Home Office tell Shamina Begum to FCUK right off.

[Mick Mannock]

I think Mullet is a self-loathing worm. Projects his own racism and insecurities onto others.

I think he has good reason.

[Mullet 2]

"I think Mullet"

Look at your desperate plea for circle jerk support.

"Back me up lads, I'm not smart enough to argue it out. "

[Anonymous 1]

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

It really is bollox for the UK to claim she's a Bangladeshi citizen when she was born here, grew up here and has never been to Bangladesh - let alone the fact that they also won't give her citizenship.

It is just an abrogation of the UK responsibilities and trying to dump the problem with another country. We should be far better than that. I could care less about her - but I do care about how the UK behaves in such circumstances.

She is a Bangladesh citizen. As she was born one the Bangladesh government would have to strip her of that citizenship but they have not done so and cannot do so because it would leave her stateless. It matters not how much bullshit you talk the facts are the facts. You've seen the part of their constitution confirming she was a citizen at the time of her birth so behave yourself.

[Mick Mannock]

"I think Mullet"

Look at your desperate plea for circle jerk support.

"Back me up lads, I'm not smart enough to argue it out. "

I do not crave backup, unlike every Irish poster on here.

[Mullet 2]

She would take too many resources so let's palm het off on Bangladesh.

What enlightened Government

[Mullet 2]

"I think Mullet"

Look at your desperate plea for circle jerk support.

"Back me up lads, I'm not smart enough to argue it out. "

I do not crave backup, unlike every Irish poster on here.

That's why you spend all day every day on threads with the circle jerk crew.

Combined you arent a match for one Paddy.

Or one 21yo bird it seems.

[Anonymous 1]

Ovalballs is pretending he does not understand the difference between being born a dual national and being born with the right to apply for dual citizenship. Not good

[bimboman]

"I think Mullet"

Look at your desperate plea for circle jerk support.

"Back me up lads, I'm not smart enough to argue it out. "

I do not crave backup, unlike every Irish poster on here.

That's why you spend all day every day on threads with the circle jerk crew.

Combined you arent a match for one Paddy.

Or one 21yo bird it seems.

He’s having a go at people spending too much time on here obsessing about something.


The racist has lost it.

[Anonymous 1]

She would take too many resources so let's palm het off on Bangladesh.

What enlightened Government

That is much closer to the truth than any of your previous arguments. However it's still off a bit as in reality our government always knew Bangladesh would say fuck off ad she would be left to rot where she is.

Saving financial resources as well as human resources and hopefully acting as a deterrent for others.

[Mullet 2]

Let's palm her off on Bangladesh who will palm her off on war torn Syria

Even more enlightened and yet you jingoistic twats cheer lead for it.

You put actual terrorists on trial and then jails but stupid girls who marry them should rot in hellholes.

She is British and frankly you all know it.

[bimboman]

Let's palm her off on Bangladesh who will palm her off on war torn Syria

Even more enlightened and yet you jingoistic twats cheer lead for it.

You put actual terrorists on trial and then jails but stupid girls who marry them should rot in hellholes.

She is British and frankly you all know it.

She carried a gun and sewed suicide bombers to their vests. You’re just cheering for the bad guys as usual.

[Anonymous 1]

Let's palm her off on Bangladesh who will palm her off on war torn Syria

Even more enlightened and yet you jingoistic twats cheer lead for it.

You put actual terrorists on trial and then jails but stupid girls who marry them should rot in hellholes.

She is British and frankly you all know it.

I'm happy for you and Ovals to continue to insist she is British. it's your right after all.

[Mick Mannock]

"I think Mullet"

Look at your desperate plea for circle jerk support.

"Back me up lads, I'm not smart enough to argue it out. "

I do not crave backup, unlike every Irish poster on here.

That's why you spend all day every day on threads with the circle jerk crew.

Combined you arent a match for one Paddy.

Or one 21yo bird it seems.

I should not be too surprised that someone from the fringes of civilisation (you) thinks women are incapable of anything else but knitting and having babies. Try to get up to speed and understand that females are also capable of other things - facilitating rape and genocide. Some females also participate in the killing.

[Mullet 2]

Mick the Brexit voter portraying himself as enlightened again.

[Mick Mannock]

Mick the Brexit voter portraying himself as enlightened again.

