May as well. Teenagers do dumb shit and she'll be a magnet for any other radicals so if she's kept an eye on they'll be easier to spot.

I think so. If we're just going to flout our own laws the same way she did whenever it makes us uncomfortable, what's the point? I know there's a lot to this case and it's obviously not that straight forward, but I've destested the idea that once someone's sworn themselves to ISIS they "aren't our problem anymore". That's just idiotic and cowardly as far as I'm concerned. If she's broken any laws prosecute and if she hasn't, keep an eye on her. There may be other reasons for why she's still speaking favourably of ISIS; I assume they don't look too fondly on people who defect, and given that she's still in Syria she might not want to start slaggging them off too vociferously before she's out. That's purely speculation, mind you, and she might be totally off-the-reservation. I'm uncomfortable about comdemming someone for something they did when they were 15 also, and while this is much more serious than pinching a bike or smoking a joint on school grounds, fuck knows what she's seen beyond just losing two kids. I burst into tears during my English GCSE, and there was nary a JDAM in sight.

She's also a pregnant 19 year old, and while I'm unsure on the details, I'm fairly certain that kid's going to be a UK citizen once it's born too.

As said, I can't really feel too hostile towards someone who made a questionable decision at 15. Me and my mates were making pipe bombs and exploding bottles and stuff at that age - actual crimes committed on british soil. We weren't doing it in the name of a holy war, sure, but it's still likely a lot more prosecutable than running off to get fucked by ISIS lads for a few years, so I won't be the one throwing the first stone here.

You may remember Georgia Davies, dubbed Britain's Fattest Teenager. Apparently there's a sex tape of her.

Now Georgia was primarily gargantuan due to her parents. At one point she was sent to a fat camp in America where she lost a lot of weight, however the moment she went back home she put it all back on because her parents wouldn't cook healthy meals and instead would regularly have chippy and takeaway.

The Bethnall Green schoolgirls were brainwashed by those closest to them. There is footage of family members holding burning flags at demonstrations by the likes of Anjem Choudary. If you put someone back in that environment they won't lose their warped views.

>>18046

>At one point she was sent to a fat camp in America where she lost a lot of weight, however the moment she went back home she put it all back on because her parents wouldn't cook healthy meals and instead would regularly have chippy and takeaway.

That's why good weight loss therapy also addresses and evaluates your overall eating habits and the whole culture of food in your household. Actually losing the weight is only half the battle, and is only the beginning of a healthier lifestlye. There needs to be some cognitive behavioural therapy as well.

Otherwise, evidently, you'll just end up a blob all over again.


>The Bethnall Green schoolgirls were brainwashed by those closest to them. There is footage of family members holding burning flags at demonstrations by the likes of Anjem Choudary.

You adopt almost all of your views and opinions in life through socialisation and association with the people around you who have certain views. And if for example you grow up in a family of religious radicals, eskimo, Christian, or whatever, it doesn't matter really, then there is a very good chance that you will grow up to share the same radical views and think nothing of it.

No.

>>18046
You said that in the OP, OP. Do you have any evidence of this? And is it her third cousin at an anti-Iraq War demo 14 years ago? Or her mum last week? And what do you propose instead? Are you going to force her to live in Dundee or Londonderry?

You're big on problems but you don't seem to have any solutions, none that you're forthcoming with anyway.

>The security minister, Ben Wallace, has said he would not put officials’ lives at risk to rescue UK citizens who went to Syria and Iraq to join Islamic State, insisting “actions have consequences”.

>“I’m not putting at risk British people’s lives to go looking for daft militant wogs or former daft militant wogs in a failed state,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

>Wallace said that as a British citizen, Begum had a right to return home, but anyone who joined Isis should expect to be investigated, interviewed and “at the very least prosecuted” on their return. There are currently no British diplomats in Syria because of security risks. If Begum wanted to return to the UK, she would have “to make her way to Turkey or Iraq to consular services there”, he added.

>Questioned on whether the fact that Begum was 15 when she ran away might generate sympathy from the Home Office, Wallace said: “People know what they’re getting into. This is a daft militant wog group, one of the worst ever in the world, that butchers people and has been responsible for the deaths of dozens of British citizens.”

>Sir Peter Fahy, a former chief constable of Greater Manchester police, told Today: “The biggest challenge if she did come back will be how the police will keep her safe and how she wouldn’t be some sort of lightning rod for both Islamic and far-right extremists. If she still holds those views, that’s clearly going to be an enormous challenge and you can understand why the government is not particularly interested in facilitating her return.”

>Commenting on the wider issue of foreign fighters a Whitehall source said: “There are no easy answers. You do not just have foreign fighters – you have foreign fighters’ relatives, widows, spouses and of course children, and children who may not have any connection with British citizens. How are those children protected and looked after? It has not yet been fully worked through. This is all quite fresh and people are still working through what is the best thing to do. We cannot declare they are stateless, but we also said if they can be tried effectively where they are, that is good. There is no requirement for a British citizen to return to the UK if they can face justice where they are and the crimes were committed [there].

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/14/uk-isis-britons-officials-risk-syria-schoolgirl-shamima-begum

Can't really argue with that.

>>18050
It was quite well documented at the time. Shortly after the families were questioned by parliament, blaming everyone but themselves for the girls going to Syria, it emerged that one of the fathers had taken his daughter on Al-Muhajiroun demonstrations from the age of 13 and he was filmed at one with a burning flag and at others in the good company of Anjem Choudary and one of Lee Rigby's killers. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

The solution is simple. If she has commited crimes in Syria then she should be tried there.

Joining ISIS, or any daft militant wog group, is an offense under the Terrorism Act (2000). If she makes it back to Britain via consular services she should be tried for that crime.

It's tragic because she's going to spend the next 40 years of her life in a concrete room the size of the average public toilet in a maximum security prison, but the law is the law.

Why the fuck should we.?

I'd be on the fence if once here she'd at least be locked up for 20 years in solitary where she could lose the last of what could charitably be called her sanity, but she'd probably worm her way out of serious charges. Either way it's a needless drain on our resources. Let her rot in the bed she chose.

>>18053
Isn't there a limitation period in which to lay the charges? Don't we also have a general policy against charging 19 year olds with crimes committed when they were 15?

>>18055

There is no statute of limitations in English law, as we have seen with the recent wave of historical carpet-bagger convictions. Her age at the time of the offence would be taken into account at sentencing, as would any other mitigating factors.

>>18052
>it emerged that one of the fathers had taken his daughter on Al-Muhajiroun demonstrations from the age of 13 and he was filmed at one with a burning flag and at others in the good company of Anjem Choudary and one of Lee Rigby's killers.
None of these things are crimes. Especially not flag burning. Except perhaps environmentally, depending on what it was made from.

