• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Shamima Begum

Status
Not open for further replies.

SteveP29

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Messages
1,009
Location
Chester le Street/ Edinburgh
Yes it would best for all if the Syrians sorted it out.

Why should they? what crime(s) has she committed in Syria?
In case you missed it, they're embroiled in a full on civil war, I don't think justice (of the kind we know) is given particularly much time

A great deal of the Caribbean population would be affected

They already are, look at how many Windrush people have been basically told that they'll have to go back
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,265
Location
St Albans
Maybe when she has been fully assessed and (hopefully) de-radicalised, she may transform her position as a 'poster girl' (as Cowley says above) to be used in radicalising new recruits, to a reformed example that can illustrate to others at risk what the true picture is. There are many precedents of reformed minds being used to warn others of the pitfalls of certain choices in life. These include some leading lights from the NI troubles who eventually realised that the life of violence had no real future.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,766
Two children from two different families growing up in the same town at the same time. One child believes that God created the earth, Noah saved all the animals in a big flood and that abortion is bad and all women who have one will rot in hell, as will the clinics that facilitate the abortion.

Another child has no faith at all and believes in the woman's right to choose.

We could also look at children raised in Nazi Germany, in the sectarian divides of Northern Ireland and along the Gaza Strip. Opposing views. Both "right". Some responsible for some terrible acts of violence.

Don't be so quick to judge an individual as their character and actions are a function of their environment, or it can be hijacked by others, as we have seen with many cults.

I believe she was misled in her decision to leave and was living in a bubble that supported her vision of the world. Do I support that vision or her actions? No. Do I think it's possible that she has continued to believe the propaganda around her and used it to reinforce her own beliefs and view of what is right? Yes.

The question is what to do with her and her child. She is clearly a damaged individual who is a risk to the state. However, her child is an innocent with as much right to a life as any child. Rather than the knee-jerk hang 'em high, vote-winning reactions, I would like to see her brought her and rehabilitated. If she can't be reformed, she should be secured. Her child should be placed with a family that can love, support and raise it in a better environment that it would have left in Syria.
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,304
Location
N Yorks
She has made a horrible choice in life, and - sadly - it is one she's sticking with. The fact that there's hardly any remorse in her choice will certainly not help her case. It doesn't sound like she's seen the damage she's done to herself, the child, Syria, Muslims, the world as a whole by supporting ISIS.
But one thing I still don't understand, and what I've not heard much about.
How can three minors, unaccompanied except by themselves, in the midst of school period, fly out to Turkey, and eventually make it towards Syria without any alarm bells ringing? With all the surveillance that the UK and other governments do, surely this should've been highly questionable. Adults can just fake going on holiday to the Turkish coast and make their way over, but minors who are supposed to be in school shouldn't have been able to get their tickets booked and travel there so easily in my opinion.
Could all of this not have been prevented if the British and Turkish legal protection systems worked properly to prevent these girls from even getting there in the first place?
they didnt use their own passports. One, I believe, used an elder sisters passport.
 

scotrail158713

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
1,797
Location
Dundee
This is going to be controversial but - if a 19 year old man with no children was in the same position would the same fuss have been made? I’m not trying to be sexist but I genuinely don’t think it would be the same. I (perhaps controversially) believe her gender and unborn child has made this more of a debate.
(Apologies to anyone who I may have offended)
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,304
Location
N Yorks
Two children from two different families growing up in the same town at the same time. One child believes that God created the earth, Noah saved all the animals in a big flood and that abortion is bad and all women who have one will rot in hell, as will the clinics that facilitate the abortion.

Another child has no faith at all and believes in the woman's right to choose.

We could also look at children raised in Nazi Germany, in the sectarian divides of Northern Ireland and along the Gaza Strip. Opposing views. Both "right". Some responsible for some terrible acts of violence.

Don't be so quick to judge an individual as their character and actions are a function of their environment, or it can be hijacked by others, as we have seen with many cults.