You cannot help being a chauvinist.

Try to be a better person.

[shereblue]

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

It really is bollox for the UK to claim she's a Bangladeshi citizen when she was born here, grew up here and has never been to Bangladesh - let alone the fact that they also won't give her citizenship.

It is just an abrogation of the UK responsibilities and trying to dump the problem with another country. We should be far better than that. I could care less about her - but I do care about how the UK behaves in such circumstances.

It may not be 100% certain but it does seem that Begum was not rendered stateless when she was deprived of her British nationality. I somehow doubt that Bangladeshi law is ever applied with much certainty but my understanding is that, legally, Bangladeshi law(s) did bestow on her actual nationality that she would have been incapable of revoking it until attaining 21.

The fact that she has gone bad however has nothing to do with her father having been born in Bangladesh and everything to do with her having been a born and bred Cockney. Whilst we have recently been forced to desist from exporting our harmful toxic waste to Bangladesh, this case regretably shows us to be unwilling yet to take responsibility for the export of harmful, toxic British citizens.

It was commented upon earlier that who of us would want her living next door? With a helpful snipe that she wouldn't return to live anywhere near the woke liberal elite. She certainly didn't come from a woke liberal elite background and nor did she come from a Bangladeshi or other overseas background. Every country will have shit to deal with from time to time but a certain type of Brit seems unwilling ever to own their own.

[Anonymous 1]

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

It really is bollox for the UK to claim she's a Bangladeshi citizen when she was born here, grew up here and has never been to Bangladesh - let alone the fact that they also won't give her citizenship.

It is just an abrogation of the UK responsibilities and trying to dump the problem with another country. We should be far better than that. I could care less about her - but I do care about how the UK behaves in such circumstances.

It may not be 100% certain

[eldanielfire]

Would I be afraid of some bird living next door to me?

I think with you circle jerk lads it's the idea of a brown person nextdoor that you really don't like.

I love the racism angle from big ‘ol multi cultural Ireland where they love the brown lads. Always cheering them on the rugby paddock for province and country.

Ireland foreign born 18%
UKip foreign born 13%

And yet you never shut up talking about the people that pay the tax and do the jobs you lazy cúnts dont.

Not many brown Poles?

Good thing we didn't vote to get rid of the all because a bus told us.

Which is the exact same reaction most of us has to your sudden attempts to paint other people as racists.

[mdaclarke]

I see Femi has completely lost the plot

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1 ... 2138484736

"Imagine if a well-known paedophile had groomed a 15-year-old white girl from some English village, repeatedly raped her, and a few years later she was found working for some violent group...
Would the country be desperate to save her soul, or send her to Bangladesh?"

Highly offensive to compare Shamima Begum to a rape victim.

Also the race issue is a complete red herring as Jack Letts was not treated any differently and he is a white man.

[Mullet 2]

I love the racism angle from big ‘ol multi cultural Ireland where they love the brown lads. Always cheering them on the rugby paddock for province and country.

Ireland foreign born 18%
UKip foreign born 13%

And yet you never shut up talking about the people that pay the tax and do the jobs you lazy cúnts dont.

Not many brown Poles?

Good thing we didn't vote to get rid of the all because a bus told us.

Which is the exact same reaction most of us has to your sudden attempts to paint other people as racists.

Did that make sense in your head? Bless

From a lad who switched position because he doesnt like things being "irished"

[bimboman]

I somehow doubt that Bangladeshi law is ever applied with much certainty but

Jeez.

[ovalball]

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

It really is bollox for the UK to claim she's a Bangladeshi citizen when she was born here, grew up here and has never been to Bangladesh - let alone the fact that they also won't give her citizenship.

It is just an abrogation of the UK responsibilities and trying to dump the problem with another country. We should be far better than that. I could care less about her - but I do care about how the UK behaves in such circumstances.

She is a Bangladesh citizen. As she was born one the Bangladesh government would have to strip her of that citizenship but they have not done so and cannot do so because it would leave her stateless. It matters not how much bullshit you talk the facts are the facts. You've seen the part of their constitution confirming she was a citizen at the time of her birth so behave yourself.

