Shamima Bequm-Return or not ?

[slapheadsteve]

You mentioned you worked in Bethnal Green. Was that the old one or the one behind the Fire Station.

Yes up till 5 years ago, plus the Isle of Dogs, and many local office's within the local community in the east end.

 

[Napster]

As an aside , but I suppose a similar issue, should Jack Shepherd, who has been convicted of manslaughter, be allowed to come back from Georgia ?

He should not have been able to flee the country in the first place. He really is a bellend.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I have not replied to any of your posts, even when you were quoting me. Anyone can read the recent pages in the Labour party thread.

You know exactly what you are doing.

You did, you know you did.
What I'm doing is again suggesting that you put me on ignore and I put you on ignore. Seems sensible. Agreed?

 

[rigsby]

Yes up till 5 years ago, plus the Isle of Dogs, and many local office's within the local community in the east end.

I was there throughout the 90's. Good times. If you go back that far our paths may have crossed.

I do remember being surrounded by around 100 Bengalis on the ocean estate one bonfire night. Their leader showed me a the large knife in his jacket and said he would stab us if we put the fire out.....I had to choose my words carefully over the next few minutes. One of the lads who was there retired yesterday and we still have a chuckle about it now,

Nothing was done about of course. The Fire brigade management were the worst, didn't even want anything recorded let alone any statements etc. When another crew were attacked later that evening they spread the false news that we had turned our fire hose on the mob earlier that evening.

Now people wonder why we have communities that have real hatred towards us.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

As an aside , but I suppose a similar issue, should Jack Shepherd, who has been convicted of manslaughter, be allowed to come back from Georgia ?

Yes he should. He needs to come back and face what he did and pay for it in our prison system.
This scumbag used to ply young women with drink and take them out on his unsafe clapped out speedboat as a way of seduction. Then he would dump and repeat. That dreadful night he was really showing off and the speedboat was doing twice the speed limit. He's changed his story since a few times to even put the blame on her, saying she was driving it, disgusting. After many young women have said that he tried this seduction night on them, including meal, untold drink and speedboat. He then came out with that Charlotte was special and he hoped to marry her, even tho they'd only just met. The family are not only dealing with their grief, but they have to listen to this painful rubbish that Jack Shepherd comes out with to try and distance himself from any blame as to what happened that night.

 

[rigsby]

Yes he should. He needs to come back and face what he did and pay for it in our prison system.
This scumbag used to ply young women with drink and take them out on his unsafe clapped out speedboat as a way of seduction. Then he would dump and repeat. That dreadful night he was really showing off and the speedboat was doing twice the speed limit. He's changed his story since a few times to even put the blame on her, saying she was driving it, disgusting. After many young women have said that he tried this seduction night on them, including meal, untold drink and speedboat. He then came out with that Charlotte was special and he hoped to marry her, even tho they'd only just met. The family are not only dealing with their grief, but they have to listen to this painful rubbish that Jack Shepherd comes out with to try and distance himself from any blame as to what happened that night.

If only he had moved his 'smooth' operation down river to the estuary. he wouldn't have had to try that hard and she would still be alive.

 

[rigsby]

You did, you know you did.
What I'm doing is again suggesting that you put me on ignore and I put you on ignore. Seems sensible. Agreed?

You are a liar and a fraud who couldn't stick to his word.

 

[GBJ]

Many posts ago I asked what legal grounds were there for a British citizen to be denied access to Britain ?

I have seen shed loads of opinions and moral outpourings from both camps, but put the sentiment to one side for a moment, stop trying to batter other peoples opinions into dust ,and have a think.

What legal grounds can be employed to stop a currently unconvicted british citizen returning and , how comfortable would be the legal precedent sit ...

Personally, I cant think of a legal reason (not withstanding the breach of international law regarding citizen ship) and , given that we seem to go to some lengths to extradite criminals (from countries with an extradition treaty) in order to put them on trial and bang them up, I am not sure that leaving them out there is the general option . Mind you if they are in a country with an extradition treaty with the uk, they are probably living a tad more comfortably than someone in a refugee camp.

