schoolgirl who joined IS but wants to come home.

[Archer]

"It is far from certain that the Home Secretary has acted lawfully. It is obviously vital to establish that he has. This can only properly be done at a fair independent hearing at which the legal and factual arguments for and against are fully and competently presented. The Home Office will not spare any expense in instructing counsel to fight its corner (Theresa May was a fan of instructing multiple QCs for single cases to try to give herself an advantage). Equality of arms, another basic principle of the rule of law, requires that the citizen, Shamima Begum, be competently represented. As she is currently unable to pay for her own lawyers, lying destitute in a Syrian refugee camp, she will need to rely upon legal aid. Without legal aid, the case will not be properly argued; indeed, as she is currently banned from entering the country, without representation it will not be argued at all.

The benefits of the case being argued and a judgment being given flow not only to Shamima Begum, but to all of us. This is not merely a private matter of concern to her; all of us live under the law, and all of us need to know that our government is acting lawfully. Moreover, there will be many more cases of this type over the coming years. This decision could ultimately set a precedent, making clear the circumstances in which the government can revoke British citizenship from British-born citizens. Such a precedent is of value to all of us. Because while today, it’s Sajid Javid making a decision affecting Shamima Begum, tomorrow it could be a different Home Secretary making a decision affecting you, or someone you love. And while you may not care what happens to Shamima Begum, you will sure as heck want the law to be fairly applied to you. And this is the point about the law: it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. A decision affecting one of us affects us all. We all have a shared interest in ensuring that the law works as it should"

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2019/04/15/shamima-begum-may-not-deserve-your-sympathy-but-she-is-entitled-to-legal-aid/

[RED-DOG]

Otherwise, who decides who gets a fair trial?

This is the clincher for me. It's really easy to say people at the far end should have their citizenship revoked, and that they have forfeited rights like the right to legal aid, but where do we draw the line and who decides? The idea of someone just deciding another person isn't worthy of the same rights as the rest of us should be a chilling one, and it frightens me how happy some people are when they see other's rights being taken. I'd think it much better to avoid drawing that line in the first place, to protect our own rights as much as anyone else's.

Yeah, I get that , but some are cut and dry and a waste of all our money. Intent should overall everything when terrorism is the motive.

So where do we draw the line and who decides?

In terms of the cost, it will be pennies each, we should happily take the hit to preserve the most fundamental rule that our system of justice is founded on.

It’s still crazy how disproportionately worried about terrorists you are.

I travel most weeks for my job. BA Gold Member etc, however I dont ever think about getting blown up etc. However, it doesn't stop me thinking of the people that HAVE been affected and potentially will in the future. They have no control over their fate, unlike many in car accidents, drug abuse etc.

Your blase writing off of how I shoudn't worry about this is quite astounding. Do you have sympathies with these people yourself perhaps?

I am happy to see legal aid granted to those who have a case that has elements of doubt about it. This is a cut and dry case, unworthy of even a penny of our money. The girl went, has admitted she went etc etc. No case. She wanted to help terrorists. If there was any doubt, fine. But in this case there isn't. Dont waste mine/yours/our money, when we have people dying because of funding being wasted on shit like this.

I must be very bad at making my point because you seem to keep missing it.

Who gets to decide that there is no doubt, not only in this case, but in any and all subsequent cases?

If what you say is correct somone has to say that there is no doubt in case x or case y and that the evidence doesn't need to be tested.

Who would you trust with that power?

[RED-DOG]

Trying the case has nothing to do with the girl, it has to do with preserving the integrity of our justice system.

[BigAdz]

^^^^

The big doubt, Mr Adz, is her age.

Get ya. However in all her TV interviews, I'm not seeing much contrition from her.

If I go out with intent to hurt, murder someone, whilst I might try to get all the help I can. The reality is, I enter this sequence of events knowing I deserve none.

Cash starved NHS, or give some bad people a second chance they don't deserve? Where should the money go TK?