Oh do piss off anon - there's no way of getting around the fact that she is far more a responsibility of the UK than Bangladesh. It's utter nonsense to suggest otherwise. The UK are just dumping their problem on another country. It's a blatant abrogation of responsibility by the UK.

[mdaclarke]

Oh do piss off anon - there's no way of getting around the fact that she is far more a responsibility of the UK than Bangladesh. It's utter nonsense to suggest otherwise. The UK are just dumping their problem on another country. It's a blatant abrogation of responsibility by the UK.

It is a very popular dumping of the problem and one that is supported by the Supreme Court.

Therefore for all the wailing there is little chance of Shamima Begum setting foot in the UK again.

[mdaclarke]

I imagine the vast majority of British People agree with this article

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/2 ... a-traitor/

"So, the Shamima Begum Welcome Committee can stand down. Those commentators and activists who devoted a bizarre amount of energy to depicting Ms Begum as a victim – of Islamo-groomers, of evil Tories, of good ol’ British racism – can put away their confetti and balloons. She isn’t coming home. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was well within the government’s rights to rescind Begum’s citizenship and block her from returning to the UK. The identitarians will have to find a new victim to rally behind, hopefully not one who was complicit in slavery, murderous homophobia and violent religious supremacy this time.

This was always the most striking and perverse aspect of the Begum controversy: the cultural elites’ sympathy for her. Their transformation of her into a victim. Their unwitting transference of moral authority to her through their treatment of her as a hapless casualty of online grooming and of Tory Islamophobia. This woman who willingly joined an Islamist death cult that was enslaving Yazidi women, beheading Christians and murdering children in Westerm countries was reimagined as a sad, sympathetic character whose cause – the reinstatement of her citizenship – all decent people should embrace. This Cult of Shamima, this sympathy for a supporter of supremacist mass murder, exposed the moral cowardice and political disarray of the contemporary cultural elites.

There were always two things going on in the Begum case. First there was the legal side, the question of whether it is right for the government to rip up someone’s citizenship. This discussion will no doubt continue. And it’s a tough one. Some will say that then home secretary Sajid Javid, who revoked Begum’s citizenship in 2019, and now the Supreme Court, are merely formalising a process that Begum herself set in motion – her betrayal of Britain, her abandonment of this nation in preference for shacking up with the sworn enemy of the UK and the broader Western world: ISIS. Surely it was Shamima herself who revoked her British citizenship when she joined a terror movement that was beheading Britons and was at war with our allies?

Others claim that officialdom’s ability to revoke someone’s citizenship is a power too far. The removal of Begum’s citizenship sets a dangerous precedent, they say. Shouldn’t the UK take responsibility for its citizens, rather than leaving them under the watch of the valiant but stressed Kurds? Do we not owe it to the victims of ISIS to put Ms Begum on trial, here, where we might discover the extent of her complicity in the Islamic State’s barbarism? I find myself somewhere in the middle of these two views. I think Begum did far more than Javid to trash her British citizenship when she swore her loyalty to an anti-Western death cult, but I also want restraints on the power of the state. Should a state really have the extraordinary authority to cast its own citizens into the global wilderness, paperless, homeless? I’m not sure it should.

But then there was the moral side of the discussion. Specifically the moral failure, or at least moral unwillingness, of significant sections of the media and cultural elites to recognise the gravity of Ms Begum’s crime. She is, to put it plainly, a traitor. She stabbed her country of birth in the back. She betrayed her family, her community and her society, and that is even before we get to the more complex question of how she assisted ISIS in its vile supremacist project, from its genocidal assault on the Yazidi people to its sectarian slaughter of kaffirs and dissenters. That some Labour politicians, broadsheet commentators and members of the Twitterati appear to have expressed more sympathy for Shamima Begum than they ever did for the Yazidi women brutalised by ISIS speaks to a deep moral discombobulation right here in 21st-century Britain.

The creepy sympathy for Shamima revealed so much about the moral relativism and identitarian confusions of today’s guardians of correct thinking. Their transformation of a traitor into a victim confirmed how little care they have for the idea of the nation, for the ideal of national integrity, and for the belief that citizens should show loyalty to the nations they belong to. Their claim that Begum has been ‘mistreated’ by the Tories because she is a Muslim – that is, she’s a victim of Islamophobia – exposed how obsessive their politics of victimhood has become. Victimology is their currency, their chief weapon, and they will happily present even a willing backer of an enslaving, terroristic movement as a victim if it assists their morally binary woke cause.

