It troubles me that all this time, care and money is lavished on this girl whilst eg the families of those killed (mainly children) in the Manchester bombings by the death cult she supported are largely forgotten.
The institutions of the Country are in the hands of the Political Left , The Judiciary , The police , The Christian House of Lords , The Media , Human rights Lawyers ,... The English population are natural socialists/christians , They will accept islam as the vehicle to carry forward Socialism forward within the next 20yrs
The father was at one of those demonstrations where some men were holding aloft signs that stated "behead those that insult Is...". She had no chaance with a father like that!!
The entire family should be deported. They're patently anti-British ... no one marries his daughter off to a jihadist if his own beliefs don't align with that cancerous ideology
I see an adult MALE whenever I look at that one. Those wide male shoulders. The face in general. Know a m2f actor when you see one. I also remember when he was supposedly interviewed in the so-called camp. A room with double glazing so new they hadn't removed the protective blue film from some of the window. It's always been another distract, divide and conquer hoax to stop you all from looking at what you need to be looking at. Central bankers, their royal relatives and politician family members etc. "Islam is the broom we will use to sweep Europe clean".
She was not "groomed", she was not "trafficked", she was not "tricked" into fleeing the UK and joining ISIS. She is/was a sincere believer in a salafi strain of Islam that takes their religious beliefs very, very seriously. Living under sharia and a caliph, waging and supporting jihad, these ideals are as old as Islam itself, all of which Shamima wanted. This notion that she was "trafficked" is absurd. She is merely an ardent believer in her Islamic faith and took these religious demands seriously.
@kenlennon I disagree. At 15, you know damn well that murdering, subjugation and beheading people who don't agree with you or your religous convictions is wrong. To put it as simply as possible, she was committed to waging jihad and living under islamic rule, which incidently is what any sincere and devoted Muslim would want.
@DiamondMind British law agrees with me. At 15, your a child. That doesn't condone her actions but distances itself from vicious religious groups. We're far better than that.
If she was allowed back in country it would be a complete mess. She’ll never be safe, never work and never accepted and protecting her will cost tax payers a fortune
Surely this discussion fails to address her conduct after reaching her majority. My understanding is that she did not regret her decisions or mend her ways.
Stop bleeting on that she was only 15. She's not 15 forever as she persists with this into adulthood age 16,17 &18 and only decided she wanted to leave when isis lost.
if one of the rochdale grooming victims was 15 when the grooming started but continued until she was 20 would you say "stop going on about her being 15. she's not 15 forever"?
@craigsteven9665 Those girls in Rochdale were not as you describe 20 years old... They were in many cases young vulnerable girls from broken homes or in the care system who were taken advantage of groomed and plied with drugs and alcahol.
@craigsteven9665 Where you getting 20 years old from!?...Those girls were as young as 13 years old. In many cases from broken homes on the streets or in the care system. They were taken advantage of and plied with drugs and alcahol.
@@ajax201000 if she was groomed at 15, she's a victim if a grooming victim went on to become a prostitute, which is a crime, would op say "stop going on about her being 15, she's 20 now"?
This seems to be a purely moral argument rather than legal argument. Furthermore morally, Bangladesh could be blamed for having laws that allow people with solely Bangladeshi citizenship to arbitrarily lose said citizenship at 21. She was a dual citizen when her UK citizenship was retracted. Should Britian adjust it's laws based on the laws of another country? Is that practical to do for all 192 countries that could change their citizenship laws at any time? EDIT: I also don't buy the argument she's not a threat because she is only 15 and just a girl. She is more than capable of strapping a bomb to her chest and blowing up a public space or ramming a car into pedestrians. She has also demonstrated she is very susceptible to people who could convince her to do such a thing. The age of criminal responsibility is 10, why should an exception be made for this individual?
This is not a ‘purely moral argument’, or about making an exception. Lord Sumption knows a thing or two about the use of prerogative/statutory powers and evaluating the scope and legality. One of the best aspects of the British legal tradition is being able to look beyond the theoretical and do fact-intensive analysis to understand what how it fits with the law. This is especially so/needed in ‘conflicts of laws (the area of evaluating the interaction of different legal systems) and dealing with ‘legal facts’ of other countries. As Sumption said her Bangladeshi right to claim citizenship was a purely formalistic/fictional one. She was not in substance a dual citizen’ at the time. You’re selling the English legal tradition short. we shouldn’t allow another country’s legal system to dictate how our own law is applied without looking at the actual substance. You talk about practicality, but determining whether legal powers exist/are effective is exactly what courts are meant to do! It’s in no way an added imposition in any analysis of whether a certain action will make someone stateless. If you know anything about Sumption’s Jurisprudence you’d be aware of how faithful he is to the law and law alone, without being swayed by irrelevant moral/political factors.
