• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Shamima Begum

We're alright now as Danny Dyer is wading in to the argument :confused-smiley-013
 
Who seems to bring a more balanced view than most bizarrely...
 
Dyer for PM

Asked whether the UK should allow back Begum, who has given birth to a baby boy, Dyer replied: “Yes, because I feel she needs a chance, maybe to explain what was going on and maybe we can understand a little bit more about how they got to her and how she felt it was the right move to jump on a plane and leave this country at 15 years of age.

“She is still a young girl – who was looking after her? Maybe we can learn from it.”
 
How mad is it that a professional cockernee geeza speaks more sense than politicians and media
 
darlowolf64 said:
Well he is Royalty, so...
Click to expand...

We all are somewhere in the dim & distant past.

Re the individual concerned then think that we need to allow her back with immediate arrest on landing. Child will go into care & she has an intensive discussion with the security services.

If there is enough evidence to prosecute then we need to do that. We should show compassion, but also apply the law to it's full extent.
 
playtheace said:
Strange that she (its Shamima by the way not Stamina!) didnt want to come back when she was popping out the other 2 kids, however now her dutch fella
has been caught she wants to come back...hmm.
Regardless, she will be here before soon and no doubt Channel 4 will be making some shit docu drama about her and she will be on Strictly (very Strictly) come Dancing by Christmas.
Click to expand...
That's bloody auto correct on the tablet and you can't edit titles. Soz. Perhaps an admin will change.

We are a compassionate country. We will still look to let in genuine cases. None of that will change I am sure. What we dont want back are borderline traitors, radicalised or not, especially those who show no remorse and still look at the UK they turned their back on as an easy touch.

She will get back here. I am certain the authorities are looking at every which way to get her charged and convicted of something but I fear they may struggle. There is no offence of collaboration with the enemy. Shagging and isis fighter isn't enough and if she proves marriage she can't give evidence against him even if that were an option.

My money is on she gets back,she gets charged, she gets off and we pay for a new life. Shit if we did that for the likes of the Bulger murderers and Maxine Carr she has to have a chance of it. Sticks in my craw but that's my guess.
 
Not sure the BBC interview has done her any favours with her comments regarding the Manchester bombing.
 
Penk Wolf said:
Not sure the BBC interview has done her any favours with her comments regarding the Manchester bombing.
Click to expand...

I don't think it changes the fact she's a UK citizen. I think she'll be arrested, put on trial, found guilty and will spend the rest of her life in a cell.

I guess the child needs to be taken into care and not allowed to grow up knowing who its parents are just for the sake of its own protection.
 
Johnny75 said:
I don't think it changes the fact she's a UK citizen. I think she'll be arrested, put on trial, found guilty and will spend the rest of her life in a cell.

I guess the child needs to be taken into care and not allowed to grow up knowing who its parents are just for the sake of its own protection.
Click to expand...

I really doubt she will spend the rest of her life in a cell. The first woman jailed after returning from Isis was released on licence after serving 3 years of a 6 year sentence. Would expect something similar in this case as our current laws do not allow for much else. Worst case scenario for her is a charge of aiding and abetting or membership of a proscribed organisation and the sentencing guidelines that accompany that charge.
 
Can we do an exchange? Her for Danny Dyer? Well he wants to learn about it. Wanker.
 
She's on about coming back to the UK not Ireland.
 
Johnny75 said:
I don't think it changes the fact she's a UK citizen. I think she'll be arrested, put on trial, found guilty and will spend the rest of her life in a cell.

I guess the child needs to be taken into care and not allowed to grow up knowing who its parents are just for the sake of its own protection.
Click to expand...

Of what?

Substantive terrorism offences
In recent years a number of offences and powers have been designed to counter the activities of terrorists. Before their creation these had not been addressed by permanent legislation. They include, but are not limited to, offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000) and Terrorism Act 2006 (TA 2006).
Preparation of terrorist acts (S.5 TA 2006)
Section 5 makes it an offence for a person to engage in the preparation of acts of terrorism, or to assist others in preparation of acts of terrorism. This includes attempts. It is an offence which requires proof that an individual had a specific intent to commit an act or acts of terrorism and can encompass a wide range of different levels of criminality, from a minor role in relation to intended acts all the way through to the planning of multiple murders.
The maximum sentence in respect of section 5 is a sentence of imprisonment for life. In the absence of Sentencing Council guidelines the Court of Appeal identified general principles on sentencing under section 5.
Examples of prosecution in these cases include Mohammed Rehman and Sana Ahmed Khan, and Yahya Rashid. 25 people were convicted under section 5 in the year ending September 2016, up from 11 in the previous 12 months.
Read more about the Preparation of terrorist acts (S.5 TA 2006)
Collecting Information (S.58 TA 2000)
Section 58 makes it an offence to collect or make a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or to possess a document or record containing information of that kind. The maximum sentence in respect of s58 is 10 years' imprisonment. Examples include cases such as R v Mustafa Abdullah. Eight people were convicted of s58 in the year ending September 2016.

