Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

All things Rugby
mdaclarke
Posts: 4106
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by mdaclarke »

OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:37 pm
piquant wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:32 pm There seems to be a problem with use the of term loophole, it'd be worth noting calling something a loophole doesn't mean it's illegal and/or incorrect. It only means it's a loophole, I don't deny the loophole exists, I don't think politically it should have been exploited, and I'll be interested to see what transpires if the reverse of this happens to us.
A loophole is usually used to mean that there has been a mistake made in the law, or an ambiguity that allows something that isn’t intended by the law. That isn’t the case here, I think you believe the law is wrong to allow this, which is fine, it’s ok to believe laws are wrong and want to change them, it’s why we have elections, MPs and a legislature.
This 100% and the Supreme Court has basically said when it comes to national security the Judiciary should defer to the politicians as the politicians are answerable to the public.

"134. Secondly, the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the appeal against the
dismissal of Ms Begum’s application for judicial review of the Home Secretary’s
refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom. It made its own assessment of the
requirements of national security, and preferred it to that of the Home Secretary,
despite the absence of any relevant evidence before it, or any relevant findings of
fact by the court below. Its approach did not give the Home Secretary’s assessment
the respect which it should have received, given that it is the Home Secretary who
has been charged by Parliament with responsibility for making such assessments,
and who is democratically accountable to Parliament for the discharge of that
responsibility"
ovalball
Posts: 12924
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by ovalball »

OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:37 pm
piquant wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:32 pm There seems to be a problem with use the of term loophole, it'd be worth noting calling something a loophole doesn't mean it's illegal and/or incorrect. It only means it's a loophole, I don't deny the loophole exists, I don't think politically it should have been exploited, and I'll be interested to see what transpires if the reverse of this happens to us.
A loophole is usually used to mean that there has been a mistake made in the law, or an ambiguity that allows something that isn’t intended by the law. That isn’t the case here, I think you believe the law is wrong to allow this, which is fine, it’s ok to believe laws are wrong and want to change them, it’s why we have elections, MPs and a legislature.
You think the law was supposed to be applied to someone who was born here, spent 15 years here and never spent time in the country to which they are also theoretically 'entitled' to citizenship. I think 'loophole' is a perfect description of what the Government has used here.
User avatar
OhNo
Posts: 1976
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by OhNo »

ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:21 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:37 pm
piquant wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:32 pm There seems to be a problem with use the of term loophole, it'd be worth noting calling something a loophole doesn't mean it's illegal and/or incorrect. It only means it's a loophole, I don't deny the loophole exists, I don't think politically it should have been exploited, and I'll be interested to see what transpires if the reverse of this happens to us.
A loophole is usually used to mean that there has been a mistake made in the law, or an ambiguity that allows something that isn’t intended by the law. That isn’t the case here, I think you believe the law is wrong to allow this, which is fine, it’s ok to believe laws are wrong and want to change them, it’s why we have elections, MPs and a legislature.
You think the law was supposed to be applied to someone who was born here, spent 15 years here and never spent time in the country to which they are also 'entitled' to citizenship. I think 'loophole' is a perfect description of what the Government has used here.
Again not a loophole, that would be the law being misapplied and then Begum would win her appeal. A loophole would be if the courts said that the law did mean to allow the Home Secretary to do this but he still can because of ‘X’. With X being the loophole in this hypothetical scenario. Loophole actually means something, not that you don’t like the law, no matter how much you would like it too.

Why is so hard to believe that just because you don’t like it that nothing is actually legally wrong?
ovalball
Posts: 12924
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by ovalball »

OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:29 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:21 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:37 pm
piquant wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:32 pm There seems to be a problem with use the of term loophole, it'd be worth noting calling something a loophole doesn't mean it's illegal and/or incorrect. It only means it's a loophole, I don't deny the loophole exists, I don't think politically it should have been exploited, and I'll be interested to see what transpires if the reverse of this happens to us.
A loophole is usually used to mean that there has been a mistake made in the law, or an ambiguity that allows something that isn’t intended by the law. That isn’t the case here, I think you believe the law is wrong to allow this, which is fine, it’s ok to believe laws are wrong and want to change them, it’s why we have elections, MPs and a legislature.
You think the law was supposed to be applied to someone who was born here, spent 15 years here and never spent time in the country to which they are also 'entitled' to citizenship. I think 'loophole' is a perfect description of what the Government has used here.
Again not a loophole, that would be the law being misapplied and then Begum would win her appeal. A loophole would be if the courts said that the law did mean to allow the Home Secretary to do this but he still can because of ‘X’. With X being the loophole in this hypothetical scenario. Loophole actually means something, not that you don’t like the law, no matter how much you would like it too.