>>18056
AIUI, all offences start before magistrates, and serious ones are kicked upwards from there. There is a six-month limitation, but it doesn't necessarily start from the day on which the offence was committed. That's how the copper that did Ian Tomlinson in got away with it - the IPCC held onto the case for so long they couldn't charge him for it.

IIRC the TalkTalk kid was initially tried as a minor, but later tried as an adult for subsequent offences committed while on bail.

>>18054
'Ere m7, you dropped your Mail.

>>18057
I believe at the time Al-Muhajiroun were a banned organisation.

It's a bit besides the point whether going on their marches is against the law; if you take your daughter to this sort of events then it shouldn't be a massive surprise if she fucks off to Syria with some of her school chums further down the line.

>>18060
... right well I'm not sure why that's really relevant.

I guess she should have about the same protections as any British citizen does if they get caught breaking laws in other countries, which is to say not a lot. Not harbouring a grudge against her for what she did as a teenager but we don't generally go rescuing knobs who get the death penalty for public farting in North Korea, grievous gum chewing in Singapore or maliciously having a marijuana seed stuck to the soles of their shoes while entering Saudi Arabia. May not agree with the penalties in any of these cases but it's reasonable to say that's out of our hands.

I don't want to be that lad who makes it all about the gender politics and what have you, but I feel like it's not beyond reason top compare her to any of the many lads who've been radicalised, i.e brainwashed, and gone to fight for ISIS. I don't see many people in favour of letting them back in.

Jecause she's a woman and "think of the children!" there must be some sort of other side to the coin obviously. She can't have been a rational actor because women are incapable of making decisions with consequences, while teenage lads clearly know exactly what they're in for.

She just sounds like she knew exactly what she was doing, and wants out because it turned out to have been shit. She doesn't regret it at all.

>>18062
There's definitely different narratives going on.

Young men who went to Syria are portrayed as losers and no-hopers who've gone because they have very little prospects in this country whereas young women are portrayed as idealists brainwashed into going on a fantasy adventure.

>>18061
>I guess she should have about the same protections as any British citizen does if they get caught breaking laws in other countries, which is to say not a lot.
She hasn't been caught breaking laws in other countries. It's British law that people say she's broken.

>>18064
Has she? I don't see any mention of it in the two articles posted. It's very unclear what the actual issues are here; what's being asked and denied and threatened.

What did we do with people who ran off to peel potatoes for the Nazis?

>>18063
Not a bad point but it's fairly clear that young women who run off there don't typically become combatants. Whether or not we're being patronisingly sexist is moot given that.

So what's the problem here? Obviously no one's going to risk lives over getting her back, and if she does come back she's going to prison. As people have said, she knows full well what she's done and isn't showing any regret.

>>18065
>What did we do with people who ran off to peel potatoes for the Nazis?

I'd imagine the same way we treat people who peel potatoes whilst being Nazis in this country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-46592080

>>18067
Fair enough. Is the baby going to be prosecuted for the Nazi salute too?

>>18065
IS is a proscribed organisation, and being a member is illegal under the Terrorism Act 2000.

The old thing about "we can't get you out" from the PIFs was about people in foreign countries who have broken the laws of those countries while there.

https://youtu.be/d80CtjmzyWc

>>18068
Depends on whether he's eating a Nazi biscuit in the other hand or not.

In fairness the whole thing is more complicated than it sounds. France 24 has more background on these refugee camps:
https://www.france24.com/en/20190208-france-24-exclusive-islamic-state-group-foreign-jihadi-brides-trapped-syria-kurdish-camp

>One of the camp’s directors says that although some of the women claim to be innocent of any crime, others are clearly very dangerous. “We thought we could put them together with the Syrians and the Iraqis, and that they would adapt. But they’re ferocious, they burned some of the Syrians’ tents, they would call them cockroaches, infidels. They consider themselves as the only true eskimos. So we had to separate them,” he explains.

>“The problem is their intentions, they tell us what we want to hear, but we have no idea about what they really think. That’s a problem that must be addressed by experts. When they gave themselves up, some of them told us that the IS group briefed them, telling them, ‘Surrender, go back to your countries, get your strength back and we will start again’.”

I think she's a cunt who for all the upbringing and being a teenager (surely they cancel one-another?) can be expected to know that joining a group that actively perpetrates slavery and genocide is bad form. However, the way I see it she's our mess that the Kurds have been left to deal with on-top of everything else.

>>18047
>You adopt almost all of your views and opinions in life through socialisation and association with the people around you who have certain views.

Almost. I think it is pretty questionable that you can lose culpability just because you grew up in a rubbish household. She openly talks about seeing severed heads in bins and the only remorse she feels is that ISIS didn't win - London is a toilet but let's not push it.

>>18061
>I guess she should have about the same protections as any British citizen does if they get caught breaking laws in other countries, which is to say not a lot. Not harbouring a grudge against her for what she did as a teenager but we don't generally go rescuing knobs who get the death penalty for public farting in North Korea, grievous gum chewing in Singapore or maliciously having a marijuana seed stuck to the soles of their shoes while entering Saudi Arabia. May not agree with the penalties in any of these cases but it's reasonable to say that's out of our hands.

Actually Britain regularly tries to get its citizens out of the knick - it's a big part of the work consulates do. This is especially visible in cases of the death penalty whenever some idiot tries drug smuggling in the Far-East. It doesn't amount to any violations of sovereignty but there's certainly diplomatic pressure at work and legal help on hand.

At any rate, she hasn't to my knowledge been tried for anything yet and even if she was Kurdistan isn't a country and Syria would violate international law with her. The ECHR at least would, I imagine, audibly tut if she and her unborn child ended up tortured.

>>18072
>However, the way I see it she's our mess that the Kurds have been left to deal with on-top of everything else.

This is my main problem with just cutting these people loose, we're just abandoning our responsibilities so we can avoid the hassle, but the government act like they're doing it 'cus they're proper hard like. In reality they're just scared of headlines about "X Amount of Millions of Your Money Spent On Eskimo Black Widow Mega Death Ray From Mars!" from the Daily Mail. I dunno', the Romans never shied away from a good court case and they were one of the greatest civilisations to ever exist.

>>18072

>However, the way I see it she's our mess that the Kurds have been left to deal with on-top of everything else.

The Kurds remind me of the phrase "never was so much owed by so many to so few". I never cease to be amazed at the bravery and tenacity of the Kurdish people. The victory over IS belongs to them and we owe them whatever assistance we can possibly provide. Repatriating our radicalised youth to face trial is the least we can do.

>>18072
>I think it is pretty questionable that you can lose culpability just because you grew up in a rubbish household

I've read a bit more into her case. It sounds like the main triggers were her mother dying and also joining an all-female group named Islamic Forum of Europe via her igloo, who regularly espoused the virtues of ISIS, with the other two girls. Shortly after the latter they started wearing headscarves and calling non-eskimo classmates slags and kaffirs.

They played some of the interview audio on the News at Ten last night and there was something about her tone that made it evident she's still well under their spell.

