Shamima Begum

[berksboy]

Spot on Rock, just becuse you dont get a bill does not make it "free"

[SamOmar]

Healthcare ect is only free if you dont work. And that bitch can stay were she is.

Not just if you don't work. Most long term medical conditions allow you to have an exemption certificate and others qualify you for free eye care

[timsussex]

Cant M15 or whoever just put a price on her head, job done 

Crowdfunding ?

actually I suspect that we could solve the whole refugee problem that way for less than the legal aid costs

I'll bet that just about every hitman will charge less than a QC

[Gordon Bennett]

I don't understand why this witch is so keen to come to an awful oppressive UK? Footballers and wokeys endlessly carping about us nasty intolerant Brits.... it doesn't stack up. She should fuck off to Islamabad or Mecca or some other utopian place.

[finn5555]

How may radicalised sprogs did she have 

[scutty brown]

How may radicalised sprogs did she have 

None.
They all died before they could be radicalised

[Marmalade]

Crowdfunding ?

actually I suspect that we could solve the whole refugee problem that way for less than the legal aid costs

I'll bet that just about every hitman will charge less than a QC

Didn’t I hear something about putting them to work? A labour camp where they get food and shelter while their ‘case’ is heard prior to deporting unsuccessful ones would pay for itself and keep them busy!

[scutty brown]

Didn’t I hear something about putting them to work? A labour camp where they get food and shelter while their ‘case’ is heard prior to deporting unsuccessful ones would pay for itself and keep them busy!

How about infrastructure work e.g. building the new harbour at Port Stanley?

[catweazle]

Sorry to dredge this thread up again, but it seems that the guy who helped Begum and her pals cross from Turkey was in the pay of the Canadian intelligence  services.

However it also seems that this guy did this kind of  thing regularly , but that  hasn't stopped Begum's lawyers  claiming that this makes her a "victim of trafficking".

[Bangman]

I hated Shamima Begum from the moment I saw her first 2 interviews..I wanted her to rot there forever and never come back..
BUT.. I now generally feel sorry for her. Its an annoying decision, i understand why everyone hates her BUT she was brainwashed, groomed, grew up in a family where father was never there and no doubt she made some stupid decisions which she clearly is regretting.
The more I read and look into this, the more I feel a tiny bit sympathetic towards her.
We will always be talking about her till she's dead or till she comes back to UK.
I personally would prefer her to come back to UK, I believe reform is a good thing.

[Rick2468]

I hated Shamima Begum from the moment I saw her first 2 interviews..I wanted her to rot there forever and never come back..
BUT.. I now generally feel sorry for her. Its an annoying decision, i understand why everyone hates her BUT she was brainwashed, groomed, grew up in a family where father was never there and no doubt she made some stupid decisions which she clearly is regretting.
The more I read and look into this, the more I feel a tiny bit sympathetic towards her.
We will always be talking about her till she's dead or till she comes back to UK.
I personally would prefer her to come back to UK, I believe reform is a good thing.

She did a horrible thing but I thought it was more disgusting that the Home Office stripped her of her citizenship. Begum was born in the UK and lived here all her life. She is a disgusting rat but she is the UK's responsibility. I think Savid Javid saw a Tory leadership contest was coming up and thought he would get some brownie points with the public by stripping her of her UK citizenship. She should be bought back to the UK and punished under our justice system, ideally jailed for a long time.

[Corus Boy]

She did a horrible thing but I thought it was more disgusting that the Home Office stripped her of her citizenship. Begum was born in the UK and lived here all her life. She is a disgusting rat but she is the UK's responsibility. I think Savid Javid saw a Tory leadership contest was coming up and thought he would get some brownie points with the public by stripping her of her UK citizenship. She should be bought back to the UK and punished under our justice system, ideally jailed for a long time.

I suspect that more would be thinking on those lines but the probable thuth is that she would return, so many do-gooder causes would rise up to act for her and the result would be;

A slap on the wrist.
A few months on the naughty step.
An expensive change of identity.
A new life at the taxpayers expense.
Eventually large payments from Hello/Cosmopolitan/And the Like magazines, for her 'true' story.
A book deal.
A film deal.