And their playing of the ‘Islamophobia’ card showed just how much their morality has been warped by the politics of identity. In their identitarian eyes, Begum must be a victim because she’s a Muslim. That’s where she fits on their chart. Their hyper-racial, morally juvenile Oppression Olympics means they can conceive of someone like Begum as nothing more or less than a victim. This is why they shed more tears over her alleged ‘grooming’ than they ever did over the real grooming of white working-class girls by mostly Pakistani gangs in various parts of England in recent years. Because they are guided by identity, not morality; by racial dogma, not genuine sensitivity to the problem at hand; by a twisted conviction that white people are privileged and Muslims are oppressed and that everything else flows from this unquestionable article of the identitarian faith.

Ms Begum will remain stuck in her camp in Syria. Many will think she is getting what she deserves, and getting off far more lightly than the uncountable victims of the barbaric movement she joined and celebrated. Closer to home, our politics will remain stuck in the idiocy and immorality of identitarianism unless we shake things up. An honest discussion about what Ms Begum represents, and about the broader threat posed by hateful, regressive radical Islamists, might be a good place to start."

[Anonymous 1]

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

It really is bollox for the UK to claim she's a Bangladeshi citizen when she was born here, grew up here and has never been to Bangladesh - let alone the fact that they also won't give her citizenship.

It is just an abrogation of the UK responsibilities and trying to dump the problem with another country. We should be far better than that. I could care less about her - but I do care about how the UK behaves in such circumstances.

She is a Bangladesh citizen. As she was born one the Bangladesh government would have to strip her of that citizenship but they have not done so and cannot do so because it would leave her stateless. It matters not how much bullshit you talk the facts are the facts. You've seen the part of their constitution confirming she was a citizen at the time of her birth so behave yourself.

Oh do piss off anon - there's no way of getting around the fact that she is far more a responsibility of the UK than Bangladesh. It's utter nonsense to suggest otherwise. The UK are just dumping their problem on another country. It's a blatant abrogation of responsibility by the UK.

They don't have to take any responsibility for her and neither do we. She can rot where she is. Im sure there are opportunities for you to donate if you want to

[message #2527204]

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

It really is bollox for the UK to claim she's a Bangladeshi citizen when she was born here, grew up here and has never been to Bangladesh - let alone the fact that they also won't give her citizenship.

It is just an abrogation of the UK responsibilities and trying to dump the problem with another country. We should be far better than that. I could care less about her - but I do care about how the UK behaves in such circumstances.

She is a Bangladesh citizen. As she was born one the Bangladesh government would have to strip her of that citizenship but they have not done so and cannot do so because it would leave her stateless. It matters not how much bullshit you talk the facts are the facts. You've seen the part of their constitution confirming she was a citizen at the time of her birth so behave yourself.

Oh do piss off anon - there's no way of getting around the fact that she is far more a responsibility of the UK than Bangladesh. It's utter nonsense to suggest otherwise. The UK are just dumping their problem on another country. It's a blatant abrogation of responsibility by the UK.

There are thousands who have come home, many were combattants. This girl has had her citizenship revoked, as have any others with dual nationality.

[Mullet 2]

Oh do piss off anon - there's no way of getting around the fact that she is far more a responsibility of the UK than Bangladesh. It's utter nonsense to suggest otherwise. The UK are just dumping their problem on another country. It's a blatant abrogation of responsibility by the UK.

It is a very popular dumping of the problem and one that is supported by the Supreme Court.

Therefore for all the wailing there is little chance of Shamima Begum setting foot in the UK again.

Sure the supreme Court are all enemies of the people

[C69]

I imagine the vast majority of British People agree with this article

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/2 ... a-traitor/

"So, the Shamima Begum Welcome Committee can stand down. Those commentators and activists who devoted a bizarre amount of energy to depicting Ms Begum as a victim – of Islamo-groomers, of evil Tories, of good ol’ British racism – can put away their confetti and balloons. She isn’t coming home. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was well within the government’s rights to rescind Begum’s citizenship and block her from returning to the UK. The identitarians will have to find a new victim to rally behind, hopefully not one who was complicit in slavery, murderous homophobia and violent religious supremacy this time.