>>18077
>something about her tone that made it evident she's still well under their spell.
So get her back here and put her into rehab for deprogramming like any other ex-cultist.

>>18075
I don't get why so many people hate Kurds. There must be a reason everyone in that region seems to hate them.

>>18079

Aren't they like... eskimo Jews, basically?

>>18078
See
>>18072

ISIS have told people to pretend to be de-radicalised and start again back in their home countries.

>>18081
That's not how deprogramming works. You don't just get to declare yourself fixed and walk away.

>>18082
Works for paedos.

>>18079

Kurdish-majority populations are spread across an area that encompasses Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Being stuck in the middle of that lot is rather uncomfortable. They were supposed to get statehood after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but they were done over by the Turks and weren't supported by the Western powers in establishing independence.

The Kurds have a significant non-eskimo minority and predominantly support secular liberalism, which hasn't exactly endeared them to their neighbours; the main group fighting for independence is the far-left Kurdistan Workers' Party, which doesn't win you many brownie points with the US. They're too small to maintain independence on their own, but they're too stubbornly independent to exist as a proxy state of a foreign superpower.

If she had put a "cosh" in her pocket and went walking around looking for an excuse to murder a "black bastard" you'd all be insisting she was fine now and to get over it etc.

>>18085

True. What's your poinT? There'd be a great deal less issue if she had done that, instead of what she did do, which was join bloody ISIS.

Have a word with yourself.

>>18085
I believe most of that thread was talking about how mixed race lasses would get it rather than voicing opinions on what Liam Neeson said.

>>18085
I think Liam Neeson's impotent racism from 40 years ago is significantly more acceptable than a girl who joined IS only a few years ago, and who is unrepentant about getting involved with a genocidal cult.

>>18086>>18087>>18088
Sorry lads. I thought the cheek in my tongue would be more obvious than it apparently was. It's not an excuse or anything but I'm drunker than I've been for a good while and my idea of what is and isn't a good joke is kind of off-kilter. Forgive me please.

>>18089

Forgiven lad. Your joke was a just bit too close to the sort of thing our resident Grauniad columnists would actually post.

Not even a guilty would.

Send her away.

Just let the YPJ deal with her, give her the same respect that ISIS gave to the Yazidis.

>>18092
Yeah, classic race to the bottom style ethics. Maybe we should rape the children of paedophiles and break the jaws of mugger's grandparents too?

Fucking retard.

>>18093

False equivalence. Your examples are innocent people. She joined and fully supported ISIS and their ideology.

>>18093
You're right. We shouldn't let her face justice in the country she's committed crimes on.

Apparently she's given birth. Would the child be a UK citizen?

>>18125
If a dog's born in a stable does that mean it's a horse?

>>18125
If she can register it within 42 days, it gets a birth certificate and therefore probably is. Needs to get to her local town hall though, which might be an issue.

>>18125
AIUI, if the mother is a UK citizen in her own right, the child will be a UK citizen, but as he was born outside the UK it'll be inherited citizenship, not in his own right.

I guess it was inevitable.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bt-vkPoBQbl/?hl=en

>>18138

If I saw someone taking the piss out of my son my first reaction would also be to screenshot it and share it with my 1.9 million followers.

>>18139
I think I would rather have Shamima Begum in this country than Katie Price. She is a fucking monster and a real disgrace to mothers/women everywhere. The fact that she is now exploiting her son in this way, to prop up her waning fame, disgusts me as much as the father who promoted the ideology that ended with his daughter going to Syria to join ISIS.

>>18125
It's much the same as an ordinary citizen giving birth abroad. Even if we were a country that didn't recognise dual citizenship, she has pledged allegiance to Isis but nobody recognised the caliphate and IL doesn't allow people to be rendered stateless (a reoccurring problem with people who left to join ISIS). I also highly doubt she has formally applied to revoke her British citizenship anyway.

Similarly, and if all else fails, the Home Secretary would be obligated to grant citizenship as the baby has done nothing to warrant being left stateless. It's a bother - she just had to join a cause instead of going to North Korea to save on the paperwork. Bet she still has the audacity to complain if you leave the seat up though.

>>18139
I'd also make sure I tagged him in the post, just in case he wasn't aware of it already.

>>18142
I can see some good arguments for this. I was in my final year of school when she became popular with I'm a Celebrity and being working class a few girls decided they were going to be 'glamour models'. Truly those were dark times where the nations young women were radicalised by non-jobism - quite unlike today where they're encouraged to become bakers and professional television watchers.

>>18142

It's pretty fucking disgusting. I'm not sure how she gets away with being so cynical.

>>18145
I sort of miss the days when being a glamour model was a viable career choice for lasses; it's better than wanting to win the X Factor or whatever they want these days.

>>18148
I think they just want to shack up with K-Pop stars now.

I'm so old.

>>18148
I don't even know what a glamour model is. Is it a euphemism?

>>18156

Page 3 girl/booth babe/bird off the peanuts card. It used to be a thing back when Max Power and Zoo were still a thing. "Glamour" is largely a euphemism for "topless".

>>18156

It its own way, it is. A bit of a fancy word for being an attention whore who is reluctant to maintain or to go back to a proper job for a living, but doesn't want to show her boobs either. The end goal often being to land a lad who is higher up in the celebrity food chain. Somebody who wants to work her way up, but isn't quite enough of a nobody anymore to do Big Brother.

>>18156
> Is it a euphemism?

Yes it is - in the 80s and 90s where amateur photography was a nerd niche hobby (it took quite a lot of kit and knowledge to be able to take, and crucially, develop your own photographs well), glamour models were people who were willing to pose practically nude, but not actually do porn - because "I'm not that kind of girl" etc.

In those days, you used to take your films to places like Boots, and they would develop the films for you - therefore there were many types of photography that you just wouldn't do, for fear of the little lady at the chemist seeing your sub-jazzmag efforts with the girl next door. All that has changed. Photography has been completely democratised with the advent of digital cameras - you don't need to wait hours/days/weeks to see the photographs you make. Darkrooms are non-existent - in those days, you needed to be good at things like lighting and flash to take good photographs, and glamour modelling/photography was one particular genre of the hobby/art, as well as be content with waiting to see the results.

Glamour model/photography is short for porn, but not quite porn.

>>18155
>I think they just want to shack up with K-Pop stars now.

It's gotten to the point where I almost believe you. Aren't Korean dramas really popular now?
Jeongyeon is mine

>>18161
Well, I heard that's what teenage girls like listening to on a podcast I downloaded from Radio 4.

I'm only 24, how do I stop this!

>>18160
>Glamour model/photography is short for porn, but not quite porn.

Exactly. It definitely wasn't seedy; it isn't like newspapers used to have articles counting down the days until schoolgirls had their 16th birthday and could pose with their wabs out.