[Lewwy]

Sorry to dredge this thread up again, but it seems that the guy who helped Begum and her pals cross from Turkey was in the pay of the Canadian intelligence  services.

However it also seems that this guy did this kind of  thing regularly , but that  hasn't stopped Begum's lawyers  claiming that this makes her a "victim of trafficking".

In the one sense, she was "trafficked" though. I was always astounded that she and two other girls managed to get from the UK to the middle east to join a ridiculously dangerous death cult on their own. The notion that was put forward in the reports that they did it without, or with very little help, seemed a bit ridiculous to me. So, in that respect, yes, she was trafficked only that "trafficking" was to enable her to achieve what she wanted to achieve.

What I'm finding a bit hard to swallow with these new reports, though, is why is this just coming out now? She has given multiple interviews over the years and, from memory, has given a pretty full account of how she got where she got to without apparently mentioning getting significant help from anyone. This girl is in a shit hole of a Syrian refugee camp, all her kids are dead, her "husband" is in jail on the other side of the world and if she ever gets chucked back to Bangladesh where she is a citizen she may face a death penalty for terrorism. Doesn't it seem somewhat sus that this is all coming to the fore now? Why hasn't she mentioned any of this previously?

[Bonker]

I don't understand the ins and outs of this story and haven't the patience to research it.

I'll just wait and make a judgement when she appears on celebrity masterchef.

[timsussex]

If she is happy to return and face whatever punishment the court decides can we set up an Islamic court ?

What sentence do you think a Caliphate court would have imposed  ?

[mr.bluesky]

I think we should get her to Calais, give her a rubber dinghy and then when she's rowed half way across puncture it and see if she can swim the rest of the way. 

[Marmalade]

I think we should get her to Calais, give her a rubber dinghy and then when she's rowed half way across puncture it and see if she can swim the rest of the way. 

You’re happy to give her a headstart then … 

[mr.bluesky]

You’re happy to give her a headstart then … 

Yeah. I Don't want to be accused of being totally heartless  :

[radioman33]

I expect she will be allowed back here,I hope not joining Isis and putting people in cages and setting them on fire why should she.

[catweazle]

A couple of posts up, Lewwy was asking " why has all this ( the trafficking allegation) just come up now"?   

My guess is that  the do-gooder lawyers working on her behalf, having exhausted  most  potential appeal avenues have been scrambling around looking for a new line to try.

[DastardlyDick]

I see she's now blaming the Canadian Secret Service for kidnapping her and taking her into Syria - may be she could sue them instead of our lot?

[jackdaw]

I see she's now blaming the Canadian Secret Service for kidnapping her and taking her into Syria - may be she could sue them instead of our lot?

We can only hope…

I must admit thought did occur when I saw story was that it was hard to see any potential advantage or motive for Canadian Secret Service to smuggle a 15 year old girl from England to Syria. Much more likely to be a load of make believe.

[Lewwy]

A couple of posts up, Lewwy was asking " why has all this ( the trafficking allegation) just come up now"?   

My guess is that  the do-gooder lawyers working on her behalf, having exhausted  most  potential appeal avenues have been scrambling around looking for a new line to try.

Yes, precisely. Up to now she's mentioned nothing, to my knowledge, of the involvement of anyone else. She claims to have been completely honest in her interviews - and I think she probably was in large part as to how she got there - and has never mentioned the involvement of anyone else to any significant degree. Yet now we are hearing stories of a foreign double agent who helped her and her mates get there. How is she going to work this into her previous statements?

Sorry but something stinks here! One way or another she's coming back to the UK and this is a ploy to get her her and to paint her as a "victim". Probably a ploy involving the UK and Canadian governments for whatever reason. Terrorists don't get to play the "I was trafficked by an international double agent" card unless a state is prepared to back up their story. If the British or Canadian government are backing up her story, especially after the former has rescinded her citizenship, then they are doing it because it's beneficial for them to do so. Like I said, if this is the truth of the matter (which it clearly isn't) then why hasn't she said from the outset? I certainly wouldn't be sitting in the utter shithole that she currently is if I had information like her lawyers have just revealed. I'd be shouting it from the roof-tops (tent-tops) to anyone who'd listen!

