British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[Spymaster]

There's more than a whiff of racism around this. If one of her parents had been white British and she'd had a non-Bangladeshi name, I'll bet this wouldn't have happened, even though the same argument could have been made.

Huge conjecture and probably bollocks, imo. I would expect the spooks to have pretty hefty files on everyone being held in the camps and a background check would be pretty high in the screening process. Suggesting they'd take a softer line on someone with a white parent sounds like fantasy to me.

 

[Athos]

Is she a victim of said rape cult?

Possibly.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm afraid you're just wrong about that. As already pointed out on this thread, it happened to a white boy with two white patents and a non-Bangladeshi name, who was a dual UK/Canadian citizen.

Oh yes, it did didn't it. Forgot about that.

 

[maomao]

She is a citizen already. Your confusing citizenship with having a passport.

Okay. Please outline the process (and cost) of renouncing Bangladeshi citizenship for a British person without a Bangladeshi passport.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

She is a citizen already. Your confusing citizenship with having a passport.

See this isn't really true. It's you, and the british government, latching on to some poor wording in Bangladeshi law.

If she hasn't sought out her passport by the time she's 21, she loses her citizenship, which is why the British govt was ruled not to be allowed to do this to some older Daesh men in a previous case. So she's not really a citizen at age 15. Not really. You can't be a full citizen of somewhere only for that citizenship to be lost when you hit a certain birthday. At very best, she had some kind of a provisional citizenship subject to confirmation by her/her parents (which didn't happen).

Hence my use of the word sophistry earlier.

 

[Athos]

Okay. Please outline the process (and cost) of renouncing Bangladeshi citizenship for a British person without a Bangladeshi passport.

I've got work this afternoon. But will look into when I get a chance.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Huge conjecture and probably bollocks, imo. I would expect the spooks to have pretty hefty files on everyone being held in the camps and a background check would be pretty high in the screening process. Suggesting they'd take a softer line on someone with a white parent sounds like fantasy to me.

I don't think that's unreasonable conjecture. I agree it's likely she would have been treated more leniently if she were white, especially if she had some nice respectable white middle class parents back home to go on telly and say that she was led astray by nasty brown men and that they just want their daughter back.

It's not a fantasy at all to say that the state treats white people and black people differently is it? We know the state does this. And you're probably capable of acknowledging that if it comes up in another context. But you can't here because it detracts from your obsession with this girl you've never met. Are you lieing to us or yourself?

 

[Raheem]

Would you say that Kayleigh Haywood who was groomed online, raped and murdered at the age of 15 shouldn't have chosen to meet up with rapists and murderers? Would you say the same about an eleven year old? At what age does coercion and exual abuse by adults completely stop being an extenuating factor?

Think the thing is that this is something that was decided under immigration law, which doesn't require the application of principles of equity and reasonableness you would expect to see most of the time in English and Welsh courts. So, on the one hand, yes the decision goes completely against a normal sense of justice. On the other, it's not, as far as I understand, actually a perverse decision. It's just that immigration law is shit and we normally choose to look the other way.

 

[Spymaster]

See this isn't really true. It's you, and the british government, latching on to some poor wording in Bangladeshi law.

No they're not. Not at all.

It's a legal principle known as Jus sanguinis which has been embraced by Bangladesh and incorporated into it's citizenship policy.

There are shitloads of states who practice it to varying degrees.

Stop making out this is some kind of mistake or loophole that's being exploited. It's not.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Okay. Please outline the process (and cost) of renouncing Bangladeshi citizenship for a British person without a Bangladeshi passport.

I'd be interested to know if anybody has ever done this. For starters, the Bangladeshi authorities have no record whatever of the people in question. They don't know you exist until you contact them. So you'd first have to prove who you are and that you indeed are entitled to citizenship, only to say 'oh and by the way I don't want it'.

Who would do that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Stop making out this is some kind of mistake or loophole that's being exploited. It's not.

That is exactly what it is.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Possibly.

Then don't you think your position of blaming her for losing her citizenship is a bit ewwww/uncomfortable? Given you acknowledge shes at least potentially a victim of rape and grooming.