Dissemination of terrorist publications (S.2 TA 2006)
Section 2 makes it an offence to distribute a terrorist publication with the intention of encouraging acts of terrorism. A terrorist publication is one which could be useful to a person in the commission or preparation of acts of terror. Examples include R v Abdul Miah and the maximum sentence in respect of this offence is seven years' imprisonment.
Read more about Dissemination of terrorist publications (S.2 TA 2006)
Other common offences
• Membership of a Proscribed Organisation (S.11 TA 2000)
• Supporting a Proscribed Organisation (S.12 TA 2000)
• Wearing a Uniform (S.13 TA 2000)
• Finance and Money Laundering in relation to terrorism acts (S15-S17 and S18 TA 2000)
• Weapons Training (S.54 TA 2000)
• Directing a Terrorist Organisation (S.56 TA 2000)
• Possession of an article for Terrorist Purposes (S.57 TA 2000)
• Encouragement of Terrorism (S.1 TA 2006)
• Dissemination of Terrorist Publications (S.2 TA 2006)
• Providing or Receiving Instruction or Training for Terrorism (S.6 TA 2006)
• Attendance at a place for Terrorist Training (S.8 TA 2006)


The likely one on that list is membership but even thats tenuous. I reckon she is going to walk.
 
you wrote "supporting a proscribed organisation" under membership, which she must be nailed on for.

we don't know what literature and/or messages she has been sending back so there is possible recruitment issues as well as handling terrorist publications/literature etc.

and membership seems pretty clear, to me at least
 
nimrod said:
you wrote "supporting a proscribed organisation" under membership, which she must be nailed on for.

we don't know what literature and/or messages she has been sending back so there is possible recruitment issues as well as handling terrorist publications/literature etc.

and membership seems pretty clear, to me at least
Click to expand...

Support.

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and

(b)the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).

(2)A person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is—

(a)to support a proscribed organisation,

(b)to further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or

(c)to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.

(3)A person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting and the purpose of his address is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or to further its activities.

(4)Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2)(c) in respect of a private meeting it is a defence for him to prove that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the address mentioned in subsection (2)(c) would support a proscribed organisation or further its activities.

(5)In subsections (2) to (4)—

(a)“meeting” means a meeting of three or more persons, whether or not the public are admitted, and

(b)a meeting is private if the public are not admitted.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, to a fine or to both, or

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

Membership.

(1)A person commits an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.

(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove—

(a)that the organisation was not proscribed on the last (or only) occasion on which he became a member or began to profess to be a member, and

(b)that he has not taken part in the activities of the organisation at any time while it was proscribed.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, to a fine or to both, or

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.


In bold are the defences. I reckon 3 kids in 3 years would back her up in the defence that she wasnt a member , merely married to a member. Its going to be bloody hard to get her on the arranging meetings one too.

Lets say we do find the evidence and because of the profile she gets found guilty and sentenced. Firstly she is under 21 so not likely to get the maximum sentence. Then she will have spent time on remand awaiting trial. Then she will get time reduced for good behaviour. Shes out in 3 years max, costing the tax payer to give her a new identity and protect her from" vigilantes" which would be ironic.

I am still convinced she walks. I am cynical and tarnished granted.
 
cyber, i share your cynicism. this is more my thoughts than how the legal position will end up.

the defence above is that she's a "housewife" and so technically not a member, only married to one
firstly, i don't see why being a housewife prevents membership of something. you don't have to be actively carrying out particular tasks to have a membership
secondly, IS is not a recognised state, and i presume is still considered a terrorist organisation. but one of its activities was to take on the "persona" of a state, which naturally involves normal day to day activities of its alleged "citizens". It's how it sought legitimacy. the very act of voluntarily getting to IS was to seek membership, and any willing participation in its overall activities is taking part in their activities.
i'm sure a defence would try to narrow the definition of activities to those of military or murder, as you might be inferring above, but i think that rather misses the whole point of what IS was about or what it was trying to achieve.
 
Her British Citizenship has been removed by the Government.

Interesting move as the Government admitted the other day they couldn't legally do that.
 
Not keen on that. Making someone effectively stateless is a shithouse move.

If she's committed a crime, prosecute her.
 
I presume the Home Sec has some sound legal advice and we are not going to see a shit ton of money wasted through the courts fighting this only to be told, as per International Law you can't do that.

Unless of course she has got dual citizenship then its all good and the matter is closed
 
That is a low move indeed. Not what I would expect from this supposedly liberal society we projected for years. Absolutely what I would expect from the current bunch of utter wankers in power here. Pandering to the fucking red tops again.

I also believe that taking citizenship from someone born a British citizen is basically constitutionally illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top