Judge has stated Shamima Begum (Isis ) can return to UK to challenge
 

Just Live on LBC


But only to appeal the original charge
so far.

Challenge



[Shamima Begum: Court rules Isis bride can
return to UK to challenge removal of British citizenship
The 20-year-old left the UK in 2015 and lived
under Isis rule for more than three years before
she was found in a refugee camp]

https://news.sky.com/story/shamima-b...nship-12029526

****ing trash

We don’t want her!

How many more appeals I wonder, before some bleeding heart decides she should come home.

But her lawyers
will say she was born in England

That's not really how the legal profession works, is it?

Her child deserved a chance to grow up and live a normal life but since he is gone, she made her choice and she should live with it.

The point remains as it always has been: she has to be somewhere, she was born in England, she is English, she should be in a prison in England.

"We don't want her" isn't a valid argument, "not wanting her" doesn't mean we get to palm a UK citizen off on another country. Imagine the screeching if other countries tried to insist their criminals should be locked up in the UK :joker:. Hypocrisy. The same people sayi g "we don't want her" would be insisting we "send their criminals back where they came from".

Of course, we did this topic to death round and round in circles back when it was first an issue and it was constantly turned into a "bleeding heart" strawman so... Let's see how this one goes.

Yeah exactly this.

Bang on right.

The bleeding heart comment was meant lightly, although I'm not surprised you bring it up.

Clown world...

I'm kind of shouted down in here when I refer to the legality of anything. And yet it's still regularly used as a stick to beat me in this playground, isn't it.

I bring it up because, as I said, it was a major feature of the debate when she was first imprisoned. People who said she should be back in the UK because she is the responsibility of the UK, and were quite clear on that being the reasoning, were repeatedly dismissed as "feeling sorry for her".

...surely it’s that she can return to the U.K. to plead her case, Arista...the thread title isn’t completely accurate...

.

Whereas those who imagined their opinion is the only right one, dismissed those those who think she should not be allowed to return as pearl-clutching upholders of the Empire. But thanks... if it wasn't for people taking the piss or trying to get a rise, I'd be on here talking to myself.

IIRC her citizenship is contested by Bangladesh, just as it is by the UK, which presents an interesting conundrum:

If she returns to The UK on appeal and is held here, and the appeal fails, she surely might end up staying here if Bangladesh refuses to accept her back?

Yeah exactly, I don't think I read any comments that thought she should be allowed back because they felt sorry for her or thought she should be looked after.

inbefore she ends up living in my country, given she's married to a dutch born

Omg :joker:

You can have her, you know....

...(..she isn’t being allowed back, that’s still to be determined...she’s allowed to plead her case which will be pleaded in the U.K...)...

No one offered a valid argument for why someone born and radicalised in the UK is not the UK's responsibility at the time and no one is now. More importantly; no one even bothered to try. "We don't want her because she's dangerous and that's that" was the extent of the counter-argument. Never any response to why Bangladesh should want her either, other than "that's not our problem". It's not really a debate, is it.

...it’s more that if we in the U.K. say the same of citizens of other countries, that they should be returned etc...we should practice what we preach...