That's not a relevant question Adz, that's a red top headline.

The "cash-starved" NHS needs billions, a new Hossie alone, forgetting the carrying cost, staff etc comes in at over a billion. The cost of Legal Aid in this case would be 6 figures tops, which, though I've not done the math, is about a quillionth of a billion. 

But I'm tagged as a "red top" contributor, so what do you expect?!

You are looking at the detail too much of this one individual.

How many of these ex terrorists decide to come back having seen we have given this girl the green light? How much does it cost us then? Probably will run upwards of a hospital or two perhaps

Yup, I am looking at this one individual.

One day that individual might be you or me.

And imagine if it was, & someone like MANTIS was the chap charged with making the decision?

There's your Armageddon outcome. 

You aren't getting my point.

I don't worry about instances like these any any injustice I might incur, because I wouldn't put myself in this position. Even when I travel to the places in Europe or Africa where things could get messy, I ensure I can't be put in positions, that can be misrepresented.

Don't go looking for trouble, and pretty sure you won't find it.

I am only talking about CLEAR CUT cases. This is one. Whichever way you look at it, this girl/woman knew what she was doing. Mature or not.

[Jon MW]

^^^^

The big doubt, Mr Adz, is her age.

Get ya. However in all her TV interviews, I'm not seeing much contrition from her.

If I go out with intent to hurt, murder someone, whilst I might try to get all the help I can. The reality is, I enter this sequence of events knowing I deserve none.

Cash starved NHS, or give some bad people a second chance they don't deserve? Where should the money go TK?

That's not a relevant question Adz, that's a red top headline.

The "cash-starved" NHS needs billions, a new Hossie alone, forgetting the carrying cost, staff etc comes in at over a billion. The cost of Legal Aid in this case would be 6 figures tops, which, though I've not done the math, is about a quillionth of a billion.  

But I'm tagged as a "red top" contributor, so what do you expect?!

You are looking at the detail too much of this one individual.

How many of these ex terrorists decide to come back having seen we have given this girl the green light? How much does it cost us then? Probably will run upwards of a hospital or two perhaps

Yup, I am looking at this one individual.

One day that individual might be you or me.

And imagine if it was, & someone like MANTIS was the chap charged with making the decision?

There's your Armageddon outcome.  

You aren't getting my point.

I don't worry about instances like these any any injustice I might incur, because I wouldn't put myself in this position. Even when I travel to the places in Europe or Africa where things could get messy, I ensure I can't be put in positions, that can be misrepresented.

Don't go looking for trouble, and pretty sure you won't find it.

I am only talking about CLEAR CUT cases. This is one. Whichever way you look at it, this girl/woman knew what she was doing. Mature or not.

That's good because the legality of pretty much zero trials are clear cut before they're taken to court - that is why they're taken to court.

i.e. Your burden of proof may be a great deal lower than what is necessary to ensure a fair legal system.

[Longines]

I see that even Melanie Phillips has come out on the side of Shamima deserving legal aid, blimey.

[MANTIS01]

Sources confirmed Jacko touched their winkies. That was good enough for many.

Just highlighting that this concept of fairness or fair trial blows around in the wind these days and isn’t the rock of our society folk are insisting it is. Times have changed.

Waiting for any sources to confirm Begum was simply Netflix & chilling in Syria whilst the severed heads racked up in the dustbins outside.

[RED-DOG]

^^^^

The big doubt, Mr Adz, is her age.

Get ya. However in all her TV interviews, I'm not seeing much contrition from her.

If I go out with intent to hurt, murder someone, whilst I might try to get all the help I can. The reality is, I enter this sequence of events knowing I deserve none.

Cash starved NHS, or give some bad people a second chance they don't deserve? Where should the money go TK?

That's not a relevant question Adz, that's a red top headline.

The "cash-starved" NHS needs billions, a new Hossie alone, forgetting the carrying cost, staff etc comes in at over a billion. The cost of Legal Aid in this case would be 6 figures tops, which, though I've not done the math, is about a quillionth of a billion. 

