Having thought about it,  if she had been brainwashed and wanted to be habilitated I'd be more sympathetic

If she has been brainwashed, she doesn't know that she needs to be rehabilitated ffs. That is the point.

If she represents a threat to the UK she should be monitored appropriately whilst the rehabilitate her. The answer isn't just to give up on the poor lass.

She seems a bit of an idiot

Having rumin6ed on this for 24 hours, wello has it (along with, bizarrely, Jacob Rees-Mogg)

If she's happy to come home and be fully debriefed and provide evidence about the actions of others and join a tailored deradicalisation programme I don't have a problem.  We managed to rehabilitate members of the IRA into upstanding politicians so pretty sure we can manage to turn a teenage girl into a reasonable member of the population especially where her family don't share her views.

How are we honestly going to convict her without agreeing to let some of her comrades off in return for giving evidence as we sure as hell aren't going to send the Met over to Syria to try and corroborate her story?

Sailo she is a British citizen, why should she have her right to return qualified like that?

Her first two children apparently died of starvation under 1 years old (and disease). I can understand diease as she chose to go to a place that might kill them and presumably she thinks vaccinations are a western conspiracy against muslims so iin a sense she killed the first two. The third she wants the NHS to pay for but she may well never get back here.

If she does return  we should check if she has two passports or just a British one. Her father was born in Ethiopia I think. So if she has two we are allowed to strip her of the British one. If she only has one then we can't.

Her father went on a lot of pro terrrorist UK demonstrations so presumably is not particularly blameless in all this.

What about actual legal stuff?

Presumably at the time she left, she probably committed an offence. What was the age of criminal responsibility at the time? What are the provisions for minors to be tried as adults for certain criminal charges? Did any potential criminality continue by her staying there into her majority? Or did she potentially commit a new criminal offence at some point once she was of majority? What are the relevant defences? What are the potential mitigations? These are the relevant considerations on the issues in question. All the stuff about Bethnal Green and parents and schoolfriends and Leningrad and bellends is just static.

I demand to be told.

Cos I don't do crime and couldn't be bothered looking it up....

Yeah Lydia I’m sure she turned down the vaccination and plentiful medical care that was on off in ISIS controlled Raqqa. 

As bungle points out there are actual legal steps that can be taken if she has committed any crimes and she should not be exempt from them, but as for whether or not she should have her citizenship stripped or not actually allowed home how is this even a question ffs?

Bungle the Times has a summary of a whole host of offences she might be guilty of such as preparing for criminal acts, etc. depending on what she did out there.

ZG I'm merely offering her immunity from prosecution if she agrees to all of that.  Otherwise she's welcome to come back and enjoy being detained and investigated until we decide whether or not there are grounds for charging her.  Personally I do think that the commission of certain crimes against your own country should be grounds for removing your citizenship.

On the citizenship, it depends on what the UK laws are on stripping citizenship. Some of these allow citizenship to be stripped if someone is merely entitled to another passport (in Australia recently,  the relevant minister just had a vague notion that they have such an entitlement - they don't bother checking whether they were actually entitled (they weren't). look it up. it's appalling.). But if the law requires actual 2nd citizenship, the person could simply not get the second citizenship then UK has to take her back.

Also, what is required to strip citizenship? The minister or whoever to simply form an opinion that they should have citizenship stripped on character or whatever grounds? Or do they require some proof established to the requisite standard? Does it require an actual conviction? How this plays out depends on all this.

Whatever happens, there's a baby about to be born that's being dealt a truly shyt hand in life.

Wellington15 Feb 19 11:26

Sayid Javid bowing the the frothing racists in the press, in his party (and on RoF) and saying he will stop her coming home.

Disgusting behaviour.

Presumably everyone on this thread who wishes her to be banned would also be in favour of the victims of child sex grooming to also be chucked in jail on the basis that they were colluding with rapists.

No, because I'm against her coming back on the basis that she is a threat to the safety and security of this country.  She CURRENTLY holds views, and has undertaken actions to support those views, that include terrorist actions.

Your entire argument is erroneously based on a presumption that her views must be  caused by grooming or indoctrination.  You have no evidence of this.

If she was indoctrinated... she still is and is dangerous.  The dangerous bit makes it unwise to allow her to return.

I feel a little bit dirty saying this, but what wellerz said.

Whatever happens, there's a baby about to be born that's being dealt a truly shyt hand in life.

This. And what Wellerz said. 

Definitely not what Lydia said. 

And not what doggers said - would you advocate deportation of criminals from the uk? It’s basically the same point. If she has broken the law and still wants to come back to the uk then she should not be prevented from doing so (because it would be unlawful) and should, if relevant, then be prosecuted and face the consequences. 

And both she and her child are the UK's responsibility.

... but it's not unlawful Zero... She may be stripped of her citizenship lawfully

Can someone who knows post a short list of the offences she is likely to have committed and the max sentences ?  Ta.  

Her baby has died.

Hope you lot who were all for her being banned from the country are delighted with having blood on your hands.

The BBC is saying this is a hoax.  Whilst you are so keen to sit on your dungheap wellers...tell us the cause of death ?

Death by the cruelty of others eg you

Wellington, What a massiveknob  you are.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Shamster could have hopped on a plane at Boughazi International Airport and come home, but for   folks in the U.K. who didn’t care for her and her offspring.

The only person who has a number of  children’s blood on their hands is Shamster.

"the Shamster" are you being paid by the SUN to rof you tedious bellend. 

This sounds like Laz only Laz would definitely be on the "we need to let her back in and give her a council house and lots of TLC" side of the argument.

It’s not a hoax doggers, but nice to see you are sticking to your guns in thinking it was the right thing to do to ostracise this person. You’ve got the end result that, you, javid and lots of other right wing nut bags wanted.

Christ. Imagine having lost three babies by the age of 19.

Imagine knowing you lost one of them because people refused to allow you back into your home country on the basis that they didn’t like some of your opinions.

Guardian reporting three separate sources are confirming the baby has died. 

So, yay for right wing dickheads I suppose. 

Not sure how that's relevant to Shamima Begum, but you did set me off reading about Catherine & Anne. 16 miscarriages between them seems a big more like it. 

There have been some clinical studies to suggest that duff sperm caused by the father's unhealthy lifestyle can cause miscarriages. I wonder if Henry VIII is early evidence of that? 

That would explain why the trouble seemed to stop with Henry, as his only male heir died in childhood. 

*great great great granddaughter of Edward III 

Also there was no way she was entitled to boot Henry off the throne. She certainly had the right to assert a claim but no-one of consequence in England was going to listen to it. The Wars of the Roses were too bloody for people to be concerned about bringing back the Plantagenets. 

Also, she was a woman.  No woman ruled England in her own right until Mary I, and that was only because they couldn't find a man.  If there was any sort of male contender even she wouldn't have had a chance.  See Stephen and Mathilda...

Trufax. Alas at that time England was still in the grip of terror at the prospect of a woman on the throne. 

I presume it was around 1588 when we started to chill out about the whole idea.