Begum ‘risk of hanging’

[AndrewJB]

So the trick is to not do something that could get your citizenship revoked.
The intelligence services have something on her, that's enough for the government to justify what it's done.

I'm pretty sure I won't be joining a religious terrorist organisation hell-bent on taking over the west etc.
Nor will my kids, family or friends.

If you're happy to have these terrorists back living in the country then go ahead and lobby your MP with reasons justifying your stance, but if they do return and then do something over here resulting in innocent people being hurt or killed don't start pointing the finger at the government for letting them back.

However again I'll point out she's in a foreign country as part of an illegal organisation that's been committing atrocities that have been well documented, broadcast to the world and she's not shown much, if any, remorse.
She literally wants to return to the UK because the caliphate has gone, if it was still there then so would she.

Let the countries she's been in deal with her in their courts, that's the fairest way to do it isn't it?

It’s not about having terrorists back living among us, but concern over the ability of the government to take away citizenship without proper judicial oversight, and basically at the whims of the Home Secretary.

[Firthy]

It’s not about having terrorists back living among us, but concern over the ability of the government to take away citizenship without proper judicial oversight, and basically at the whims of the Home Secretary.

So do you think that this decision was unjustified?

[Bordeauxclaret]

FFS

[Colburn_Claret]

If you can’t see why people have concerns about the fact our government can declare you unwelcome to live here while you’re out of the country, and effectively banish you without judicial oversight, then perhaps you’d be more at home in North Korea?

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/shamima-beg ... ned-104386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - as it says on this link, the government added a new reason for stripping someone of citizenship in 2014. Behaviour “not conducive to the public good” is an easy catchall, that could allow my citizenship to be removed (for example). When you suggest this is improbable - I should point out the numbers have been rising year on year. Between 2006 and 2016 it was used 50 times. In 2017 it was used 104 times. We’ve seen this government’s attitude through the Windrush Scandal, so I can see this getting worse before it gets better.

Comparing her case to Windrush is really stretching it.
With freedom comes responsibilities, and she ditched hers long ago. I can understand why you would want her back, as a terrorist lover JC probably wants her as a poster girl for the Labour party.
Even if she doesn't attract any voters, she's more than capable of filling in a couple of hundred postal votes for him.

On a serious note, she made her bed, now she has to lie in it. Joining ISIS was illegal, she travelled illegally to get there. Apart from feeling sorry for herself, she hasn't shown the slightest bit of remorse. As a country we owe her nothing, and I believe she poses a threat if she came back. I dont need a pound of flesh, I'm more than happy to just leave her where she is. Being foolish has never been an excuse for breaking the law.

[AndrewJB]

So do you think that this decision was unjustified?

I don’t know if any of the 104 similar decisions made in 2017 were justified because they were made by the Home Secretary without judicial scrutiny(as far as I’m aware). If it’s appropriate to have this law, then at least get a judge involved in its execution, and make it transparent. Right now there’s nothing to stop the government from deploying this law against people who aren’t a danger to the country (this has already happened according to some reports). The fact so many more people have faced this should also be concerning.

[Blackrod]

Deary me. If the Home Secretary wants to revoke someone’s citizenship as they think they are a danger to the country that is good enough for me.

[Firthy]

I don’t know if any of the 104 similar decisions made in 2017 were justified because they were made by the Home Secretary without judicial scrutiny(as far as I’m aware). If it’s appropriate to have this law, then at least get a judge involved in its execution, and make it transparent. Right now there’s nothing to stop the government from deploying this law against people who aren’t a danger to the country (this has already happened according to some reports). The fact so many more people have faced this should also be concerning.

Is a judge any more qualified than the Home Secretary given the same information?

Do you think the Home Secretary is revoking people's citizenship on a whim rather than information and intelligence supplied to him?

Because that seems to be the basis of your argument.

[AndrewJB]

Is a judge any more qualified than the Home Secretary given the same information?

Do you think the Home Secretary is revoking people's citizenship on a whim rather than information and intelligence supplied to him?

Because that seems to be the basis of your argument.

Let’s do away with trials altogether and just let the home sec decide. The Winsdrush Scandal happened as a result of the home secs policy of deport first and ask questions later, and that worked really well.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Let’s do away with trials altogether and just let the home sec decide. The Winsdrush Scandal happened as a result of the home secs policy of deport first and ask questions later, and that worked really well.