But I'm tagged as a "red top" contributor, so what do you expect?!

You are looking at the detail too much of this one individual.

How many of these ex terrorists decide to come back having seen we have given this girl the green light? How much does it cost us then? Probably will run upwards of a hospital or two perhaps

Yup, I am looking at this one individual.

One day that individual might be you or me.

And imagine if it was, & someone like MANTIS was the chap charged with making the decision?

There's your Armageddon outcome. 

You aren't getting my point.

I don't worry about instances like these any any injustice I might incur, because I wouldn't put myself in this position. Even when I travel to the places in Europe or Africa where things could get messy, I ensure I can't be put in positions, that can be misrepresented.

Don't go looking for trouble, and pretty sure you won't find it.

I am only talking about CLEAR CUT cases. This is one. Whichever way you look at it, this girl/woman knew what she was doing. Mature or not.

Who has the power to decide that this, or any other case is clear cut.

What us the criteria for clear cut and how do we know when a case has reached that standard?

Is it because its typed in upper case or should we have a sterner test?

[Doobs]

Sources confirmed Jacko touched their winkies. That was good enough for many.

Just highlighting that this concept of fairness or fair trial blows around in the wind these days and isn’t the rock of our society folk are insisting it is. Times have changed.

Waiting for any sources to confirm Begum was simply Netflix & chilling in Syria whilst the severed heads racked up in the dustbins outside.

Jacko hasn't been found guilty of anything; it is ok for people to believe he is guilty.   Even if Begum is found innocent; it is ok for you to still believe she is guilty.   Nothing has changed and there is no inconsistency here. 

Talking of inconsistencies, a few weeks ago you were telling us all that there couldn't be a fair trial because of difficulties with getting evidence from Syria; this week you are happy to take third hand "evidence from Syria" to show she knitted suicide vests and regularly rolled around with an AK47 threatening all and sundry.   Evidence that was leaked to the press just before the legal aid announcement.   

[Rexas]

Loads of folk vilifying Michael Jacko and not playing his music

When did he get a fair trial

I guess his chances of a fair trial were mainly compromised by him buying the witnesses.

I guess Begum’s chances of a fair trial were mainly comprised by her flying to Syria to join ISIS

This is a terrifying thing to read. You're saying that someone's right to a fair trial should be determined by the crime they're accused of? This is proper 1984 type stuff. Our justice system fails completely if this attitude is taken. This should have nothing whatsoever to do with Begum and everything to do with the integrity of our legal system. What if someone randomly accused you of being a terrorist? If someone stuck in article in the Daily Mail with a doctored picture of you holding a gun to someone's head in some middle eastern looking place? You'd be happy that your right to a fair trial is simply taken away? Because that's where this sort of talk leads. Taking away a person's rights without due process can never, ever be acceptable if we're going to protect ourselves from the same thing happening to us.

[MANTIS01]

Sorry for terrifying people

[MANTIS01]

What terrified me was British girl shrugging off severed heads rolling around in the back yard.

[Rexas]

But you're totally cool with taking what you read in the paper as absolute truth and only allowing our justice system to work for people you like?

[kukushkin88]

Human beings got to grips with this stuff ~ 804 years ago, it seems we’ve taken a backward step.

[MANTIS01]

But you're totally cool with taking what you read in the paper as absolute truth and only allowing our justice system to work for people you like?

Well I posted that The Telegraph was reporting a new development and didn't really pass much comment on the validity of that new development.

Rather I posed a question asking what others thought about the new development.

So to answer your question...I'm not totally cool with taking what I read in the paper as absolute truth and only allowing our justice system to work for people like me.

Hope that helps.

What I do think is that Brits who fly to Syria in wartime, join a heinous terror group and shrug off heads rolling around the back garden will probably provoke a shocking reaction from honest law-abiding British citizens.