O/T Shamima Begum

No, she can have the legal representation if and when she makes her own way back to the UK. She shouldn't be aided by the state in making her way back here though

 

There are some incredibly silly comments in this thread. It's really a very simple thing though. She should have the law applied to her. That's all. Just that. Goodness knows why some people on this board think laws should not apply. Use a bit of logic please.

 

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the state would pay for her to come back.

 

The BBC article seems to suggest that will have to happen I think

The ruling means the government must now find a way to allow the 20-year-old, who is currently in Camp Roj in northern Syria, to appear in court in London despite repeatedly saying it would not assist removing her from Syria.

 

That may just allude to her safe removal from Syria, not the cost of her transport. I really don't know though to be honest.

 

Again that's her problem imo. She didn't accidentally end up in Syria she made her own way there to become a terrorist. If she wants to come back here then she should receive no help in doing so

 

I said as much.
The idea of the Govt i.e. the UK taxpayer having to stump up to provide a plane to bring her back is the ONLY part of all this I take issue with. This case is NOT the same as wanted criminals who commit crimes in the UK, flee the country, are apprehended abroad and then extradition processes kick in and the costs are borne by the Govt. Remember, in this case SHE is the plaintiff bringing a case against the Govt for, effectively breaching her human rights. Once arrested on return then she will be the defendant. There are really two separate cases here.
On the subject of defence costs, I am not clear re the status of legal aid but if someone is charged with a serious crime (and 'treasonable acts' don't come much more serious) and the defendant does not have any resources then legal aid IMO should be forthcoming given that the Govt (or any powerful institution will have top lawyers and barristers at their disposal).
I fully understand the 'knee jerk' reaction of people who are rightly angered by this woman. However, a number of comments on here remind me of townsfolk whipped up into a frenzy in scenes from some old Western films i.e. Pitchforks, torches and talk of lynchings where the sheriff and deputy have to hole out in their office against the angry mob so the accused gets his fair trial!!....THEN they hang him!!
If she returns I think it highly unlikely she will see the outside of a prison for many years. We HAVE to trust in the law. She , like anyone deserves a fair trial or we, as a society, descend into anarchy. As many have pointed out, (and notwithstanding the law can be an ass sometimes) the current system is all we have.

HOWEVER, I do not hold with some of the more extreme comments on here implying she is a misguided innocent. Anyone of sound mind aged 15 DOES know the difference between right and wrong and it is nonsense to make comparisons between what she did and being groomed and sexually abused.
I sincerely hope the entire defence is not 'age related' and it becomes an emotive issue. Furthermore, I also am highly suspicious of her family and the environment in which she was raised. There is absolutely no way my daughter at any age would have been manipulated to the extend of condoning (even if she did not participate) in any of the brutal acts she witnessed. Any child brought up to respect other people and people's property would never have got into that situation and something stinks that the parents did not see the warning signs. It is not the same being raised in Britain as it would be for, say, child soldiers brutalised ie.born and raised in a war torn country who have never known a normal situation. Neither is it on par with being drawn (often through 'peer pressure') into underage drinking, smoking or drugs How does a child in a loving caring home with responsible parents become exposed to grooming?

RANT OVER!

 

The BBC did not help implying it would be embarrassing -paraphrasing here-for the Government to have to U-turn and bear the cost of providing a plane to bring her back. They over-egged it too implying "having to provide a jet to bring her back". Probably stick her on a military transport plane on a scheduled journey would be the way forward. They may do that anyway and land at a military airfield to avoid the media scrum and disruption caused by inevitable protests.

 

Oops! sorry, I posted something similar re BBC before I saw your response. I think they were making political capital out of the situation to criticise Govt. No change there.

 

I’d be amazed if the decision doesn't get appealed in the Supreme Court, we’ve had High Court decisions overturned when we’ve appealed and taken it to the Supreme Court. There is still time for common sense to prevail.

 

The first part of this I agree with. You put it quite well. The 2nd part where you assume certain things about her upbringing and motivation is not so good as it is just that - assumption. We should not be so quick to judge or assume things lest we draw the wrong conclusions. Cut people slack until there's no slack left if at all possible.