She was deemed to be a risk to national security therefore her citizenship was revoked. Full stop. I'm a dual national, my British citizenship is not an absolute right, despite what national security risk I could pose to others.
@@howmanybeansmakefive he says himself it’s a moral argument and the legal case against her was sound. He personally just does not like the minister having that power. I happen to agree, but believe that power should still exist and held by the judiciary. As for his opinion on Bangladeshi citizenship; he claimed it was a fiction because it was revoked at 21 (presumably because she or her parents had to take certain steps to maintain it). This is how citizenship by descent works in most countries. I am assuming he knows this so the only logical inference is that he believes the court should have take into account that in several years she may or may not lose her citizenship depending on her particular circumstances or ability to fulfill administrative requirements with the Bangladeshi government. This is not only impractical (as a foreign nation can change their citizenship law at anytime without any say from the UK) but also unequal. It would be chaos if courts had to consider a variety of indirect consequences as a result of action or inaction by an another entity years in the future and it would absolutely lead to unfair application of the law (eg by accident of birth you can get off lightly for a heinous crime because you parents were born in a particular country).
That isn't true at all - which of his arguments do you consider to be non-legal? In any case, this is a distinction without a difference. All laws are created to enforce a moral code, and as such, arguments based on the moral principles contained within the body of the law are valid legal arguments.
So people can't change and mature? I shudder when I think of my susceptibility to all sorts of influences when I was 15. But I was lucky . the influences were mainly benign.
On grooming: She was 15 and groomed by a 21 yr old man. Wrong? Yes. She travelled 100s of miles to be with said man, married him and then had 3 children with him. Whilst initially what happened was legally rape, what then ensued - was certainly legal after 16 - appears to have been consensual. (Even after the fall of IS, she hoped to join her husband in the Netherlands.) Contrast that with a 15 yr old from Rochdale picked up under the pretence of love, plied with alcohol and cocaine, and passed between 30 men per night for sex - that isn't anything like the grooming that went on with Begum. The discussion about her grooming needs nuance. If anything, she was groomed by her religious belief in Islam long before she set out for Syria/Iraq.
The point is that she did nothing to protect other children or other women, as an adult. The girls in Rochdale and Rotherham were already living in a country where the horrors of what happened to them were illegal. The legal system wasn't working for them because they weren't believed or protected. There are parallels because many of those girls weren't able to escape their abuse until they were a bit older. But they weren't glorifying that experience and recruiting other girls. Syria wasn't functioning under the Rule of Law at that time, and SB played her part in that. At some point citizenship is about responsibility to other citizens, and not one persons rights. That's why SB is a risk to the UK.
Isis isn’t supported by muslims, that’s why they’re a radical extremist group. Extremists are condemned in islam, but this case has a lot of nuance involved. She’s definetly a victim, but after all shes seen done and been through it’s a risk to allow her back into western society. I’m muslim myself and I’ve almost been killed by terr0rists, we must minimize that threat as much as possible.
There was zero grooming with her so no nuance needed. Also I doubt sex with even a ten year old is illegal over there and that's where she did it isn't it? The worrying thing is how much of this teaching of charge is going on here in our own country? Needs eradicating.
Nuance is correct and you do not seem to wish to use it on the subject of abuse. I'm confident from your post that you know full well that the victims of abuse are subject to psychological control that keeps them in vile relationships and that the emotional damage done often has them return after they have left their abuser. But they are still victims. You refer to Islam as if it was a religion. In fact it is a family of many very different religions, just like Christianity is. Those religions are so different that some reserve there greatest hatreds for other Islamic religions, just like some Christian ones do (and others such as the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England etc. etc. did). That topic too needs nuance. But you are correct her groomers were from a particular Islamic religion and they did their work in the UK. But it is still grooming.
Taking away herBritish citizenship might deter other teenage girls from following her example and make them aware that one is privileged and extremely fortunate to have UK citizenship, it is to be valued.
