Lightbulb moment

[Lancasterclaret]

Please don’t hold Scotland up as some sort of shining light of liberalism. The voting age of 16 was introduced with both eyes firmly on a future referendum and for no other reason.

tbf, I think it was bought up because people are confidently stating that 15 year olds can make huge decisions about their future and be held responsible for it

[Bigbopper]

tbf, I think it was bought up because people are confidently stating that 15 year olds can make huge decisions about their future and be held responsible for it

You really do need to decide if a 15yr old can make rational decisions. A 15year old was groomed and can not be held accountable for joining the Jihadists but a 15-year-old Scot can make huge decisions about their future and most importantly be held responsible for them.

[Lancasterclaret]

You really do need to decide if a 15yr old can make rational decisions. A 15year old was groomed and can not be held accountable for joining the Jihadists but a 15-year-old Scot can make huge decisions about their future and most importantly be held responsible for them.

Yes, that is exactly my point

Personally, I think 16 year olds should be allowed to vote, and I'm 100% sure that I wouldn't be making the grooming argument if Miss Begum had been 16 when she left (though I do think people still would because it wouldn't be an overnight decision and there could be an argument that she was radicalized while still a minor)

Worth remembering as well that she was one of three, and the other two have paid the ultimate price for their decision

[fatboy47]

The whole debate around competence is far too complex to be resolved on a football message board...although in all honesty this website clearly shows that there's no shortage of Lancastrian "adults" who lack the capacity for rational thought.

[Bigbopper]

She was groomed. That’s all I will say.

And saying she was groomed does not admonish her of any responsibility.

Think this all depends on your definition of grooming. Targeting young girls from troubled backgrounds, plying them with gifts , alcohol and drugs then passing them around a group of "friends" is a fair definition of grooming. A 15year old girl with a reasonable family background, a reasonable expectation of good exam results who researches terrorist groups on the web and makes her own travel arrangements to get to the Middle East is not a fair definition of grooming.

You may have more info on the subject not available to the public.

Yes there is a case for bringing her back to the UK to face trial but the possible repercussions of that are huge.

[Lowbankclaret]

Hypothetically speaking had she been a 15-year-old blonde called Sharon (of Swedish heritage) who was groomed the same way she was and ended up in a terrorist organisation, would you have the same opinion?

EDIT - not aimed at you specifically, but the hypothetical applies to all

Absolutely, if you choose to leave your country you live in and have citizenship to go to fight for a terrorist organisation then yes it applies.

[Rowls]

You really do need to decide if a 15yr old can make rational decisions. A 15year old was groomed and can not be held accountable for joining the Jihadists but a 15-year-old Scot can make huge decisions about their future and most importantly be held responsible for them.

Difference between right and wrong is an easy cognitive skill that toddlers attain.

Deciding who governs the country is requires an entirely different decision process in the brain involving higher cognitive function and experience.

A lot of people seem to be obfuscating on this matter. Begum's case isn't entirely clear cut but I feel the current decision to strip her of British citizenship falls (just) the right side of decency. The lawyers will judge if it was entirely legal but it has already withstood a number of legal challenges so it also falls (at present) the right side of legality too.

The problem is that the people who are supporting her case are perpetually undermining every attempt the UK makes to control citizenship and immigration.

The electorate has voted consistently to ensure these measures are controlled but liberals and the judiciary are constantly undermining these attempts to bring order to the issue and enforce the law.

[Lancasterclaret]

Difference between right and wrong is an easy cognitive skill that toddlers attain.

Deciding who governs the country is requires an entirely different decision process in the brain involving higher cognitive function and experience.

A lot of people seem to be obfuscating on this matter. Begum's case isn't entirely clear cut but I feel the current decision to strip her of British citizenship falls (just) the right side of decency. The lawyers will judge if it was entirely legal but it has already withstood a number of legal challenges so it also falls (at present) the right side of legality too.

The problem is that the people who are supporting her case are perpetually undermining every attempt the UK makes to control citizenship and immigration.

The electorate has voted consistently to ensure these measures are controlled but liberals and the judiciary are constantly undermining these attempts to bring order to the issue and enforce the law.

Right

Some good points, some not so good

Your first line is just silly - you can't compare it that way (unless you are completely unprepared to accept teenagers get influenced by all sorts of stuff, some good, some bad, some really bad)

Second paragraph is good, and the only issue is that (as you know) is that I'm against stripping someone of their UK citizenship when it can be politically advantageous

Not sure your bottom two paragraphs help the argument, especially as the general consensus to immigration has changed massively over the past couple of years, as the reality of an aging population and very low unemployment hits home

For me, Freedom of movement solved a lot of the issues we are now seeing, and I'm not sure replacing that with whatever we have now is working anywhere near as well as it needs to

[aggi]

You can't beat the judiciary undermining the law and order stance. Damn those pesky lawyers and judges for basing things on actual laws rather than what the government think they should be.