This was always the most striking and perverse aspect of the Begum controversy: the cultural elites’ sympathy for her. Their transformation of her into a victim. Their unwitting transference of moral authority to her through their treatment of her as a hapless casualty of online grooming and of Tory Islamophobia. This woman who willingly joined an Islamist death cult that was enslaving Yazidi women, beheading Christians and murdering children in Westerm countries was reimagined as a sad, sympathetic character whose cause – the reinstatement of her citizenship – all decent people should embrace. This Cult of Shamima, this sympathy for a supporter of supremacist mass murder, exposed the moral cowardice and political disarray of the contemporary cultural elites.

There were always two things going on in the Begum case. First there was the legal side, the question of whether it is right for the government to rip up someone’s citizenship. This discussion will no doubt continue. And it’s a tough one. Some will say that then home secretary Sajid Javid, who revoked Begum’s citizenship in 2019, and now the Supreme Court, are merely formalising a process that Begum herself set in motion – her betrayal of Britain, her abandonment of this nation in preference for shacking up with the sworn enemy of the UK and the broader Western world: ISIS. Surely it was Shamima herself who revoked her British citizenship when she joined a terror movement that was beheading Britons and was at war with our allies?

Others claim that officialdom’s ability to revoke someone’s citizenship is a power too far. The removal of Begum’s citizenship sets a dangerous precedent, they say. Shouldn’t the UK take responsibility for its citizens, rather than leaving them under the watch of the valiant but stressed Kurds? Do we not owe it to the victims of ISIS to put Ms Begum on trial, here, where we might discover the extent of her complicity in the Islamic State’s barbarism? I find myself somewhere in the middle of these two views. I think Begum did far more than Javid to trash her British citizenship when she swore her loyalty to an anti-Western death cult, but I also want restraints on the power of the state. Should a state really have the extraordinary authority to cast its own citizens into the global wilderness, paperless, homeless? I’m not sure it should.

But then there was the moral side of the discussion. Specifically the moral failure, or at least moral unwillingness, of significant sections of the media and cultural elites to recognise the gravity of Ms Begum’s crime. She is, to put it plainly, a traitor. She stabbed her country of birth in the back. She betrayed her family, her community and her society, and that is even before we get to the more complex question of how she assisted ISIS in its vile supremacist project, from its genocidal assault on the Yazidi people to its sectarian slaughter of kaffirs and dissenters. That some Labour politicians, broadsheet commentators and members of the Twitterati appear to have expressed more sympathy for Shamima Begum than they ever did for the Yazidi women brutalised by ISIS speaks to a deep moral discombobulation right here in 21st-century Britain.

The creepy sympathy for Shamima revealed so much about the moral relativism and identitarian confusions of today’s guardians of correct thinking. Their transformation of a traitor into a victim confirmed how little care they have for the idea of the nation, for the ideal of national integrity, and for the belief that citizens should show loyalty to the nations they belong to. Their claim that Begum has been ‘mistreated’ by the Tories because she is a Muslim – that is, she’s a victim of Islamophobia – exposed how obsessive their politics of victimhood has become. Victimology is their currency, their chief weapon, and they will happily present even a willing backer of an enslaving, terroristic movement as a victim if it assists their morally binary woke cause.

And their playing of the ‘Islamophobia’ card showed just how much their morality has been warped by the politics of identity. In their identitarian eyes, Begum must be a victim because she’s a Muslim. That’s where she fits on their chart. Their hyper-racial, morally juvenile Oppression Olympics means they can conceive of someone like Begum as nothing more or less than a victim. This is why they shed more tears over her alleged ‘grooming’ than they ever did over the real grooming of white working-class girls by mostly Pakistani gangs in various parts of England in recent years. Because they are guided by identity, not morality; by racial dogma, not genuine sensitivity to the problem at hand; by a twisted conviction that white people are privileged and Muslims are oppressed and that everything else flows from this unquestionable article of the identitarian faith.

Ms Begum will remain stuck in her camp in Syria. Many will think she is getting what she deserves, and getting off far more lightly than the uncountable victims of the barbaric movement she joined and celebrated. Closer to home, our politics will remain stuck in the idiocy and immorality of identitarianism unless we shake things up. An honest discussion about what Ms Begum represents, and about the broader threat posed by hateful, regressive radical Islamists, might be a good place to start."