Why is so hard to believe that just because you don’t like it that nothing is actually legally wrong?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that 'loopholes' can, and often are, perfectly legal.
A loophole or loop hole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
I'd maintain that is exactly the situation. Since she has, effectively, been left stateless - there is clearly an inadequacy - in how the law is applied to her.
User avatar
OhNo
Posts: 1976
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by OhNo »

ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:35 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:29 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:21 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:37 pm
piquant wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:32 pm There seems to be a problem with use the of term loophole, it'd be worth noting calling something a loophole doesn't mean it's illegal and/or incorrect. It only means it's a loophole, I don't deny the loophole exists, I don't think politically it should have been exploited, and I'll be interested to see what transpires if the reverse of this happens to us.
A loophole is usually used to mean that there has been a mistake made in the law, or an ambiguity that allows something that isn’t intended by the law. That isn’t the case here, I think you believe the law is wrong to allow this, which is fine, it’s ok to believe laws are wrong and want to change them, it’s why we have elections, MPs and a legislature.
You think the law was supposed to be applied to someone who was born here, spent 15 years here and never spent time in the country to which they are also 'entitled' to citizenship. I think 'loophole' is a perfect description of what the Government has used here.
Again not a loophole, that would be the law being misapplied and then Begum would win her appeal. A loophole would be if the courts said that the law did mean to allow the Home Secretary to do this but he still can because of ‘X’. With X being the loophole in this hypothetical scenario. Loophole actually means something, not that you don’t like the law, no matter how much you would like it too.

Why is so hard to believe that just because you don’t like it that nothing is actually legally wrong?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that 'loopholes' can, and often are, perfectly legal.
A loophole or loop hole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
I'd maintain that is exactly the situation. Since she has, effectively, been left stateless - there is clearly an inadequacy - in how the law is applied to her.
Yes thanks, I have covered the definition already. It is not and cannot be a loophole as the law explicitly allows for the Home Secretary to have the these powers. So the exact opposite of a loophole.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41635
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by Anonymous 1 »

ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:35 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:29 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:21 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:37 pm
piquant wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:32 pm There seems to be a problem with use the of term loophole, it'd be worth noting calling something a loophole doesn't mean it's illegal and/or incorrect. It only means it's a loophole, I don't deny the loophole exists, I don't think politically it should have been exploited, and I'll be interested to see what transpires if the reverse of this happens to us.
A loophole is usually used to mean that there has been a mistake made in the law, or an ambiguity that allows something that isn’t intended by the law. That isn’t the case here, I think you believe the law is wrong to allow this, which is fine, it’s ok to believe laws are wrong and want to change them, it’s why we have elections, MPs and a legislature.
You think the law was supposed to be applied to someone who was born here, spent 15 years here and never spent time in the country to which they are also 'entitled' to citizenship. I think 'loophole' is a perfect description of what the Government has used here.
Again not a loophole, that would be the law being misapplied and then Begum would win her appeal. A loophole would be if the courts said that the law did mean to allow the Home Secretary to do this but he still can because of ‘X’. With X being the loophole in this hypothetical scenario. Loophole actually means something, not that you don’t like the law, no matter how much you would like it too.

Why is so hard to believe that just because you don’t like it that nothing is actually legally wrong?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that 'loopholes' can, and often are, perfectly legal.
A loophole or loop hole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
I'd maintain that is exactly the situation. Since she has, effectively, been left stateless - there is clearly an inadequacy - in how the law is applied to her.
She is Bangladeshi by birth. It's not something she has to apply for or that the Bangladeshi government can deny her by decree. It's their constitution.
User avatar
Bogbunny
Posts: 5447
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: G W C

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by Bogbunny »

You almost feel for that Dutch Jihadi that had to marry her.
User avatar
OhNo
Posts: 1976
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by OhNo »

f**ked that up
User avatar
OhNo
Posts: 1976
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by OhNo »

From the act:
40 Deprivation of citizenship.

(1) In this section a reference to a person’s “ citizenship status ” is a reference to his status as—

(a)a British citizen,

(b)a British overseas territories citizen,

(c)a British Overseas citizen,

(d)a British National (Overseas),

(e)a British protected person, or

(f)a British subject.

[F117(2)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.]

(3)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status which results from his registration or naturalisation if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—

(a)fraud,

(b)false representation, or

(c)concealment of a material fact.

(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.

[F118(4A)But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—

(a)the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,

(b)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and

(c)the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.]

(5)Before making an order under this section in respect of a person the Secretary of State must give the person written notice specifying—

(a)that the Secretary of State has decided to make an order,

(b)the reasons for the order, and

(c)the person’s right of appeal under section 40A(1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68).

(6)Where a person acquired a citizenship status by the operation of a law which applied to him because of his registration or naturalisation under an enactment having effect before commencement, the Secretary of State may by order deprive the person of the citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—

(a)fraud,

(b)false representation, or

(c)concealment of a material fact.]
I genuinely can’t see where in that Act, it doesn’t intend to allow the Home Secretary act as he has.
shereblue
Posts: 4811
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by shereblue »

OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:55 pm From the act:
40 Deprivation of citizenship.

(1) In this section a reference to a person’s “ citizenship status ” is a reference to his status as—

(a)a British citizen,

(b)a British overseas territories citizen,

(c)a British Overseas citizen,

(d)a British National (Overseas),

(e)a British protected person, or

(f)a British subject.

