• ***IMPORTANT*** SOME PASSWORDS NOT WORKING

    There has been some issues with user passwords. Some users may need to reset their passwords to login to the forum. Please use the password reset option when logging in. If you do experience issues and find our account is locked then please email admin@jackarmy.net Thanks

Shamima Begum can return to UK to fight citizenship, Court of Appeal rules

exiledclaseboy said:
Flashberryjack said:
exiledclaseboy said:
It’s a for point, isn’t it?

15 year old girl groomed and sexually abused - obviously victims and deserve the protection of the state and the full force of the law in their favour.

15 year old girl groomed and radicalised - obviously knew her own mind and knew what she was doing. Let her rot, the law doesn’t apply here.I'd

I'd have thought she was radicalised in the UK rather than groomed.

I’d have thought it was both.
Probably radicalised in the UK, and sexually abused is in Syria, although I don't think she needed much grooming after traveling over 2000 miles to meet her hero's.
 
Flashberryjack said:
exiledclaseboy said:
Flashberryjack said:
I’d have thought it was both.
Probably radicalised in the UK, and sexually abused is in Syria, although I don't think she needed much grooming after traveling over 2000 miles to meet her hero's.

So teenage girls who had sex with powerful old men at Jeffey Epsteins house are not victims if they travelled a long way to get there?

What would you say is the mileage at which they should have a cut off point between victim and willing accomplice?
 
I'd strongly recommend anyone who hasn't yet done so - read The Secret Barrister's book

Don't believe what you read in those shìt tabloids.
 
Risc said:
exiledclaseboy said:
Risc said:

It’s a for point, isn’t it?

15 year old girl groomed and sexually abused - obviously victims and deserve the protection of the state and the full force of the law in their favour.

15 year old girl groomed and radicalised - obviously knew her own mind and knew what she was doing. Let her rot, the law doesn’t apply here.

“I’m not the same silly little 15-year-old schoolgirl who ran away from Bethnal Green four years ago,” she told me. “And I don’t regret coming here.”

She was well aware at the time, she was well aware afterwards aswell when she wasn’t fazed by behadings of the “enemies of islam”.


I’m not sure why her guilt or otherwise of terrorism offences is relevant to the ruling. I suspect no one wants her to come back to the UK and be free to roam around. The issue isn’t whether she’s a problem, it’s whether she’s our problem or the problem of Bangladesh. Given she’s barely, if ever set foot there (as far as I recall - it’s a technicality based on her parents that she could get a Bangladesh passport if she applied, which she hasn’t), I’m not sure why they should deal with it, it’s our problem. She’s British, in the same way as any number of scummy people are British.

She’s only allowed here anyway to appeal against her citizenship being removed. When they find against the government (which in all probability they will), she should then be tried here and incarcerated here if found guilty. Same as others found guilty of terrorism offences. Her age, whether she was groomed etc will all be matters for the court.
 
I'll guess that the courts will send her to some deradicalisation programme, where all the other previous nutters went.

This country is loopy
 
She can't be allowed back, simple as that, and the only time she could come back if we start hanging terrorists!! She knew exactly what she was doing.
 
jack123 said:
She can't be allowed back, simple as that, and the only time she could come back if we start hanging terrorists!! She knew exactly what she was doing.

She's a child!
She's been radicalised!

She will be sent to some nut house where a clear nutter will attempt to right the wrongs of her misguided ways, it's the modern way.. the religious Christians in this country will forgive and forget, because of Jesus Christ the saviour told us in a book that has been rewritten about 50 times by 58 different people, it's how it's all done now
 
jack123 said:
Just need some james bond type to save us all some money.

Mate, our Universities are based on Aristotle and Socrates who might or might not have existed.

People argue about slavery as if they were there in 1860 when slave owners had them grafting on a farm, according to written documents.

Those same documents also stated that some black men were slave owners themselves, some documents also stated that black people got a wage for working to buy their freedom
 
Skippyjack said:
jack123 said:
Just need some james bond type to save us all some money.

Mate, our Universities are based on Aristotle and Socrates who might or might not have existed.

People argue about slavery as if they were there in 1860 when slave owners had them grafting on a farm, according to written documents.

Those same documents also stated that some black men were slave owners themselves, some documents also stated that black people got a wage for working to buy their freedom

well I'm just about to go to bed, Iv'e had a few drinks but i'm sure Iv'e said f all about slavery ?
 
Like I said on the other board she is English and she is England's problem, they can't just make her stateless because they don't like her, making her stateless and trying to wash their hands of her was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard of and I thought that it would not stick.
 

Swansea City v Leeds United

Online statistics

Members online
7
Guests online
140
Total visitors
147

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
19,109
Messages
266,028
Members
4,701
Back
Top