You wouldn't have felt the same way if she came from a different demographic. You may deny your racial bigotry but then you'd be a liar too. Keep in mind, if you've got one, that Shamima was 15 yrs old and she showed poor judgement. Everyone, specially teenagers must receive second and even third chances in life. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Shamima needs to be shown an achievable path to regular life in UK society. No one's beyond redemption, and yes that would be the Chrsitian thing to do.
You realise that she escaped justice, right? Imagine instead of Britain and MI5, it's Russia/Soviet Union and the FSB/NKVD. She would be quickly repatriated home and shot against a brickwall. There's this Russian pilot that defected to Ukraine, brought along his helicopter, and got his two unwitting passengers killed by the Ukrainians. He got a payment and a visa to live in Spain. The Russian intelligence caught up to him and shot him five times. That's enforcing the rule and punishment of the state. The UK is not doing that.
Muslims have been taking advantage of the Christian ethics and western values in general for too long. You should be worried about having Islam’s fifth column in your country. Being nice and kind with these ideologically charged people is foolish and dangerous.
@@matangox ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯ No thanks. The West doesn't have the ability to keep an eye on these dipshits or throw them into prison. Piss weak. And that's why migrating to the West is so much fun. If you have money, Western institutions will roll put red carpets and protect your wealth.
This situation can be summed up in two words: Good Riddance. Now do the rest of the people who ran off to fight for terrorists and those who support terrorists financially
You make your bed, you lie in it. What bothers me is just WHAT teachings did she grow up with in our very own country? That's the real issue. Root it out and destroy it.
I'm a second generation immigrant with dual nationality and think the right decision was made. I also used to work for a charity and helped house someone who used that property to make bo m bs and planned to cause more damage than 7/7. There's nothing like getting an unannounced visit from the counter terrorist unit to make one aware of the risks. Shamima Begum decisions continued well into adulthood. The court's decision offers some protection and also acts as a deterent to others.
She was old enough to join a terror group and old enough to present a very real threat. On that basis alone she should be considered old enough to lose her British citizenship.
@@PatrickF.FitzsimmonsIn order to decide whether something is right or wrong, there have to be an adequate understanding of reality to base that decision upon . Anyones understanding of reality can under certain circumstances become very distorted . This is for example a common reported experience by young adults who unknowingly ended up within an organized cult . Children is of course several times more susceptible to these forms of distortions . I would say, She was young enough to be LURED into a situation by a group of adults.
She was YOUNG enough to, intentionally be LURED into a situation by a group of ADULTS. ( Children of all ages have been lured into despicable situations. We usually don’t hold them accountable of what was done to them..
Whatever SB did while she was with Isis was obviously so horrific that we are not allowed to know.Please do not let her come back to Britain under any circumstances.
Why is this so complicated? She can be can be tried as an adult for accomplice to murder. Being an enforcer for Isi, IT is responsible for the death of innocent people. .. including women who did not follow Sharia, or recruiting women as suicide bombers. She should be in jail.
You don't understand how things work in ISIS. Women are like slaves, let alone female children. That being said, the only thing I ever heard that can be proven is that she married an enemy combatant, which is not a crime. Also I don't understand how can you take citizenship from someone. That shouldn't be legal, but it seems it's legal in the UK. I wonder if there are cases where a British woman married a soilder of the 3rd Reich and lost the citizenship because of that.
I see an adult MALE whenever I look at that one. Those wide male shoulders. The face in general. Know a m2f actor when you see one. I also remember when he was supposedly interviewed in the so-called camp. A room with double glazing so new they hadn't removed the protective blue film from some of the window. It's always been another distract, divide and conquer hoax to stop you all from looking at what you need to be looking at. Central bankers, their royal relatives and politician family members etc. "Islam is the broom we will use to sweep Europe clean".
The legalistic babble of judges and lawyers is among the most infuriating forms of discourse. It is totally certain that she would be a danger to the national security. Jonathan Sumption's idea that, because she is the most well-known person in the world in her situation, she poses no risk, does not hold water. In addition, and much more importantly, if this decision (as we all hope) prevails, she will serve as an example to everyone else in a similar position. That is what matters: to establish an exemplary precedent, which warns any others who consider mocking the British State and legal system.
She is a woman. Statistically she is less dangerous than any man. Statistically, ANY random man walking down the street is far more likely to be planning for a future violent retaliation that someday Will come into fruition . ( Breaking all men into smaller subgroups just makes the comparison even more informative)
Well, what about the Hamas leaders that are living in the UK? Do you think they pose a risk to the U.K.’s national security? As far as mocking the British state and legal system….that is done quite well by you Brits.
