NewStats: 3,263,813 , 8,181,483 topics. Date: Sunday, 08 June 2025 at 03:47 AM 2s2e

LagosismyHome:


@bold

This argument I noticed will never end so this would be my last comment so I don't derail the thread ....I am not ing what she did and I get all this. What I am not happy about this is now essentially breaking British citizenship into two class.....

Pure British (1) and then no 2 category oya make we go find if your papa or mama get another citizenship out then .if yes then by force you belong there

For me her case of citizenship-stripping is a dangerous denial of responsibility for your own nationals and transferring it to another country by force by fire. Is that not bullying or oppression..... we don't want this criminal so you must have her ... She was born and bred here and by their rule was a British citizen so what gives Britain the audacity to say she belong to Bangladesh..... is it now based on who first stripped because if Bangladesh had stripped first then are we saying UK would have been forced to accept because she can't be stateless... meaning next time it becomes who first strip .

If my child doesn't behave well that my responsibility, I cannot it to my brother and say take na by force because my child is somehow related to my brother.... that is so wrong

Uk should not be allowed to do that ... it set a terrible precedent for other things . She is a product of their society and she should be their responsibility.... there should never be two class of British citizenship. The ones you can strip because them papa come from another country and the one you cannot strip because they are 100 percent british and they can't be stateless . Then British citizenship is not one. Make them go ahead and have two different colour of port and do inequality with full chest

I sincerely understand where you are coming from, and you do indeed have a good point.

Let us "assume" for one minute that you are correct in your assertion that the British government revoked her citizenship unfairly.

Now, will it be fair to return back the citizenship of ONE PERSON, knowing fully well that it will very very likely lead to the potential DEATHS of HUNDREDS of other people in the country (including you and I, our children & loved ones; GOD FORBID) and also jeopardize National Security?

Is the citizenship status of one person (a terrorist), more important or more expensive than hundreds of innocent lives? Is that sacrifice worthwhile?
Is 1 British port = 100+ innocent lives?

I honestly don't think think so.

Also, let's that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK, INCLUDING Dual Nationals and Immigrants do NOT want her citizenship restored. So the government is carrying out the wish of the people, as should be the case in a democracy.

Again, honestly speaking, in a different case where terrorism is not involved, I may easily agree with you and your position to plea for clemency and leniency from the government. But in this specific case of Shamima Begum, I think the government has reached the right decision.

IN FINAL CONCLUSION, to answer your question: if a child willingly ed a group that deliberately butchered his/her siblings like an animal, then a parent is well within their rights to disown that child & bar him/her from entering the compound where they can potentially kill or invite murderers to slaughter the parents and innocent neighbors in that compound.

Like you have said earlier, let's agree to disagree.

Cheers, sweetheart (don't tell your husband o).

LagosismyHome:


But isn't she British. Where was she radicalised, it was here. She was born and raised here all her life ...... so while I agree she might not be remorseful but she is British. If she was from a pure white British family won't she be allowed back as she can't be stateless .

You can't have one rule for white British and another rule for other..... but now the government has done it and is getting away with it which will set a terrible foundation that there are two types of British people

Dear LagosismyHome,

From how you write, I think I will like your temperament in real life. You come across as a very good person. Were you not already married, I'd probably be proposing to you right away.

But pease, kindly read my lengthy post with an open heart.

Regarding your stance about Shamima Begum, you need to consider the potential consequences that the UK will face if they restore her citizenship and allow her back into the country:

(1a.) Once she enters the UK, her ers, irers and even those people who identify with the ISIS ideology will quickly rally around her & paint her as a Martyr and Hero.There will very likely be demonstrations & protests during her trial inside and outside the UK. This may also lead to widespread unrest as it will arouse a heated & unhealthy debate up and down the country.

(1b.) The publicity raised by Shamima's trial in the UK will make her the CENTER OF ATTENTION. The government is trying to avoid this because it will likely make the UK become a target by extremists & Jihadists, who will likely believe that she is being persecuted. As a result, pockets of terrorist attacks may likely ensue, leading to avoidable deaths and high level of insecurity.

(2a.) Due to the potential publicity raised by her re-entrance into the UK, there is a high risk that her story may inspire other young girls and boys to see her as a role model. This will set a very dangerous precedent.

(2b.) Yet again, returning her citizenship status and allowing her enter the UK may very very likely encourage others to follow her footsteps, because they will be rest assured that they will still be embraced by the UK government after committing atrocities. It will appear to them that there will be 'lenient' consequences for taking a grave decision such as ing a global terrorist group such as ISIS. A terrorist group that SLAUGHTERS/MASSACRES other human beings like chickens and pigs.

(3.) Also, be kindly aware that if the British government accepts Shamima back, they will be going against the PUBLIC WILL & OPINION of the OVERWHELMING majority of British citizens, who clearly do NOT want her back. Taking such a decision will surely spell doom for the government.
----------------------------------

Let me pause here because I don't want my post to be too lengthy. So with the few points that I have raised, do you still think it's a preferable and safe decision for the UK to accept her back? Please, kindly give me your truthful response.

PS: Shamima Begum's case is not a racial one. As already mentioned by others, 'Jihadi' Jack Letts, a WHITE British citizen who ed ISIS also had his citizenship revoked. There are other examples of white terrorists whose citizenships have been revoked by Western countries. So I don't think race is the issue here.
FINALLY, I have watched several Shamima Begum's interviews, and I genuinely feel very sorry and emotional for her. But the British government CANNOT afford to make an emotional decision here, but rather an educated, logical, security-based and strategic decision is what is required. And that is to revoke her citizenship status and bar her entry into the United Kingdom.

koonbey:


Wikipedia? Lol. Did you actually check the cited sources? I did.

I normally wouldn't respond but for the bolded. I want to make sure I to reply later. I'm sure there'll be proper fact checks published soon and then I'll quote you so you'll see that in reality it's safer and wiser to not believe information until credible evidence is provided, no matter how viral it goes.

@Koonbey,

Your reply is appreciated.

This response you just gave further proves my point i.e DON'T call a piece of news fake until proper research (or 'fact check' as you call it) has been done.

Like to I wrote earlier, we still don't know what the complete story is. We will have to wait to find out.

But what we do KNOW at this point is that Achraf Hakimi's assets and/or money are in his mum's name, which was made known to his wife during their divorce proceedings. This has been reported by MARCA (Spain's National Daily Sport Newspaper) and other news sources in and Morroco. It is also on WIKIPEDIA.

If you choose to remain skeptical about its accuracy, that is well within your rights. But it is NOT correct for you to go as far as labelling it to be fake, before providing credible evidence (which you don't have by the way).

PS: But I do share your point of view that not all viral news are always accurate/correct.

koonbey:


It's fake that's why you're only seeing it on IG gossip pages and rubbish blogs (mostly from Nigeria where we have lazy 'journalists').

Also, that's not how the law works. I know - I'm not guessing.

There are many factors that make such a scheme impractical from a corporate law and tax law standpoint. If it was that easy why would everyone not just gift out their properties before a divorce?

@Koonbey,

I also initially felt some doubt about the veracity of the story. And while I still don't know the full story, the core issue raised about the story is NOT fake at all.

Hakimi did indeed put all his assets and/or money in his mum's name. This was discovered by his wife during their divorce proceedings, when she requested for half of his assets and/or fortune.

Check out the attached screenshot from WIKIPEDIA (particularly the last paragraph/sentence).

PS: I like your skeptical view about the accuracy of this story (especially since we still don't know the full picture of the story), but it's safer and wiser to do one's research before going as far as labelling a piece of news to be fake.

.

.

.

.

.

.