• 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.

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
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).
Who would you say has had a big role in negotiating Brexit? Ha ha. I jest. The answer is clearly no one.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
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".
Quite possibly, absolutely. If his stripping her citizenship is ruled to be unlawful he can still use this to his personal and political advantage, even if it comes at the expense of some respect for the rule of law. Setting Ms Begum as an individual to one side for a moment, it's this 'mob rule' aspect of this story that really disturbs me. As a Parliamentarian and a Minister, it is his job to uphold the law.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
Who would you say has had a big role in negotiating Brexit? Ha ha. I jest. The answer is clearly no one.

Think you'll find Verhofstadt has, inexplicably, had a big role
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
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 think it was her who was making the biggest noise at first wasnt it? How else would the story have got into the paper without a peep from anyone else?

Also now the tv have been at her how much money has she made from selling her story to them?
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
I think it was her who was making the biggest noise at first wasnt it? How else would the story have got into the paper without a peep from anyone else?

Also now the tv have been at her how much money has she made from selling her story to them?
Yeah I imagine it was her who got her story in the paper as a 15 year old on the way out and as a pregnant 19 year old in a refugee camp. She probably went to the press desk and said "Do you know who I am?".
 

swj99

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2011
Messages
765
Maybe he can give her a royal pardon.…
Fair point. I'm trying to imagine how he might say it. Something like, "Next time you do it, don't do it again !"

Could this be a political smokescreen ?
As a member of the public, I can't help thinking we're being fed a very narrow, and rather confined narrative by the media at the moment. If you look at the comments on some other forums, (and before you ask, no, look for yourselves, I'm not putting links on here), comments are being made about the how sexually attractive some posters believe she is, and come to think of it, maybe it's not an accident that this particular young woman has become the 'poster girl' she said she didn't want to be. Maybe I'm not the only one wondering if the whole thing is in the press at the moment as a convenient distraction from some of the other, even less palatable things that are going on in this country, and in the world.

Why should they? what crime(s) has she committed in Syria?........

Yep.
It's interesting to see some of the comments on hatebook about this at the moment. The level of condemnation seems to vary, depending on what page you happen to land on, but I've noticed a lot of people are saying bring back hanging etc, however, so many posters (I'm not talking about people on here) are jumping the gun slightly because as far as I'm aware, and despite what's being said in certain quarters, she hasn't actually been convicted of any offences.


Maybe when she has been fully assessed and (hopefully) de-radicalised........../

That's an interesting one. Genuine question here. How does a person get de-radicalised ? I don't know the answer to that one.
Everyone has their own views, and I can only speak for myself, but they are mine, and I don't care what anyone else tells me to think, I reserve the right to have those views, whatever they may be. In my case, they're not harmful or illegal, but irrespective of any of that, how can anyone really change somebody elses views ? I'd question whether they can. In a similar way to how you can't make someone like you, you can't force them to change their idealogical position unless they genuinely chose to change it. Similar to how the naughty kid at school gets told to say sorry, so he does, just to get the teacher to leave him alone. But is he really sorry, or is he secretly saying, "Sod you, I'll do it again if I get the chance !" ?
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,372
Quite possibly, absolutely. If his stripping her citizenship is ruled to be unlawful he can still use this to his personal and political advantage, even if it comes at the expense of some respect for the rule of law. Setting Ms Begum as an individual to one side for a moment, it's this 'mob rule' aspect of this story that really disturbs me. As a Parliamentarian and a Minister, it is his job to uphold the law.

well under the treason laws, is this little caveat.
adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere

so it's not mob rule at all.
she has quite clearly been aiding and abetting.

removal of citizenship is getting off lightly.
 

SteveP29

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Messages
1,005
Location
Chester le Street/ Edinburgh
Yep.
It's interesting to see some of the comments on hatebook about this at the moment. The level of condemnation seems to vary, depending on what page you happen to land on, but I've noticed a lot of people are saying bring back hanging etc, however, so many posters (I'm not talking about people on here) are jumping the gun slightly because as far as I'm aware, and despite what's being said in certain quarters, she hasn't actually been convicted of any offences.

There's a 'friend' of mine on Facebook said that because Jeremy Corbyn has said to bring her back, he will never vote Labour again.
He conveniently completely omitted the bit after where he said, to face any consequences (I can't remember and can't find the exact quote)
Its the perfect example of a narrative, driven by the press and some politicians, that makes people jump to massive conclusions.