The Windrush scandal happened because they were originally told they didn't need certain paperwork to remain in the UK.
They then somehow managed to stay in the UK, have families, jobs, pay taxes, use national services, leave and re-enter the country etc all without proving they were eligible to be in the UK.
Not a single government bothered checking the status of the original Windrush people and then suddenly someone decided too.

Yeah the government screwed that one up, but it was an issue waiting to appear for a long time.

[ClaretAndJew]

I hope they revoke my citizenship.

[Firthy]

Let’s do away with trials altogether and just let the home sec decide. The Winsdrush Scandal happened as a result of the home secs policy of deport first and ask questions later, and that worked really well.

One thing That we are all probably agreed on is that Windrush was a total scandal but it is the fault of successive governments both Labour and Conservative, that can't be blameed on one person or one party. It doesn't even come close as a comparison.

We are discussing something completely different here and I personally agree with what the Home Secretary has done and don't have a problem with him making these decisions. Do you know how much lawyers and a trial costs just for one single case, many thousands of pounds and who would fund it, certainy not Begum or her family. It would be entirely funded by legal aid at a massive cost to the taxpayer and would open the floodgates for other appeals funded by legal aid and the cost would run into millions.

The governmant coffers aren't a bottomless pit and I would much rather those funds went to improving our NHS, improved benefits etc. The governmet need to send a clear message to these people who support terrorists that they have a choice and know the consequences if they make the wrong one.

[AndrewJB]

One thing That we are all probably agreed on is that Windrush was a total scandal but it is the fault of successive governments both Labour and Conservative, that can't be blameed on one person or one party. It doesn't even come close as a comparison.

We are discussing something completely different here and I personally agree with what the Home Secretary has done and don't have a problem with him making these decisions. Do you know how much lawyers and a trial costs just for one single case, many thousands of pounds and who would fund it, certainy not Begum or her family. It would be entirely funded by legal aid at a massive cost to the taxpayer and would open the floodgates for other appeals funded by legal aid and the cost would run into millions.

The governmant coffers aren't a bottomless pit and I would much rather those funds went to improving our NHS, improved benefits etc. The governmet need to send a clear message to these people who support terrorists that they have a choice and know the consequences if they make the wrong one.

Windrush was possible because the government changed the law in 2013, and the home sec (Theresa May) said “deport first, ask questions later”.

How is justice paid for now? It costs what it costs, and we cut corners at our peril.

[Imploding Turtle]

So the trick is to not do something that could get your citizenship revoked.

The fascists must be ******* champing at the bit to get in power with people like you willing to let them do literally anything to people that they decide is "not conductive to the public good".

Is it just that you don't believe in our justice system? Do you not believe in public trials?

[Imploding Turtle]

I hope they revoke my citizenship.

They can do. There's nothing stopping them, and certain people seem to like it that way. They want an authoritarian dictatorship, it seems.

I wonder of any of these people who now support the government punishing someone for anything the government wants to stop are advocates of free speech, because this idea that the government can simply accuse you and then punish you, means that they can decide to accuse/punish you if your speech is deemed "not conducive to the public good".

This is China-levels of authoritarianism these people want to allow.

[taio]

They can do. There's nothing stopping them

How?

[AndrewJB]

How?

Consider how this has all ramped up, from an average of five people per year over the decade before, to over a hundred in 2017. A twenty-fold increase, and we don’t know how many people they’ve done it to since.

As for how? You’re deemed to be not conducive to public order by the home sec.

[taio]

Consider how this has all ramped up, from an average of five people per year over the decade before, to over a hundred in 2017. A twenty-fold increase, and we don’t know how many people they’ve done it to since.

As for how? You’re deemed to be not conducive to public order by the home sec.

I asked how they can revoke C&J's citizenship as above.

[AndrewJB]

I asked how they can revoke C&J's citizenship as above.

If C&J is able to get a second nationality (not if he’s already a dual citizen, but merely if he can lay claim to it), then the home sec could take that action if C&J is deemed not conducive...

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Consider how this has all ramped up, from an average of five people per year over the decade before, to over a hundred in 2017. A twenty-fold increase, and we don’t know how many people they’ve done it to since.

As for how? You’re deemed to be not conducive to public order by the home sec.

You've left out an important detail.