 

[not-bono-ever]

UKG using every trick in the book to avoid her getting back here as if this came to court in the UK, it would be an embarrassment for them. This has nothing to do with risk - unless you implicity trust the intelligence services assurances expressed in camera - this is about avoiding any kind of transparency. I dig that most gave a beef with her but the beef is no reason to give the UKG a bye on their behaviour

 

[LDC]

UKG using every trick in the book to avoid her getting back here as if this came to court in the UK, it would be an embarrassment for them. This has nothing to do with risk - unless you implicity trust the intelligence services assurances expressed in camera - this is about avoiding any kind of transparency. I dig that most gave a beef with her but the beef is no reason to give the UKG a bye on their behaviour

I'm unsure what you're suggesting why that might be, could you give us a run down why you think her being in court is something the government and intelligence services want to desperately avoid as it'd be an embarrassment for them?

 

[Spymaster]

UKG using every trick in the book to avoid her getting back here as if this came to court in the UK, it would be an embarrassment for them. This has nothing to do with risk - unless you implicity trust the intelligence services assurances expressed in camera - this is about avoiding any kind of transparency. I dig that most gave a beef with her but the beef is no reason to give the UKG a bye on their behaviour

The Supreme Court disgrees with you.

 

[not-bono-ever]

This place has changed. I might Fuck off to mumsnet

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Supreme Court disgrees with you.

Yes, the Supreme Court has made a grubby decision.

 

[Athos]

See this isn't really true. It's you, and the british government, latching on to some poor wording in Bangladeshi law.

If she hasn't sought out her passport by the time she's 21, she loses her citizenship, which is why the British govt was ruled not to be allowed to do this to some older Daesh men in a previous case. So she's not really a citizen at age 15. Not really. You can't be a full citizen of somewhere only for that citizenship to be lost when you hit a certain birthday. At very best, she had some kind of a provisional citizenship subject to confirmation by her/her parents (which didn't happen).

Hence my use of the word sophistry earlier.

That might be what you think the law should be (and there's probably some merit in that). But, rightly or wrongly, it's not what it is. Under Bangladeshi law she is a citizen; it's not even poorly-worded, or at all ambiguous, either. There's no sophistry; her de jure citizenship of Bangladesh is a fact in the eyes of the UK courts.

 

[Athos]

Would you say that Kayleigh Haywood who was groomed online, raped and murdered at the age of 15 shouldn't have chosen to meet up with rapists and murderers? Would you say the same about an eleven year old? At what age does coercion and exual abuse by adults completely stop being an extenuating factor?

I don't think it ceases to be a factor; it should be weighed with all the known facts, in order to assess risk.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Give us a run down why you think her being in court is something the government and intelligence services want to desperately avoid as it'd be an embarrassment for them?

their ploy to circumvent a supposed fair trial Everything else is chaff.

 

[Spymaster]

Yes, the Supreme Court has made a grubby decision.

They are the supreme arbiters of the law and they've made the correct decision according to the law.

 

[LDC]

their ploy to circumvent a supposed fair trial Everything else is chaff.

Cheers, just wasn't quite sure what you were getting at.

 

[Athos]

If she hadn't worn those skimpy clothes, then she wouldn't have been targeted by her rapist.

People have a right to wear a mini skirt; they don't have a right to join a group that keeps slaves, tortures and beheads people, and weaponises mass rape.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Cheers, just wasn't quite sure what you were getting at.

NP. I don’t give a rats egg about her let’s be clear

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They are the supreme arbiters of the law and they've made the correct decision according to the law.

Is this a religious thing, like Papal infallability?

 

[Athos]

Then don't you think your position of blaming her for losing her citizenship is a bit ewwww/uncomfortable? Given you acknowledge shes at least potentially a victim of rape and grooming.

No, I think victims of one crime can be culpable of others (albeit that victimhood can be mitigation).

 

[not-bono-ever]

The Supreme Court disgrees with you.

On the basis of a secret dossier no doubt. The intelligence services interprets and presents information and proffers an opinion. It’s not objective

 

[not-bono-ever]

It’s a lovely day outside tho.

 

[Spymaster]

Is this a religious thing, like Papal infallability?

As far as interpreting the law is concerned, it's not far off, tbh.

They've reached the same conclusion that some on here have been arguing since the thread began.

 

[SpackleFrog]

As far as interpreting the law is concerned, it's not far off, tbh.

They've reached the same conclusion that some on here have been arguing since the thread began.

Bootlicker.