poster
Kin mongs on here getting their knickers in a twist over some Isis fluffier yet are clueless about the 400 plus real terrorists that have come back to this country as long as they promise to behave.
 

ClaphamFox

Subscribed
The Supreme Court has backed the Home Secretary in banning Ms Beggum from coming back to the UK to argue her citizenship case.
Anyone disagree, I wonder?
Actually I disagree. She was born and raised in Britain. It's fair enough to say she relinquished her British citizenship when she joined ISIS, but as the Islamic State no longer exists she cannot remain there. If she'd joined a foreign country's army, I'd agree she'd now be their responsibility. But that's not the case.

Another thing: the only reason we were able to strip her of citizenship in the first place was because her grandparents were from Bangladesh (although Shamima had never been there). This effectively means that a child born and raised in Britain who has foreign-born grandparents has a different status under the law than a child who does not have foreign grandparents. That seems wrong to me.

Trying to foist her on another country when she's clearly British is just avoiding responsibility. If a foreign-born terrorist were foisted on us by another country in similar circumstances, we'd be livid.
 

SteveYork

Subscribed
So, 'kicking the can down the road' in a devious and rather clever way.

By the way, would that be the legal team paid for by the British tax payer? (Asking for a friend.)
Yes I guess so, although you could characterise it in less pejorative terms as the application of judicial reasoning and due process (mind you that's no doubt what the court of appeal thought it was doing in the judgement which the SC has now comprehensively shat on).

I don't know how her legal team is funded, the judgement doesn't give any info on that.
 

sixthswan

Mod Roofer
Kin mongs on here getting their knickers in a twist over some Isis fluffier yet are clueless about the 400 plus real terrorists that have come back to this country as long as they promise to behave.

That has been a concern of mine for some time. Wonder how many of those who returned are still in prison. Many have probably disappeared off the radar of the security services. Rory Stewart said the only way to deal with these people, was to kill them.

“They are absolutely dedicated, as members of the Islamic State, towards the creation of a caliphate, they believe in an extremely hateful doctrine which involves killing themselves, killing others and trying to use violence and brutality to create an eighth century, or seventh century, state,” he told the BBC.

“So I’m afraid we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us, and unfortunately the only way of dealing with them will be, in almost every case, to kill them.”

Some have argued for reintegration. Others suggest the returnees can be a useful tool in discouraging others.
 

sixthswan

Mod Roofer
Actually I disagree. She was born and raised in Britain. It's fair enough to say she relinquished her British citizenship when she joined ISIS, but as the Islamic State no longer exists she cannot remain there. If she'd joined a foreign country's army, I'd agree she'd now be their responsibility. But that's not the case.

Another thing: the only reason we were able to strip her of citizenship in the first place was because her grandparents were from Bangladesh (although Shamima had never been there). This effectively means that a child born and raised in Britain who has foreign-born grandparents has a different status under the law than a child who does not have foreign grandparents. That seems wrong to me.

Trying to foist her on another country when she's clearly British is just avoiding responsibility. If a foreign-born terrorist were foisted on us by another country in similar circumstances, we'd be livid.

It's her tough luck that the state she wanted to be part of, no longer exists (for the time being).

None that went, should ever return.
 

Richardvanles

Bill Poster
That has been a concern of mine for some time. Wonder how many of those who returned are still in prison. Many have probably disappeared off the radar of the security services. Rory Stewart said the only way to deal with these people, was to kill them.

“They are absolutely dedicated, as members of the Islamic State, towards the creation of a caliphate, they believe in an extremely hateful doctrine which involves killing themselves, killing others and trying to use violence and brutality to create an eighth century, or seventh century, state,” he told the BBC.

“So I’m afraid we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us, and unfortunately the only way of dealing with them will be, in almost every case, to kill them.”

Some have argued for reintegration. Others suggest the returnees can be a useful tool in discouraging others.
About 10 went to prison
 

ClaphamFox

Subscribed
It's her tough luck that the state she wanted to be part of, no longer exists (for the time being).

None that went, should ever return.
Yes, it's her tough luck. But whose responsibility is she now? What did they do to deserve her?

Do you agree that British children who happen to have foreign-born grandparents should be treated differently by the law than British chidren without foreign grandparents?
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Actually I disagree. She was born and raised in Britain. It's fair enough to say she relinquished her British citizenship when she joined ISIS, but as the Islamic State no longer exists she cannot remain there. If she'd joined a foreign country's army, I'd agree she'd now be their responsibility. But that's not the case.

Another thing: the only reason we were able to strip her of citizenship in the first place was because her grandparents were from Bangladesh (although Shamima had never been there). This effectively means that a child born and raised in Britain who has foreign-born grandparents has a different status under the law than a child who does not have foreign grandparents. That seems wrong to me.

Trying to foist her on another country when she's clearly British is just avoiding responsibility. If a foreign-born terrorist were foisted on us by another country in similar circumstances, we'd be livid.
Interesting viewpoint. The legal and moral issues are important here and it is not straightforward.

As I understand it the court was only able to remove her UK citizenship because she was a legal citizen of another country, I guess the question is, should we be allowed (under international law) to do that?

On another tack, as a devout muslim she would not consider herself British but part of the Ummah, except when it suits of course.
 