Over the last 7 years approx 800-900 British people went to join Isis.
It makes sense why there was an increase of citizenships being revoked when you add that number into the mix.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The fascists must be ******* champing at the bit to get in power with people like you willing to let them do literally anything to people that they decide is "not conductive to the public good".

Is it just that you don't believe in our justice system? Do you not believe in public trials?

Let her have a trial over there.

It wouldn't be very public over here because I've no doubt certain evidence couldn't be made public due to intelligence service requests etc.

[taio]

If C&J is able to get a second nationality (not if he’s already a dual citizen, but merely if he can lay claim to it), then the home sec could take that action if C&J is deemed not conducive...

Aye like be a terrorist

[Imploding Turtle]

How?

Next time he goes on holiday the government can claim he's gone to join Ms Begum, or that he's doing anything they decide is "not conducive to the public good" and no one has any way of showing that the government made it up, because the means by which evidence is scrutinised has been skipped.

The right to a fair trial fundamental to every single freedom we have left because if we exercise that freedom in a way the government doesn't like then they can just accuse us of anything they like, and claim it's too dangerous to put us on trial.
That's basically what they've done with Begum. She might be guilty of everything the papers have reported her to be guilty of, she probably is, but how do you know the next one will be? And the one after that?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

If C&J is able to get a second nationality (not if he’s already a dual citizen, but merely if he can lay claim to it), then the home sec could take that action if C&J is deemed not conducive...

I can lay claim to a second nationality, can anyone tell me when to expect the home office round to boot me out?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Next time he goes on holiday the government can claim he's gone to join Ms Begum, or that he's doing anything they decide is "not conducive to the public good" and no one has any way of showing that the government made it up, because the means by which evidence is scrutinised has been skipped.

The right to a fair trial fundamental to every single freedom we have left because if we exercise that freedom in a way the government doesn't like then they can just accuse us of anything they like, and claim it's too dangerous to put us on trial.
That's basically what they've done with Begum. She might be guilty of everything the papers have reported her to be guilty of, she probably is, but how do you know the next one will be?

When's your next holiday abroad planned?

Asking for a 'friend'...

[taio]

Next time he goes on holiday the government can claim he's gone to join Ms Begum, or that he's doing anything they decide is "not conducive to the public good" and no one has any way of showing that the government made it up, because the means by which evidence is scrutinised has been skipped.

The right to a fair trial fundamental to every single freedom we have left because if we exercise that freedom in a way the government doesn't like then they can just accuse us of anything they like, and claim it's too dangerous to put us on trial.
That's basically what they've done with Begum. She might be guilty of everything the papers have reported her to be guilty of, she probably is, but how do you know the next one will be?

Only if dual nationality applies and in very exceptional circumstances such as fleeing to Syria to take part in terrorist activity along with evidence to support that.

[Imploding Turtle]

Only if dual nationality applies and in very exceptional circumstances such as fleeing to Syria to take part in terrorist activity along with evidence to support that.

What's stopping the government from making that up to get rid of annoying protest leaders, or discourage the use of speech against it? How do you *know* that that's what happened?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

How would you know that it isn't what happened?

[taio]

What's stopping the government from making that up to get rid of annoying protest leaders, or discourage the use of speech against it? How do you *know* that that's what happened?

I don't know but based on what's in the public domain I believe she was involved in ISIL activity. Parliament approved the legislation that enabled such powers in exceptional circumstance and I believe the government has acted in the public's best interests. I don't believe they will have made things up because they find Begum annoying.

[Hipper]

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/s ... itizenship" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I imagine the frustrations of the Abu Hamza case may have affected the current laws (Hamza is mentioned at the bottom of the linked list).

[Imploding Turtle]

How would you know that it isn't what happened?

The evidence would be publicly tested in a trial, the records of which I would have access to. Witnesses would testify under oath, they'd be cross-examined to make sure they're not lying, and they'd be testifying in the knowledge that should they lie, and they're caught, they'd be going to prison.

None of that is true of a trial by media.

[Imploding Turtle]

I don't know but based on what's in the public domain I believe she was involved in ISIL activity. Parliament approved the legislation that enabled such powers in exceptional circumstance and I believe the government has acted in the public's best interests. I don't believe they will have made things up because they find Begum annoying.

You're being too short-sighted. What about the next case? What about the next government? Or the government after that?

We shouldn't have to just trust our government. We should be able to trust them, but we shouldn't be forced to. With this power we are forced to trust them, and that is just begging for that trust to be abused.