[F117(2)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.]

(3)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status which results from his registration or naturalisation if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—

(a)fraud,

(b)false representation, or

(c)concealment of a material fact.

(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.

[F118(4A)But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—

(a)the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,

(b)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and

(c)the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.]

(5)Before making an order under this section in respect of a person the Secretary of State must give the person written notice specifying—

(a)that the Secretary of State has decided to make an order,

(b)the reasons for the order, and

(c)the person’s right of appeal under section 40A(1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68).

(6)Where a person acquired a citizenship status by the operation of a law which applied to him because of his registration or naturalisation under an enactment having effect before commencement, the Secretary of State may by order deprive the person of the citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—

(a)fraud,

(b)false representation, or

(c)concealment of a material fact.]
I genuinely can’t see where in that Act, it doesn’t intend to allow the Home Secretary act as he has.
For whatever reason, the lawfulness of the deprivation of citizenship, was not something against which Begum appealed.afaik.
User avatar
OhNo
Posts: 1976
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by OhNo »

shereblue wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 8:26 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:55 pm From the act:
40 Deprivation of citizenship.

(1) In this section a reference to a person’s “ citizenship status ” is a reference to his status as—

(a)a British citizen,

(b)a British overseas territories citizen,

(c)a British Overseas citizen,

(d)a British National (Overseas),

(e)a British protected person, or

(f)a British subject.

[F117(2)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.]

(3)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status which results from his registration or naturalisation if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—

(a)fraud,

(b)false representation, or

(c)concealment of a material fact.

(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.

[F118(4A)But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—

(a)the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,

(b)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and

(c)the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.]

(5)Before making an order under this section in respect of a person the Secretary of State must give the person written notice specifying—

(a)that the Secretary of State has decided to make an order,

(b)the reasons for the order, and

(c)the person’s right of appeal under section 40A(1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68).

(6)Where a person acquired a citizenship status by the operation of a law which applied to him because of his registration or naturalisation under an enactment having effect before commencement, the Secretary of State may by order deprive the person of the citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—

(a)fraud,

(b)false representation, or

(c)concealment of a material fact.]
I genuinely can’t see where in that Act, it doesn’t intend to allow the Home Secretary act as he has.
For whatever reason, the lawfulness of the deprivation of citizenship, was not something against which Begum appealed.afaik.
This appeal I think was strictly with regards to being allowed back into the UK to assist with her appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision to strip her of her citizenship.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 32358
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by eldanielfire »

Mullet 2 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:37 pm Oh I miss directed your opinion did I?

Says the guy trying to bring up my views as a 17 year old about Iraq

But then your shithole country believes that teenage views should define a life but if Paddy points it out you can’t hack it.

You don’t even agree with these obvious racists but can’t supress your inner jingo
17? However you supported the republicans long after that. It's also actually astonishing someone who posts such bigoted shit day in and day out, has literally invented new bigoted terms for other people is now trying to play a race angle here.

I didn't criticise you for saying if you think Begum should be allowed back or not. Amazing how you once again make false claims about what I post.

BTW, what I criticised you for the usual rush of anti-British bullshit you drone on and on about day in and day out for seeingly decades while unironically supporting political party that has no problem . In a post I also had a go for the idiots droning on with anti-Irish poster Catholic bullshit. So that same post you are falsely bitching about was also me actually having a go at the posters you claim I don't.
ovalball
Posts: 12924
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by ovalball »

Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:45 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:35 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:29 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:21 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:37 pm

A loophole is usually used to mean that there has been a mistake made in the law, or an ambiguity that allows something that isn’t intended by the law. That isn’t the case here, I think you believe the law is wrong to allow this, which is fine, it’s ok to believe laws are wrong and want to change them, it’s why we have elections, MPs and a legislature.
You think the law was supposed to be applied to someone who was born here, spent 15 years here and never spent time in the country to which they are also 'entitled' to citizenship. I think 'loophole' is a perfect description of what the Government has used here.
Again not a loophole, that would be the law being misapplied and then Begum would win her appeal. A loophole would be if the courts said that the law did mean to allow the Home Secretary to do this but he still can because of ‘X’. With X being the loophole in this hypothetical scenario. Loophole actually means something, not that you don’t like the law, no matter how much you would like it too.

Why is so hard to believe that just because you don’t like it that nothing is actually legally wrong?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that 'loopholes' can, and often are, perfectly legal.
A loophole or loop hole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
I'd maintain that is exactly the situation. Since she has, effectively, been left stateless - there is clearly an inadequacy - in how the law is applied to her.
She is Bangladeshi by birth. It's not something she has to apply for or that the Bangladeshi government can deny her by decree. It's their constitution.
SHe was born in the UK - also part of our constitution that she's a British Citizen - she's never lived in Bangladesh. And, Bangladesh, who I ssume know their own constitution, say she is not a citizen of their country.
ovalball
Posts: 12924
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by ovalball »

OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:55 pm From the act:
40 Deprivation of citizenship.