I believe she was misled in her decision to leave and was living in a bubble that supported her vision of the world. Do I support that vision or her actions? No. Do I think it's possible that she has continued to believe the propaganda around her and used it to reinforce her own beliefs and view of what is right? Yes.

The question is what to do with her and her child. She is clearly a damaged individual who is a risk to the state. However, her child is an innocent with as much right to a life as any child. Rather than the knee-jerk hang 'em high, vote-winning reactions, I would like to see her brought her and rehabilitated. If she can't be reformed, she should be secured. Her child should be placed with a family that can love, support and raise it in a better environment that it would have left in Syria.

if she has committed crimes in Syria, she should face justice there. Same as if I commit a crime in Germany, i would not expect to be tried in the UK. The child has Syrian citizenship be dint of being born there. They can deal with the child too.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
It's thought that over 400 Da'esh militants have already returned to the UK. It makes me wonder why the Government are so intent on making an example of this one?
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,791
Maybe when she has been fully assessed and (hopefully) de-radicalised, she may transform her position as a 'poster girl' (as Cowley says above) to be used in radicalising new recruits, to a reformed example that can illustrate to others at risk what the true picture is. There are many precedents of reformed minds being used to warn others of the pitfalls of certain choices in life. These include some leading lights from the NI troubles who eventually realised that the life of violence had no real future.
If she was brought back into civilised society and welcomed with open arms what would those pitfalls of certain choices in life be exactly?

Let’s examine this “true picture” a bit and see what message it sends out to others:

You go overseas to join probably the most evil group of people to exist on the planet in the last 70 years and when your adventure is over:

a) You return to your old life as though nothing has happened, except you might get an invite to appear on Celebrity Big Brother or
b) You are disowned and left in a desert where you may or may not come to some eventual harm.

Which is the greater deterrent I wonder?
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,304
Location
N Yorks
It's thought that over 400 Da'esh militants have already returned to the UK. It makes me wonder why the Government are so intent on making an example of this one?
because since this story broke this government petition has gone barmy. 518,000 sigs and still doing over 500 sigs/an hour

(Government petition to bad all ISIS members from returning to UK)
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/231521
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,650
It's thought that over 400 Da'esh militants have already returned to the UK. It makes me wonder why the Government are so intent on making an example of this one?
I don't think the government were intent on making an example of her in particular. It was the press that blew her story up, the government have just reacted.
if she has committed crimes in Syria, she should face justice there. Same as if I commit a crime in Germany, i would not expect to be tried in the UK. The child has Syrian citizenship be dint of being born there. They can deal with the child too.
What crimes has she committed anywhere? She has not committed any acts of terrorism. All that she has done is elope to get married.
Her child is a British citizen by right of being born of a British mother (even if the government succeed in revoking the mother's citizenship, she was a British citizen when she gave birth), and so her child has an absolute right to come to the UK.
 

scotrail158713

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
1,797
Location
Dundee
It's thought that over 400 Da'esh militants have already returned to the UK. It makes me wonder why the Government are so intent on making an example of this one?
I’m not the Home Secretary so I can’t control who is allowed in the UK but if I was in that power I would do the same as Mr Javid has done this week and do so with all similar cases.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
To do that, you'd have to put her on trial. And to put her on trial, you'd have to allow her back to the UK.
Please note that I'm not saying that that is what should happen. But if that's the outcome that you want that's the process that would have to be followed.