[AndrewJB]

You've left out an important detail.

Over the last 7 years approx 800-900 British people went to join Isis.
It makes sense why there was an increase of citizenships being revoked when you add that number into the mix.

The guidance is deliberately vague: “not conducive...” rather than “those joining terror groups” or some other narrower definition. You might be right that they’re all to do with ISIS - but without any publicly available details we don’t know for sure. What you can’t reassure me on is in saying this will never be applied to people who the government merely consider inconvenient, rather than an actual danger - people campaigning over climate change, or workers rights, or for refugee rights.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The guidance is deliberately vague: “not conducive...” rather than “those joining terror groups” or some other narrower definition. You might be right that they’re all to do with ISIS - but without any publicity she’d details we don’t know for sure. What you can’t reassure me on is in saying this will never be applied to people who the government merely consider inconvenient, rather than an actual danger - people campaigning over climate change, or workers rights, or for refugee rights.

It also means we could get rid of other undesirable people, like child abusers for example.
So the gangs that appear to be rife at present, some of them will hold dual nationality and they can be deported back to the other country.

It's easier to have a wider spectrum than to narrow it down to just terrorism.

Let me know when we deport people wanting better rights for the average person.... I think you'll be waiting forever.

[Imploding Turtle]

It also means we could get rid of other undesirable people, like child abusers for example.
So the gangs that appear to be rife at present, some of them will hold dual nationality and they can be deported back to the other country.

It's easier to have a wider spectrum than to narrow it down to just terrorism.

Let me know when we deport people wanting better rights for the average person.... I think you'll be waiting forever.

Jesus christ.

You are literally arguing in favour of accusation of a crime being equal to a conviction.

[Imploding Turtle]

It also means we could get rid of other undesirable people, like child abusers for example.
So the gangs that appear to be rife at present, some of them will hold dual nationality and they can be deported back to the other country.

It's easier to have a wider spectrum than to narrow it down to just terrorism.

Let me know when we deport people wanting better rights for the average person.... I think you'll be waiting forever.

I'm curious. If an XR protestor is found to have child porn on their phone, or computer, how will you know that they're really guilty?

[taio]

You're being too short-sighted. What about the next case? What about the next government? Or the government after that?

We shouldn't have to just trust our government. We should be able to trust them, but we shouldn't be forced to. With this power we are forced to trust them, and that is just begging for that trust to be abused.

You can vote for any party in an election that decides to give an absolute commitment in their manifesto to repeal that part of the legislation.

[Bordeauxclaret]

I can lay claim to a second nationality, can anyone tell me when to expect the home office round to boot me out?

I think you might be getting nationality mixed up with twitter account there.

[ClaretAndJew]

I think you might be getting nationality mixed up with twitter account there.

Hahaha.

[Imploding Turtle]

You can vote for any party in an election that decides to give an absolute commitment in their manifesto to repeal that part of the legislation.

lol. As soon as a party puts that in their manifesto you and i both know that they will be absolutely pilloried for wanting to let ISIS fighters roams our streets, and accused of being a terrorist sympathiser. Just look at the abuse i've got over this issue simply for arguing purely in defence of everyone's right to a fair trial. Now imagine that with the full right-wing media apparatus running against you. Neither of the two major parties will ever put it in their manifesto. The Tories won't because they'll lose too many far-right voters, and Labour won't do it because that'll be all the election is about, and nothing motivates the far-right hate machine more than being able to call lefies traitors and people who hate Britain and want to let in terrorists.

I don't know how this gets removed. I don't think even a Labour government would have enough of a majority any time soon to legislate this anti-British "law" out of existence. I think it's only going to get worse, which we said before when it came to anti-terror measures, and look how right we were.

[taio]

lol. As soon as a party puts that in their manifesto you and i both know that they will be absolutely pilloried for wanting to let ISIS fighters roams our streets, and accused of being a terrorist sympathiser. Just look at the abuse i've got over this issue simply for arguing purely in defence of everyone's right to a fair trial. Now imagine that with the full right-wing media apparatus running against you. Neither of the two major parties will ever put it in their manifesto. The Tories won't because they'll lose too many far-right voters, and Labour won't do it because that'll be all the election is about, and nothing motivates the far-right hate machine more than being able to call lefies traitors and people who hate Britain and want to let in terrorists.

