Shamima Begum

I think at the end of the day she's British good or bad and should be allowed back. They can still charge her with being a terrorist or even of sedition (is that a thing I the UK) or charged with being a traitor etc etc...there must be a million things they could charge her with and lock her up forever. At the moment im conscious we are the ones looking like twats. As a nation we have to be better than this. Worse case just have the SAS kill her in the night. It would resolve it
She’s a rat.
 
I don’t want this scum in my country , I made a joke about do gooders the moderators on here deleted the post but be aware what I say is very much the mood of the people I mix with and we are not in the minority , let the filthy scum bitch rot
The Tories pander to this mentality. Rather than observe the rule of law we brand people as filthy scum bitch.
 
There are foolish misguided people with all political leanings in this country.She is one and less surprisingly you are another.
 
Last edited:
I’m really torn with this.
As an ex squaddie, like every other sane person, I hate terrorists with a vengeance.
But I can’t stop thinking she was only 15 when she chose her path.
Groups like Isis have experts at identifying and manipulating potential recruits.
There are loads of instances of young people ** up, where most of us would say “he’s only 15, his life shouldn’t be wrecked because he made a mistake”, so it’s clear that severity of the offence is the main factor when we decide to ignore their naivety. Is that fair? I’m not too sure.
Please don’t slate me as if I’m defending her, I flit from being willing to pull the trigger myself or blaming her recruiters, but I think that if we’re willing to condemn her then we need to revisit our ideas about age of responsibility.
15 year olds are a lot more savvy than they were when I was that age and girls are always older than boys of the same age. As we know, different kids mature differently and I’m pretty sure very few would have the wherewithal and courage to leave their families and country, let alone to go to what they knew was a group who carried out shocking atrocities. Remember also, she said in that interview that she was ok with beheadings. That alone makes her potentially dangerous and she could well have been radicalised.
 
I think there's a few accusations being thrown about it being a government decision.

To be fair, it's been to the highest court in the land and she's lost.

As I said originally, that's an element of double standards regarding the grooming of a 15 year old girl; but as an adult she did enough for me to say hard luck and most importantly is been through the justice system which is impartial and as good as anywhere in the world.

There will be very few people feeling sorry for her.

Is this first high profile case not to have an appeal to the European Court of Justice, which might have a different interpretation of our laws?
 
I think that she has been very badly advised, after making a monumentally stupid decision of her own. But she is not the only architect of her problems, and while it is easy to blame her for the awful decisions she has taken in the past, a LOT of people are complicit in her current plight. By which I mean parents, teachers, politicians and the evil bastards who exploited her, among others.

It is easy to be unforgiving. Part of me thinks that she is paying a price that has to be paid by someone. But reading back this thread, it seems to me that there are plenty of people among us who are equally morally bankrupt.
 
I see the moderator deleted my post as-well. So much for free speech. Absolutely pathetic.
T
I think that she has been very badly advised, after making a monumentally stupid decision of her own. But she is not the only architect of her problems, and while it is easy to blame her for the awful decisions she has taken in the past, a LOT of people are complicit in her current plight. By which I mean parents, teachers, politicians and the evil bastards who exploited her, among others.

It is easy to be unforgiving. Part of me thinks that she is paying a price that has to be paid by someone. But reading back this thread, it seems to me that there are plenty of people among us who are equally morally bankrupt.
Close the door on her for good.
 
As well as the unforgivable barbarism of the movement she was so desperate to join and the way once she joined them she was entirely at one with
all their actions ,including the beheadings they carried out,which for most of us is hard to believe, we also need to protect the citizens of this country from the potential for violence and murder such people pose in terms of both planning or carrying out such heinous crimes over here.Who should we prioritize when making these decisions? I know who I would want to protect first and foremost and it`s not a difficult decision.
 
As she's not my daughter, I take the same view as most people, that we don't want her back here. But that doesn't stop me thinking that at 15, she was highly coerced into this and that should be something taken into account.
She doesn't appear to have been coerced, even at 15, going with 2 of her mates. And she is 21 now and has said she has no regrets about going there. In a recent interview she went on to say it made her what she is now
 
Aye. Don't think for one moment, that I'm supporting her. But I don't buy the simplistic view that 'of course she knew what she was doing.' There's 15 year old girls all over the world right now getting themselves into horrible and disgusting situations because they thought they knew what they were doing...I feel like I'm of the modern world, where kids are exposed to and allowed to do things that would never have been accessible to us, but to me kids are still kids with young, impressionable minds that can be nurtured but also exploited. Whether people like to hear it or not. The truth is, this girl was exploited. It doesn't excuse her or responsibility for her actions, but for me it's something that should be considered in the whole situation.
Last year, by which time she was 20 not 15, she tried to justify the Manchester Arena bombing. So don’t keep pushing this, she was only 15 crap. Obviously her only regret is that she can’t return to the UK, good riddance.
 
