• 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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted Cyber
  • Start date Start date
The Saturday Boy said:
The world has become black and white, there are no longer shades of grey. There are good guys and bad guys and nothing in between, like we’re living some Hollywood movie.

To understand why someone does something does not mean you condone it. To try and understand it does not mean you support it.

I want us to know what caused this young girl to be so disaffected with her life or excited by ISIS that she would leave behind her friends and family to effectively give away her body and her mind. If we choose not to try and understand, how can we prevent it from happening again.

I can understand why Irish men and women (and children) resorted to violence in Northern Ireland and beyond. I don’t condone it, it was never the solution, but I can understand it. I can understand why black South Africans turned to violence. I can understand why Tommy Robinson exists.

We are in a perpetual state of conflict worldwide, there is always a war somewhere for some reason but anti-war rhetoric is unpatriotic, challenging the good guy/bad guy rhetoric is just being a snow flake.

This woman needs to be held responsible by the country that is responsible for her. If we choose not to engage then we will choose to disengage from every similar situation. That should not be who we are.
Click to expand...

Superb post!
I have family who stood alongside De Valeira back in the day, but to compare them with the IRA of 1974, is just simply nonsense, to any true Irishman there is not , and never will be, any grounds for comparison.
This girl was 15 when she ended up in a religious cult. How clever and worldly wise were you , at 15?
 
ince 2012, the UK has allowed about 400 British members of Islamic State and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, once al-Qaeda’s offshoot in Syria, to return home. The majority of them have been male fighters. That Mr Javid has now chosen in public to revoke the citizenship of a young woman from Bethnal Green who was indoctrinated by Isis as a minor is an opportunistic decision made purely to pander to national mood, and has no foot in national security considerations.
Click to expand...

Call me cynical

NONE of this would have happened if she had just snuck back in. But no for some reason she gives an interview and it sells papers and the debate starts. The reason the other 400 came back in was because they did not create a shit storm. As you sow so shall you reap.
 
Cyber-_-man said:
Call me cynical

NONE of this would have happened if she had just snuck back in. But no for some reason she gives an interview and it sells papers and the debate starts. The reason the other 400 came back in was because they did not create a shit storm. As you sow so shall you reap.
Click to expand...
Guessing she no longer has a passport to just sneak back in so go public as they probably expect the Government to deny a renewal and hope to keep it quiet. So she gets on the front foot knowing at the end of it she will get back in.
 
Cyber-_-man said:
Call me cynical

NONE of this would have happened if she had just snuck back in. But no for some reason she gives an interview and it sells papers and the debate starts. The reason the other 400 came back in was because they did not create a shit storm. As you sow so shall you reap.
Click to expand...

Whoever wrote the Times article, interviewed her on site, and clearly suggests that the influence of ISIS that she has been subject to since she was radicalised at the age of 15, are as powerfully present right now as then. But, she is a British citizen and whether i want to slap her silly or not, she has the right to be brought home, and a fair trial, if only for treason as many are suggesting. her child has rights too remember.
 
pavlosmacwolf said:
Whoever wrote the Times article, interviewed her on site, and clearly suggests that the influence of ISIS that she has been subject to since she was radicalised at the age of 15, are as powerfully present right now as then. But, she is a British citizen and whether i want to slap her silly or not, she has the right to be brought home, and a fair trial, if only for treason as many are suggesting. her child has rights too remember.
Click to expand...

Oh yes I get all that. I also was the first advocate on here to ask what offence if any she has committed. She needs that to even get to a fair trial. My worry is that she has done nothing substantially illegal and we as a country will have to subsidise giving her a complete new identity if she comes back and walks. That , naturally , sticks a bit in my craw. I would love it were it so simple as bring her home , try her and accept the verdict. It so clearly is so much more than that.
 
Regardless of how this has been engineered by her - she is still a British citizen

She has no real connection with Bangladesh (apart from her parents originally being from there) & have seen some reports saying that she can go to Holland as married a Dutch citizen, though pretty sure that that is not recognised in Dutch law. Plus her baby is clearly British.