Several comments were less than complimentary about Corbyn, I haven't responded because I would actually like a day of peace to get on with work and my life at home tonight without the 17 tons of s*it that would come my way if I did happen to point it out. I coukld also have said that if that is his attitude, he'd never vote again, as technically, everyone who knows the law will think the same as Corbyn, even if their opinion is the same as Javid's (who is the only person in any position of power or influence that has advocated and made public his desire to strip her nationality)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There's a 'friend' of mine on Facebook said that because Jeremy Corbyn has said to bring her back, he will never vote Labour again.
He conveniently completely omitted the bit after where he said, to face any consequences (I can't remember and can't find the exact quote)
Its the perfect example of a narrative, driven by the press and some politicians, that makes people jump to massive conclusions.

Several comments were less than complimentary about Corbyn, I haven't responded because I would actually like a day of peace to get on with work and my life at home tonight without the 17 tons of s*it that would come my way if I did happen to point it out. I coukld also have said that if that is his attitude, he'd never vote again, as technically, everyone who knows the law will think the same as Corbyn, even if their opinion is the same as Javid's (who is the only person in any position of power or influence that has advocated and made public his desire to strip her nationality)

My view, FWIW, is to bring her back, take the child into care and charge her with treason (or if that's not technically applicable, the closest thing she can be charged with). Does that make me "as bad as Corbyn"?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
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.

This is a very sensible post.

Personally, I have no issue with citizenship being stripped AS LONG AS it is done within a clear legal framework and in an impartial and consistent manner. It cannot be acceptable to simply decide at ministerial level to strip someone of citizen and announce it as so. The big issue is that this decision sets a precedent. Precedent set on such shaky foundation is very dangerous. Posters may not care about this woman but at some point, without challenge and scrutiny, that precedent will be used to impact on something you do care about.

Also none of the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade seem to have a plan about what to do with the child. Somehow extracting the child from Syria and the evil mother and placing the child with granny doesn't seem a good idea looking at the past history here!
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Somehow extracting the child from Syria and the evil mother and placing the child with granny doesn't seem a good idea looking at the past history here!
Why is that? It appears that the mother was radicalised not within the family group but via the internet. If the family was the problem then yes, returning the baby to that environment wouldn't be smart.

I agree with Corbyn that the best course of action is to bring her and her baby home, so that the baby can be brought up by a loving (and non-Jihadist) family, and the mother can take responsibility for her actions. With a lot of work and time, the brainwashing can be undone and the woman can learn from her actions and just maybe become an example of reform.

The book "White American Youth" by Christian Picciolini tells the story of how young people can be radicalised into extremism (of a different kind, in this case) and more importantly how they can be de-radicalised. I'd recommend it to anyone who wishes to understand how extremist groups of all shades prey on disaffected youth.
 
Last edited:

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
Yeah I imagine it was her who got her story in the paper as a 15 year old on the way out and as a pregnant 19 year old in a refugee camp. She probably went to the press desk and said "Do you know who I am?".

Well theres no real need to be facetious but in answer - how did the papers come out with this story first then? Especially in context to my reply to the person I quoted?

As I said - it appears the govt only started flapping their gums when I first noticed the story in the papers/media - how does that happen if they havent said much about the others that have come back
 

Monty

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Messages
2,349
Rather asking if she should be allowed back to the UK I think the more relevant question is should the British government be providing assistance to get her back? Let's face it, had she turned up in a Turkish refugee camp across the border she probably would of been seen by someone sent by our Embassy in Turkey and very likely be 'home' by now.

But that's not really what Shamima Begum is asking is it? It seems to me she is implying she wishes to be 'rescued', its very clear that any journey to Turkey would be a dangerous one for someone like her otherwise she would of done it already. Since we have no diplomatic staff in Syria that only really leaves one option, a military one. So my question is would you risk troops to bring her back?

Personally if she was to make her own way to Turkey I say bring her back and have her actitivies fully investigated and if necessary prosecuted. But I certainly wouldn't send helicopters and soldiers to bring her out of the hole she put herself in.
 
Last edited:

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
Does anyone know if the Father of the child is planning on returning to Holland?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Why is that? It appears that the mother was radicalised not within the family group but via the internet. If the family was the problem then yes, returning the baby to that environment wouldn't be smart.

