Reply to: Sorry Miss Beggum / Mrs Riedijk

[NotAllThere]

Thank you but I have better uses of my time than to listen to a convicted felon who was too weak to stand up to her extremist husband try and justify her actions.

Well, you won't be, because that's not what it is. It's high quality investigative journalism most certainly not from a bleeding heart sympathetic perspective. And it isn't a platform for the daft bint to justify herself. Even though it's produced by the BBC!

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...r/id1540251892 for people who a) have the time to listen to podcasts and b) want to educate themselves. Also on BBC Sounds.

[Zigenare]

Hmmm. She was in the middle of the ISIS community. What do you think the outcome might have been if she'd stood up to her extremist husband?

I doubt that there are many ISIS members living in Indiana, any more excuses you wish to lob into the debate? As I said, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=How+m...+in+Indiana%3F

[vetran]

Hmmm. She was in the middle of the ISIS community. What do you think the outcome might have been if she'd stood up to her extremist husband?

Become a head in a bucket? Why is it always the men's fault, can some women not take responsibility for their actions? Her husband was happily sending her love from Holland, to the best of my knowledge she has not renounced her husband, her lawyer bought her a T shirt.

So basically she joined a death cult, married at 15 enjoyed it then realised she wanted out because they were losing.

[Snooky]

Thank you but I have better uses of my time than to listen to a convicted felon who was too weak to stand up to her extremist husband try and justify her actions.

Hmmm. She was in the middle of the ISIS community. What do you think the outcome might have been if she'd stood up to her extremist husband?

[Zigenare]

I still recommend you listen to that podcast "I am not a monster" - you might indeed learn something.

Thank you but I have better uses of my time than to listen to a convicted felon who was too weak to stand up to her extremist husband try and justify her actions.

[NotAllThere]

Funny how that change of image happened as she began her appeal process a few years ago, isn't it? Make her seem more palatable to the UK, seem less of a threat, soften the look? I didn't think you'd swallow that one without a little cynicism. Still, you live and learn.

I still recommend you listen to that podcast "I am not a monster" - you might indeed learn something.

[Zigenare]

She'd just lost her third child and had been out of the death cult for only a short time. She has repeatedly repented her position since then, and no longer wears Islamic dress.

Or, the UK could be pragmatic, realise the cost isn't worth it, and quietly drop the case. If (and it's a big if) she manages to return to the UK (there's no obligation to give her any help even if she is British - plenty of people who are white have discovered that!), then she'll be given due process. It's all really rather ridiculous. Far worse people have returned and been tried and imprisoned.

Funny how that change of image happened as she began her appeal process a few years ago, isn't it? Make her seem more palatable to the UK, seem less of a threat, soften the look? I didn't think you'd swallow that one without a little cynicism. Still, you live and learn.

[NotAllThere]

Except when she had grown up (rather forcibly, admittedly) she still refused to repent her position and is now of an age when the defence of "being underage" no longer applies. You may remember her refusing to condemn those who beheaded people in front of her...

She'd just lost her third child and had been out of the death cult for only a short time. She has repeatedly repented her position since then, and no longer wears Islamic dress.

Yes it may end up in some international court in years to come. That will make the lawyers yet richer (after all they are getting paid out of legal aid funds - i.e. you and me) but won't actually progress her case any further.

Or, the UK could be pragmatic, realise the cost isn't worth it, and quietly drop the case. If (and it's a big if) she manages to return to the UK (there's no obligation to give her any help even if she is British - plenty of people who are white have discovered that!), then she'll be given due process. It's all really rather ridiculous. Far worse people have returned and been tried and imprisoned.

[vetran]

As we know from the sentencing of one of the horrible cases in the last month, if she stood trial and was found guilty any sentencing l would take in consideration her age and her suspected maturity at the time she committed her offences. So being 15 means she would be assessed and sentenced differently from a 13 year old and a 17 year old let alone an adult.

But to suggest at 15 she wasn't responsible for her apparently criminal actions seems a little naive.

[SueEllen]

Yes it may end up in some international court in years to come. That will make the lawyers yet richer (after all they are getting paid out of legal aid funds - i.e. you and me) but won't actually progress her case any further. The UK could well argue that we removed her citizenship but we did not make her stateless since she had viable alternatives at the time.

Bangladesh stated at the time she wasn't one of their citizens.

So what other viable alternatives did she have?

[SueEllen]

Actually as far as criminal responsibility she wasn't. She was 5 years past that.
She was old enough to understand right from wrong and presumably what would happen if she joined a terrorist organisation.

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-...)%20Act%202019).

What she couldn't do at 15 is rent a car, buy alcohol, take out a mortgage or get married.

She could still go to prison for being involved in murder.

As we know from the sentencing of one of the horrible cases in the last month, if she stood trial and was found guilty any sentencing l would take in consideration her age and her suspected maturity at the time she committed her offences. So being 15 means she would be assessed and sentenced differently from a 13 year old and a 17 year old let alone an adult.

[vetran]

I'm not suggesting that she is innocent, but the fact is she was a child in the eyes of the law when she made her decision and in any case removal of her citizenship is unlawful and amoral regardless of guilt or age.

Actually as far as criminal responsibility she wasn't. She was 5 years past that.
She was old enough to understand right from wrong and presumably what would happen if she joined a terrorist organisation.

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-...)%20Act%202019).

What she couldn't do at 15 is rent a car, buy alcohol, take out a mortgage or get married.

She could still go to prison for being involved in murder.

[mattster]

I think you're expending a lot of effort trying to justify her actions.

It is possible to think that sombody has been hard done by without having to justify their actions.

[Zigenare]

Oh come on. You don't think race and/or culture has a bearing here?

I think you're expending a lot of effort trying to justify her actions.

[malvolio]

I'm not suggesting that she is innocent, but the fact is she was a child in the eyes of the law when she made her decision and in any case removal of her citizenship is unlawful and amoral regardless of guilt or age.

Except when she had grown up (rather forcibly, admittedly) she still refused to repent her position and is now of an age when the defence of "being underage" no longer applies. You may remember her refusing to condemn those who beheaded people in front of her...

As for your earlier point, her general background is no different from any other middle class well educated young girl, irrespective of colour. So comparisons to a white peer are hardly relevant.

Yes it may end up in some international court in years to come. That will make the lawyers yet richer (after all they are getting paid out of legal aid funds - i.e. you and me) but won't actually progress her case any further. The UK could well argue that we removed her citizenship but we did not make her stateless since she had viable alternatives at the time.