To take one aspect, how many police officers were there in 2010 and how many are there now?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Shamima Begum
- Thread starter Senex
- Start date
- Status
To take one aspect, how many police officers were there in 2010 and how many are there now?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Killingworth
Established Member
Austerity? We're digressing a bit here, but true austerity was what we had from 1941-1951 when many items such as clothing and furniture carried the austerity mark, CC41. The Board of Trade Controlled Commodity utility mark. When we also had rationing with coupons, ah yes, those were the days. Today times are tight, but there's no real comparison. Regular power cuts, possibly years to wait to get a telephone installed, classes of 50 normal with one teacher in schools. One room heated for a few hours, at best. Walking or catching a bus normal, cars a rarity.
We accepted it, it was normal, just as day to day life probably has been in Syria. You live for the day, with the people around you, doing what they do, thinking as they do, conditioned by your surroundings. Then the curtain lifts, slowly or quickly. The light shines through. You see things differently. Maybe this young lady, once shown the light, will recognise the darkness she's left behind and make something of her life. She needs to have that chance.
Spamcan81
Established Member
What is insanity is to bypass our legal system just to satisfy the "blood lust" of the hard of thinking. I have no time for her but I do have time for the rule of law and under that rule of law, she should be tried and if found guilty, punished with an appropriate sentence. Summary justice may appeal to the more rabid members of society but remember, it could be you one day that is convicted on the whim of an unscrupulous individual.
bramling
Veteran Member
I can get the argument that she was only a child when she chose to go to Syria and may well have matured since then. However what I can't reconcile in any way is the possibility she might return here and attempt to commit some form of terrorist attack. To me that's too much of a risk to take.
There's precedent for children being expected to take responsibility for their actions - for example the Bulger killers, who were rather younger than Begum at the time. At the end of the day she must have known what she was doing at the time, and it might be the case that it's not so much a process of enlightenment as finding Syria was less exciting than expected and that things have changed in the meantime with the apparent decline of IS.
So on balance I'm more persuaded by the argument to keep her out of Britain, even if I'm not totally comfortable with the process behind that.
tota
here is a graph of gov spend as proportion of GDP
how that money is spent is another matter.
*GDP Gross domestic product.
spend now is about the same as the 1997-2010 labour gov except when the **** hit the fan in 2008 with the bank crisis, as a proportion of GDP, at abut 38-39% of GDP*
here is a graph of gov spend as proportion of GDP
how that money is spent is another matter.
*GDP Gross domestic product.
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
… good gawd - we are talking about someone who has undeniable links with a terrorist organisation, someone who wholeheartedly agrees with the Manchester bombing, is committed to a relationship with a known terrorist. If she returns here then she should be held in captivity on remand pending trail. Once again the hypocritical double standards surface - condemn the 'blood lust' of the indigenous while ignoring their right to be protected from the 'blood lust' of bombers and murderers.
Esker-pades
Established Member
At what point have I advocated not protecting people from getting blown up?
EM2
Established Member
What are you going on about it? You cannot remand someone in custody without charging them with an offence. That is the legal process in England. That way you get 'protected from the 'blood lust' of bombers and murderers', assuming that they are found guilty, of course.
Killingworth
Established Member
Er, in answer to loaded questions from a journalist she did not wholeheartedly agree with the Manchester bombing. She said what many would say after being at the receiving end of bombing that she could understand why some might want to retaliate in that way. In WW2 that's what we did against the Germans - they dropped 74,000 tons on us, so we dropped 2,690,000 tons on them. (Source Bomber Command Museum, Lincoln. My father had two cousins with opposite viewpoints on bombing. One interned in Paris was on the receiving end of what she considered to be indiscriminate bombing, the other was a Wing Commander with Bomber Command who claimed precision.)
Her husband is alleged by the press to be a known terrorist. He may well have been, but press definitions have been known to be wrong. That said his reported part doesn't read well. Yes, she has been associated with groups defined as terrorists. Until she is within British jurisdiction she can't be tried. When she is here she should indeed be held until investigation shows she is, or is not, a danger. There are probably a lot of more dangerous people already on British soil from whom we need protection, and they aren't all terrorists with Middle Eastern links.
Incidentally, I'm puzzled from reports as to whether she ever had a British passport. Some pictures look like passport photos, but it appears she travelled on a sister's document. No doubt any investigation will cover that, and the family background where her father seems to have been absent in Bangladesh in recent years, so not around to provide parental support. But that's where we're in the dark. We have partial facts, with suppositions being produced to appear as facts to bridge inconvenient gaps. Not a good way to reach a just verdict - for her, or to protect us.
Last edited:
You’ve missed the part where Begum said she didn’t regret any of her choices and wanted to leave only after her son died. She also said she was okay with ISIS’s military activities, and specifically condoned beheadings. She said she was inspired to join ISIS because of its utopian ideals and watching videos of beheading hostages.