[Lewwy]

I see she's now blaming the Canadian Secret Service for kidnapping her and taking her into Syria - may be she could sue them instead of our lot?

She hasn't said that. Nothing remotely like that.

[Lewwy]

We can only hope…

I must admit thought did occur when I saw story was that it was hard to see any potential advantage or motive for Canadian Secret Service to smuggle a 15 year old girl from England to Syria. Much more likely to be a load of make believe.

The story, as I understand it, seems to be that an ISIS member recruited her and her mates. An ISIS member who also happened to be a double agent for Canada. That, in itself, is not entirely unreasonable but why has she, or her legal team, not mentioned the involvement of anyone else before? She has always claimed to have got to IS by herself and without help. Now she's claiming she was coerced, brainwashed and given significant help from a double agent - who will no doubt turn out to be dead so can't be questioned! Utter fantasy. It's concocted with the help of the British Government in order to get her back here for whatever reason. I'm guessing that she is privy to information that they don't want getting out. When I think about it, there's something a bit different about her, a bit strange. Watch her interviews, she seems very different to girls her age.

There is more to this than meets the eye - much more.

[PepeMAGA]

It may well be that she had help crossing the border, but she wasn't forced into it.
I have zero sympathy for her, if you watch the ISIS recruitment videos and they appeal to you, something is inherently wrong.
I think they should look at her local community and ask some questions why it was easy to radicalise her.

[willie loman]

well she obviously had help, and its quite probable that her helper was getting money from one of the western intelligence services, thats how they work, infiltration etc, apart from that i have no opinion.

[Marmalade]

The story, as I understand it, seems to be that an ISIS member recruited her and her mates. An ISIS member who also happened to be a double agent for Canada. That, in itself, is not entirely unreasonable but why has she, or her legal team, not mentioned the involvement of anyone else before? She has always claimed to have got to IS by herself and without help. Now she's claiming she was coerced, brainwashed and given significant help from a double agent - who will no doubt turn out to be dead so can't be questioned! Utter fantasy. It's concocted with the help of the British Government in order to get her back here for whatever reason. I'm guessing that she is privy to information that they don't want getting out. When I think about it, there's something a bit different about her, a bit strange. Watch her interviews, she seems very different to girls her age.

There is more to this than meets the eye - much more.

Far from being straightforward, her story’s start to sound like a Channel4 soap opera with a cliff hanger every time interest wanes. Am I wrong in thinking we have no responsibility to her legally at this stage? Nor is it clear to me that we have a moral liability.

More a DM liability perhaps.

[DastardlyDick]

                                                     Am I wrong in thinking we have no responsibility to her legally at this stage?

I'm no Lawyer, but that's my understanding of it. I believe the UK Government position is that she's the responsibility of the Bangladeshi Government now that we've removed her British Citizenship.

[willie loman]

depriving people of their civil status and rendering them stateless was often used by the nazis, she is our problem,bring her back , if she is guilty she does time etc.

[Lewwy]

Welcome, Mr Godwin. Took you a while to make your presence known!

[Marmalade]

depriving people of their civil status and rendering them stateless was often used by the nazis, she is our problem,bring her back , if she is guilty she does time etc.

I think we maybe differ on this one Willie unless I can see a better rationale. How about giving Julian Assange a fair and open trial in this country instead of waving him off to America? Or ensuring the same in Australia if ‘citizenship’ is such a big deal?

Invoking the Nazis is not an argument. They contributed to cinema as well, should we ban that?

Citizenship is a relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and in turn is entitled to its protection. How exactly has Sham Beggar shown allegiance?

If — if — she was used by Canadian intelligence then the onus is on them to retrieve her.