@@dianamincher6479 They needed to be kept out, too. If any have dual nationality now, they need to be deported; if not, they should be jailed with hard labour for a long time. I hope this clarifies my position, and I believe the position of the majority of British people is clear. Shalom
Yep, we warned that this would happen decades ago. What is happening at about 6% here is what I imagined 15% would look like, Islamification is happening here at an unprecedented rate because we have a PC culture which demands that we don't challenge it because 'racisms'. We are just giving away democratic freedoms and liberty, things that were hard-won and can't just be restored at a whim. We should not tolerate the intolerant, they forfeited their right to be tolerated by being intolerant and violent too. Time for Revolution and Reconquista ❤ it can be done, Spain did it after almost 800 years...
The "follies" of a 15 year old. Tell that to Brianna Ghey's parents. Bringing her back especially right now with people openly calling for Jihad on our streets would be a slap in the face for everyone.
A strange conflation of two completely unrelated issues. Brianna Ghey’s murderers have not been rendered stateless and have faced justice under the laws of the UK. The same privilege is not being afforded to Shamima Begum.
Well, she just has to make it to the Mexican border and walk into Cali or Texas...apparently its ok to not have a passport. Heck, ABC or CNN might give her a talk show!
Useful discussion. My question on Begum is why should the Kurds be left to deal with a problem born and raised in the UK? Do we pay them for her upkeep and incaceration?
Both her parents are Bangladeshi and I believe her father lives there now. The idea that she has no connection with the country is ludicrous. 'The follies of a 15 year old almost 16 year old' is madly sentimental - we don't say that about the murderers of Brianna Ghey and SB knew of the savagery of ISIS before she went out there.
IS was beheading UK, French, US citizens and humanitarian aid workers in 2014, it was all over every news site. She left the UK in 2015 to go to IS. We don't need people in the UK who align with that surely? What am I missing.@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn
I wouldn't worry about Shamima, it is a temporary set back. She will be back, get her citizenship back, get all the benefits and live happy in the UK. It is just a matter of time, Labour (and their mutations and the media) will make sure of that
Where do you think they came from or the Ideology of Islam? Did you lose any loved ones in their hands? I did, and I am running for my life...@@udaykadkade
Bangladesh is dealing with their own home-grown Islamist militants. That country which i deeply love as that is my ancestral homeland should NEVER allow that terrorist lover to enter.
@@christinemurray1444Bangladeshi murderers and radicals live in London with political asylum. In Bangladesh whenever something radical happens it always have roots in either London or Toronto. If you don't believe just check some information. I know people judge us with color, one does something bad it labeled on everyone. We also want peace and prosperity without Britishers nasty politics in south Asia.
I am mystified by this. It appears perfectly clear to me that she is British born and bred and is our responsibility. She is potentially guilty of a number of serious offences and it is Britain’s responsibility to bring her back, try her and apply the appropriate penalties. That is just and would send a far clearer message to any potential sympathisers that casting her into the abyss of a war torn region with no power to influence what she does next. We have just recruited a terrorist and demonstrated that we do not hold the moral high ground and I am ashamed.
I am dismayed with comments about 'fairness' in connection with her not being 'fully' developed and being given a second chance to redeem herself. There is a movie about prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, who after 15 years of incarceration show no remorse and are soon to be released and likely continue where they left off. I have listened to her remorse and I am reminded of Taqqiya in Islam. Never trust a man with a pronounced shoulder twitch (and openly biased), no matter how erudite. Instead I suggest it's fairer to consider the concerns of millions of British people rather than one person, which is what the Home secretary did.
Mob rule then! Not a lot of understanding, compassion or forgiveness on this thread I see. Funny how attitudes always seem to harden when the Tories are in power.
Because many people in Bangladesh, including the SECULAR government, don't want to deal with yet another terrorist sympathiser as Bangladesh has been tackling religious fanatics and militancy for nearly 2 decades now.
Finally a rational take. The amount of people (evident in the comments section) making emotional arguments and the way the home secretary and UK justice system has pandered to those people is absurd but entirely consistent with the behaviour of the last few governments.
This girl knew exactlynwhat she was doing and seemed to accept what Isa was doing. She didn't condemn them in an interviews which I saw. We are better off without her kind. She as made her bed and I have no sympathy with whatsoever. She had a privileged life here and spot upon it.