It won't happen, so it's a picky point, but courts can sit abroad, for example the al-Megrahi trial.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,778
Location
Devon
It's thought that over 400 Da'esh militants have already returned to the UK. It makes me wonder why the Government are so intent on making an example of this one?
Exactly. And if we're going to talk about 'Examples', then how about the fact that we hold our legal process up as part of what makes us a civilised and fair society - rather than one that beheads/stones/sets on fire people arbitrarily?
If we are what say we are then she needs to be bought back here and tried in our courts for the initial crime of joining a terrorist group for a start.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
I’m not the Home Secretary so I can’t control who is allowed in the UK but if I was in that power I would do the same as Mr Javid has done this week and do so with all similar cases.
This is what Mr Javid's department published last year:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...18_CCS207_CCS0218929798-1_CONTEST_3.0_WEB.pdf
We use the full range of capabilities available to disrupt and manage the return of individuals from the conflict zone. Where appropriate, we will also use nationality and immigration powers to deprive individuals of their British citizenship and to exclude foreign nationals from the UK whose presence here would not be conducive to the public good. The Government introduced the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act in 2015 in response to the growing trend of UK nationals travelling overseas to engage in terrorism. Through this Act we introduced further measures that disrupt the ability of people to travel abroad, and to return to the UK, including the lawful temporary seizure of passports at the border, and the introduction of Temporary Exclusion Orders (TEOs). These powers support important police capabilities to manage the risk from potential travellers and are operationally vital.

Individuals who have travelled to the conflict zone must expect to be investigated by the police to determine if they have committed criminal offences and to ensure that they do not pose a threat to our national security. There have already been high profile prosecutions of individuals who have returned from the conflict zone.

Syria returners illustrative example
In 2015, a British woman travels to join Daesh. In 2017 the individual flees Daesh-held territory with a new born baby and they make their way to Turkey. On arrival in Turkey the mother and the child are detained for entering the country illegally. Following the mother’s detention the British authorities are notified. DNA testing of the child is conducted to establish their entitlement to a British passport. Given that the mother has lived in Daesh-held territory, the Home Secretary and a judge approve the use of a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) to manage her return to the UK. The TEO allows us to specify the route of return to the UK and to impose obligations upon the individual once they return to help protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism. The mother and her child are subsequently deported to the UK from Turkey via the route specified by the TEO. On arrival in the UK the police launch an investigation into the woman’s activities in Syria to determine whether any crimes have been committed. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed then the mother will be charged and the Crown Prosecution Service will conduct criminal proceedings. If there is no evidence of criminality, the mother is assisted in reintegrating into society, for example, by requiring her to attend a series of sessions with a specially trained de-radicalisation mentor. In the meantime the mother is also obliged – as part of her TEO – to report regularly to a policestation and to notify the Home Office of any change of address. The local authority is involved to ensure that the child is not at immediate risk and appropriate measures are put in place to help safeguard the child’s welfare.

Only a very small number of travellers have returned in the last two years and most of those have been women with young children. Managing the risks from travellers combines interventions from our Prevent and Pursue work strands. We use the expertise built up through Prevent to mitigate the risk they may pose by challenging their views or tailoring our response as appropriate. This can include mandating attendance on the Desistance and Disengagement Programme. Many will be subject to post-traumatic stress, which may impact their future behaviour if not addressed. Children may meet statutory thresholds for social care, or new born children may have experienced poor care after being born in Daesh controlled territory. In order to ensure that their needs and risks are addressed, the Home Office and Department for Education have been working with local authorities and external organisations to ensure support is available to local authorities dealing with this small number of returning families, including that suitable advocates are available for children to act in their best interest and ensure there are responsible adults engaged in their lives.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
Aiders and Abettors Act 1861.

And presumably entering Syria using a false identity. Whether or not Syria cares about such things, who knows (who cares?)

It's interesting that some posters are calling her a child. By what definition?

If she's a naive child, we'd better raise the legal age for doing many things sharpish, and never suggest lowering the voting age ever again.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,766
And presumably entering Syria using a false identity. Whether or not Syria cares about such things, who knows (who cares?)

It's interesting that some posters are calling her a child. By what definition?

If she's a naive child, we'd better raise the legal age for doing many things sharpish, and never suggest lowering the voting age ever again.

She was a naive child when she left.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
She is from our country in that she was born here and at least had British citizenship. She was a minor when she left and was arguably groomed. She was married off to someone older than her and impregnated. She has seen horrific stuff that next to no one in this country will ever have seen. From what we can tell the only people she has spoken to are journalists after a story and people fighting against the side she ended up married in to.