I think the modern day equivalent of glamour model is Instagram model/cosplayer. Except instead of getting their pics on page 3 of the Sun or appearing in Razzle, they do it as a little cottage industry. With company sponsorship and Patreon, they don't need to deal with the low-rent Hugh Hefner wannabes.

>>18168
I sometimes think it's remarkable quite how camwhoring online has been commodified over the past 15 years or so. We've gone from lasses flashing their tits on imageboards for attention and any girl who classes herself even remotely alternative considering sending pictures into Suicide Girls to getting series sums of money for streaming themselves, not even having to take their clothes off for it.

>>18169
Also of note that the more it's being done for money, the less acceptable the term "camwhore" is, being replaced with "camgirl"/"camboy".

From the Guardian

>The father of her newborn son is an Isis fighter and despite her four years with the sworn enemies of the UK, Begum said: “I actually do support some British values.”

Oh, you support some British values? Maybe we should let some of you back in then, perhaps your child, who can be adopted by a family who support all British values. You, in the meantime, should rot in the bed that you made.

>>18171
Do you support all British values? What even are they all?

>>18172

Not sure, but then again I'm not the one beggomg to be allowed to come back to Britain after running off to join daft militant wogs.

>>18172
Forming an orderly queue, minding your own business on the tube, saying this country has gone to the dogs because of the price of Freddos. The list goes on, I'm sure.

>>18174
You missed: bombing the shit out of countries we couldn't identify on a map, and then immediately forgetting about it.

>>18173

Judging by >>18175 what ISIS do isn't too different to British values then.

>>18175

I feel obligated to point out that this is sort of shit our politicians / ruling elite get up to.

A more directly British tradition would be being thick enough to sign up for the Army because you failed your Argos exam.

>>18176

To have the position "I actually agree with some British values" to make logical sense, it requires that there must be some other portion of the set "British values" which are disagreed with.

Doesn't really matter what values she considers British, only that she considers them to be "British values" (Which is to say, not her own values). If she actually meant it she would have talked about how she now reconciles her position of being both eskimo and British.

No I think she's just sorry because her chosen side lost, and now she's got nothing but three dead husbands and two dead kids and she's shitting it.

The potential for her to be a sleeper jihadi is just the cherry on the shitcake, there's no way we should let her step foot on British soil ever again.

>>18178
>To have the position "I actually agree with some British values" to make logical sense, it requires that there must be some other portion of the set "British values" which are disagreed with.
>Doesn't really matter what values she considers British, only that she considers them to be "British values" (Which is to say, not her own values). If she actually meant it she would have talked about how she now reconciles her position of being both eskimo and British.
https://www.british-gymnastics.org

>>18179

All logical deductions from the available material.

>>18180

As we've established, you don't know what "British values" are either so it's safe to say there are probably some you also disagree with. Given that they could be literally fucking anything, if you don't know what they are.
The your statement about "If she meant it then she would have done X" is entirely unfounded supposition on your part, there's no logical deduction there.

>>18173
We don't have a choice. She's a British citizen, so if she turns up at the border we cannot refuse entry. The state she was apparently loyal to no longer exists in any functional form, therefore she has sole nationality which means we cannot take it away from her. If she manages to escape the conflict zone, she cannot be returned there.

Ultimately, those three didn't run off to go kill people, they went to be good Inuit brides. They bought the dream, and for a while at least got to live it. Like anybody who joins a cult, she's a victim and needs to be treated as such.

>>18182

>Ultimately, those three didn't run off to go kill people, they went to be good Inuit brides

This is intellectually dishonest.

They expressly gave their support to IS, regardless if they killed anyone. They aided and abetted the people who were doing the killing. They are more or less the modern jihadi equivalent of those Great War white feather lasses.

There's merit to the argument that they were sucked into a cult but if you go down that route you have to extend the same charity to the lads who did kill people- There's nothing about the act of fighting that arbitrarily renders their indoctrination and victimhood invalid.

>>18183
>This is intellectually dishonest.
I assume by "this" you mean what you're about to say, because yes, that was indeed intellectually dishonest.

>There's merit to the argument that they were sucked into a cult but if you go down that route you have to extend the same charity to the lads who did kill people
No you don't. By your logic, the entire population of 1940s Germany is guilty of mass murder and should have been executed.

>>18184
> No you don't. By your logic, the entire population of 1940s Germany is guilty of mass murder and should have been executed.

You say it like it's a bad idea....

>>18184

>No you don't. By your logic, the entire population of 1940s Germany is guilty of mass murder and should have been executed.

That's not the same thing. The argument here would be that any British woman who left the country to support the nazis should have been executed - perhaps she still shouldn't have been, but it's hardly the same thing as simply existing in your own country during a regime.

Home Secretary was questioned about the fate of the baby and went with "I can't comment on individual cases" despite having done exactly that (at some length) about the mother mere minutes before.

>>18042
Is it just me or does she have an extremely punchable face? And hearing her on the news, the way she talks and her whole demeanor is incredibly annoying. Shamima Begum? More like Yaminger Begone.

>>18186
>That's not the same thing.
It's exactly the same thing. You're suggesting that she should suffer the consequences for supporting the regime regardless of her actual actions.

>The argument here would be that any British woman who left the country to support the nazis should have been executed
By analogy. You're suggesting she should face the same consequences as those who went to fight. Those who actively participated and directed the mass killings were tried at Nuremburg, and sentences were handed down up to and including death. You're suggesting that those who did not actively participate and direct the fighting should be treated in the same way as those who did. It's not intellectually dishonest to suggest that there is a distinction. Indeed, the law and sentencing guidelines both recognise one.

>perhaps she still shouldn't have been, but it's hardly the same thing as simply existing in your own country during a regime.
The fact that she left the country is immaterial. As has been pointed out, she's a British national and we've no right to refuse to let her return, so we might as well work on the assumption that she's coming home at some point.

>>18189

>You're suggesting that those who did not actively participate and direct the fighting should be treated in the same way as those who did.

Yes, exactly.

>sentences were handed down up to and including death

Yes, exactly. They were tried on the basis of their own individual crimes.

She shouldn't be killed, but she should be in handcuffs when she does step foot back here.

>>18191
You're contradicting yourself. Either they're both treated the same way - i.e. carted off to jail for a long time - or they're treated based on their individual actions. Which is it? If the latter, then her individual actions were getting brainwashed and following the cult propaganda. IS propaganda wasn't all "kill the infidels". A good amount of it was "we're building a new society, come join us". The former was mainly targeted at young men, the latter at young women.

If we all had to endure the consequences of choices we made at 15, none of us would be here. We'd all be in prison for horrific crimes against pastry. Give the baby to her family, and send her to a secure unit for deradicalisation.

>>18193

She should be treated by her individual actions, which are more severe than you are making out. There's no contradiction.

Pretend all you want she thought the caliphate was just about building a utopia for her and her family - but then you'd be the intellectually dishonest one.