(1) In this section a reference to a person’s “ citizenship status ” is a reference to his status as—

(a)a British citizen,

(b)a British overseas territories citizen,

(c)a British Overseas citizen,

(d)a British National (Overseas),

(e)a British protected person, or

(f)a British subject.

[F117(2)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.]

(3)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status which results from his registration or naturalisation if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—

(a)fraud,

(b)false representation, or

(c)concealment of a material fact.

(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.

[F118(4A)But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—

(a)the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,

(b)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and

(c)the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.]

(5)Before making an order under this section in respect of a person the Secretary of State must give the person written notice specifying—

(a)that the Secretary of State has decided to make an order,

(b)the reasons for the order, and

(c)the person’s right of appeal under section 40A(1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68).

(6)Where a person acquired a citizenship status by the operation of a law which applied to him because of his registration or naturalisation under an enactment having effect before commencement, the Secretary of State may by order deprive the person of the citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—

(a)fraud,

(b)false representation, or

(c)concealment of a material fact.]
I genuinely can’t see where in that Act, it doesn’t intend to allow the Home Secretary act as he has.
Indeed - that's because there's a legal loophole that allows him to. You think that one of the purposes of the act was to strip the citizenship of someone born and raised in this country and dumping the responsibility onto a country she's never lived in, who say she isn't one of their citizens, simply because that's where her parents came from. She's very clealy far, far, more British than Bangladeshi - so it sounds more and more like a handy little loophole for the Home Secretary.

I don't really care too much about what happens to her - but it really isn't about her - I'm more concerned with how Britain is behaving in the matter. I'd like to think we're better than that.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 13981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by message #2527204 »

ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:36 pm
Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:45 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:35 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:29 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:21 pm

You think the law was supposed to be applied to someone who was born here, spent 15 years here and never spent time in the country to which they are also 'entitled' to citizenship. I think 'loophole' is a perfect description of what the Government has used here.
Again not a loophole, that would be the law being misapplied and then Begum would win her appeal. A loophole would be if the courts said that the law did mean to allow the Home Secretary to do this but he still can because of ‘X’. With X being the loophole in this hypothetical scenario. Loophole actually means something, not that you don’t like the law, no matter how much you would like it too.

Why is so hard to believe that just because you don’t like it that nothing is actually legally wrong?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that 'loopholes' can, and often are, perfectly legal.
A loophole or loop hole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
I'd maintain that is exactly the situation. Since she has, effectively, been left stateless - there is clearly an inadequacy - in how the law is applied to her.
She is Bangladeshi by birth. It's not something she has to apply for or that the Bangladeshi government can deny her by decree. It's their constitution.
SHe was born in the UK - also part of our constitution that she's a British Citizen - she's never lived in Bangladesh. And, Bangladesh, who I ssume know their own constitution, say she is not a citizen of their country.
She's not British. She had her citizenship taken way from her.
ovalball
Posts: 12924
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by ovalball »

message #2527204 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:47 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:36 pm
Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:45 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:35 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:29 pm

Again not a loophole, that would be the law being misapplied and then Begum would win her appeal. A loophole would be if the courts said that the law did mean to allow the Home Secretary to do this but he still can because of ‘X’. With X being the loophole in this hypothetical scenario. Loophole actually means something, not that you don’t like the law, no matter how much you would like it too.

Why is so hard to believe that just because you don’t like it that nothing is actually legally wrong?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that 'loopholes' can, and often are, perfectly legal.
A loophole or loop hole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
I'd maintain that is exactly the situation. Since she has, effectively, been left stateless - there is clearly an inadequacy - in how the law is applied to her.
She is Bangladeshi by birth. It's not something she has to apply for or that the Bangladeshi government can deny her by decree. It's their constitution.
SHe was born in the UK - also part of our constitution that she's a British Citizen - she's never lived in Bangladesh. And, Bangladesh, who I ssume know their own constitution, say she is not a citizen of their country.
She's not British. She had her citizenship taken way from her.
No shit Sherlock - that's what the thread is all about FFS.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 13981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by message #2527204 »

ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:50 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:47 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:36 pm
Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:45 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:35 pm

Why is it so hard for you to accept that 'loopholes' can, and often are, perfectly legal.



I'd maintain that is exactly the situation. Since she has, effectively, been left stateless - there is clearly an inadequacy - in how the law is applied to her.
She is Bangladeshi by birth. It's not something she has to apply for or that the Bangladeshi government can deny her by decree. It's their constitution.
SHe was born in the UK - also part of our constitution that she's a British Citizen - she's never lived in Bangladesh. And, Bangladesh, who I ssume know their own constitution, say she is not a citizen of their country.
She's not British. She had her citizenship taken way from her.
No shit Sherlock - that's what the thread is all about FFS.
SHe was born in the UK - also part of our constitution that she's a British Citizen -
I was responding to this.
User avatar
fatcat
Posts: 15062
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by fatcat »

mdaclarke wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:35 pm
Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:27 pm Does anyone seriously believe if Begham was an unrepentant white Jihadi the then home secretary Sajid Javid would not have striped her of her citizenship had he been able to do so. All you Brit hating mongs like Mullet shouting racist are talking out of your arse.