Personal opinion, she made her own way out there , she can make her own way back. Monitored then nicked as soon as she sets foot in the country.
Child straight into care (Grandparents who let their own kids be radicalised and then run off to a war zone , are not fit guardians) so the child can have a chance of a decent upbringing .
Then let the legal process take its course.

As an aside , but I suppose a similar issue, should Jack Shepherd, who has been convicted of manslaughter, be allowed to come back from Georgia ?

Good post.

FWIW, with regard to the bit in bold, the arguement of her being legally allowed to return has been conflated with the moral standpoint, I think (in general, not by you)

Unfortunately it looks like we’d have to comply & accept her back. That seems pretty final.

The new question should be, although we can’t stop her returning, is it immoral to stop her & effectively render her stateless?

From the various polls, publications & opinions that I’ve seen, it would appear that the overwhelming majority would happily cast her adrift (I’d certainly prefer that instead of drawn out legal-proceedings & massive costs at taxpayers expense)

Therefore, it would appear, that there is support for a change in the law, so that cases like this, were more simple & fair.

Sometimes, the law is just plainly wrong. It wasn’t that long ago, that things we deem as normal now, were illegal. Abortions & homosexuality are two of the big ones that immediately spring to mind. Those laws were changed to meet public demand & decency.


With regards to public interest, Is this case really that different?

 

[rigsby]

Good post.


Sometimes, the law is just plainly wrong. It wasn’t that long ago, that things we deem as normal now, were illegal. Abortions & homosexuality are two of the big ones that immediately spring to mind. Those laws were changed to meet public demand & decency.


With regards to public interest, Is this case really that different?

That's debateable of course.

Rather like the gender neutral nonsene or someone can declare themselves a woman and take the girl guides camping etc.

The only people who support it are wrong'uns…...Just goes to show how many have slipped into influential places such as the media.

 

[GBJ]

That's debateable of course.

Rather like the gender neutral nonsene or someone can declare themselves a woman and take the girl guides camping etc.

The only people who support it are wrong'uns…...Just goes to show how many have slipped into influential places such as the media.

I get what you’re saying, but the examples you’ve given are a bit off.

I can’t ever see a time where the public would support either of them examples, in the numbers like they do in this case.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

You are a liar and a fraud who couldn't stick to his word.

You were put on ignore. It then became clear you had replied to one of my posts and your defence was that 'it was only once'.
If you agree to put me on ignore then I will do the same. Agreed?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Good post.

FWIW, with regard to the bit in bold, the arguement of her being legally allowed to return has been conflated with the moral standpoint, I think (in general, not by you)

Unfortunately it looks like we’d have to comply & accept her back. That seems pretty final.

The new question should be, although we can’t stop her returning, is it immoral to stop her & effectively render her stateless?

From the various polls, publications & opinions that I’ve seen, it would appear that the overwhelming majority would happily cast her adrift (I’d certainly prefer that instead of drawn out legal-proceedings & massive costs at taxpayers expense)

Therefore, it would appear, that there is support for a change in the law, so that cases like this, were more simple & fair.

Sometimes, the law is just plainly wrong. It wasn’t that long ago, that things we deem as normal now, were illegal. Abortions & homosexuality are two of the big ones that immediately spring to mind. Those laws were changed to meet public demand & decency.


With regards to public interest, Is this case really that different?

There are a lot of examples of the public wanting one thing but the authorities legally having to do something else. This is another case, international law says that if she manages to reach the U.K. then she has to be allowed to return. She can be arrested on entry though.

 

[GBJ]

There are a lot of examples of the public wanting one thing but the authorities legally having to do something else. This is another case, international law says that if she manages to reach the U.K. then she has to be allowed to return. She can be arrested on entry though.

I can’t think of many examples off the top of my head, where the overwhelmingly majority of Britons have been so united in their feelings.

Im sure there are examples, but I can’t think of any

 

[rigsby]

If we can ignore international law, bomb, maim and kill over 1m muslims in an illegal war and nothing happens. Then why don't we just suit ourselves in this case, do what ever we think is best......After all we know for fact, it won't make any difference to the rest of the world.