SteveYork

Subscribed
Actually I disagree. She was born and raised in Britain. It's fair enough to say she relinquished her British citizenship when she joined ISIS, but as the Islamic State no longer exists she cannot remain there. If she'd joined a foreign country's army, I'd agree she'd now be their responsibility. But that's not the case.

Another thing: the only reason we were able to strip her of citizenship in the first place was because her grandparents were from Bangladesh (although Shamima had never been there). This effectively means that a child born and raised in Britain who has foreign-born grandparents has a different status under the law than a child who does not have foreign grandparents. That seems wrong to me.

Trying to foist her on another country when she's clearly British is just avoiding responsibility. If a foreign-born terrorist were foisted on us by another country in similar circumstances, we'd be livid.
As far as I can tell the reasons for the judgement boiled down to the appeal court mistakenly considering that the Home Secretary was legally obliged to prioritise human rights considerations over others (specifically national security), when in fact the SoS has specifically been given the responsibility by Parliament to weigh all those things, and to its belief that it (the court) should take a view on the weight to be attached to information considered by the SoS but not disclosed publicly, which the SC considered was not in the court's power. It's noticeable that the judgement is headed by a number of directions about non-publication of evidence and non-disclosure of identities of witnesses which I assume is about security service information (ie the SoS has been advised that her return would represent a threat to the public).
 

sixthswan

Mod Roofer
Yes, it's her tough luck. But whose responsibility is she now? What did they do to deserve her?

Do you agree that British children who happen to have foreign-born grandparents should be treated differently by the law than British chidren without foreign grandparents?

I know my opinion flies in the face of common-sense, but I couldn't care less who has responsibility for her. She can rot in that camp, which is funded and provides her the basics of life.

The question of birth doesn't bother me either. If a white lad, with ancestry traced back to the English Celts went to join ISIS; he too can stay put and never return.
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
As far as I can tell the reasons for the judgement boiled down to the appeal court mistakenly considering that the Home Secretary was legally obliged to prioritise human rights considerations over others (specifically national security), when in fact the SoS has specifically been given the responsibility by Parliament to weigh all those things, and to its belief that it (the court) should take a view on the weight to be attached to information considered by the SoS but not disclosed publicly, which the SC considered was not in the court's power. It's noticeable that the judgement is headed by a number of directions about non-publication of evidence and non-disclosure of identities of witnesses which I assume is about security service information (ie the SoS has been advised that her return would represent a threat to the public).
So, balancing the rights of the individual as laid down in the Human Rights Act against the rights of and security of the British people as represented by parliament, specifically the Secretary of State given responsibility in these matters.
 

SteveYork

Subscribed
Interesting viewpoint. The legal and moral issues are important here and it is not straightforward.

As I understand it the court was only able to remove her UK citizenship because she was a legal citizen of another country, I guess the question is, should we be allowed (under international law) to do that?

On another tack, as a devout muslim she would not consider herself British but part of the Ummah, except when it suits of course.
Not quite. The Home Sec, not the court, revoked the citizenship. The Government argued that was not illegal because she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship (and hence would not be rendered stateless, which would be illegal), not that she is a Bangladeshi citizen. (I have no idea if the Bangladeshi government shares that view.) Hr appeal against the revocation decision has not yet been heard so I suppose those legal arguments haven't yet been tested.
 

SteveYork

Subscribed
So, balancing the rights of the individual as laid down in the Human Rights Act against the rights of and security of the British people as represented by parliament, specifically the Secretary of State given responsibility in these matters.
Yes I think that's about it, although the rights stuff may not depend solely on the HRA.
 

ClaphamFox

Subscribed
I know my opinion flies in the face of common-sense, but I couldn't care less who has responsibility for her. She can rot in that camp, which is funded and provides her the basics of life.

The question of birth doesn't bother me either. If a white lad, with ancestry traced back to the English Celts went to join ISIS; he too can stay put and never return.
I've no doubt YOU would want to treat the white lad with purely English ancestry the same way as Shamima, but the law apparently doesn't. I'm still curious to know whether you think it's fair that the law would treat white lad differently to the Asian girl even though they'd both been born and raised here...
 

Richardvanles

Bill Poster
That has been a concern of mine for some time. Wonder how many of those who returned are still in prison. Many have probably disappeared off the radar of the security services. Rory Stewart said the only way to deal with these people, was to kill them.

“They are absolutely dedicated, as members of the Islamic State, towards the creation of a caliphate, they believe in an extremely hateful doctrine which involves killing themselves, killing others and trying to use violence and brutality to create an eighth century, or seventh century, state,” he told the BBC.

I've no doubt YOU would want to treat the white lad with purely English ancestry the same way as Shamima, but the law apparently doesn't. I'm still curious to know whether you think it's fair that the law would treat white lad differently to the Asian girl even though they'd both been born and raised here...
White lives matter more.
 

Glimmer

File under futile
She was a stupid young kid. She will eventually win the right to return so let’s get it over with and bring her back now.
 

Foxgolfer

Bill Poster
Seems to me a British girl born , brought up ( and groomed ) here is our responsibility.
Should face justice here . We are better than this .
 
“Subscribe
“Subscribe
Top