Whether she was adult enough at 15 to be held fully responsible or not isn't the point (though those arguing that 15 year-olds should be treated the same as 18 year-olds need their hard drives examining). The point is how Syria should be allowed to deal with her.

She is a foreigner who joined an armed insurgency against the Syrian government, albeit in a support role. Surely, it is up to the Syrians what they do. They could try her and give her whatever the punishment is in Syrian law or just deport her. Why should the Syrians be prevented from carrying out the latter?
 
Whether she was adult enough at 15 to be held fully responsible or not isn't the point (though those arguing that 15 year-olds should be treated the same as 18 year-olds need their hard drives examining). The point is how Syria should be allowed to deal with her.

She is a foreigner who joined an armed insurgency against the Syrian government, albeit in a support role. Surely, it is up to the Syrians what they do. They could try her and give her whatever the punishment is in Syrian law or just deport her. Why should the Syrians be prevented from carrying out the latter?
They aren’t, she has a Pakistan passport, they can deport her there if they wish.
 
They aren’t, she has a Pakistan passport, they can deport her there if they wish.
Simply not true. She hasn’t got any passport since we removed her UK one.

The Home Secretary argued that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship under Bangladeshi law. However, the Bangladeshi interior minister has quite understandably said that she isn’t entitled to citizenship and there is no way they will give citizenship to a terrorist like her.

So where do Syria deport her to?
 
Simply not true. She hasn’t got any passport since we removed her UK one.

The Home Secretary argued that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship under Bangladeshi law. However, the Bangladeshi interior minister has quite understandably said that she isn’t entitled to citizenship and there is no way they will give citizenship to a terrorist like her.

So where do Syria deport her to?
My mistake, but in reply to your last question anywhere except here.
 
Simply not true. She hasn’t got any passport since we removed her UK one.

The Home Secretary argued that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship under Bangladeshi law. However, the Bangladeshi interior minister has quite understandably said that she isn’t entitled to citizenship and there is no way they will give citizenship to a terrorist like her.

So where do Syria deport her to?
Sorry to be facetious, but what they do with her is not our problem. Unfortunately for Syria she is now their problem. I am sure she will eventually find somewhere to go. I know this comes across as I don’t give a monkeys but as I said she is not our problem anymore. It has been suggested by other posters we bring her back and put her on trial, why should I and other taxpayers spend £37500 per year to keep her in jail. And what happens at the end of her sentence many more £s spent keeping her under observation. No, as I said not our problem, as you sow so shall you reap.
 
Sorry to be facetious, but what they do with her is not our problem. Unfortunately for Syria she is now their problem. I am sure she will eventually find somewhere to go. I know this comes across as I don’t give a monkeys but as I said she is not our problem anymore. It has been suggested by other posters we bring her back and put her on trial, why should I and other taxpayers spend £37500 per year to keep her in jail. And what happens at the end of her sentence many more £s spent keeping her under observation. No, as I said not our problem, as you sow so shall you reap.
Who is going to take her? They are hardly queuing up to offer citizenship to terrorist’s wives.

If that is the case, I’ll ask the question again when a foreigner enters a country illegally to take part in a war against the government why should th prevented from deporting them.

You’re answer seems to be that of the fly tipper. Dump my rubbish in someone else’s back garden then it’s not my problem.

It also raises another question, if we want to deport an illegal immigrant or Syrian criminal why shouldn’t Syria turn round and say he’s a wrong’n we don’t want him he’s your problem now? Over time we will want to send a lot more back to Syria than they will want to send to us.
 
Who is going to take her? They are hardly queuing up to offer citizenship to terrorist’s wives.

If that is the case, I’ll ask the question again when a foreigner enters a country illegally to take part in a war against the government why should th prevented from deporting them.

You’re answer seems to be that of the fly tipper. Dump my rubbish in someone else’s back garden then it’s not my problem.

It also raises another question, if we want to deport an illegal immigrant or Syrian criminal why shouldn’t Syria turn round and say he’s a wrong’n we don’t want him he’s your problem now? Over time we will want to send a lot more back to Syria than they will want to send to us.
There are multi thousands of illegal entrants into this country who deliberately destroy papers to hide their origin. We then struggle to prove where they come from and are unable to send them back. Syria isn’t the only country with the problem.
 
There are multi thousands of illegal entrants into this country who deliberately destroy papers to hide their origin. We then struggle to prove where they come from and are unable to send them back. Syria isn’t the only country with the problem.
That's not the point. The point is if we don't take our undesirables back from Syria (who are few and far between) why should they accept their undesirables back, the ones we know are Syrian.
 
Back
Top