Also quite entertained that in Rowls' world right and wrong is so easy.

[Nori1958]

Right

Some good points, some not so good

Your first line is just silly - you can't compare it that way (unless you are completely unprepared to accept teenagers get influenced by all sorts of stuff, some good, some bad, some really bad)

Second paragraph is good, and the only issue is that (as you know) is that I'm against stripping someone of their UK citizenship when it can be politically advantageous

Not sure your bottom two paragraphs help the argument, especially as the general consensus to immigration has changed massively over the past couple of years, as the reality of an aging population and very low unemployment hits home

For me, Freedom of movement solved a lot of the issues we are now seeing, and I'm not sure replacing that with whatever we have now is working anywhere near as well as it needs to

Reads like a school report.... How patronising

[Lancasterclaret]

You can't beat the judiciary undermining the law and order stance. Damn those pesky lawyers and judges for basing things on actual laws rather than what the government think they should be.

Also quite entertained that in Rowls' world right and wrong is so easy.

Always has been

The problem that we have (not just in the UK) is that too many people have convinced themselves that complex problems are actually really simple, and the inability to deal with the inevitable realisation that they are not is causing huge issues

[Rowls]

Your first line is just silly - you can't compare it that way (unless you are completely unprepared to accept teenagers get influenced by all sorts of stuff, some good, some bad, some really bad)

Nothing silly about it all. It's established science. Link HERE

Second paragraph is good, and the only issue is that (as you know) is that I'm against stripping someone of their UK citizenship when it can be politically advantageous

The law states it has to be in the national interest to strip somebody of their citizenship. This has been challenged in a UK court of law and upheld. It may well be "politically advantageous" but that cannot come into the judgment process and is merely incidental.

Would you want the ruling on her citizenship to be overturned simply because it you see it as being "politically advantageous"? That seems as absurd and dangerous to me as your previous (swiftly disproved) pet theory that her citizenship was revoked because of her social background, the colour of her skin, her Muslim faith or whatever reason it was you were implying.

Not sure your bottom two paragraphs help the argument, especially as the general consensus to immigration has changed massively over the past couple of years, as the reality of an aging population and very low unemployment hits home

Public opinion is firmly against illegal immigration and wants to see illegal immigration eradicated. It also wants legal immigration to be reduced, managed and controlled and for it to be limited to high-skilled jobs only. This has remained very constant over the past 20 years, probably longer. Even Sir Kier Starmer understands this which is why he's scrambling to re-position himself on the same side of this debate as the general public. .

Shamima Begum's case isn't really that of an immigrant but the point I'm making is that the same group of people (whom I've termed 'liberals and the judiciary', which I think is a good descriptor) are the ones undermining the intention of the law and preventing us from implementing our borders effectively.

[Rowls]

You can't beat the judiciary undermining the law and order stance. Damn those pesky lawyers and judges for basing things on actual laws rather than what the government think they should be.

Also quite entertained that in Rowls' world right and wrong is so easy.

LOL - I've spoken at length on this thread about the complexity of the case and how it falls only narrowly on the right side of a difficult decision, both morally and (probably) legally.

The only ideas expressed on here that are "easy" in the manner you describe is your own post (above) and Lancaster's baseless (and swiftly disproved) assertion that the decision to revoke Begum's citizenship was based on her anything other than her own actions.

[fatboy47]

I expect Rowls had a strict nanny to teach him right from wrong.

Maybe this kid wasn't so fortunate.

[Rowls]

I expect Rowls had a strict nanny to teach him right from wrong.

Maybe this kid wasn't so fortunate.

Lolz fatboy.

The current thinking is that children don't really need teaching right and wrong - they seem to acquire themselves. I've provided a link somewhere above but you can goole it to find examples and learn for yourself.

I do enjoy the idea that I'm akin to Jacob Rees-Mogg but I'd be grateful for the tiniest fraction of his wealth.

[aggi]

LOL - I've spoken at length on this thread about the complexity of the case and how it falls only narrowly on the right side of a difficult decision, both morally and (probably) legally.

The only ideas expressed on here that are "easy" in the manner you describe is your own post (above) and Lancaster's baseless (and swiftly disproved) assertion that the decision to revoke Begum's citizenship was based on her anything other than her own actions.

Someone else definitely used the word easy first:

Difference between right and wrong is an easy cognitive skill that toddlers attain.

[Rowls]

Someone else definitely used the word easy first:

Yes but they are being used in entirely different contexts.