We all do have to endure the consequences of choices we make at 15 if we get caught doing them.

>>18195
>She should be treated by her individual actions, which are more severe than you are making out.
Sorry, I didn't realise she was off beheading infidels while carving up the chicken.

>Pretend all you want she thought the caliphate was just about building a utopia for her and her family
Do go on. I'm sure you know better than the current body of literature on cult psychology, and her own words about the caliphate offering her a good life. After all, this is .gs, and we're all right and everyone else is wrong.

>We all do have to endure the consequences of choices we make at 15 if we get caught doing them.
What did you do at 15 that you're still living with now?

>>18198
>stop being so reactionary.
Says the lad who wants to lock up a woman for joining a cult.

>If I don't get to say she was aware of the actions of ISIS
No, you don't get to say that because that fundamentally ignores what we already know about cult indoctrination.

>Bought the heroin that my girlfriend killed herself with.
I didn't realise you could get internet on those bumphones.

>>18199

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manson_Family

>>18200
Some individual members were tried and convicted of murder, because those individual members had killed people.

I really don't get why you're having so much trouble with the notion that someone who hasn't actually killed people and has shown no evidence of wanting to kill people should be treated like she killed people.

>>18201

What happened to the ones who didn't kill people?

>>18202
Funnily enough, they weren't locked up for murder. Fancy that, eh?

>>18203

Were they locked up for anything else?

>>18204
That depends. Did they do anything else?

>>18205

I can't tell if you're deliberately misunderstanding or if it's a genuine mistake so I should reiterate yet again that I don't think she should be treated as a murderer, but that she should be treated the same as any other member of isis which is to say she should be tried and punished for her involvement. Despite your constant insistence this does not mean I think she should be tried for murder, she should be tried for being a member of a daft militant wog organisation. This is what is meant by 'treat the same as the men' - they should all be tried for their crimes.

It's staggeringly basic and I've definitely already said this, I'm not sure why you're still not getting it. Our actual argument should be about her level of involvement not whether or not she's a murderer. I don't know if you've managed to miss my point this many times but you seem content to continue to believe I think she's a murderer or should be treat like one despite me directly stating I do not in several different ways.

I can't really be arsed to keep doing this, I suspect you're the same one who always seems to be arguing a slightly different point in your head to what's actually happening on the board and I'm fed up of walking you through it.

>>18208
>This is what is meant by 'treat the same as the men'
Sorry, my mistake. I thought that when you said the women should be treated the same as the men, I thought you meant they should be treated the same as the men. Because, you know, that's what those words usually mean, rather than the stretch you appear to be backpedalling to.

>Our actual argument should be about her level of involvement not whether or not she's a murderer.
I thought it was about her level of involvement, which you seem to be insinuating was more than running away and joining a cult.

To make things clear, apart from the administrative matters of joining an organisation and misusing a passport, what are you suggesting she's done that justifies treating her other than as someone who has run off to join a cult?

>>18209

Fucking hell mate. Treated the same as in treated the same by the legal system. Tried in the same court. Treated as if she joined ISIS. It's not backpedalling just because you didn't understand the first four times.

>what are you suggesting she's done that justifies treating her other than as someone who has run off to join a cult?

Joined a daft militant wog cult.

>>18188
>Is it just me or does she have an extremely punchable face?

I don't know if it's her weird gappy jagged teeth, but the recent pictures of her remind me of a monster from a cartoon of some sort.

>>18210
>Treated the same as in treated the same by the legal system.
Right, but that's not what you're arguing for, is it? You're arguing for different treatment. The legal system these days tends to treat cultists as victims, whereas you're arguing for her to be treated as a criminal.

>What has she done other than join a cult?
>Join a cult, m7.
Keep reaching, lad.

>>18212

She joined a terro.rist organisation mate, she's a criminal. That's the end of it.

You're still pretending I'm saying something else but you really need to stop doing that.

Lock her up for being in ISIS. That is my position. Good night.

>>18214
>apart from the administrative matters of joining an organisation and misusing a passport
Want to try again?

>>18215

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/670599/20171222_Proscription.pdf

Honestly I'm just disappointed that your entire argument has been to misconstrue one idea and repeat it over and over despite all explanations I offer. It's boring, ineffective and frustrating. On top of that you're trying to get me on semantics too. It's just a shame. Not to mention that you failed to capitalise on the fact I brought up the Manson Family, the youngest member of which was recently deemed to be too young to be culpable for the crimes she was involved with. That would have made a great argument for you but you were too intent on parroting your one stubborn idea based on the fact you didn't understand what I said.

Like I say, this entire exercise has been frustrating, not least because you're effectively ignoring everything I say to shoehorn in semantic arguments yet again. I don't even care about this bint now, I'm talking to you directly - please do better in future, your way of arguing is irritating and not at all interesting. Usually in a cunt off someone learns something, but here we've just repeated ourselves for several hours. It's embarrassing and I have to take just as much blame for that as you, I admit.

I apologise to the rest of you.

>>18216
You need to stop repeating yourself, not least because you still haven't answered anything.

Back in >>18195 someone who may be you suggested that her actions were "more severe" than merely joining ISIS, which we have established by common consent to be a sectarian death cult. Yet when pressed on what exactly those actions are, you can't seem to find an answer. That's the intellectual dishonesty going on here.

>>18219

Her actions were joining ISIS. Joining ISIS is more severe than you seem to imply. I keep answering you and you keep ignoring it.

>>18220
I keep ignoring it because it's not an answer. The question is one of what she has done. The specifics of proscription are neither here nor there.

>>18221

Became a member of a terror.ist organisation - this is illegal.

>>18222
See >>18221.

>>18221

She was one of the most active agitators for IS online, so that makes her an active member in my book.

>>18223

She joined ISIS. This is an illegal act which she committed.

>>18225
Right, and it's neither here nor there. That's nothing to do with her actions and everything to do with the organisation.

>>18226

The action she took was joining ISIS.

This is an illegal action that she took.

>>18227
So you keep saying.

>>18228

So we agree she took an action which was illegal?

>>18226
I just don't know what the hell that means. Her actions are nothing to do with her actions?

You never hear it called Daesh anymore. A couple of years ago everyone would call it Daesh instead of ISIS/IS, but that seems to have died down.

>>18233
That was when there was a possibility they might actually manage to create a viable islamic state, I imagine.

>>18233
I dunno, it's a bit forced for someone who doesn't speak much Arabic. Talk to your local eskimo about them and they'll definitely refer to them as Daesh.

I think it's worth pointing out that, unlike ours, the So Called Iglooic State does not have a particularly progressive view on gender roles. So when someone says treat her the same as Jihadi John, it is probably worth considering that any bloke who joins them has essentially no choice but to become a combatant, unlike the lasses. I somehow doubt IS let you conscientiously object alto the actual terrorism bit, and just go across to be a chef or an accountant.

