Should Shamima Begum be allowed back into the UK?

Agree with that mate. He made too many concessions to keep a treacherous PLP on board, even after the failed coup, when mandatory reselections or open primaries would’ve been a good step forward.

Lavery & Trickett’s “Northern Discomfort” report is worth a read for those who haven’t seen it - https://images.jacobinmag.com/.....FORT-for-release.pdf

I am not sure why the two posts above are relevant- the official Labour party line was as I described earlier irrespective of how it was arrived at. It might be very important to died in the wool Labour members to describe how one faction or another has behaved in reaching a decision, but it doesnt interest the voting public one jot.

The Labour party position ensured their heaviest defeat since the 1930's and any blood red Labour government has not been in power since the 70's so I am not sure where they go from here.

Corbynism or a variant of it will never be elected by a generally conservative with a small c public, so a more moderate party might gain more traction in England if the Conservatives implode but then they will never regain Scotland so it is a dilemma for Labour.

Perhaps more relevant to the title of this thread this thread is the mistake of Starmer to be photographed taking the knee when it was trendy to do so - manna from heaven for the Conservative PR machine come election time.

You just asked why the Labour Party didn’t think they should’ve enacted the result - people are just answering you. It was due to forces of capital that did not want any challenge to the status quo, which to them is the end goal, regardless of which party defends them.


In what way is Black Lives Matter, supposedly an anarachist/Marxist organisation according to you, relevant to Shamima Begum, an Islamic-fascist terrorist?

Quoted from ska face

You just asked why the Labour Party didn’t think they should’ve enacted the result - people are just answering you. It was due to forces of capital that did not want any challenge to the status quo, which to them is the end goal, regardless of which party defends them.


In what way is Black Lives Matter, supposedly an anarachist/Marxist organisation according to you, relevant to Shamima Begum, an Islamic-fascist terrorist?

That's a fair cop Ska. I thought this discussion about politics was on the anti racism thread hence the reference to taking the knee.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

I see Boris Johnson has called the decision to allow legal aid for this terrorist "odd and perverse. "

That is one way of describing it, but I would say it is more of a kick in the guts for law abiding decent people who are sick to death of using taxpayers money like this. Is this what the legal aid system was designed to do - help fund the legal costs of terrorists who were deemed so dangerous their citizenship was revoked?

Boris says the government are considering a change in the law. I suggest he stops considering and starts to implement laws and actions that benefit the law abiding majority and let terrorists rot in Hell.

The Conservative government was given a huge mandate by the British people to sort out a lot of things including supporting the law abiding public and making life more difficult for terrorists, criminals, rapists and other assorted wrong doers so let's get on with it.

I've just re-read this and I'm not at all sure how I missed the significance of Johnson's comment. Legal Aid is and should without question remain available to everyone who needs it. The issue of Legal Aid in cases like The Yorkshire Ripper and Fred and Rose West was never questioned and yet those people would almost certainly have qualified for and been given Legal Aid. Once politicians start making pronouncements about the validity of Legal Aid then we are on the top of a very slippery slope. Today Begum tomorrow somebody else who the press have decided don't deserve a fair hearing.

Quoted from barralad

I've just re-read this and I'm not at all sure how I missed the significance of Johnson's comment. Legal Aid is and should without question remain available to everyone who needs it. The issue of Legal Aid in cases like The Yorkshire Ripper and Fred and Rose West was never questioned and yet those people would almost certainly have qualified for and been given Legal Aid. Once politicians start making pronouncements about the validity of Legal Aid then we are on the top of a very slippery slope. Today Begum tomorrow somebody else who the press have decided don't deserve a fair hearing.

From a purely political perspective this sort of attitude plays badly with voters.

They go to work, pay their taxes and generally lead exemplary lives only for the Labour party to refuse to sanction any idea that we might play hardball with terrorists who want to kill us in the word of "fairness "

The refusal to accept such extraordinary circumstances and that we need to be more assertive and not worry that we are on a slippery slope leaves voters perplexed.

No doubt she will be back. No doubt she will get legal aid but at least the government can say they opposed it while Labour look like the pro terrorist party.

I genuinely think you have a mental condition of some description. Is barralad a Labour Party spokesman now? Do you even know the party’s official line on the situation?

I think this is emblematic of a disturbing phenomena where people are so detached from any form of reality, they’ll just pile everything they dislike on one party, and project all their wishes onto another party despite the lack of any evidence or even suggestion that it’s what they stand for. The Tory party only have a mandate to deliver on what they set out in their wafer-thin manifesto, not just what you’ve decided in your head.  

For what it’s worth, barralad is correct - again - in that govts deciding who is and who isn’t entitled to legal representation based on what plays well with their potential base is a very slippery slope. Let’s say, for example, Corbyn won in Dec (or 2017) and stripped Marine A or Solder F of their citizenship for the murders they carried out, and denied them access to any recourse. Is that fair? No. And that’s why the law is there, to protect everyone regardless of which set of jokers is in the chair for this 5 years or the next.

Yes, but at the same time, she is a terrorist, and whatever sentence is available should be applied.

Personally a gun and a wall would be my preferred outcome.

She was 15 when she went to join ISIS with her 2 young friends.  Whatever she knew at the time about ISIS, she did know that she was not running away to join the Girl Guides.

Her 2 friends are presumed dead.  If she knew this would happen and the extent of ISIS atrocities, she would probably have stayed in the UK.  She was incredibly naive, stupid and immature. Possibly thinking that she was going on an overseas adventure for some excitement.


To what extent was she culpable?  

At 15 you cannot legally consent to sex.  At 15 though you a few years past the criminal age of responsibility.  She is then arguably fully accountable legally for her actions - and the consequences.

The Government have been right in their actions to remove her British Citizenship.  The Courts have probably made the right decision to give her the right to argue her case in the UK.

I hope though that her claim is denied.  This would be just.  Also, at the very least, a refusal would also act as a deterrent to others considering joining a terrorist organisation.

Even though she is probably going to cop for the lot of it, I don’t get how you - or any of us - can say what is “just” based on what we have read in a newspaper or heard on a 2 minute newsclip.

I certainly can’t understand how you’ve come to the conclusion the govt were right to remove her citizenship when The Court of Appeal have just ruled that they acted unlawfully.