She has no remorse; she is still a terrorist; if she didn't believe in killing non-Muslims, she would have long distanced herself from the Muslim Religion whose direction book, the Koran, is a compendium for murder and killing non-Muslims.
‘Grossly disproportionate’. Well said Jonathan! She was 15 for heaven’s sake. Bring her back. Put her on trial if necessary but leaving her in a prison camp in Syria for the rest of her life is simply wrong.
Having the right to revoke someones citizenship just sends the message that person was never really considered a true member of that nation in the first place. Israel has done this to Palestinians with Israeli citizenship too. Can this happen to a 'native' Brit? Also she was a minor when she made these horrible decisions, so no I don't think it was right to do that. Jail someone for crimes or treason but don't strip them of citizenship
Sir Sumption is one of the beest judge in the britain. I have read many of his cases. The one which attracted me is the negligence case woodland v Essex County council. Britain judge as always i say tthey are the counscious of parliament they do all what they can to be just and faire. The convention human rights 1998 is their most important tool to use. They are the best. They are very close to people rights.
The Pro Deo counsels for Shamima Begum should appeal on the ground of statelessness in the beginning and now and national security is not necessary as a ground of appeal. The Trial Court will adjudicate and pass judgment on the age of the appellant, the trafficking claims and the national security. and her conduciveness to the public good, The Appeal Court has illegally refuse to recognise that Shamima Begum is stateless and has been stateless all along an the stature says that all he appeal court in all its forms did no hand justice at all and failed to finalize his case! Pathetic personal vendetta enjoyed by all the judges. Conservative Sajid Javid has committed a gross injustice and is a manslaughterer of Baby Jarrah?
The Law is poor. We are suggesting kids born in the UK to one parent who can confer foreign citizenship has less status than their sibling who has no such parent. It's partly a political cultural issue. Contrast with US citizenship...difficult to get but once you've got it uncle Sam will flight to the death to save you. UK foreign office considers you a chore and deprives you of status. Many people who are happy with the legal decisions I don't think have thought through the issue very much.
agree..the Law will be changed, there is nothing to suggest she was involved in any criminality at all whilst out there...nothing...The consequences of this poor law are very serious..After 1945 the Allies designated certain people as Followers, people who did nothing to further the Nazi cause in a real sense but may have been members of the Nazi party or worked for the State..Exactly what they should have done to her..
“As of recent data, the average annual expenditure per prisoner in England and Wales is approximately £40,000.” Add to this the costs of benefits for her and her children after she is released (who would employ her?), the costs of protecting her (I am sure there would be problems with her own security in the UK) and the costs of watching her for life as she is a potential threat. I hope you agree there are better ways to spend taxpayer money.
Another consideration - her example is a very useful deterrent for the others as today we have a growing population of people with backgrounds similar to Shamima’s.
If she’d committed murder or rape she’d still be citizen of the UK. There’s no evidence she did anything other than make a monumentally selfish and reckless mistake as a troubled 15 year old. It’s highly likely she was subject to the kind of intense peer group dynamics that are not uncommon between teenage girls. It doesn’t automatically imply that she’s a psychopath or continues to be a credible threat to national security.
Rubbish. It took time to plan what she did. Plenty of cooling off time so nothing reckless. You're also denying the indoctrination that turned her into this. It's who she is now, through and through. A UK hater. No room for her here.
Mistake? She wasn’t caught stealing lippy from Boots FFS, she willingly went off to join that death cult and become a womb for a vile murderous, bloodthirsty jehaddi, all of her own free will.
She’s a psychopath 100%. She is a supporter of ISIL hence a threat to national security. ALL Muslims who support Islamist ideology are a threat to national security.
@@smater332000surely you mean Isis ideology? Islam is not to blame for a de@ th cult no more that Christianity is to blame for the Spanish Inquisition?
She was okay with having teens in the UK just going to a pop concert killed and injured. That says it all. She is no longer considered British. Seem fair enough to me.
This woman is NOT "stateless". She choose to be a citizen of the "islamic state". Her decision has consequences. There is no case FOR Ms Begum. There is always a case for keeping politics from interfering in justice. A known criminal must not be allowed to wrap herself on the later.