>>18241
>Talk to your local eskimo about them and they'll definitely refer to them as Daesh.

The token eskimo at work just calls them ISIS. He also doesn't think we should let her back in the country just because she wants to be a massive Benefit Queen.

>The family of the British schoolgirl Shamima Begum, who fled to Syria in 2014 to join Islamic State, have been notified that the Home Office intends to deprive her of her British citizenship, their lawyer, Tasnime Akunjee, said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/19/isis-briton-shamima-begum-to-have-uk-citizenship-revoked

About time the so-called Hostile Environment had its uses.

>>18251
How do they propose to do that? They can't leave her stateless, so what other citizenship do they reckon she has? Surely not IS, because that would require them to recognise its legitimacy as a state.

>>18253

It will all hinge on the letter of the law that we must have 'reasonable belief' that she will not be left stateless, I imagine, though I'm not lawyery enough to work out where you go with tht argument. Either that or they're just going to outright ignore that issue in the name of the war on fearorists, which wouldn't be particularly surprising to me.

Novichok or rendition? Neither seems subtle, but after Are Sajid swore blind he'd do everything possible...

>>18253
>How do they propose to do that?

I think they're just seeing what'd happen, for shits and giggles.

Has there been any publication of either of the attachments?

>>18258
Are you saying you don't trust the word of the Begum family and their lawyer? I bet it's because they're brown, you massive racist.

>>18254
If they do, Putin will use it as negro-lynching whataboutery next time he's accused of flouting the rules. President Stopped Clock is right on this one - we've got to take her home and deal with her here.

They could try cancelling her passport and insisting she replace it, knowing that she has no access to consular services required to do so. The border with Turkey is effectively closed, as is the border with Iraq now that the caliphate has collapsed territorially.

>>18257
I like how they say "would you kindly tell your daughter we're taking her citizenship, thanks".

>>18253
BBC appears to suggest that she has Bangladeshi heritage:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47299907

Going by her earlier comments on the Manchester bombing being justified I think we may have dodged a bullet on this one. The last thing we need is a qalupalik Katie Hopkins.

>>18264
No shit. I've got Irish heritage but that doesn't mean that I am or can become an Irish citizen much as I'd like to right now.

She was born here to British citizens, so she is a British citizen. She may be eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, but unless and until she claims it she doesn't have it.

>>18264
>The last thing we need is a qalupalik Katie Hopkins.
Speaking of which, can we deport actual Katie "I'm a bigot, not a kethead" Hopkins to Syria while we're at it?

>>18267
She seems to have been quiet for a while, which I think explains why Piers Morgan is being more of an attention grabbing twat than usual.

>>18268
Oh, can we ship him off somewhere too? I hear Antarctica's lovely this time of year.

>As for repentance, no chance. Such is Begum’s ignorance and monumental sense of entitlement that it seems she can’t even be bothered to pretend to be sorry. In fact, she tells us, it is we who should feel sorry for her, for ‘everything I’ve been through’.

>In that respect, Shamima is truly a snowflake daft militant wog; someone who subscribes wholeheartedly to the prevailing victim culture and blames everyone but herself for her actions (her lawyer says Tower Hamlets Council, her school and the police are all culpable). And then, when the situation she has put herself in no longer suits her, she complains because no one is rushing to her rescue. In other words, it’s not her fault she ran away to join Isis — it was the system wot made her do it.

>The same system that welcomed her parents when they arrived here from Bangladesh, offering shelter, healthcare, education and opportunity. The same system that ensured she grew up in a country where women have equal status to men; and where her right to practise her religion freely and without fear of reprisal is meticulously upheld. Good grief, what hell it must have been! No wonder she scarpered at the very first opportunity!

>Her stupidity is matched only by her arrogance. And that is the real tragedy of people like Shamima. It is precisely because they grew up in Britain that they have the freedom to express their loathing for the nation that nurtured them.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6722809/SARAH-VINE-Shamima-Begum-snowflake-daft militant wog-deserved-door-slammed-face.html

Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake! Snowflake!

>>18273
To give Sarah Vine some credit, she does know what actual suffering is. I mean, she's seen Michael Gove's sex face.

This is a pathetic move from Javid and I'm genuinely peeved (peeved lads!) that the UK government has chosen to deal with this. And they haven't done so out of anything more than a fear about being slagged off by certain sections of the press. This was an opportunity to show how the UK has laws, and principles and proper ethics, instead we ran from that opportunity because Sanjid Javid is a fanny. What a damn waste.

>>18273

It's quite unfortunate that the Daily Mail, of all publications, has hit the nail on the head with this, but yeah, they have.

Bit like the mongy kid at school suddenly pondering Aristotle.

>>18273

>It is precisely because they grew up in Britain that they have the freedom to express their loathing for the nation that nurtured them.

Isn't that a good thing?

Does the Mail want to make it illegal to complain about your country?

They're bang on though about everything else, unfortunately.

>>18277
>Does the Mail want to make it illegal to complain about your country?

There's quite a gap between mildly grumbling about the weather or the house down your street that still haven't taken their Christmas lights down yet and being so incensed by it you get involved in a holy war.

>>18275

It'll get overturned by the courts because it's transparently illegal, but Javid still gets to look like the hard nut who's being stymied by do-gooders. He's acting exactly like May did as home secretary and he clearly has his eyes on Downing Street.

>>18279
The concerning thing is that he's done it in the first place. It sends a fairly clear message that this government does not care about the rule of law, and is prepared to violate your rights very publicly for no good reason just to get good headlines. It's not a good look, and it puts us in some very unsavoury company.

>>18280

At least he isn't making up stories about cats to justify abolishing the Human Rights Act.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdJPCG5RQos

Remember, lads. Any Briton who goes to fight for the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza should have their citizenship removed, but those who go to fight for ISIS in Syria shouldn't.

>>18302
What are you blathering about.

>>18303
The flaccid cock that is Jeremy Corbyn has said Begum should have the right to come back into the country despite him and his cronies a few years back calling for anyone who goes off to join the IDF to do so under the threat of having their British citizenship removed.

It's a real mystery why this man isn't more popular.

>>18304

Is it possible that he's not being hypocritical, but in fact is pointing out that your hypocrisy in that if we're allowing IDF people back, we should allow her back too? Because it sounds like that.

>>18305
Jeremy Corbyn said that those who join the IDF should have their British citizenship revoked because he was pre-empting that a schoolgirl would later go off to join ISIS in Syria and want to come back to Britain to make use of the social security system once her side was on the verge of losing?

It's blatant double standards. If you say those who join the IDF should lose their citizenship you can't then later claim those who join ISIS shouldn't lose theirs without looking like a massive hypocrite.

>>18306

How many British citizens joined the IDF at 15 to be a housewife?

>>18307
Perhaps the IDF should have ran a glitzy marketing campaign with beheadings and burning people alive.