[gtclaret]

MI5 have identified her as a threat, how she became a threat is another matter, but a threat she is. So those who want her back can pay for the extra security required to monitor her, or can explain to the victims of the acts of violence her either encourages or takes part in, why you wanted this poor little girl back and why they should pay the price for it. You won't though, you'll just keep quiet for a while and then pipe up again to support the next mass murderer

[evensteadiereddie]

Nurse, the screens!

[Croydon Claret]

Her appeal has failed. British citizenship will not be returned

[Lancasterclaret]

She'll be stuck in a refugee camp in Syria for the rest of her life

I've got no sympathy for her for that, but I still think she should be back here for us to sort out as a UK citizen

[RVclaret]

Her appeal has failed. British citizenship will not be returned

Brilliant news

[Woodleyclaret]

Commonsense prevailed Begum gets to stay in the camp.

[Croydon Claret]

Her solicitor has advised that this is far from the end of the legal process.

[andyh]

As a deterrent I am not too sad at the decision but I do believe in redemption and would have been ok with her returning hopefully wiser for her experiences.

[Colburn_Claret]

Her solicitor has advised that this is far from the end of the legal process.

Of course it isn't, these bloody solicitors are making themselves millionaires defending the indefensible.
I wish there was recourse to fine these solicitors for bringing unsubstantiated claims, but it would only hurt the innocent as well as the guilty.

[1882Clarets1882]

Of course it isn't, these bloody solicitors are making themselves millionaires defending the indefensible.
I wish there was recourse to fine these solicitors for bringing unsubstantiated claims, but it would only hurt the innocent as well as the guilty.

At least the "bloody solicitors" have pure greed as an excuse for defending the indefensible. What have usual suspects on here have !? Lol

[Lancasterclaret]

Who decides what is indefensible though?

I would tactfully suggest that one of the signs of an independent and effective judiciary is one that works without being told by football messageboard contributors what is right and what is wrong

[evensteadiereddie]

Hey, let's have it right, Lancaster - by SOME football message board contributors, the nut jobs who seem to hate almost everything and everybody.
Not tactful I know.

[Lancasterclaret]

Serious point though Eddie

If some racist bigot couldn't afford to hire solicitors for his appeal, then he should still get legal aid, even though I disagree with everything he stands for

You can't have a legal system in a democracy in which you need money to access

[Colburn_Claret]

Who decides what is indefensible though?

I would tactfully suggest that one of the signs of an independent and effective judiciary is one that works without being told by football messageboard contributors what is right and what is wrong

I had already stated in my post that it wouldn't be fair, just a wishful thought, but if you cannot recognise that there are Solicitors out there milking the country by taking cases from one appeal to another, to another, to another.
Now you might see their motivation as justice, I just think too many see it as a gravy train. They get paid win, lose or draw, and so it's in their own interests to pursue a course even if they know it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I don't expect it to change, and as I've already said, change would only hurt the innocent, but am I not allowed to wish that these 'Ambulance Chasers' would disappear.

[Lancasterclaret]

I had already stated in my post that it wouldn't be fair, just a wishful thought, but if you cannot recognise that there are Solicitors out there milking the country by taking cases from one appeal to another, to another, to another.
Now you might see their motivation as justice, I just think too many see it as a gravy train. They get paid win, lose or draw, and so it's in their own interests to pursue a course even if they know it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I don't expect it to change, and as I've already said, change would only hurt the innocent, but am I not allowed to wish that these 'Ambulance Chasers' would disappear.

I think in cases like this (and lets face it, this is a pretty unique example), you have to make sure that all legal routes are explored

Whether we agree on this or not, the key point is that everyone should have access to legal aid and the law, especially if they are taking on huge corporations or the government

[KRBFC]

Yup, that is UTC in a nutshell sadly

Who cares about her age and that she was indoctrinated at an early age?

Why look at why and what happened when we can all shout from the rooftops about how bad she is?

She willingly left the country to join a terrorist organisation who were killing British men and women.

The moment she decided to seek out ISIS, leave the country and board a plane to Istanbul, she made a choice and now she must live with that choice.

She knew exactly what she was going to Syria for and knew exactly the type of crimes ISIS were committing. Now ISIS collapsed she wants to return?

Nobody needs to shout from the rooftop about how bad she is, the proof is in the pudding, actions speak louder than words.

[KRBFC]

The woke brigade have started a Shamima Begum fan club because she's not white so can't be criticised because that would be racism.

Let's slag off white man Andrew Tate for crimes he hasn't been found guilty of but defend a known terrorist who even took her child with her to be killed.

Rot in hell scumbag

[Lancasterclaret]

She was fifteen

Not an adult, a child

Old enough to do this straight off her own back?