That's a terrible peice of so called journalism.
The writer seems a bit of a narcisistic bellend tbh.

[shereblue]

Shall we start getting real and stop quoting the fake news of politically motivated hacks to ascertain what the Supreme Court actually ruled?

"The Supreme Court has ruled that it was well within the government’s rights to rescind Begum’s citizenship and block her from returning to the UK."


The part in blue happens to be true while the part in red is false.

It seems like only yesterday that the Supreme Court Judges were being denounced as enemies of the people with one of them outed (how bizarre can you get?) as an openly gay former olympic fencer to the thunderous applause of "the People".

[RodneyRegis]

I imagine the vast majority of British People agree with this article

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/2 ... a-traitor/

"So, the Shamima Begum Welcome Committee can stand down. Those commentators and activists who devoted a bizarre amount of energy to depicting Ms Begum as a victim – of Islamo-groomers, of evil Tories, of good ol’ British racism – can put away their confetti and balloons. She isn’t coming home. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was well within the government’s rights to rescind Begum’s citizenship and block her from returning to the UK. The identitarians will have to find a new victim to rally behind, hopefully not one who was complicit in slavery, murderous homophobia and violent religious supremacy this time.

This was always the most striking and perverse aspect of the Begum controversy: the cultural elites’ sympathy for her. Their transformation of her into a victim. Their unwitting transference of moral authority to her through their treatment of her as a hapless casualty of online grooming and of Tory Islamophobia. This woman who willingly joined an Islamist death cult that was enslaving Yazidi women, beheading Christians and murdering children in Westerm countries was reimagined as a sad, sympathetic character whose cause – the reinstatement of her citizenship – all decent people should embrace. This Cult of Shamima, this sympathy for a supporter of supremacist mass murder, exposed the moral cowardice and political disarray of the contemporary cultural elites.

There were always two things going on in the Begum case. First there was the legal side, the question of whether it is right for the government to rip up someone’s citizenship. This discussion will no doubt continue. And it’s a tough one. Some will say that then home secretary Sajid Javid, who revoked Begum’s citizenship in 2019, and now the Supreme Court, are merely formalising a process that Begum herself set in motion – her betrayal of Britain, her abandonment of this nation in preference for shacking up with the sworn enemy of the UK and the broader Western world: ISIS. Surely it was Shamima herself who revoked her British citizenship when she joined a terror movement that was beheading Britons and was at war with our allies?

Others claim that officialdom’s ability to revoke someone’s citizenship is a power too far. The removal of Begum’s citizenship sets a dangerous precedent, they say. Shouldn’t the UK take responsibility for its citizens, rather than leaving them under the watch of the valiant but stressed Kurds? Do we not owe it to the victims of ISIS to put Ms Begum on trial, here, where we might discover the extent of her complicity in the Islamic State’s barbarism? I find myself somewhere in the middle of these two views. I think Begum did far more than Javid to trash her British citizenship when she swore her loyalty to an anti-Western death cult, but I also want restraints on the power of the state. Should a state really have the extraordinary authority to cast its own citizens into the global wilderness, paperless, homeless? I’m not sure it should.

But then there was the moral side of the discussion. Specifically the moral failure, or at least moral unwillingness, of significant sections of the media and cultural elites to recognise the gravity of Ms Begum’s crime. She is, to put it plainly, a traitor. She stabbed her country of birth in the back. She betrayed her family, her community and her society, and that is even before we get to the more complex question of how she assisted ISIS in its vile supremacist project, from its genocidal assault on the Yazidi people to its sectarian slaughter of kaffirs and dissenters. That some Labour politicians, broadsheet commentators and members of the Twitterati appear to have expressed more sympathy for Shamima Begum than they ever did for the Yazidi women brutalised by ISIS speaks to a deep moral discombobulation right here in 21st-century Britain.

The creepy sympathy for Shamima revealed so much about the moral relativism and identitarian confusions of today’s guardians of correct thinking. Their transformation of a traitor into a victim confirmed how little care they have for the idea of the nation, for the ideal of national integrity, and for the belief that citizens should show loyalty to the nations they belong to. Their claim that Begum has been ‘mistreated’ by the Tories because she is a Muslim – that is, she’s a victim of Islamophobia – exposed how obsessive their politics of victimhood has become. Victimology is their currency, their chief weapon, and they will happily present even a willing backer of an enslaving, terroristic movement as a victim if it assists their morally binary woke cause.