>>18306

Your understanding of human belief and opinion seems to be that of as some sort of gestalt, timeless entity not subject to cause and effect.
You're an idiot.

>>18309
Let's say I am an idiot. Explain to me how calling for someone who joins the IDF to have their citizenship revoked and then calling for someone who joins ISIS not to have their citizenship revoked isn't a massive double standard. Explain to me how joining the IDF is as bad as joining ISIS.

The only other plausible explanation is that Corbyn is blinded by his hatred of Jews and Israel so he approves of Islamic fundamentalists because they also hate Jews and Israel.

>>18310
Jeremy Corbyn some years ago:
"We shouldn't let people who join foreign militant groups that commit atrocities back into the country"
Parliament:
"Yes we should"

Jeremy Corbyn the other day:
"Look, if we're letting people who join foreign militant groups that commit atrocities back into the country, we should be letting her back in too"
You:
"OMFG WOT A HIPPOCRITE daft militant wog SYMPATHISER"

>Corbyn is blinded by his hatred of Jews
It's funny how the smearing of Corbyn as an anti-semite happened right after he showed himself not to be pro-Israel. It's almost as though that sort of smear campaign is Israel's MO or something. You'd think people might start to see through it at some point.

>>18311
Oh, yes. I forgot about the mental gymnastics of Corbynites and how their unwaivering devotion means he can do no wrong. The reality is closer to this:-

Parliament in 2014: Anyone who goes off to join ISIS does so under the threat of losing their British citizenship.
Corbyn and chums: What about Israel? Anyone who goes off to join the IDF should face the same threat, despite them not being a daft militant wog group. It's just a pure coincidence that our first thoughts are to immediately jump to "what about Israel?" because we're not anti-semitic nor do we have an unhealthy fixation with the country.

Javid in 2019: Begum's British citizenship should be revoked.
Corbyn: Although I called for people who join an non-daft militant wog organisation to lose their citizenship despite them doing nothing against British law I believe that someone who has joined an actual daft militant wog organisation shouldn't lose their citizenship.

>>18313
>despite them not being a daft militant wog group
If they're not defined as a daft militant wog group by the government, then they must be ok.
So you're just an unthinking slave to whatever definitions or nomenclature the government hands down to you. Got it.
A literal Newspeak victim.

>>18314
I've asked once and I'll ask again. Explain to how joining the IDF is as bad as joining ISIS.

>>18315
One's a militant arm of an Abrahamic religious group that massacres civilians while taking their land by force and the other - oh wait.

>>18316
Your point isn't totally invalid, but you express it like such a dickhead.

>>18317
Top refutation

>>18318
I'm not who you've previously been speaking with.

>>18320
That wasn't me either.

>>18320
>>18321
I am also not Spartacus.

>>18314>>18316

Corbyn's statements are still hypocritical if we accept that the IDF are daft militant wogs. Either daft militant wogs should be allowed back into the country or they shouldn't. Corbyn has previously argued that Jewish daft militant wogs should fuck off back to Israel, but he argued this week that Eskimo daft militant wogs should be welcomed back to Britain.

What's the principle here, Jez? Did you change your mind about militant wog repatriation in the last couple of years? Are you now sympathetic to the plight of naive young Jews who were groomed by the IDF?

>>18323
You really just don't understand.

>>18323
One possible explanation: The IDF are not wogs but a legitimate foreign military power to which you have gone beyond mere citizenship and sworn loyalty. We recognise them, and they recognise us, therefore to retain British citizenship would be a conflict of interest. Suppose Corbyn somehow became PM and relations with Israel collapsed as a result. What is your mate in the IDF with British citizenship supposed to do if they're asked to act against Britain?

We don't tell domestic wogs to give up their passport. We lock them up for their crimes.

>>18324

Quality rebuttal m8.

>>18325

It's perfectly legal for a British citizen to serve in a foreign military. A small but significant number of British servicemen emigrate to Australia or New Zealand on finishing their contract and serve in their military, while retaining British citizenship. Our military actively recruits foreign citizens, most notably Nepali Gurhkas but also from across the commonwealth; it is a point of some contention that these soldiers are not automatically entitled to British citizenship.

Britain and Israel might hypothetically go to war at some point, but that's no justification for pre-emptively stripping people of their citizenship just on the off chance that they might act against Britain. Non-Israelis can serve in the IDF without taking Israeli citizenship, so many of these people would be rendered stateless.

I'd also question whether, based on the same principle, Corbyn would have stripped George Orwell of his citizenship for serving in the International Brigades.

>>18327
The whole proscription thing smacks of thought crime to me. The freedoms of thought, expression and association are parallel manifestations of a single idea. Prosecuting people for belonging to a group without having committed any real crime is distinctly Orwellian. Telling people they cannot belong to a group that advocates for the abolition of bananas is tantamount to telling people that they aren't even allowed to entertain the thought of abolishing bananas. Filthy abominations. Fucking creationists won't shut up about them. By all means punish those who kill innocents, and by all means punish those that put the weapons in the killers' hands, but history tells us that this particular slope really is slippery.

>>18328

The Commons Library briefing at the link below sets out the context and justification for proscription. To my mind, the strongest argument is that militant organisations rely of a broad network of supporters with varying levels of engagement, many of whom are undertaking activities that aren't prima facie illegal or are very difficult to connect directly to criminal activity.

During The Troubles, republican groups in Britain and America raised millions of dollars for "the cause", in full knowledge that a) the money would be spent on Armalite rifles and Semtex and b) they were effectively immune from prosecution because of the difficulty of proving mens rea. Proscription makes it harder for people to plead ignorance about the implications of their actions.

The Terrorism Act 2000 set out specific criteria for what constitutes a proscribed organisation, so the Secretary of State can't just decide on a whim that an organisation should be banned. Those criteria are on the whole sufficiently strict that it isn't sufficient to merely espouse dodgy views - an organisation has to be actively engaged in criminal activity to qualify for proscription. The Terrorism Act 2006 widened the criteria to include "unlawful glorification" of terrorism, which I think may be excessively broad.

There is a specific independent body to oversee appeals against proscription and proscribed organisations have recourse to the Court of Appeal. Two organisations have successfully appealed against proscription and been subsequently deproscribed. Those deproscriped organisations are still properly dodgy, which suggests that enforcement of proscription is erring on the side of liberalism.

I don't feel great about proscription, I'm not sure that it's hugely effective in practice, but I think that the legislation broadly strikes a reasonable balance between civil liberties and public protection.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00815/SN00815.pdf

>>18329
>During The Troubles, republican groups in Britain and America raised millions of dollars for "the cause", in full knowledge that a) the money would be spent on Armalite rifles and Semtex and b) they were effectively immune from prosecution because of the difficulty of proving mens rea. Proscription makes it harder for people to plead ignorance about the implications of their actions.
As I said, by all means go after those doing the arming too. Giving money goes beyond association, it's a conscious act. The bit that makes wog killings illegal isn't the woggery, it's the killing. It's the actual actions.