She wanted to return to the UK to raise her child, but did not regret her decision to join ISIL. She said she had been unfazed by seeing the head of a beheaded man as he was "an enemy of Islam", but believes that ISIL did not deserve victory because of their corruption and oppression

Begum asked for forgiveness and claimed that she still supports "some British values". She said she was inspired to join ISIL by videos of fighters beheading hostages and also of "the good life" under the group. However, Sommerville noted that she continues to espouse the ISIL ideology and to try to justify its atrocities. When asked about the Manchester Arena bombing, she claimed it was wrong to kill innocent people, but that ISIL considered it justified as retaliation for the coalition bombing of ISIL-held areas. When questioned about rape, enslavement and murder of Yazidi women, she claimed, "Shia do the same in Iraq".

Her head sounds so fucked up.

[Lewwy]

I think we maybe differ on this one Willie unless I can see a better rationale. How about giving Julian Assange a fair and open trial in this country instead of waving him off to America? Or ensuring the same in Australia if ‘citizenship’ is such a big deal?

Invoking the Nazis is not an argument. They contributed to cinema as well, should we ban that?

Citizenship is a relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and in turn is entitled to its protection. How exactly has Sham Beggar shown allegiance?

If — if — she was used by Canadian intelligence then the onus is on them to retrieve her.

Her head sounds so fucked up.

Without question.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, far from it, I hate those twats with a passion, but there is unquestionably more going on here than seems immediately apparent. She presents as "different" to most girls her age. She has a rather strange air to her and her personality just doesn't "fit" if you see what I mean? These new revelations are just bizarre, to be quite honest. To me they feel concocted in order to establish a basis for getting her back here legally. I get the strange feeling that the British government want her out of there and under their wing because they, or other governments, don't want her disappearing and causing trouble or spilling what she knows to "un-friendlies". She knows stuff, I'm convinced of that, and what she knows is security sensitive or will result in her having a hold over some important people. It may be stuff that she doesn't even know she knows! 

As to the other comments on the thread re: pulling citizenship, etc. I have no problem with it. If you are going to be a career criminal, terrorist or anti-social arsehole then fuck you, quite frankly. You should get your citizenship yanked - regardless of whether you have another one to fall back on - and be incarcerated on some god-forsaken prison island somewhere in the arse-end of nowhere guarded by gun boats. Want to be a shit, get treated like shit. 

But, with this I'm edging into territory that got me banned (wrongly) from the Piston Heads forums so I'll back off.

[JontyR]

Citizenship is a relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and in turn is entitled to its protection. How exactly has Sham Beggar shown allegiance?

I agree that there is more than enough evidence to put her on trial for that. And that's what you do. Not just wash your hands of her and say it's not our problem.

I understand the concerns that some have that the outcome of the trial may not be what they would like to see. But thats a gripe with our legal system, not with the individual. I'd imagine actually she woudl receive a very strong sentence, but I'd also expect that she may be deemed suitable for parole eventually, but I'd expect that they would first have a very long time to make a proper observational study of her suitability.

[Marmalade]

I agree that there is more than enough evidence to put her on trial for that. And that's what you do. Not just wash your hands of her and say it's not our problem.

I understand the concerns that some have that the outcome of the trial may not be what they would like to see. But thats a gripe with our legal system, not with the individual. I'd imagine actually she woudl receive a very strong sentence, but I'd also expect that she may be deemed suitable for parole eventually, but I'd expect that they would first have a very long time to make a proper observational study of her suitability.

We can agree to differ. As it’s not what I’d do.

We have a problem in this country where we can’t even deport rapists and murderers for some highly compensated “human rights” barrister screaming they have a right to stay here. It’s gone all the way to the European Court I understand and they’ve upheld the UK’s decision. It won’t please everybody. One reaches a point where it’s maybe necessary to be pragmatic. The U.K. is a haven for terrorists. She has a bad history. There is fuck all British about her except the accident of a piece of paper. Her emergency can hardly be called the U.K.’s priority, sad as it might be. Others will disagree.

The rule of law is something to be respected.

Except when it’s seriously flawed.

[bigden40]

We can agree to differ. As it’s not what I’d do.

