Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

We'll have to disagree about it being weak. It's clearly discriminatory and racist. If they don't take that line in court, then the bet will be off, as that particular aspect of it won't have been tested.

It's hard to see how she can take that line, now; the case has been remitted to the SIAC to reconsider its second preliminary finding (the extra-territoriality point) (and the refusal to grant Leave to Enter has been quashed). But the first preliminary finding - that she wasn't made stateless - remains intact. I'm not sure that will be revisited (unless there's it's somehow worked into an appeal about the SIAC's final determination of the deprivation appeal).

And, from reading this original decision on the preliminary points by the SIAC (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf) it doesn't look she pursued the discrimination argument to attack the statelessness issue. To my mind, it's inconceivable that they wouldn't have if there'd been any prospect of success.
 
Last edited:
there's alot to read, you could just as easily have answered the question. I've been in and out of the thread and would like to know how she gets back home?

Easier for you to read than me to type out all the possible ways, some complicated, that have been suggested. There's quite a few possible options, kebabking and myself have made a few.
 
Its bollocks is what it is. Firstly, using the the victims of rape gangs for ‘satire’ is vile. Another example of how worthless their lives are, that they can be summoned up as satire to make a shit political point.

Secondly, the aim: a blatant attempt to draw some sort of moral equivalence. To absolve Begum of any kind of personal responsibility and to suggest everything is just completely determined by external conditions is just garbage.

Where did Newsthump use victims of rape gangs for satire, you hysterical twonk?

There's no moral equivalence needed, either a 15 year is too young to consent or they ain't. Where are you on this one?
 
Where did Newsthump use victims of rape gangs for satire, you hysterical twonk?

There's no moral equivalence needed, either a 15 year is too young to consent or they ain't. Where are you on this one?


You claimed it was satire. That’s why I put it in inverted commas.....

If you think there is some smart political point to be made by constructing some moral equivalence then crack on. Go for it...
 
Where did Newsthump use victims of rape gangs for satire, you hysterical twonk?

Here:

“I’m not sure why sexually and psychologically abused British white girls are ‘victims’ but sexually and psychologically abused British girls of Bangladeshi descent somehow ‘are not’.

“…I mean the obvious conclusion would be that Simon is a bit of a racist, but I’d hate to be rude."



There's no moral equivalence needed, either a 15 year is too young to consent or they ain't. Where are you on this one?

Under English law, a 15 year old can't consent to sex, but they do have the capacity to commit crime. There's nothing inconsistent about that. And, the fact that the man who had sex with her at 15 would have been guilty of a crime if it had happened in the UK doesn't make her not guilty of any crimes she may have committed.
 
You claimed it was satire. That’s why I put it in inverted commas.....

If you think there is some smart political point to be made by constructing some moral equivalence then crack on. Go for it...

It's bollocks of course. Begum's Lawyers have claimed she was "groomed" and "trafficked" by IS, stretching the definitions of both terms to busting point and ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of kids with similar backgrounds and pressures don't join ISIS, and that Begum bought her own plane ticket and became a member of the IS morality police (by some accounts).

As you've pointed out, trying to extract some moral equivalence with rape gangs is pretty fucking disgusting. Perhaps these people would be better off reserving their sympathy for the thousands of Yazidi women who were genuinely trafficked into sexual slavery by ISIS.
 
It's bollocks of course. Begum's Lawyers have claimed she was "groomed" and "trafficked" by IS, stretching the definitions of both terms to busting point and ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of kids with similar backgrounds and pressures don't join ISIS, and that Begum bought her own plane ticket and became a member of the IS morality police (by some accounts).

As you've pointed out, trying to extract some moral equivalence with rape gangs is pretty fucking disgusting. Perhaps these people would be better off reserving their sympathy for the thousands of Yazidi women who were genuinely trafficked into sexual slavery by ISIS.

Bahnhofstrasse knows all of this. But is asserting that the ‘News Thump’ ‘satire’ contains an important political point that is being overlooked by sticking to the objective facts. The floor is open for him/her to set that case out
 
They were fighting/beheading/torturing for a caliphate. A religious state. You seem to suggest some progressive anti-imperialist impulse at work?

Was being sarcastic to another poster who made the ridiculous claim of her being a "traitor". I believe that the one time narrative that Daesh was some kind of anti-imperialist outfit had long been put to bed...
 
For the last few weeks we have all been lectured about how honouring and idolising slavers is history not hate and we shouldn't whitewash what has happened because its important to learn etc. Now we have a real life actual slaver and some of the same voices are telling us we should just pretend she doesn't exist. I mean, I'm not saying she should definitely have a statue but without one how will future generations learn?

Life in 2020 is confusing.
 
Under English law, a 15 year old can't consent to sex, but they do have the capacity to commit crime. There's nothing inconsistent about that. And, the fact that the man who had sex with her at 15 would have been guilty of a crime if it had happened in the UK doesn't make her not guilty of any crimes she may have committed.

My understanding is that teenage victims of grooming gangs in the UK are often used to assist in other crimes such as drug trafficking and procuring other teenage victims. Should I assume you believe they should be prosecuted for their crimes?
 
My understanding is that teenage victims of grooming gangs in the UK are often used to assist in other crimes such as drug trafficking and procuring other teenage victims. Should I assume you believe they should be prosecuted for their crimes?

Whether or not prosecution is in the public interest would depend on the circumstances. Where a 15 year old had chosen to join and enthusiastically participate in an organisation that rapes, tortures and murders, I'd imagine that, whilst their culpability might be somewhat mitigated by their age and the fact that they were allegedly groomed, they ought not to get a free pass, particularly if there's some doubt about the genuineness of their repudiation (e.g. when it only came about after they were caught) and the level of ongoing threat they pose.

What do you think?
 
Just going to put this out there:



It's a bloody long thread (over 250 tweets), but it's extraordinarily insightful.

The TL/DR - all this talk of mass murder, slavery, rape jihad, traitors, etc. is one side of ISIS's propaganda & recruitment strategy, there is another side. One side is designed to recruit enemies and increase the alienation of Muslims in western societies, the other side we don't see designed to capitalise on that alienation.
 
Last edited:
What do you think?
I fundamentally object to the removal of citizenship acquired at birth. I don't think the British state is obliged to bring her home but if she made it here on her own steam I think she probably belongs in somewhere like Broadmoor (the orchard?) for the moment. But I do think she was groomed.
 
I fundamentally object to the removal of citizenship acquired at birth. I don't think the British state is obliged to bring her home but if she made it here on her own steam I think she probably belongs in somewhere like Broadmoor (the orchard?) for the moment. But I do think she was groomed.

You've answered a different question. We were talking about the issue of whether those who claim to have been groomed should be prosecuted. Do you think they should? Do you think she should, if she makes it here?
 
You've answered a different question. We were talking about the issue of whether those who claim to have been groomed should be prosecuted. Do you think they should? Do you think she should, if she makes it here?
In 99% of cases no. I'm thinking of some of the underage girls that were procurers for Epstein. They committed horrible crimes while over the age of criminal responsibility but they were victims.

I think she needs secure psychological intervention to protect the public from her while her state of mind can be assessed. It may be that she needs to be under lock and key permanently but I'd rather that decision was made by psychologists with experience in the area of grooming rather than the usual probation system.

I also think the focus on this one particular case is a bit disturbing for obvious reasons.
 
Back
Top Bottom