>>18329
>There is a specific independent body to oversee appeals against proscription and proscribed organisations have recourse to the Court of Appeal.
So, in effect, the Home Secretary can proscribe on a whim in the knowledge that the target will have to expend time, money and energy pursuing the matter in the courts. The rule of law is important, but it's also worth remembering that it's not self-enforcing, and as they say, the map is not the territory. Just this week we've seen a holder of a Great Office of State act unlawfully on a whim, leaving the recipient with the burden of appealing it.

>>18330

>Giving money goes beyond association, it's a conscious act.

Is moving overseas to support a caliphate not a conscious act?

>>18333
No, it's two separate things, one of which is entirely legal and the other is an exercise of one's freedom of association.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2J79qhI-Y4

>>18336

Wrong board m8, you want /IQ/.

Haven't been following this too much but is it ok to join daft militant wog organisations now then leave a little later on?

>>18344
It's tricky - like when your dog leaves the sheep and comes back - do you bollock him for dicking about with the sheep, or praise him for coming back? I believe there's something about this in the bible, is there something similar in the whale hunter's handbook?

>>18345
Didn't people who went to join the YPG get taken to court? And they were the good guys.

>>18342
What's /iq/ about a former marine recording a video of himself challenging Danny Dyer to a fight because he disagrees with him over whether Shamima Begum should be allowed back in the country?

>>18344
No and the law is quite clear on this. Even ignoring working for the baddies you have to contend with the obvious implication that you're fitting the definition of a mercenary like with >>18346.

Although it is very complicated.

>>18347
Nobody gives a serious toss about the boasting of some former McDonald's worker who once served a big mac to a Royal Marine in Kabul. Plus it involves Danny Dyer.

>>18347
>a former marine recording a video of himself challenging Danny Dyer to a fight because he disagrees with him
It's the very epitome of /iq/-level badassery.

>>18346
One was taken to court but the crown abandoned the case during trial.

>>18364

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM72WsoqVgk

>>18371
I don't think I've seen anything by The Rubberbandits apart from Horse Outside which wasn't absolute shite.

>>18367
Aye, exactly.

Broken Britain. You can't even use her face as targets at a shooting range without people getting all uppity about it.

https://twitter.com/vicderbyshire/status/1100696063344869381

>>18424

>It allows people ‘to have some light-hearted fun bringing out the inner child in all” they tell us.

The fun police clearly at work again.

>Shamima Begum and her newly born baby have vanished from the refugee camp they were staying in after a price was put on her head.

>The 19-year-old, from Bethnal Green, east London, who left the UK for Syria in 2015 to join ISIS, is thought to have fled to the Roj camp near the Iraqi border in a late-night escape after receiving death threats. ISIS wives at the Al-Hawl refugee camp believe she has disgraced their cause by giving media interviews about life under the caliphate, which has earned her ‘celebrity’ status in the camp.

>A source told The Sun: 'Shamima was threatened directly in the camp. She is living in fear of her life. There is a bounty on her head. She felt she had no option but to move her and her child to have a chance of survival. Shamima has become something of a celebrity and is constantly looking over her shoulder, fearing brutal reprisals for daring to speak out about life with ISIS. She's in misery, but only has herself to blame.'

>Islamic hardliners also criticised her for repeatedly appearing on television without covering her face.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6758375/Shamima-Begum-flees-jihadi-death-threats-ISIS-bride-takes-son-vanishes-refugee-camp.html

Once you dress all in black you can never go back.

>>18472
I can already foresee us somehow becoming the villains when the horrible people she went to join and who she has no regrets over joining kill her as is their horrible way. As if we're supposed to send round HMS Albion with a welcome basket the second this sort of thing happens.

>>18479
The entire thing seems staged; she's certainly duplicitous enough to try something like this on for sympathy. If people were trying to kill you then fuck knows why you'd broadcast where you were fleeing away from them to.

>>18480

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but she seems to be pretty fucking thick, so it's entirely possibly she really is just broadcasting her movements without considering the consequences (she has prior form in failing to consider consequences)

>>18481
>she seems to be pretty fucking thick

This is the part that most of the stories about her are missing. She is thick as two short planks.

>>18042
This has been bugging me for days, but finally it clicked. Positively uncanny.

Her baby's dead. To lose one or two kids is bad enough, but to lose three is just plain reckless.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47500387

>>18513
Not confirmed m8.

>>18514
It's as dead as her chances of getting back into the country any time soon.

>>18513

Maybe she'll have sympathy for the kids that were used as sex slaves and beheaded by people like her husband.

Or maybe not, as her religion says it's ok.

>A family friend said the UK had failed to safeguard the child while Labour said his death was the result of a "callous and inhumane" decision.
One baby dead, boo hoo

>>18517
Diane Abbott spouting absolute bollocks. There's a turn up for the books.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1104104541740507138

I might have to defend her a bit here - I'm still not convinced that the citizenship stripping was legit. Since Bangladesh said 'fuck off', I think we made her stateless, and that's wrong.
Bringing her and the kid back, though - I can't see why we'd ever have done that.

>>18519
>Bringing her and the kid back, though - I can't see why we'd ever have done that.

We wouldn't have done, it's just Abbott exploiting the death of a baby for cheap political point scoring.

>>18519
So the bambino wouldn't be dead and Begum could go to trial an we'd look like a big, hard, liberal democracy instead of an island of isular, craven, fannies.

As I said, more or less, earlier in the thread, the Romans had legal trials coming out of their amphorae and no one thought they were weak. Boring, expensive and time consuming legal disputes are the foundation of a just society, not the whims of a, frankly startling looking, home secretary. We did it to the Nazis and now we won't do it for one poxy teenager who's already copped to being a paid-up member of the okay-with-heads-in-bins club? What gives?

>>18518
It is illegal to make people stateless though. She might talk shit often enough, but that statement is true.

>>18521
>It is illegal to make people stateless though. She might talk shit often enough, but that statement is true.

That part is true. However, saying that the baby died as a result of Begum being stripped of her British citizenship is as inaccurate as it is crass.

>>18522
I wasn't aware that a Syrian refugee camp has the same state of the art equipment and responding personnel found in an NHS emergency department.

>>18523
I forgot that British citizenship acts as a teleport. That must be why no British citizens have ever died from falling ill overseas.

>>18525
It only works as teleport when it's given, like a one-shot thing. You can't just randomly teleport home, you'd have to have your citizenship revoked then granted again.

>>18519
>Bringing her and the kid back, though - I can't see why we'd ever have done that.
Compassion. It's what separates us from the daft militant wogs and the dictators. I mean, we had the decency to give the Nazis a fair trial.

Some people have been making the argument that she made the choice so it's her fault. I guess those girls in Rochdale made the choice to be abused so it's their own fauit, right? Because grooming totally isn't a thing, right?