Jack Letts, who left his home in Oxfordshire to join Isis five years ago, has been stripped of his British citizenship while being held in a Syrian prison.

The move sparked a diplomatic row as Canada – where Letts qualifies for a passport through his father – accused the UK government of “offloading its responsibilities”.

Image
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... sis-canada
This 100% all the people crying racism seem to forget about Jack Letts.
Probably just a coincidence that Mullet has shut the f** up now.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41635
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by Anonymous 1 »

ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:36 pm
Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:45 pm She is Bangladeshi by birth. It's not something she has to apply for or that the Bangladeshi government can deny her by decree. It's their constitution.
SHe was born in the UK - also part of our constitution that she's a British Citizen - she's never lived in Bangladesh. And, Bangladesh, who I ssume know their own constitution, say she is not a citizen of their country.
You need to get over it
Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 states that, a person born outside Bangladesh ‘shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’ if either of his or her parents is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his or her birth.
Her argument in court was that the Bangladeshi supreme court is so corrupt that regardless of the law it would rule in favour of the Bangladeshi government no matter what they said. So you stick with what bullshit the Bangladesh government comes up with Ovals
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20720
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by Enzedder »

UK made the problem with these citizens - they should own it.
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 36198
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by EverReady »

fatcat wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:53 pm
mdaclarke wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:35 pm
Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:27 pm Does anyone seriously believe if Begham was an unrepentant white Jihadi the then home secretary Sajid Javid would not have striped her of her citizenship had he been able to do so. All you Brit hating mongs like Mullet shouting racist are talking out of your arse.

Jack Letts, who left his home in Oxfordshire to join Isis five years ago, has been stripped of his British citizenship while being held in a Syrian prison.

The move sparked a diplomatic row as Canada – where Letts qualifies for a passport through his father – accused the UK government of “offloading its responsibilities”.

Image
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... sis-canada
This 100% all the people crying racism seem to forget about Jack Letts.
Probably just a coincidence that Mullet has shut the f** up now.
He had dual citizenship. She didn't. She was left stateless while Letts still has Canadian support and assistance. They are like completely different cases. Similar to the way they are completely different colours.
Mick Mannock
Posts: 25597
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by Mick Mannock »

Enzedder wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:35 am UK made the problem with these citizens - they should own it.
Please rephrase so your point makes sense.

Who are these citizens?
What is the problem?
How did the UK make the "problem?"
Mick Mannock
Posts: 25597
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by Mick Mannock »

EverReady wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:49 am
fatcat wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:53 pm
mdaclarke wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:35 pm
Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:27 pm Does anyone seriously believe if Begham was an unrepentant white Jihadi the then home secretary Sajid Javid would not have striped her of her citizenship had he been able to do so. All you Brit hating mongs like Mullet shouting racist are talking out of your arse.

Jack Letts, who left his home in Oxfordshire to join Isis five years ago, has been stripped of his British citizenship while being held in a Syrian prison.

The move sparked a diplomatic row as Canada – where Letts qualifies for a passport through his father – accused the UK government of “offloading its responsibilities”.

Image
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... sis-canada
This 100% all the people crying racism seem to forget about Jack Letts.
Probably just a coincidence that Mullet has shut the f** up now.
He had dual citizenship. She didn't. She was left stateless while Letts still has Canadian support and assistance. They are like completely different cases. Similar to the way they are completely different colours.
And genders. And possibly shoe size.

You are just smearing now.
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 36198
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by EverReady »

Smearing you lot for being scared of an immensely stupid girl? Smearing wouldn't be the word I would use. We had our own Begum and all the nationalists, racists and Shinners desperately tried to keep her out of the country. The government sent over a few officials and a few rangers and brought her back. Now she doesn't get mentioned because we are not scared of our own shadows.
bimboman
Posts: 70007
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by bimboman »

EverReady wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:28 am Smearing you lot for being scared of an immensely stupid girl? Smearing wouldn't be the word I would use. We had our own Begum and all the nationalists, racists and Shinners desperately tried to keep her out of the country. The government sent over a few officials and a few rangers and brought her back. Now she doesn't get mentioned because we are not scared of our own shadows.


Terrorists not bothering the Irish .... shocker!
User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 26172
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by DragsterDriver »

EverReady wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:28 am Smearing you lot for being scared of an immensely stupid girl? Smearing wouldn't be the word I would use. We had our own Begum and all the nationalists, racists and Shinners desperately tried to keep her out of the country. The government sent over a few officials and a few rangers and brought her back. Now she doesn't get mentioned because we are not scared of our own shadows.
Good, you can have all your pikeys back in that case. They can shit on their own doorstep (literally).
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 36198
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by EverReady »

Left stateless because you are currently so politically weak. The Russians have also interfered here but thankfully not had such a dramatic influence yet that a brown girl could get people so energised.
bimboman
Posts: 70007
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by bimboman »

EverReady wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:46 am Left stateless because you are currently so politically weak. The Russians have also interfered here but thankfully not had such a dramatic influence yet that a brown girl could get people so energised.