I really am not a fan of hers and wouldn't welcome her back with open arms but I don't see why she should be Syria's or Bengladesh's problem. Blimey they have enough problems of their own. If they don't want to deal with her they should be able to extradite her to the UK where she is from (Like it or not). She is our problem.

Suppose it was a vulnerable white 15 year old girl who had been passed around an Asian grooming gang. No one would be saying she was old enough to know better and it's her own fault.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,224
She was 15 when she left the UK (a child) - no idea how old she was when she was "married" or sexually abused depending on age and how defined. Not clear what crime she has committed - the Accessories and Abettors Act requires someone to "aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence", not sure what evidence there is of that. A classic example of a politician playing to an audience. Its for the police and CPS to determine if a crime has been committed and if it justifies a prosecution. Judge and jury politicians are no better than the system that ISIS promotes.

Creating martyrs is a stupid idea.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,778
Location
Devon
It's interesting that some posters are calling her a child. By what definition?
Go back and read the posts. Nobody has said she is a child now...
That she was a child when she left. Yes.
That she has a child now. Yes.
Not that she is a child now though.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,385
Location
Bolton
I am convinced that the actions of the Home Secretary are firstly a distraction tactic to move attention away from the damage his party is inflicting on the country, and the defectors abandoning it as a result. Secondly, his decision advances his ambition to be the next leader of his party, in reaction the weakness of the Prime Minister. Thirdly they give him ammunition to throw at the Leader of the Opposition and frankly anybody who disagrees with him when they object to the law being ignored by the government in this way for their own convenience.

What Sajid Javid's decision certainly does not do is follow the generally accepted principles of good governance by Ministers. The decision is of questionable ethics and many have challenged him on it. It's of questionable legality and will likely be tested now in court. It is of questionable practicality given the media circus the Home Secretary has played to. Left in Syria any British people who have committed heinous crimes will likely never face trial. Whipping up a media storm around them and then leaving them in an unstable area could easily see them returning to the 'wrong sort' and becoming a figurehead or martyr.

The best response to an obvious distraction tactic is to ignore it and ask the Home Secretary why he's still in a cabinet intent on 'no-deal Brexit', and if he thinks this is a real priority for him as Home Secretary right now. Questions on this matter would be best asked as part of a long-term strategy for dealing with a multitude of returning former combatants with illegal groups. As it happens Mr Javid's department already has guidance and a long-term plan that fits Begum's case: it calls for a managed return as the best outcome for all parties. This has been blatantly ignored in the face of short-term political gain. In particular, I wonder if Mr Javid feels he has something to prove.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,766
By what definition, and whose judgment? The bleeding heart one, presumably.

Did you read this:

Two children from two different families growing up in the same town at the same time. One child believes that God created the earth, Noah saved all the animals in a big flood and that abortion is bad and all women who have one will rot in hell, as will the clinics that facilitate the abortion.

Another child has no faith at all and believes in the woman's right to choose.

We could also look at children raised in Nazi Germany, in the sectarian divides of Northern Ireland and along the Gaza Strip. Opposing views. Both "right". Some responsible for some terrible acts of violence.

Don't be so quick to judge an individual as their character and actions are a function of their environment, or it can be hijacked by others, as we have seen with many cults.

I believe she was misled in her decision to leave and was living in a bubble that supported her vision of the world. Do I support that vision or her actions? No. Do I think it's possible that she has continued to believe the propaganda around her and used it to reinforce her own beliefs and view of what is right? Yes.