Personally, I would hope to notice if my child was becoming radicalised. The fact that this was not noticed by the parents and challenged concerns me. I don't think asking if they missed something is an unfair question ( as it is for the educational and other support services involved)
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Personally, I would hope to notice if my child was becoming radicalised. The fact that this was not noticed by the parents and challenged concerns me. I don't think asking if they missed something is an unfair question ( as it is for the educational and other support services involved)
When you were a kid, did you not hide stuff from your parents?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
When you were a kid, did you not hide stuff from your parents?

yeah - like when i had a fag or a can of beer at 14.

Not that I had become radicalised and decided that everything in the society in which I lived was evil and had to brought to its knees through shocking violence and behaviour more suitable for the crusades than the 21st century and that I wanted to run off with my mates and live in a war zone and marry one of Allah's ( blessing and peace be upon you) chosen warriors!

So I ask again - is it not reasonable to ask how the parents and the authorities missed this?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
yeah - like when i had a fag or a can of beer at 14.

Not that I had become radicalised and decided that everything in the society in which I lived was evil and had to brought to its knees through shocking violence and behaviour more suitable for the crusades than the 21st century and that I wanted to run off with my mates and live in a war zone and marry one of Allah's ( blessing and peace be upon you) chosen warriors!

So I ask again - is it not reasonable to ask how the parents and the authorities missed this?
Were your parents to blame for your (comparatively small) transgressions?

You're right to ask how someone can become so radicalised, and society would do well to learn from this example so that it's less likely to happen again. But to just say "it's the parents' fault" is an oversimplification. If her parents are like any parents I know, they'll feel responsible and blame themselves at least in part anyway.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
"Were there any signs at all that could/should have been noticed?" is not an unreasonable question to ask imo. It helps us all to learn from these incidents and we could only learn by asking probing questions. The answer may well be "no", but without investigating it is impossible to draw any reasonable conclusion.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
Well theres no real need to be facetious but in answer - how did the papers come out with this story first then? Especially in context to my reply to the person I quoted?

As I said - it appears the govt only started flapping their gums when I first noticed the story in the papers/media - how does that happen if they havent said much about the others that have come back
Apologies for being facetious. She and her friends were big news when she left and so she was big news when she turned up again. Wasn't it a journalist who found her? Sorry if I'm wrong. The press love this kind of story.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
Apologies for being facetious. She and her friends were big news when she left and so she was big news when she turned up again. Wasn't it a journalist who found her? Sorry if I'm wrong. The press love this kind of story.

Thats my point - the press found her and made it happen. Theres a good podcast that nicky clark from r5 mentioned last week - cant remember the name but very interesting - ill find it
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Robert Buckland, Solicitor General for England and Wales, was on the guest panel for BBC Radio's 'Any Questions' last night, broadcast live. There was a question on Begum which brought a lot of discussion. It was noticeable (to me) that he made no attempt to defend Sajid Javid's decision to render her stateless: indeed. he referred to possible forthcoming legal proceedings which could reverse that decision and, from the way I heard it, he inferred that was probable. That day's 'Times' newspaper led on the Begum story and, in that article, it speculated that Javid had not sought legal advice at a top level before he made his decision and, in particular, charged him with politicking in his attempt to replace May as Tory leader, a job which may become vacant quite soon. Buckland reiterated that, under International Law to which we are signed up, nobody can be left stateless, regardless of what May and Javid think and say.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
There seems to be a clear danger that if this particular religious fanatic is given passage to/shelter in the country, the rest of them will come crawling out of the woodwork. Worth avoiding IMO.
 

Doppelganger

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
398
The problem is, they'll have to be let out some time.

But surely prison is also about rehabilitation?

Shouldn't we, the "enlightened West", lead by example and demonstrate how the civilised world treats others, especially its own citizens?
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,372
But surely prison is also about rehabilitation?

Shouldn't we, the "enlightened West", lead by example and demonstrate how the civilised world treats others, especially its own citizens?
in some cases,no.

with respect to (sedition,treason etc), the people in question may be in position of strategic or sensitive information which could still be divulged to others even when incarcerated.
The opportunity to do so must be stopped.

as the state in charge, you would have basically 3 options available:
1) execute them
2) place them in lifelong solitary confinement
3) have them under surveillance, feed them false information, and wait to see who picks up the trail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top