Racism isn’t a good look for you. You’re normally quite funny.
Mullet 2

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by Mullet 2 »

fatcat wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:53 pm
mdaclarke wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:35 pm
Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:27 pm Does anyone seriously believe if Begham was an unrepentant white Jihadi the then home secretary Sajid Javid would not have striped her of her citizenship had he been able to do so. All you Brit hating mongs like Mullet shouting racist are talking out of your arse.

Jack Letts, who left his home in Oxfordshire to join Isis five years ago, has been stripped of his British citizenship while being held in a Syrian prison.

The move sparked a diplomatic row as Canada – where Letts qualifies for a passport through his father – accused the UK government of “offloading its responsibilities”.

Image
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... sis-canada
This 100% all the people crying racism seem to forget about Jack Letts.
Probably just a coincidence that Mullet has shut the f** up now.
:lol: :lol:

Yeah sweet comparison. An actual Jihadi fighter versus a sex trafficked child bride.

Yet another example of Britain dumping its problems though.
Mullet 2

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by Mullet 2 »

DragsterDriver wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:30 am
EverReady wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:28 am Smearing you lot for being scared of an immensely stupid girl? Smearing wouldn't be the word I would use. We had our own Begum and all the nationalists, racists and Shinners desperately tried to keep her out of the country. The government sent over a few officials and a few rangers and brought her back. Now she doesn't get mentioned because we are not scared of our own shadows.
Good, you can have all your pikeys back in that case. They can shit on their own doorstep (literally).
Not racists though :lol:

It's the Trump phenomenon, they dont even hide it.
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 36198
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by EverReady »

That's weak. Like your current world standing
User avatar
fatcat
Posts: 15062
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by fatcat »

Mullet 2 wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:51 am
Yeah sweet comparison. An actual Jihadi fighter versus a sex trafficked child bride.

Yet another example of Britain dumping its problems though.
So you're saying she wasn't a jihadist?
Mullet 2

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by Mullet 2 »

So you're saying she is?

You should probably bring her home and convict her of it then like we did because we are a decent country and not a kip run by braying reactionary Tory loons playing to the lowest common denominator of public opinion.

Like maybe questions need to be asked when your PM is thinking "How will this play with DAC and Bimbo"
piquant
Posts: 9601
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by piquant »

Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:45 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:35 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:29 pm
ovalball wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:21 pm
OhNo wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:37 pm

A loophole is usually used to mean that there has been a mistake made in the law, or an ambiguity that allows something that isn’t intended by the law. That isn’t the case here, I think you believe the law is wrong to allow this, which is fine, it’s ok to believe laws are wrong and want to change them, it’s why we have elections, MPs and a legislature.
You think the law was supposed to be applied to someone who was born here, spent 15 years here and never spent time in the country to which they are also 'entitled' to citizenship. I think 'loophole' is a perfect description of what the Government has used here.
Again not a loophole, that would be the law being misapplied and then Begum would win her appeal. A loophole would be if the courts said that the law did mean to allow the Home Secretary to do this but he still can because of ‘X’. With X being the loophole in this hypothetical scenario. Loophole actually means something, not that you don’t like the law, no matter how much you would like it too.

Why is so hard to believe that just because you don’t like it that nothing is actually legally wrong?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that 'loopholes' can, and often are, perfectly legal.
A loophole or loop hole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
I'd maintain that is exactly the situation. Since she has, effectively, been left stateless - there is clearly an inadequacy - in how the law is applied to her.
She is Bangladeshi by birth. It's not something she has to apply for or that the Bangladeshi government can deny her by decree. It's their constitution.
And if they say she's a national security risk and we stripped her of her citizenship, and here's our letter date stamped several years ago honest gov'

On our part given we're going to almost certainly have to let back in people in the same situation who don't have even the possible claim of alternative citizenry it'll be interesting to see if we can maintain one 21 year old represents a national security risk that they don't. And this from a government with something of a laissez faire attitude to national security
piquant
Posts: 9601
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by piquant »

fatcat wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 10:40 am
Mullet 2 wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:51 am
Yeah sweet comparison. An actual Jihadi fighter versus a sex trafficked child bride.

Yet another example of Britain dumping its problems though.
So you're saying she wasn't a jihadist?
More that's not relevant. If she was then prosecute her for it and sentence her accordingly

She looks rather guilty to me, but then so did the Libor Lads and they're pretty much all walking free despite undermining the nation, so that I think she's guilty may prove to mean not a lot
Mick Mannock
Posts: 25597
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by Mick Mannock »

She is worse than a Nazi in Hitler's Germany.

She had a choice in becoming a member of a murderous death cult.

She can rot where she is.

I am delighted that she is not permitted to return.

I am equally delighted that some random Irish trolls, and a few PR Gidedons are peeved.
User avatar
fatcat
Posts: 15062
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by fatcat »

Mullet 2 wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 11:40 am So you're saying she is?