What did my Armenian family in Syria do to her? Nothing, they just have a different religion as did all their victims either have a different religion or didn’t follow theirs in the sick way she believed. She deserves no mercy for what she supported and ran to. She should be treated as they treated people. Send their kids to family abroad in hopes they can somehow eventually live a normal life; but no mercy on the people who made the decision to become war criminals.
The case is simple, she was a British citizen and should have been repatriated. If the government can take her citizenship, they can also take yours and for me that is an unacceptable situation. The secondary question is one of what her fate should be upon repatriation and the answer is that we’re not set up to provide what’s required. When she left, she was a 15 year old girl, the victim of grooming by vicious Islamic terrorists and a vulnerable individual who has since paid 1,000,000x over for the mistakes that she has made. She deserves our best efforts to rehabilitate her and help her face the demons of the time she spent within ISIS. I say all of this as somebody with a staunchly anti-Islamic philosophy and a loathing for the mass immigration policies that are a major part of the cultural and economic decimation of this country.
To use the law when it serves the govt and then to ignore it when it doesn’t serve the govt makes for a immoral. The fact that ISIS was supported by western allies such as SAUDI Arabia and others and perhaps even directly by western govt is immaterial i guess. This is about revenge and is bad for UK. I don’t really care about her or her outcome. I care about reputation of the west.
Make stupid decisions, accept the consequences. She played with destiny and lost. It’s obvious her parents are paying a price for not raising her right.
Bangladesh 🇧🇩 is her country of birth and they should take care of her. She made the decision to go and make her home, marry and have children in not for just a year but for many years. I think the British government has acted correctly. She is not stateless she is Bangladeshi.
In the case of Rex v. Sussex Justices (1924) Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England stated his dictum that "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done". The recent judgement of the Court of Appeal in which Shamima Begum unsuccessfully appealed against the deprival of her citizenship was a contradiction of this principle. It was in 2019 that the Secretary of State deprived Shamima Begum of her citizenship on the grounds that she was a "threat to national security" and refused her leave to enter the UK to challenge that decision. As Lord Sumption makes clear, the Secretary of State was acting "not in law but in practice". What this means is that, by reason of their exalted position, a Secretary of State can dictate whatever outcome they wish without the need for legal process. This is especially applicable when dealing with a vulnerable person trapped abroad and without recourse to a British court. And by claiming the need for secrecy of evidence (whether such claim is true or false) their victim is thereby deprived of any right to refute that evidence. This was done on the basis of alleged "secret information" available neither to Shamima nor to the British public. The two subsequent appeals against this decision have not sought to challenge the validity of the "secret information". I think it is time that the validity were brought into question. The obvious question relates to Shamima Begum's age when she allegedly became a "threat to national security". If her age was less than 18 at that time then she is surely entitled to special consideration on the grounds that she was not a legal adult. On the other hand she may have been aged 18 or over. In which case it is surely reasonable that Shamima Begum be given sufficient information to enable her to seek to prove that she was not a "threat to national security" nor was ever likely to be. Otherwise this is justice denied.
The Lord Sumption is correct. The Home Secretary, duly exercised his powers as conferred on him by the law. Whether he exercised them wisely is the question. ,😂 As the UK has ,an Irish stew of a legal system, and where we search for precedents and struggle to decide on prioritizing rights, it begs the question: when will the UK codify its laws into a written constitution which limits the powers of Parliament.( A constitutional court is needed.Not to become via a" living document" treatment as per the embarrasing ECHR, an alternate legislature) You ask why the downfall of the social environment exists as it does? It exists because the underpinning fabric of society is ,with exceptions, not based on a striving for the common good. It is based on " self". Like it or not ,the common good has Judeo Christian roots. If that is in decline don't( unrealisically) think that when significant numbers of people, espousing a belief that runs counter to that message of inverted power and " the first shall be last" land on our shores The worst aspects of dangerous Islamic overbearance would be contrasted with and not , as they do(?) overpower the former. Indeed, while their choices ,which they are free to make, for example, include indefensible descriminations against women these would not overpower the said common good- provided it is supported. But if you are not consciously espousing the common good , don't expect a different outcome.
Jonathan? Not to be pedantic Freddie, but wasn't this man a Justice and doesn't he bear the title of Lord? Isn't it Lord Sumption? If he wants to be called Jonathan all is well, but just let us know that's the deal. Otherwise it seems a bit weird!
Shamima Begum should be tried and imprisoned for life in Britain. If she ever wants to be released then she must help to prosecute the Muslims that radicalised her.