We have a problem in this country where we can’t even deport rapists and murderers for some highly compensated “human rights” barrister screaming they have a right to stay here. It’s gone all the way to the European Court I understand and they’ve upheld the UK’s decision. It won’t please everybody. One reaches a point where it’s maybe necessary to be pragmatic. The U.K. is a haven for terrorists. She has a bad history. There is fuck all British about her except the accident of a piece of paper. Her emergency can hardly be called the U.K.’s priority, sad as it might be. Others will disagree.

The rule of law is something to be respected.

Except when it’s seriously flawed.

She was born here. That’s not an “accident of a piece of paper” regardless of what else you think.

[Marmalade]

She was born here. That’s not an “accident of a piece of paper” regardless of what else you think.

unfortunately that’s correct. Someone who marries abroad, gives birth abroad, fights to enforce anti-British regimes. It is a sad fact that the U.K. is a breeding ground for radicalisation.

Citizenship is a legal assignation. If you want to read up on it and its removal you can find all the material on the government’s website. If you can find a country that wants to accept her maybe you could go and live there to rehabilitate her.

[JontyR]

I find it really strange that as a country we executed William Joyce for treason when he wasn't a British Subject but we seem to be distancing ourselves from being able to prosecute someone who should stand trial.

[JontyR]

It is a sad fact that the U.K. is a breeding ground for radicalisation.

If its a fact provide a source. And are we alone in this? I can't see anything that makes us more likely to be a breeding ground for radicalisation apart from the steps that we take in alienating those that may be raidcalised or empowering and enabling those that seek to radicalise.

[Marmalade]

If its a fact provide a source. And are we alone in this? I can't see anything that makes us more likely to be a breeding ground for radicalisation apart from the steps that we take in alienating those that may be raidcalised or empowering and enabling those that seek to radicalise.

Jonty, no offence mate, but you’ve asked me things or made interjections in response on this thread and on the immigration thread that are pretty common knowledge or quite easy to look up. I’m contributing to a discussion. I try to answer when you make well-informed points or questions, as often you do, but I’m not here as a Wikipedia.

[daviemac]

I find it really strange that as a country we executed William Joyce for treason when he wasn't a British Subject but we seem to be distancing ourselves from being able to prosecute someone who should stand trial.

I don't know what happened just after the second world war, 76 years ago, at a time the laws the land were very different has to do with this current situation.   

How far back do you want to go, when we burned 'witches'? people were hung, drawn and quartered? or do you think we should keep to the law as it is now, particularly as it is after February 2015 when the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act received Royal Assent.   

[JontyR]

I don't know what happened just after the second world war, 76 years ago, at a time the laws the land were very different has to do with this current situation.   

How far back do you want to go, when we burned 'witches'? people were hung, drawn and quartered? or do you think we should keep to the law as it is now, particularly as it is after February 2015 when the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act received Royal Assent.   

If we are talking about treasonous offences we don't actually have an awful lot of more recent case law. I'l be guided by those who may have a better grasp of the technicalities of the case but as far as I can see that she left the country of her birth, residence and citizenship to join and support a hostile state. 

And I think she should stand trial for this. Others disagree, but this is seemingly on the presumption of guilt. And to my mind guilt of citiizens is only established in a court of law even if we are pretty certain of the outcome.

This therefore falls under the judiciary, and this decision seems to have been made by the executive which sets a dangerous precedent in my mind. Even if you think the action is justified in this particular case.

[JontyR]

Jonty, no offence mate, but you’ve asked me things or made interjections in response on this thread and on the immigration thread that are pretty common knowledge or quite easy to look up. I’m contributing to a discussion. I try to answer when you make well-informed points or questions, as often you do, but I’m not here as a Wikipedia.

Fair enough, but I do try and look up facts that are listed. Normally I will state when I can't find anything. In this case there is a lot of stuff but it all seems to be commentary or assertion. I cannot find anything which suggests that we are significantly worse in terms of radicalisation than other countries.