You should probably bring her home and convict her of it then like we did because we are a decent country and not a kip run by braying reactionary Tory loons playing to the lowest common denominator of public opinion.

Like maybe questions need to be asked when your PM is thinking "How will this play with DAC and Bimbo"
There's zero doubt about it. I find it odd that you are doing your best to portray her as someone who didn't get involved through her own free will, but I suppose it's fair to say that you've always come across as a strident humanitarian and champion of lost souls, always looking for the best in everyone and refusing to focus on any negative traits. Well, maybe not everyone.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41635
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by Anonymous 1 »

piquant wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 11:45 am
Anonymous 1 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:45 pm She is Bangladeshi by birth. It's not something she has to apply for or that the Bangladeshi government can deny her by decree. It's their constitution.
And if they say she's a national security risk and we stripped her of her citizenship, and here's our letter date stamped several years ago honest gov'

On our part given we're going to almost certainly have to let back in people in the same situation who don't have even the possible claim of alternative citizenry it'll be interesting to see if we can maintain one 21 year old represents a national security risk that they don't. And this from a government with something of a laissez faire attitude to national security
It's an accepted fact that we have to let people back into the country who do pose a national security risk. Lots of these people are being tracked 24/7. That does not mean we have to let all the others back who we can take the citizenship off. I don't get caught up in left/right politics and all this ideological bullshit. I take these things on a case by case basis.

Was it last year or the year before one of these jihadis left his flat with a fake vest on and got a knife from a shop in Streatham and started stabbing people. He only managed to get two people because he had one of these 24/7 teams watching him and they shot him dead. I can't imagine how many people and how much money is involved in each of these operations but we have so many of these people at large in this country. i'm not impressed with you plebs trying to get more of them back in.
User avatar
danny_fitz
Posts: 12424
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Mostly London........Mostly

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by danny_fitz »

Douglas Murray take on this from two years ago.
Of Of all the points made on the case of Shamima Begum, the most relevant has been utterly absent. That is, who might actually be responsible for this appalling young woman being who she is and where she is.

In recent days the government’s own extremism commissioner, Sara Khan, has made an uncommon set of interventions. In each of these she has insisted that Begum must return to the UK and that not doing so will ‘play into the hands of the extremists’. Some of us are becoming a little jaded about the number of things said to risk ‘playing into the hands of extremists’. Over the last two decades one might easily have come to the conclusion that the only thing that doesn’t ‘play into the hands of the extremists’ is allowing the extremists to win.

Anyway, in her various interventions the usually admirable Khan has insisted that there are two aspects to the Begum case which must be addressed. The first is the internet. In The Sunday Times (in a piece headlined ‘If we abandon Shamima Begum we abandon our values too’) Khan claimed that Begum was ‘groomed and exploited by extremists in the unregulated and arguably irresponsible world of social media’. It was Shamima yesterday, but it could easily be any of us tomorrow. Throughout her piece Khan presents Begum as a poor victim of forces beyond her control. If only we in Britain had developed a better understanding of extremism, the government’s extremism commissioner dispassionately suggests, ‘perhaps Shamima would have never made that fateful journey.’

The second thing that Khan suggests we need is ‘a whole society response’ to extremism, including ‘cohesive and resilient communities’. Tackling this issue is apparently ‘a responsibility that falls on us all.’ A claim that is fascinatingly untrue. Because of course in fact there is absolutely nothing - zilch, nada, diddly-squat - that most people in Britain can do to stop Islamist extremism. And they would be damn foolish to give it a try, given the accusations that will come their way. The idea that the average British person’s aunt, second-cousin twice removed, and the old lady down the street all have to play their part to stop people signing up to head-hacking, Yezidi-enslaving, millenarian Islamist movements is stretching things I would say. But this is the comfortable counter-extremism argument of our time in Britain. Let us blame huge forces – the internet, society as a whole – so that the answers we can propose are so broad and flabby as to be meaningless.

One problem of this spreading around of blame is that it allows people who may actually to be to blame to get off the hook. Rather than handing out a portion of blame to every household in the land why shouldn’t we all (led by the government’s extremism commissioner) start pointing fingers at the friends, families and mosque of these disgusting girls. What would we see if we did?

Before Shamima and her two school friends went out to join ISIS another school friend had gone out ahead of them. This was the confusingly closely named Sharmeena Begum. She seems to have encouraged the three girls – including Shamima – to follow in her wake. That is a good and specific place to start laying some blame.

Then there are the families. I wrote about the family of one of the Bethnal Green schoolgirls in this place four years ago. Some readers will remember that back then the father of one of the three girls – Mr Abase Hussen – appeared in front of Keith Vaz’s Parliamentary Committee and blamed the police for not stopping his daughter going out to join ISIS. The heads of Britain’s cowed police force duly appeared in front of the same committee to express remorse at their failings. As part of a slick PR campaign Mr Hussen also had himself photographed holding a teddy bear, repeatedly expressing to Britain’s gullible media and politicians that he had no idea why his daughter would ever have had a bad Islamist thought.

