All moot. If she committed a crime, let her stand before a UK court and face trial and stop dicking around with this person's citizenship.
Britain did not cause it.
Ahh. They did yeah.
She was 15, so there was no question whether the Syrian age of consent was being respected - it was.
But even if there had been a problem with that, Britain did not cause it. She chose to go to a war zone, and chose to live under Islamic State rules, so if Syrian law did not apply, then IS law did. What is certain is that there is no reason that UK law would apply, no matter what.
The argument that the UK age of consent meant anything out there is laughable, and shows how little understanding many people here have of the big wide world.
No link for that? Because in the absence of any better information, Wikipedia disagrees:
Jus sanguinis
According to the Citizenship Act 1951, one method of acquiring Bangladeshi nationality is via jus sanguinis (Citizenship by right of blood). This means one may acquire citizenship regardless of whether they were born on Bangladeshi sovereign territory or not. Bangladeshi citizenship is provided primarily jus sanguinis, or through bloodline, irrespective of the place or the legitimacy of the birth.[2] Therefore, any child born to a Bangladeshi woman illegitimately outside Bangladeshi soil would still be eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen, whereas a child born to two non-nationals in Bangladesh would not.
The poster said "She lived in the UK her whole life". Not true. She left the UK in February 2015 and it is now February 2024. That's a long and very significant chunk out of a 24 year old's life.
I don't disagree strongly with any of the rest of your post*, but I don't think you can rewrite what another poster could/should have said if they'd wished to be accurate, because their whole argument falls apart on that awkward fact.
so the supreme court enforced our laws? not seeing the problem TBH.
if a law we introduce is illegal due to other laws and or the constitution then it should be stopped shouldn't it.
well no, she did exactly what the poster claimed.
was born in and lived in the UK until she joined isis which is not a recognised state or country.
she has nothing to do with bhangladesh regardless of what any british politician or court claims.
the irony of your first line given that you then admit in your second line to not bothering to read the post lol
equating her to ronnie briggs ? 😂😂🤣
she s neither citizen nor law abiding , and trying to make it a racial issue is just a poor effort at playing your last "race" card in a lost argument .
once again leave her in the desert to die with the last remnants of the death cult that she is still a ardent fan of , she just never though she would have to live in a tent on food aid instead of in a big stolen house with her own slaves strutting around with a AK tormenting actual innocent victims.
actions have consequences , a phrase that seems to somehow have become taboo in some circles and is contributing in a very real way to some of the most negative aspects of the world today
britain made her stateless, she's nothing to do with bhangladesh and she's not going to be their problem ever.
bhangladesh did nothing wrong, its all the UK's doing.
the bhangladeshi government have said this is not the case.
that people born abroad to bhangladeshi parents are not entitled to citizenship at all.
the special immigration tribunal in the UK apparently ruled otherwise but ultimately what the bhangladeshi authorities say on the matter has to be the most important determination on the issue seeing as they are going to know their laws better then the best british minds.
because she isn't entitled to bhangladeshi citizenship and never was.
so bhangladesh has no obligation to her and have said they will have nothing to do with her and britain can do it's worst.
You don't read the posts do you?
The Telegraph was supplied as the initial reference, so I simply did not follow it full stop. If Wikipedia goes on to cite the same stuff the Telegraph does and cites the Telegraph as the source, then the fact that Wikipedia becomes the conduit gives me no more confidence.
The other thing you obviously couldn't quite work out is that it makes no difference to my opinion. Whatever the woman did when abroad is totally irrelevant to my opinion of how she should be dealt with.
Do you know the money involved and years of work that the British went to to bring Ronnie Biggs home to justice? They didn't seem too keen on stripping him of his citizenship did they?
Look at the Nazi war criminals who were executed and imprisoned for atrocities that ISIS would no doubt be glad to stick on their list of popular punishments too, they were not stripped of their citizenship were they? They had trials and faced justice.
I have no idea, and frankly do not care one iota what the woman did as long as she is treated in the same way as any other citizen law abiding or criminal, it matters not one jot. She isn't though, she is being racially discriminated against, full stop.
The law should apply to all equally, but in Britain it does not. That's why Mone is sailing around in a luxury yacht when other less dishonest shysters languish in UK prisons.
britain have already welcomed hundreds of them back, and those are the ones known about by the authorities.
britain also enabled these individuals to go without question to join the death cult, a death cult britain originally supported, trained and funded when it was expedient.
the british don't get to palm it's problem on to other countries just because it can't be bothered to govern itself and the colonial empire mindset it has gone fully for since brexit.
people in the west don't get to cry "send them back to where they came from" while deciding that doesn't apply to those countries in return to do the same.
in short, the only argument you have here is about how bad wahabism is which nobody disagrees with.
it's a separate issue to britain taking back it's rubbish.
no real laws eh
so by your " logic " she was the victim of nothing and no longer enjoys the protection of laws ,
fine by me , leave her to die in the desert lke the terrorist she is
but britain backs saudi to the hilt, so it is dealing with saudi's geopolitical nonsense.
taking it's money, giving it money, thus enabling it.
weak semantics ,
the decision was made by multiples of people with more information than you or me , you just dont like it regardless of not having all the information
lol "if wiki was quoted " ...
there was actually a link to the wiki page where the quote came from in the post
its sort of pointless engaging with you if your aren't reading the posts your arguing about .
you may contact Canadian intelligence if you want a second source , good luck with that
islamic state is not a country or a state.
unless they were born in saudi then they didn't come from there.
they will have come from the country they were born in, in the case of begum the UK.
you are right about the ideology of isis but do remember britain and the US are firm backers of saudi.