And are we just talking about radicalisation such as what's been expressed by Begum? Or are we looking at other forms? It may just be the circles and communities I deal in but there seems to be more pervasive, widespread and increasing radicalisation from both sections of the liberal (woke) and anti-liberal viewpoints in the UK than on the lines of religion (or purports to be religion)

[daviemac]

If we are talking about treasonous offences we don't actually have an awful lot of more recent case law. I'l be guided by those who may have a better grasp of the technicalities of the case but as far as I can see that she left the country of her birth, residence and citizenship to join and support a hostile state. 

And I think she should stand trial for this. Others disagree, but this is seemingly on the presumption of guilt. And to my mind guilt of citiizens is only established in a court of law even if we are pretty certain of the outcome.

This therefore falls under the judiciary, and this decision seems to have been made by the executive which sets a dangerous precedent in my mind. Even if you think the action is justified in this particular case.

You are the one who is talking about treasonous offences, Lord Haw Haw was convicted of and executed for treason for his activities at a time we were at war with Germany. So I'll ask again what has that got to do with  Shamima Begum who has not been accused of treason but had her citizenship revoked under the 1981 British Nationality Act as a result of her association with terrorists.

To clarify I have no comment to make on the situation Shamima Begum is in, I'm purely trying to find out what the execution of someone convicted of treason at a time executions were commonplace has to do with a completely different set of laws today. 

[JontyR]

You are the one who is talking about treasonous offences, Lord Haw Haw was convicted of and executed for treason for his activities at a time we were at war with Germany. So I'll ask again what has that got to do with  Shamima Begum who has not been accused of treason but had her citizenship revoked under the 1981 British Nationality Act as a result of her association with terrorists.

To clarify I have no comment to make on the situation Shamima Begum is in, I'm purely trying to find out what the execution of someone convicted of treason at a time executions were commonplace has to do with a completely different set of laws today. 

The execution isn't critical to the point I was trying to make. Simply that we saw fit to try and punish someone of treason even when they weren't actually a citizen of the country they betrayed. We didn't, as we possibly should have done, deny him access to the UK, try him alongside any other supporters of the Nazi regime.

There are however some similarities between the cases. We may not from our perspective have been at war with ISIL or Daesh or whatever we are terming them, but that is because we didn't recognise them as a legitimate state. But from their, and Begum's, perspective they were a state. And they were carrying out attacks against the UK and our allies in NATO.

It has been reported that she acted as a morality officer within the Islamic state. As such I think she should stand trial for those crimes. We may not like the fact that she is British, or that someone British acted in the way that she is reported of doing. But to my mind she is. And she should face British justice accordingly.

And the relationship and connections between the cases? Well there is, to my mind, a greater justification to try Begum as British than there was to Joyce. I know you think that the length of time between the cases negates the relevance, and I respect that opinion, however  just how recent does an example have to be? These are, thankfully, exceptional cases. 

[daviemac]

The execution isn't critical to the point I was trying to make. Simply that we saw fit to try and punish someone of treason even when they weren't actually a citizen of the country they betrayed. We didn't, as we possibly should have done, deny him access to the UK, try him alongside any other supporters of the Nazi regime.

There are however some similarities between the cases. We may not from our perspective have been at war with ISIL or Daesh or whatever we are terming them, but that is because we didn't recognise them as a legitimate state. But from their, and Begum's, perspective they were a state. And they were carrying out attacks against the UK and our allies in NATO.

It has been reported that she acted as a morality officer within the Islamic state. As such I think she should stand trial for those crimes. We may not like the fact that she is British, or that someone British acted in the way that she is reported of doing. But to my mind she is. And she should face British justice accordingly.

And the relationship and connections between the cases? Well there is, to my mind, a greater justification to try Begum as British than there was to Joyce. I know you think that the length of time between the cases negates the relevance, and I respect that opinion, however  just how recent does an example have to be? These are, thankfully, exceptional cases.

FFS he knowingly committed acts of treason during wartime, a time when the freedom of this whole country depended us winning the war,

You really need to learn a bit of history before you start quoting examples. When Sir Winston was informed that only British citizens could be prosecuted for treason he immediately put a new law in place, which was called the Treachery Act and that covered people like Lord Haw Haw so his prosecution and execution was perfectly legal under the laws that were in place at the time. Oh and despite being an American citizen and naturalised German he had lied to get a British passport so he could have been prosecuted under either law. (The death sentence was mandatory for treason at that time)

But if you think the situation with Begum is the same as that, I'll leave you too it.