This is an abrogation of our responsibilities to the rest of the World - we really can't just palm off our difficult issues elsewhere whenever it suits us to just appease publicised opinion.

We bring her back & deal with it through the Security Services & Court System. From what has been reported she was in support of the ISIS regime without necessarily having physically taking part in any actual atrocities, but would hope that we have laws to deal with that.
 
Parkins left foot said:
Regardless of how this has been engineered by her - she is still a British citizen

She has no real connection with Bangladesh (apart from her parents originally being from there) & have seen some reports saying that she can go to Holland as married a Dutch citizen, though pretty sure that that is not recognised in Dutch law. Plus her baby is clearly British.

This is an abrogation of our responsibilities to the rest of the World - we really can't just palm off our difficult issues elsewhere whenever it suits us to just appease publicised opinion.

We bring her back & deal with it through the Security Services & Court System. From what has been reported she was in support of the ISIS regime without necessarily having physically taking part in any actual atrocities, but would hope that we have laws to deal with that.
Click to expand...

IS THE RIGHT ANSWER in an ideal world. I dont think we have the offences to prosecute. May be wrong.
 
Cyber-_-man said:
IS THE RIGHT ANSWER in an ideal world. I dont think we have the offences to prosecute. May be wrong.
Click to expand...

No agree that we may not have the offences to put her inside for any length of time (which certain elements of public? opinion would want), but she will be on a security service 'watch list' for a fair amount of time anyway (hopefully)
 
Parkins left foot said:
No agree that we may not have the offences to put her inside for any length of time (which certain elements of public? opinion would want), but she will be on a security service 'watch list' for a fair amount of time anyway (hopefully)
Click to expand...

The issue I have is how do we protect her? She is public enemy number one and will require protection when released if she is found guilty of anything and probably a whole new identity, not to mention the knock on effect for the rest of her family.
The easist solution was her not coming back , but that option is increasingly unlikely. The biggest positive would be if she wore a full veil and would be less likely to be recognised aspecially if she re-located to a large muslim community with the UK. But a you know, there are tensions between those communities and the police and security services already. They really are not going to want a protection team "on their patch" 24/7.

Its a really difficult sitiation. I have zero sympathy for her. I have every sympathy for her child and I have a humantarian hope that the right outcome happens.
 
Cyber-_-man said:
The issue I have is how do we protect her? She is public enemy number one and will require protection when released if she is found guilty of anything and probably a whole new identity, not to mention the knock on effect for the rest of her family.
The easist solution was her not coming back , but that option is increasingly unlikely. The biggest positive would be if she wore a full veil and would be less likely to be recognised aspecially if she re-located to a large muslim community with the UK. But a you know, there are tensions between those communities and the police and security services already. They really are not going to want a protection team "on their patch" 24/7.

Its a really difficult sitiation. I have zero sympathy for her. I have every sympathy for her child and I have a humantarian hope that the right outcome happens.
Click to expand...

In reality this is a PR disaster for the Government (though they are not noted for getting things right) - chosen the wrong option every time they have been asked to make a decision.

OK it was her choice to go public re a return to the UK which we couldn't control, but we should have just said 'yes' then allowed the legal system to deal with the fallout.
 
Reports are circulating that her son has passed away. Dreadful news.
 
The joy and comments on social media that it's provoked is truly sickening
 
Kinda confused how hunt and javid can say it isn't safe to send consular or government staff out to offer support, but it seems to be safe enough for a newscorp staff team to go out to the camp and interview her, film it, record it set the lights, sound, cameras etc. It's also safe enough for all the NGO's and their staff to work there too.

Something is inconsistent here.
 
lemonjelly said:
Kinda confused how hunt and javid can say it isn't safe to send consular or government staff out to offer support, but it seems to be safe enough for a newscorp staff team to go out to the camp and interview her, film it, record it set the lights, sound, cameras etc. It's also safe enough for all the NGO's and their staff to work there too.

Something is inconsistent here.
Click to expand...

To be fair the media often send themselves to places that aren’t safe.
 
Kate Adie made a career out of doing it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top