And their playing of the ‘Islamophobia’ card showed just how much their morality has been warped by the politics of identity. In their identitarian eyes, Begum must be a victim because she’s a Muslim. That’s where she fits on their chart. Their hyper-racial, morally juvenile Oppression Olympics means they can conceive of someone like Begum as nothing more or less than a victim. This is why they shed more tears over her alleged ‘grooming’ than they ever did over the real grooming of white working-class girls by mostly Pakistani gangs in various parts of England in recent years. Because they are guided by identity, not morality; by racial dogma, not genuine sensitivity to the problem at hand; by a twisted conviction that white people are privileged and Muslims are oppressed and that everything else flows from this unquestionable article of the identitarian faith.

Ms Begum will remain stuck in her camp in Syria. Many will think she is getting what she deserves, and getting off far more lightly than the uncountable victims of the barbaric movement she joined and celebrated. Closer to home, our politics will remain stuck in the idiocy and immorality of identitarianism unless we shake things up. An honest discussion about what Ms Begum represents, and about the broader threat posed by hateful, regressive radical Islamists, might be a good place to start."

That's a terrible peice of so called journalism.
The writer seems a bit of a narcisistic bellend tbh.

Nothing much wrong with it really. Paints a pretty good picture of the left right now.

[EverReady]

. This is why they shed more tears over her alleged ‘grooming’ than they ever did over the real grooming of white working-class girls by mostly Pakistani gangs in various parts of England in recent years.

The state of that

[Anonymous 1]

I imagine the vast majority of British People agree with this article

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/2 ... a-traitor/

"So, the Shamima Begum Welcome Committee can stand down. Those commentators and activists who devoted a bizarre amount of energy to depicting Ms Begum as a victim – of Islamo-groomers, of evil Tories, of good ol’ British racism – can put away their confetti and balloons. She isn’t coming home. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was well within the government’s rights to rescind Begum’s citizenship and block her from returning to the UK. The identitarians will have to find a new victim to rally behind, hopefully not one who was complicit in slavery, murderous homophobia and violent religious supremacy this time.

This was always the most striking and perverse aspect of the Begum controversy: the cultural elites’ sympathy for her. Their transformation of her into a victim. Their unwitting transference of moral authority to her through their treatment of her as a hapless casualty of online grooming and of Tory Islamophobia. This woman who willingly joined an Islamist death cult that was enslaving Yazidi women, beheading Christians and murdering children in Westerm countries was reimagined as a sad, sympathetic character whose cause – the reinstatement of her citizenship – all decent people should embrace. This Cult of Shamima, this sympathy for a supporter of supremacist mass murder, exposed the moral cowardice and political disarray of the contemporary cultural elites.

There were always two things going on in the Begum case. First there was the legal side, the question of whether it is right for the government to rip up someone’s citizenship. This discussion will no doubt continue. And it’s a tough one. Some will say that then home secretary Sajid Javid, who revoked Begum’s citizenship in 2019, and now the Supreme Court, are merely formalising a process that Begum herself set in motion – her betrayal of Britain, her abandonment of this nation in preference for shacking up with the sworn enemy of the UK and the broader Western world: ISIS. Surely it was Shamima herself who revoked her British citizenship when she joined a terror movement that was beheading Britons and was at war with our allies?

Others claim that officialdom’s ability to revoke someone’s citizenship is a power too far. The removal of Begum’s citizenship sets a dangerous precedent, they say. Shouldn’t the UK take responsibility for its citizens, rather than leaving them under the watch of the valiant but stressed Kurds? Do we not owe it to the victims of ISIS to put Ms Begum on trial, here, where we might discover the extent of her complicity in the Islamic State’s barbarism? I find myself somewhere in the middle of these two views. I think Begum did far more than Javid to trash her British citizenship when she swore her loyalty to an anti-Western death cult, but I also want restraints on the power of the state. Should a state really have the extraordinary authority to cast its own citizens into the global wilderness, paperless, homeless? I’m not sure it should.