Except that then some footage emerged of Mr Hussen at a demonstration in London in 2012. Not a demonstration calling for global peace and love, but a rally organised by Anjem Choudary to burn American flags and more. ‘The followers of Mohammed will conquer America’ read the banner at the front of the protest. The protest was also attended by Michael Adebowale, one of the killers of Drummer Lee Rigby. Where can Mr Hussen’s daughter have picked up her radical ideas? In the home, or in a generalised way from the failings of all of British society? As I said four years ago:

‘Mr Hussen came to this country from Ethiopia and used at least part of his time here to denounce this country and campaign to radically change it. When something happens to his family his first instinct is to attack the authorities of the country which has given him sanctuary. That is not of course surprising. What is surprising is that our societies are at such a stage of weakness that we assume that it is the institutions of our society that have gone awry rather than anything closer to the girls’ home.’

Let’s look at some more apportioning of blame. A good signifier of what the families of the Bethnal Green jihadis themselves believe could be said to have been confirmed by the lawyer that they selected to represent them. This is one Tasnime Akunjee, who has been back in the media in recent days urging Britain to view poor Shamima as a victim of ‘grooming’. Dastardly internet and all that. Which conveniently makes you and me – dear reader – at least as culpable for Islamist extremism as Mr Akunjee. Which probably suits him nicely.

Back in 2015 Akunjee also publicly and repeatedly berated the British police for their ‘failures’. But then we learned that he too is an extremist, with links to – among others – the extremist group ‘Cage’. While Akunjee was berating the British police for their failures in finding out what his clients’ daughters were thinking he must simply have forgotten to mention that he himself had previously said that British Muslims should not cooperate with the British police. So even if his clients had worried that their daughters were about to join ISIS, Akunjee’s advice would presumably have been that they must under no circumstances cooperate with the police and tell them that. Oh, and Akunjee also believes that the security services in Britain ‘created’ Michael Adebolajo – the other killer of Lee Rigby.

What about the mosque? Might any fingers be reasonably pointed there? Four years ago, when Shamima and friends went out to join ISIS, Muslim leaders in Britain were very fast to blame the internet for the radicalisation. Terrible thing this internet. Awful the way it can turn people’s brains. Again, this was comfortable for everybody. We must all play our part, etc. But the facts that needed to be known were a lot less comfortable. Back in 2015 it emerged that Sharmeena (the first girl)’s father said that his daughter used to ask him ‘to take her to the East London Mosque as she wanted to go and pray there’. It appears that it was at this mosque that Sharmeena was first radicalised, most likely by members of a women’s wing of the Islamic Forum of Europe known as ‘Sisters Forum’ or ‘Muslimaat’. Sharmeena’s step-uncle (Baki Miah) told a newspaper four years ago that some of these women at the mosque told his step-niece that ‘if she goes and dies in Syria she would go to paradise.’ He added, ‘I am 500 per cent sure she was groomed at the East London Mosque. She was spending most of her time in the mosque, after school and all the time, she was spending in the mosque.’

I understand very well why the leadership at East London Mosque, the families, lawyers and friends of the schoolgirls who went to join ISIS should wish to spread the blame around to every household in Britain and to the internet. What baffles me is why the government’s extremism commissioner – a person appointed to speak truth – should start playing the same game, loosely and emotively spreading blame across the entire population in one of her rare interventions in the national debate.

Perhaps Khan is attempting to gain some admiration or credibility from radicals who will continue to hate her anyway. But there is a wider societal reason why this sort of avoidance game must be avoided. When blame is spread around this thinly then nothing gets done.

Personally I’d rather we took a different approach. The people who do bear some responsibility should be called out, prosecuted, punished, deported or imprisoned. That is what a sane society would do. And that is what anyone employed to speak truth to government should advocate. The Prime Minister appointed the extremism commissioner because after the attacks at Westminster Bridge, Manchester Arena and London Bridge / Borough Market she said that enough was enough. Apparently it wasn’t. If it had been then this professional blame-avoidance would not be happening. We would be staring the problem right in its face, and we would be tackling it.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 32358
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

Post by eldanielfire »

EverReady wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:28 am Smearing you lot for being scared of an immensely stupid girl? Smearing wouldn't be the word I would use. We had our own Begum and all the nationalists, racists and Shinners desperately tried to keep her out of the country. The government sent over a few officials and a few rangers and brought her back. Now she doesn't get mentioned because we are not scared of our own shadows.
No one is scared of a little girl. I'm not sure why a few posters are trying to push this narrative. She's a evil fudge who rejected Britain and joined a death cult killing innocents. She joined it willingly, rejected some pretty sound morals and values into her adulthood, and is pretty unrepentant about it and only want to return because she's a parasite.

As it happens that quite disgusts people and people are happen to have f**ked her off for it. Same for Jack Letts, which undermines these false claims by some posters the sentiment is driven by racism.
Post Reply