Only she knows that to be fair, and she is our problem to sort (need to know more about the views of the security services on this tbf)

I'd be more worried on how she ended up thinking living in an Islamic Caliphate would be better for her than the UK

Only way I can see is if she was radicalised

Now whether that is online or by someone she knew, or whoever, or whatever, that is what would concern me a lot more than removing her passport so for blatant political points

Its not an easy one though, but "our mess, our problem" is my view

[Colburn_Claret]

I think in cases like this (and lets face it, this is a pretty unique example), you have to make sure that all legal routes are explored

Whether we agree on this or not, the key point is that everyone should have access to legal aid and the law, especially if they are taking on huge corporations or the government

BUT all legal routes could be explored in one case.
They file a motion and lose, so they file another motion and move the goalposts. They lose that so they file another and it goes on again. They already know that they are going to lose going into court, and the new motion is typed up in the briefcase before the judgement is announced. All this is costing time, and money, and it's tax payers money at the end of the day.
Just make all their points in one case, let the court rule on everything. If the solicitor fails to file all available motions in the original case then it's over. No more dragging it out to line their pockets.

[Lancasterclaret]

Could they really though?

I'm assuming that the court backlog won't get any smaller if everyone has one chance to prepare absolutely everything that might come up, and I shudder to think of the costs of that

[Jakubclaret]

Again it's another thing the public should decide upon, I'd personally allow her to return back conditionally on the basis that she carries out community service in care for 20 years or so or gives something back that is deserving of a second chance.

[Billy Balfour]

I couldn't give a toss about her, however, for someone on here (the resident whackjob) to shoehorn Andrew Tate into this debate, is surely the mark of an obsession gone way too far.

[Spijed]

Again it's another thing the public should decide upon, I'd personally allow her to return back conditionally on the basis that she carries out community service in care for 20 years or so or gives something back that is deserving of a second chance.

You do realise the cost of technology to implement such a system would run into millions, and would be practically unworkable.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I couldn't give a toss about her, however, for someone on here (the resident whackjob) to shoehorn Andrew Tate into this debate, is surely the mark of an obsession gone way too far.

Clearly hasn't got over his idol being jailed (despite claiming not to be a fan of his)

[1882Clarets1882]

The Usual Suspects on.this message board- " She was groomed. She was only 15. She cannot be held accountable for her own actions "


The then Home Secretary 2021 - " If you'd seen what I've seen , you'd know she's a threat to national security."

The court ruling February 2023 - " She's a threat to national security."

[Lancasterclaret]

It is possible to be both a threat to national security and be groomed Wrongo

[Jakubclaret]

You do realise the cost of technology to implement such a system would run into millions, and would be practically unworkable.

Why would it? You basically send a leaflet out through the electoral roll register with a returned envelope, you don't even have to set polling stations up or anything, or elect a pool of 30 people with broadbased backgrounds & let them decide.

[atlantalad]

Her solicitor has advised that this is far from the end of the legal process.

So, despite the courts firmly deciding that the retraction of her UK citizenship is lawful the UK taxpayers are going to continue to foot the bill for UK solicitors to continue legal challenges for someone who the courts recognise as no longer a UK citizen? She is no longer a UK citizen so why should she have free access to a UK legal system?

[Lancasterclaret]

You'd love Ancient Athens Jakub

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism ... tracism%20(Greek%3A%20%E1%BD%80%CF%83%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82%2C%20ostrakismos,ostracism%20was%20often%20used%20preemptively.

[Big Vinny K]

FFS

[Hipper]

She was fifteen

Not an adult, a child

Old enough to do this straight off her own back?

Only she knows that to be fair, and she is our problem to sort (need to know more about the views of the security services on this tbf)

I'd be more worried on how she ended up thinking living in an Islamic Caliphate would be better for her than the UK

Only way I can see is if she was radicalised

Now whether that is online or by someone she knew, or whoever, or whatever, that is what would concern me a lot more than removing her passport so for blatant political points

Its not an easy one though, but "our mess, our problem" is my view

According to her she was persuaded to go by a good friend. This friend went out there, said it was wonderful and off Shemima and another friend went. That's according to this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001j079

She comes across to me anyway, as articulate and thoughtful but at the back of my mind I feel I'm being manipulated. If Max Clifford wasn't locked up I'd wonder about his involvement!

Chobulous made an important point in his opening post, she was only 15 years old. But then you could ask about her behaviour since then.

[claretonthecoast1882]

According to her she was persuaded to go by a good friend. This friend went out there, said it was wonderful and off Shemima and another friend went. That's according to this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001j079

She comes across to me anyway, as articulate and thoughtful but at the back of my mind I feel I'm being manipulated. If Max Clifford wasn't locked up I'd wonder about his involvement!

Chobulous made an important point in his opening post, she was only 15 years old. But then you could ask about her behaviour since then.

Don't think you have to wonder too much about Max Clifford hipper

[Lancasterclaret]

Max Clifford was in ISIS?

I f**king knew it