From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 09 15:39:00 2024 Return-path: To: JNugent73 at ..il.com Subject: Re: Re: Shamima Begum References: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [172321384424862] reject offtopic Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 15:39:00 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated or has insufficient law-related material. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 09 15:30:44 2024 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-hex-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To :Sender:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=haKVBeByXmpl3UymA+gEPGjnDgE7MQw+dJVCZXRp+Kc=; t=1723213843; x=1723818643; b=pwKBidflRVqZrWK > From: JNugent > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Shamima Begum > Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 15:30:41 +0100 > Organization: Home User > Message-ID: > References: > > > > > > > > > Reply-To: JNugent73@mail.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net L9ygAW23wvsEBmgNTK0NKgTr3KMOkQfx2j6j0yJb8534TbKtYU > Cancel-Lock: sha1:nUkruLnv36dL37iXnVHOZl//BgM= sha256:UPM8lQxHOL6+DcCzFi6IhdZLqpYmPuXWFI/uSRLwvaw= > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 240809-4, 8/9/2024), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 31 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.2 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: User-Agent: > > On 09/08/2024 02:56 pm, The Todal wrote: > > On 09/08/2024 14:47, JNugent wrote: > >> On 09/08/2024 02:27 pm, The Todal wrote: > >>> On 09/08/2024 14:11, GB wrote: > >>>> On 09/08/2024 13:35, The Todal wrote: > >>>>> On 09/08/2024 13:22, GB wrote: > >>>>>> On 09/08/2024 09:23, The Todal wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In this instance, a British child was abused > >>>>>> > >>>>>> She took herself off to Syria at the age of 15 to join ISIS. She > >>>>>> was well aware that she would be a jihadi bride, as she was > >>>>>> following a schoolmate of hers, Sharmeena Begum (no relation). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Within a couple of weeks of arriving in Syria, she married a Dutch > >>>>>> convert to Islam, who was subsequently killed fighting. She was > >>>>>> aged 15 at the time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It must have seemed all rather romantic at the time, an adventure, > >>>>>> and there's no doubt that she was immature. But she was hardly a > >>>>>> child. She was only a few months off the minimum age at which she > >>>>>> could have married in the UK. (The Marriage and Civil Partnership > >>>>>> (Minimum Age) Act 2022 came in subsequently.) > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> If I understand you, your only point is that a person aged 15 is > >>>>> "hardly a child". > >>>>> > >>>>> I wonder if you are on-board with British values rather than the > >>>>> values of certain Muslim countries. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Elsewhere, you have said she was groomed. The fact you are using > >>>> these emotive terms, groomed and child abuse, demonstrates the > >>>> paucity of your argument. > >>> > >>> Well, I daresay your views were shared by the police and social > >>> services in Rotherham and Rochdale. The girls were young whores who > >>> knew what they were doing and entered consensual relationships with > >>> their Muslim boyfriends, right? > >>> > >>> Oh, but that's different. That's sexual. We apply different rules to > >>> terrorist seducers of girls. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I have far more sympathy with Pancho's point: "It's not about her, > >>>> it is about us. Does our society look after its citizens. Why are > >>>> some citizens second class?" > >>>> > >>>> Begum knew what she was doing. It was an unwise choice, but many > >>>> others made the same choice. > >>>> > >>> > >>> That perhaps implies that if she had been 25 instead of 15 you'd > >>> still have had the same sympathy for her. I don't think I agree. But > >>> nevertheless, I think a person born in Britain should be treated more > >>> compassionately than someone who is an asylum seeker from abroad and > >>> abuses that refugee status. > >> > >> Why "more compassionately"? > >> > > > > To show fairness and enhance the confidence of our immigrant communities > > who might feel targeted by a brown skinned Home Secretary determined to > > seem more ruthless and to avoid being accused of sympathising with other > > brown skinned people. > > Have you an answer that is a bit less fanciful? > > I'm not saying that you ought to. > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAma2KgQACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x5pAgf/ek77AB7FPVJKl9y15PrE772cbfIwyQ0SBm+VRjH14gCqTXct1wleA/sY lSVi34ZykwoB/9ex++MdChz6N8oYmkjlR4eAFMRMD9YThnSF9v5/ibkLVL5H5UR3 ROn5ra3lQfdH9lAbTuvWP+U7op5Z3+ss63XXUX+tQGBjxPd5AcvfoFmypCKhqxaf /jGeQP9vRpXaq/tEOtrtJzMt8PCwCwkKtAHE7t7EDWHAuwJ8TytJNidkeRlKCVDE n+wwgQelqy5mL2zSiDKf3wZe5sE4TPjdrGjfYG0Pm5+UhjQe9NOX2jKr5TGJYSjq YE/hGulbyV8UQ3yBIqwURpqWRRiu1w== =IJhU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----