[PepeMAGA]

Fair enough, but I do try and look up facts that are listed. Normally I will state when I can't find anything. In this case there is a lot of stuff but it all seems to be commentary or assertion. I cannot find anything which suggests that we are significantly worse in terms of radicalisation than other countries.

And are we just talking about radicalisation such as what's been expressed by Begum? Or are we looking at other forms? It may just be the circles and communities I deal in but there seems to be more pervasive, widespread and increasing radicalisation from both sections of the liberal (woke) and anti-liberal viewpoints in the UK than on the lines of religion (or purports to be religion)

Its a fair point that it isn't necessarily that easy to find. Google it and Google directs to Muslim groups that are against radicalisation.
Some points to research
Islamic radicalisation in UK prisons
Finsbury Park mosque
Speakers corner
Radicalisation in UK mosques
Saudi influence in UK mosques

Woke and anti woke radicals is a different subject, not relevant here

[JontyR]

FFS he knowingly committed acts of treason during wartime, a time when the freedom of this whole country depended us winning the war,

You really need to learn a bit of history before you start quoting examples. When Sir Winston was informed that only British citizens could be prosecuted for treason he immediately put a new law in place, which was called the Treachery Act and that covered people like Lord Haw Haw so his prosecution and execution was perfectly legal under the laws that were in place at the time. Oh and despite being an American citizen and naturalised German he had lied to get a British passport so he could have been prosecuted under either law. (The death sentence was mandatory for treason at that time)

But if you think the situation with Begum is the same as that, I'll leave you too it.

No sir, Joyce was convicted of high treason not treachery.

Yes, my knowledge of all history isn't that of an expert, but I'll go with the words of AJP Taylor who knew a thing or two.  "Technically, Joyce was hanged for making a false statement when applying for a passport, the usual penalty for which is a small fine."

Now, I'm not crying tears for Joyce. I'm not crying them for Begum. My statement was, and despite this little detour it has not changed, I can't understand how we were so eager to prosecute someone on a specific charge that I am not convinced we had the right to, when we are in the case of Begum going out of our way not to prosecute when I believe we probably do.

If, and I am assuming here, your argument is that is it was a long time ago, a different world and the crimes were more heinous then fair enough. But that seems to be an argument justifyng the actions in the Joyce case - not those in the Begum one.

[daviemac]

No sir, Joyce was convicted of high treason not treachery.

If, and I am assuming here, your argument is that is it was a long time ago, a different world and the crimes were more heinous then fair enough. But that seems to be an argument justifyng the actions in the Joyce case - not those in the Begum one.

I don't know if you are deliberately being obtuse but I did not say he was convicted of treachery, I said Churchill brought the treachery law out to cover people LIKE Joyce, he had a British passport so was tried as British though he could have been tried under either law.

You assume wrong, my point is there is no comparison between a person committing treasonous acts during wartime, acts that jeopardised the freedom of every UK citizen and could have had worldwide ramifications and what is going on now with Begum.

Different crimes, different laws, different consequences, you are comparing apple and oranges. So I didn't know why you have derailed this thread by bringing such historical events into it.   

Do I think the trial of Joyce was justified, yes I do, the same as I think the trials of all the war criminals after the war were justified. Do I think it was justified for those convicted in this country of being spies to be secretly executed by firing squad at the Tower of London? I don't know but during wartime sacrifices have to be made and sometimes the innocent get hurt.

However non of this has any relevance to what is going on today.

[Thecunninglinguist]

There is much talk of the probability of her serving a long prison term for whatever of her wrongdoings she is convicted of. Knowing the state of the English/Welsh legal system, I would suggest quite the reverse. I think their would be a fairly short, 12 months or so for the sake of decency and "deradicalisation". I think that a lawyer may well persuade a court that the rest should be time served, for the incarceration she is currently subject to. In fact the time she would undoubtedly serve on remans whilst awaiting trial could see her walk free.