Not sure any of that applies to your average white girl getting passed round Asian men for sex.
Begum was almost certainly manipulated by others but please do not equate her situation with innocent child sexual abuse victims. There is not currently any evidence she was sexually abused as a child and she herself has not even claimed this happened to her.
EM2
Established Member
So going through the due process of the legal system and not at liberty.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
As something of a brief aside concerning a Muslim and a conservative Muslim country rather than what they would describe as a "Christian" country in the case in this thread, noting the mention of the stripping of citizenship, is it not the case that the son of Osama bin Laden who now chooses to stay where he is at present, has now had his Saudi citizenship stripped from him by Saudi Arabia.
I haven't missed anything. She was groomed and is still living in a war zone surrounded by people on her own supposed side who want her dead.
Look I don't want her rescued by our armed forces and greeted with open arms. If she makes it back she should be arrested and thoroughly investigated. No one has removed Jeremy Corbyns nationality for being affiliated with terrorists. Nothing happened to Thatcher for being mates with Pinochet. As a nation we sell weapons to questionable regimes. I just don't see the problem with letting a stupid girl who has made very questionable decisions back in to the country. She is our problem, not that of Syria or Bangladesh.
Bertie the bus
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 3,216
It was very pleasing that on today's BBC news we were treated to this woman's husband's self pitying bleating as well. Having to listen to her's obviously wasn't quite enough.
I trust some of the real refugees in the camps they are in will take exception to them being there and solve this problem once and for all.
I trust some of the real refugees in the camps they are in will take exception to them being there and solve this problem once and for all.
Ha ha. So you want the same kind of justice ISIS provide? Would you like that in our country? If so then why would you have a problem with ISIS? Great bunch of lads. Let's have the same here.
SteveP29
Member
When and how, under UK law has she committed treason?
Killingworth
Established Member
Will her child be read the Thomas the Tank Engine books? Would that be indoctrination of a different kind? Will she and her child ever be able to become regular rail users? Can she express an opinion on HS2? Let's speculate on other things to widen the debate. No, let's not.
We're going round in circles with lots of stories, but without enough of the details that are necessary for any legal actions, by the government or by her. Best to take off the spotlight for now. There are lots of bigger threats to our society needing attention.
We're going round in circles with lots of stories, but without enough of the details that are necessary for any legal actions, by the government or by her. Best to take off the spotlight for now. There are lots of bigger threats to our society needing attention.
If the government strips you of your nationality based on the fact that you have another one because of one inherited through your parent, unless you actually apply for citizenship from that of your parent you don't actually have that, and it is not necessarily trivial to acquire. For example, many British nationals have been trying to get nationality from various EU countries recently and it is not always straightforward. You might need good language skills and have to find documentary proof in that country of your grandparents' birthplace, not easy if your parent is dead.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
If she is a believer in Shariah Law as part of her understanding of her religion, as a married woman should she (and her child) not wish to be with her husband who holds Netherlands citizenship, wheresoever he is?
International law says you inherit nationality from your parents. She had a Bangladeshi parent. So she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. getting UK citizenship does not erase your old citizenship.
EM2
Established Member
I'm on my phone at the moment, so cutting and pasting text is a bit time-consuming, but a brief search strongly suggests that statement is not correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
principle of jus sanguinis is that you take nationality from your parents.
Which is why my grand-daughter, born of a British father and an Italian mother born in Italy has dual nationality - UK and Italian, and holds 2 passports quite legally. Even if the father had got Italian citizenship before she was born, she would still have been entitles to a UK passport, because an italian procedure wont undo a UK citizenship.
principle of jus sanguinis is that you take nationality from your parents.
Which is why my grand-daughter, born of a British father and an Italian mother born in Italy has dual nationality - UK and Italian, and holds 2 passports quite legally. Even if the father had got Italian citizenship before she was born, she would still have been entitles to a UK passport, because an italian procedure wont undo a UK citizenship.
So she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen then at the point at which she had her British citizenship removed? She may have been entitled to it but that is very very different to actually being a Bangladeshi citizen.
no, she is Bangladeshi. The fact the bangladeshi government wont give her papers does not affect her bangladeshi nationality, by virtue of jus sanguinis ^^^.
Maybe the whole thing has been set up by the kurds to rid themselves of a load of troublesome ISIS people in a prison camp.
I agree that she may be entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by virtue of her parents but we're going to have to agree to disagree that a lack of papers is irrelevant. Without a Bangladeshi passport or similar paperwork her theoretical citizenship is just that theoretical. She is, in actuality, as a result of the actions of the Home Secretary, stateless. Something which is illegal for a state to do under international law.
- Status