But then there was the moral side of the discussion. Specifically the moral failure, or at least moral unwillingness, of significant sections of the media and cultural elites to recognise the gravity of Ms Begum’s crime. She is, to put it plainly, a traitor. She stabbed her country of birth in the back. She betrayed her family, her community and her society, and that is even before we get to the more complex question of how she assisted ISIS in its vile supremacist project, from its genocidal assault on the Yazidi people to its sectarian slaughter of kaffirs and dissenters. That some Labour politicians, broadsheet commentators and members of the Twitterati appear to have expressed more sympathy for Shamima Begum than they ever did for the Yazidi women brutalised by ISIS speaks to a deep moral discombobulation right here in 21st-century Britain.

The creepy sympathy for Shamima revealed so much about the moral relativism and identitarian confusions of today’s guardians of correct thinking. Their transformation of a traitor into a victim confirmed how little care they have for the idea of the nation, for the ideal of national integrity, and for the belief that citizens should show loyalty to the nations they belong to. Their claim that Begum has been ‘mistreated’ by the Tories because she is a Muslim – that is, she’s a victim of Islamophobia – exposed how obsessive their politics of victimhood has become. Victimology is their currency, their chief weapon, and they will happily present even a willing backer of an enslaving, terroristic movement as a victim if it assists their morally binary woke cause.

And their playing of the ‘Islamophobia’ card showed just how much their morality has been warped by the politics of identity. In their identitarian eyes, Begum must be a victim because she’s a Muslim. That’s where she fits on their chart. Their hyper-racial, morally juvenile Oppression Olympics means they can conceive of someone like Begum as nothing more or less than a victim. This is why they shed more tears over her alleged ‘grooming’ than they ever did over the real grooming of white working-class girls by mostly Pakistani gangs in various parts of England in recent years. Because they are guided by identity, not morality; by racial dogma, not genuine sensitivity to the problem at hand; by a twisted conviction that white people are privileged and Muslims are oppressed and that everything else flows from this unquestionable article of the identitarian faith.

Ms Begum will remain stuck in her camp in Syria. Many will think she is getting what she deserves, and getting off far more lightly than the uncountable victims of the barbaric movement she joined and celebrated. Closer to home, our politics will remain stuck in the idiocy and immorality of identitarianism unless we shake things up. An honest discussion about what Ms Begum represents, and about the broader threat posed by hateful, regressive radical Islamists, might be a good place to start."

That's a terrible peice of so called journalism.
The writer seems a bit of a narcisistic bellend tbh.

Nothing much wrong with it really. Paints a pretty good picture of the left right now.

its premised on bullshit about the supreme court

[Mullet 2]

. This is why they shed more tears over her alleged ‘grooming’ than they ever did over the real grooming of white working-class girls by mostly Pakistani gangs in various parts of England in recent years.

The state of that

Funny how when I raised the comparison they tried to dismiss it.

The Circle Jerk crew are beyond parody at this stage

[bimboman]

. This is why they shed more tears over her alleged ‘grooming’ than they ever did over the real grooming of white working-class girls by mostly Pakistani gangs in various parts of England in recent years.

The state of that

Funny how when I raised the comparison they tried to dismiss it.

The Circle Jerk crew are beyond parody at this stage

They point out your overt racism and lie....

It’s not a powerful point you make.

[Mick Mannock]

. This is why they shed more tears over her alleged ‘grooming’ than they ever did over the real grooming of white working-class girls by mostly Pakistani gangs in various parts of England in recent years.

The state of that

If that is the only part you take issue with

FWIW, I agree with the article in its totality.

[EverReady]

. This is why they shed more tears over her alleged ‘grooming’ than they ever did over the real grooming of white working-class girls by mostly Pakistani gangs in various parts of England in recent years.

The state of that

If that is the only part you take issue with

FWIW, I agree with the article in its totality.

NO WAY!!!!!

[Mullet 2]

#notracistthough

[DAC_]

Haters gonna hate. Micks gonna Mick.

[Mullet 2]

Haters gonna hate. Micks gonna Mick.

See Mick

Even DAC has turned on you.

[MrDominator]

She was looking quite tasty in those leggings the other day.

One night with Mr Dom and I'd soon rehabilitate her