The question is what to do with her and her child. She is clearly a damaged individual who is a risk to the state. However, her child is an innocent with as much right to a life as any child. Rather than the knee-jerk hang 'em high, vote-winning reactions, I would like to see her brought her and rehabilitated. If she can't be reformed, she should be secured. Her child should be placed with a family that can love, support and raise it in a better environment that it would have left in Syria.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked @furnessvale: Would you have the same fervour if one of your own relations had been converted by a cult and took a similar course of action?
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,778
Location
Devon
I am convinced that the actions of the Home Secretary are firstly a distraction tactic to move attention away from the damage his party is inflicting on the country, and the defectors abandoning it as a result. Secondly, his decision advances his ambition to be the next leader of his party, in reaction the weakness of the Prime Minister. Thirdly they give him ammunition to throw at the Leader of the Opposition and frankly anybody who disagrees with him when they object to the law being ignored by the government in this way for their own convenience.

What Sajid Javid's decision certainly does not do is follow the generally accepted principles of good governance by Ministers. The decision is of questionable ethics and many have challenged him on it. It's of questionable legality and will likely be tested now in court. It is of questionable practicality given the media circus the Home Secretary has played to. Left in Syria any British people who have committed heinous crimes will likely never face trial. Whipping up a media storm around them and then leaving them in an unstable area could easily see them returning to the 'wrong sort' and becoming a figurehead or martyr.

The best response to an obvious distraction tactic is to ignore it and ask the Home Secretary why he's still in a cabinet intent on 'no-deal Brexit', and if he thinks this is a real priority for him as Home Secretary right now. Questions on this matter would be best asked as part of a long-term strategy for dealing with a multitude of returning former combatants with illegal groups. As it happens Mr Javid's department already has guidance and a long-term plan that fits Begum's case: it calls for a managed return as the best outcome for all parties. This has been blatantly ignored in the face of short-term political gain. In particular, I wonder if Mr Javid feels he has something to prove.
Very well said.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,650
I am convinced that the actions of the Home Secretary are firstly a distraction tactic to move attention away from the damage his party is inflicting on the country, and the defectors abandoning it as a result. Secondly, his decision advances his ambition to be the next leader of his party, in reaction the weakness of the Prime Minister. Thirdly they give him ammunition to throw at the Leader of the Opposition and frankly anybody who disagrees with him when they object to the law being ignored by the government in this way for their own convenience.

What Sajid Javid's decision certainly does not do is follow the generally accepted principles of good governance by Ministers. The decision is of questionable ethics and many have challenged him on it. It's of questionable legality and will likely be tested now in court. It is of questionable practicality given the media circus the Home Secretary has played to. Left in Syria any British people who have committed heinous crimes will likely never face trial. Whipping up a media storm around them and then leaving them in an unstable area could easily see them returning to the 'wrong sort' and becoming a figurehead or martyr.

The best response to an obvious distraction tactic is to ignore it and ask the Home Secretary why he's still in a cabinet intent on 'no-deal Brexit', and if he thinks this is a real priority for him as Home Secretary right now. Questions on this matter would be best asked as part of a long-term strategy for dealing with a multitude of returning former combatants with illegal groups. As it happens Mr Javid's department already has guidance and a long-term plan that fits Begum's case: it calls for a managed return as the best outcome for all parties. This has been blatantly ignored in the face of short-term political gain. In particular, I wonder if Mr Javid feels he has something to prove.
Not convinced that it is a diversionary tactic for Brexit, as Javid has little or no role in negotiating the Brexit deal. I think it is solely to do with raising his profile and popularity rating ready for the inevitable Tory leadership contest to come. This issue has been a heaven-sent opportunity for him to get his name in the headlines, which up to now have been almost totally dominated by Mrs May and Brexit. Even BoJo is having trouble getting himself noticed.

I suspect that Javid's natural inclination would have been to apply good governance, as you describe. However, this would inevitably have resulted in him getting slagged-off by the popular press, and so would not have gone down well with the Tory party members whose vote he will soon be looking for - that is why he has played to the gallery. By the time the courts inevitably find against him it will be old news, and can be spun in his favour as the "loony judges acting against national interests".

Don't forget, Javid is a politician, and you don't get to high office without a certain amount of cunning and guile (not unless you are Jim Hacker).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top