Yes but given syria was a warzone, it would not be in a position to enforce it's laws and check that the age of consent was being met.
britain caused that problem, hence it's laws apply because she was not in syria legally and syria was prevented from controlling it's borders.
because she's british and britain supported isis originally.
they also didn't bother to police their borders meaning people went to join isis in large numbers from there without question.
they don't get to turn around now and bully others to take on their terrorists.
technically the british home secretry could decide that taking a wrong turn is a threat to national security and remove someone's citizenship.
She should be locked up until it can be determined that she no longer poses a threat. If ever.
Nonsense.
If she somehow over turned the decision on her citizenship and she was deported back to Britain she would need to be charged with a crime and prosecuted.
It's remedial in the extreme to proclaim they should get to detain her indefinitely.
You do realise that if a 15 year old was found to be in the IRA then they wouldn't have their citizenship revoked? No summary judgement from a politician. The rule of law would be followed. If they broke the law, there would be a trial where all evidence would be given.
And you realise that she was groomed as a child bride? The grooming started when she was 14. When this happens often the children are tasked with finding/recruiting other victims. They believe they are helping their groomer. It's something that lots of grooming victims are put through. They are thoroughly brainwashed by their groomers. Besides that they do other horrible things to win the approval of their groomer. That's the point of grooming. It's where a sick individual gets a child to do something they wouldn't normally do.
It's nuts that I'm arguing with someone who called me a paedophile because I'm anti grooming. And that I have to defend having a trial for a criminal and not just punishing them without giving them a fair trial.
BTW, point out where I mentioned the age of consent. I never once mentioned it.
Courts and Juries are not distinct from human rights.
She won't go to Bangladesh because they'll put her to death: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48154781
She has never once expressed remorse for leaving to join a terrorist organisation, to my mind, only that it didn't work out. Or for what she did. Nobody even knows what she did over there. Wasn't there talk of her sewing bombs into clothes so the bombers couldn't change their minds, at one stage? Recruiting and radicalising others is the least of her crimes, one can only imagine. I mean, has she ever said she was lied to and deceived so that she'd do what she did
All this correlation with grooming and paedos is wide of the mark. She wasn't lured with the promise of some handsome, rich husband. She was lured with the promise of the destruction of Western society, the establishment of a caliphate and the extermination of those who opposed it. That's a different world than "he'll buy me alcohol if I let him feel me up". She was interested enough in all of that stuff on her own before she went looking for ISIS, it's how she got into it. Her own family have disowned her, her father even admitted she doesn't harbour any remorse for her actions.
I disagree with revoking citizenship. However, she should not be allowed to walk the streets. She has no problem with people being beheaded if they are enemies of Islam, which is everybody who isn't Muslim. She may have partaken in this sort of stuff, we'll probably never know. It's too dangerous to take that chance. We have jailed children before (Boy A and Boy B), and will do so in the future, when circumstances dictate. As have the UK (James Bulger's killers). This is no different. She should be locked up until it can be determined that she no longer poses a threat. If ever.
"She was brainwashed and groomed to think the way she does"..........You don't know that. Nobody does, except for herself, and she's demonstrated nothing but bad judgement calls from what I can see. She might have thought that way before she ever thought of joining that shower. She probably STILL THINKS THAT WAY, for all we know. She cannot be trusted. I certainly wouldn't be getting on a plane that I knew she was going to be on.
God help her poor kids also. All three born within the span of 4 years and all three dead in the same period. One thing's for certain, they never asked for anything of the sort.
If you regared courts and juries as distinct from "the law", then surely you also have to regard the Home Secretary as distinct from the law? Begum's citizenshp was revoked by a decision of the Home Secretary of the time.
In what way exactly does that disprove the point that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty?
Because it was some cockwomble who were trying to get the window lickers on side so he could have a go at the leadership race who decided her guilt.
Not a court or a jury of her peers.
So innocent until proven guilty clearly doesn't apply in this case.
That same cockwomble if a labour minister decided could when they get into power decide he needs to be stripped of his citizenship.
Of course they will now find it easier because we have recent precedent.
Well you should probably state your point clearly then. You think I'm going to reread the whole thread to guess what you were referring to?
If you meant the fact that she lost her citizenship, yes, so what? In what way exactly does that disprove the point that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty?
Nobody on any side of the court proceedings has ever disputred that, as a child, she was groomed online, from about the age of 13, and this was what led to her going to Syria.
Nor has anybody suggested that this absolves her of any responsiblity for what happened afterwards. On the contrary, she is expressly willing to return to the UK and be tried in the UK courts for any offences she is alleged to have committed, either before or after she went to Syria.