I don't know how this gets removed. I don't think even a Labour government would have enough of a majority any time soon to legislate this anti-British "law" out of existence. I think it's only going to get worse, which we said before when it came to anti-terror measures, and look how right we were.

That's democracy.

[AndrewJB]

It also means we could get rid of other undesirable people, like child abusers for example.
So the gangs that appear to be rife at present, some of them will hold dual nationality and they can be deported back to the other country.

It's easier to have a wider spectrum than to narrow it down to just terrorism.

Let me know when we deport people wanting better rights for the average person.... I think you'll be waiting forever.

Get rid of other undesirables? If someone is convicted here of sexual offences wouldn’t you want to honour the victims by punishing them here? This idea that people could just come here and commit those kinds of offences, and then get sent home If they’re caught Is crazy.

The power the government has is to strip someone of their U.K. citizenship, rendering them banished, and do so without a trial, without due process, and without even judicial oversight. This is disproportionate.

Going back to Windrush, this is thousands of people targeted for removal, and the process managed by a big private sector company (probably so the government could claim no knowledge), and all to get the government closer to spurious net migration targets. If they were willing to do that over targets, then how can you tell me they’ll use this power with the greatest restraint?

[Imploding Turtle]

That's democracy.

Ah. So you're saying that people voted for a manifesto that contained the promise to do away with the right to a fair trial.

Please provide a link to that manifesto, and tell me what passage i need to look at.

[taio]

Ah. So you're saying that people voted for a manifesto that contained the promise to do away with the right to a fair trial.

Please provide a link to that manifesto, and tell me what passage i need to look at.

I said no such thing.

[Jakubclaret]

This is a bigger issue than one girl. The Home Office has overseen a sharp rise in people having their citizenship taken away, and recently not all of them have been deemed a threat. This is arbitrary power, so strict guidelines should be set up as reasons for banishing someone, and the Home Secretary should have to apply to a court, so give the person the right to be represented. This should all be transparent.

Does it really matter though? If the citizenships are being stripped, it wouldn't apply to 99.9% of the population anyhow, due to the political sensitivity on some serious breaches (eg terrorism) a freedom of information request wouldn't disclose, bypassing bureaucracy is probably pragmatically done on a case to case basis, I don't see a problem providing its consistent & the nature of breaches pass the threshold.

[Imploding Turtle]

Does it really matter though? If the citizenships are being stripped, it wouldn't apply to 99.9% of the population anyhow, due to the political sensitivity on some serious breaches (eg terrorism) a freedom of information request wouldn't disclose, bypassing bureaucracy is probably pragmatically done on a case to case basis, I don't see a problem providing its consistent & the nature of breaches pass the threshold.

You really want a tyranny, don't you?

[Jakubclaret]

You really want a tyranny, don't you?

Case to case basis adjudicated independently based on evidence. I don't see a problem with the current system, don't really care for transparency as sometimes in life you are better off not knowing.

[AndrewJB]

Case to case basis adjudicated independently based on evidence. I don't see a problem with the current system, don't really care for transparency as sometimes in life you are better off not knowing.

They’re not adjudicated. I’ve heard that in the case of Begum, Javid took the decision against the advice given.

Strange that you’re very opposed to tyranny when it’s the EU, but not when it’s our government. “I don’t want any of that foreign muck. Give me good old British tyranny!”

[Jakubclaret]

They’re not adjudicated. I’ve heard that in the case of Begum, Javid took the decision against the advice given.

Strange that you’re very opposed to tyranny when it’s the EU, but not when it’s our government. “I don’t want any of that foreign muck. Give me good old British tyranny!”

The begum case was home & hosed so to speak, cut & dried, Javid made the right common sense decision, can you imagine the amount of grief in the opposite direction he would received entertaining any sort of action differently regarding his own ethnicity, it would have been extremely difficult to dodge accusations of favouritism.

[Imploding Turtle]

The begum case was home & hosed so to speak, cut & dried, Javid made the right common sense decision, can you imagine the amount of grief in the opposite direction he would received entertaining any sort of action differently regarding his own ethnicity, it would have been extremely difficult to dodge accusations of favouritism.

You don't know any of that. You're uncritically accepting the word of Sajid Javid, that Sajid Javid needed to do what Sajid Javid did.

[Jakubclaret]

You don't know any of that. You're uncritically accepting the word of Sajid Javid, that Sajid Javid needed to do what Sajid Javid did.

In his position it would have been extremely foolhardy to have done things any differently.