 

[Firestorm]

I can’t think of many examples off the top of my head, where the overwhelmingly majority of Britons have been so united in their feelings.

Im sure there are examples, but I can’t think of any

Fair call.

Do the majority really want different Laws to the rest of the UN though, or are they just being very very specific on what they think law should really say in this instance, where basically the change will be along the lines of "anyone suspected (because legally that is all it is), or convicted of, being involved the membership of a proscribed organisation" should not be allowed into the UK , regardless of whether they are british citizens or not".


Using my previous example of the Jack Shepherd, what is the Majoritys thoughts on that , we certainly are not hearing the let him rot argument on that, (The Daily Mail is calling for his return for example) .

 

[rigsby]

Do the majority really want different Laws to the rest of the UN though, or are they just being very very specific on what they think law should really say in this instance, where basically the change will be along the lines of "anyone suspected (because legally that is all it is), or convicted of, being involved the membership of a proscribed organisation" should not be allowed into the UK , regardless of whether they are british citizens or not".


Using my previous example of the Jack Shepherd, what is the Majoritys thoughts on that , we certainly are not hearing the let him rot argument on that, (The Daily Mail is calling for his return for example) .

He commited his crime in Briton, his victim was British, his trial and conviction was in a British court. I doubt his crime will encourage dozens of speed boat jihadis to do the same.

She will hardly do any prison time. After all what offence has she actually committed and she was only 15. The danger that most people see is the bigger picture of terrorism and what she might 'inspire' rather than what she has done.

 

[Firestorm]

He commited his crime in Briton, his victim was British, his trial and conviction was in a British court. I doubt his crime will encourage dozens of speed boat jihadis to do the same.

She will hardly do any prison time. After all what offence has she actually committed and she was only 15. The danger that most people see is the bigger picture of terrorism and what she might 'inspire' rather than what she has done.

So one is allowed a fair trial found guilty, absconds and is allowed back, one is denied a fair trial, is technically innocent , yet is not allowed back.
Regardless of the crime (One is a killer, the other isn't) does the above sound right to you...

As I said in my post , put opinions to one side and show a legal (ish) reason for not allowing her in and then consider the precedent it sets.

 

[Lancashire shrimper]

https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=231521&area=uk

Over 400,000 signatures, and neither a mention on the tele nor the papers. The map is quite interesting showing the demographic of opinion.

 

[MK Shrimper]

https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=231521&area=uk

Over 400,000 signatures, and neither a mention on the tele nor the papers. The map is quite interesting showing the demographic of opinion.

It's unnofficial. People could have voted multiple times, and it's still (roughly) only 0.01% of the adult population of the UK.

 

[GBJ]

Fair call.

Do the majority really want different Laws to the rest of the UN though, or are they just being very very specific on what they think law should really say in this instance, where basically the change will be along the lines of "anyone suspected (because legally that is all it is), or convicted of, being involved the membership of a proscribed organisation" should not be allowed into the UK , regardless of whether they are british citizens or not".

Using my previous example of the Jack Shepherd, what is the Majoritys thoughts on that , we certainly are not hearing the let him rot argument on that, (The Daily Mail is calling for his return for example) .

Let’s be fair, UN Countries don’t have to agree/share laws, to be a member state.

Take those two big Countries across the pond, and their right to bare arms. We all know, our Country, (along with the majority of fellow UN Countries) have a very different outlook on guns, from what they do, but nevertheless they’re still Member States of The UN.

The change in law, would be pretty much how you’ve worded It. If you go abroad & engage in terrorist activity, or any acts of treason against this Country, then your British-Issued Passport, will be registered null and void.

The Shepherd case is a different althoughter, from this bint’s. For starters, of the two of them, which one do you think is more desperate to get back to Blighty?

He commited his crime in Briton, his victim was British, his trial and conviction was in a British court. I doubt his crime will encourage dozens of speed boat jihadis to do the same.

She will hardly do any prison time. After all what offence has she actually committed and she was only 15. The danger that most people see is the bigger picture of terrorism and what she might 'inspire' rather than what she has done.

This is the key point. It’s not all about punishing the cow, it’s about presenting a solid deterrent.