Shamima Begum: IS bride set to be granted legal aid

Shamima Begum - who joined the Islamic State group aged 15 - is set to be granted legal aid to fight the decision to revoke her UK citizenship.

The 19-year-old, who left east London in 2015, was stripped of her citizenship in February, after she was found in a Syrian refugee camp.

Her family has previously said it planned to challenge the decision.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said the idea of the provision of legal aid to Ms Begum made him "very uncomfortable".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47934721

Not just "uncomfortable" fucking Livid !

nicko wrote:Not just "uncomfortable"  fucking Livid !

You are cute when you are livid.

Thank you quill, your not so bad yourself

What a pathetic decision....I doubt many Brits want her back, so why should we pay her fee for a legal team to fight her case?

I want the name, and position held, of the idiot who sanctioned this act !

Probably Corbyn.

Would not surprise me Syl !

Syl wrote:Probably Corbyn.

What a bizzare reply.
Corbyn is a member of the opposition, he has no power whatsoever to make decisions.

nicko wrote:I want the name, and position held, of the idiot who sanctioned this act !

Here you go. I took some time out to investigate and find some answers for you. Cos you are worth it, nicko.


These are the members of the legal aid board, the CEO & the team responsible for making all the decisions.

CEO = Shaun McNally, Chief Executive, Legal Aid Agency (Chair)

Board members = 
Lorna Maden, Interim Director of Finance, LAA and Operations Group
Jane Harbottle, LAA Operations Committee Chair
David Thomas, LAA Finance and Risk Committee Chair
Samantha Milton, LAA People Committee Chair
Hannah Payne, Deputy Director for Transformation
John Grosvenor, Finance Non-Executive Board Member (& Chair of the Agency’s Audit and Risk Assurance Committee)
Calum Mercer, Finance Non-Executive Board Member
Professor Suzanne Rab, Legal Non-Executive Board Member (effective from 1 April 2019)
Deep Sagar, Commercial Non-Executive Board Member

Fury as jihadi bride’s legal fees are paid by taxpayers”

The Daily Mail of course. Furious no doubt that judges get salaries that are paid by tax payers, that the Old Bailey gets its roof fixed with funding from tax payers, and that we have a whole system of justice anyway, and an independent judiciary, when all malefactors could be fingered and lynched by the Daily Mail editor, journalists and commenters.

It always astonishes me that the Daily Mail, which gets so angry with the unpatriotic, decries one of the things that Britain can be proud of, that is, the rule of law.
The Secret Barrister:-

…this morning, the Daily Mail, in a headline which may stand out as the apotheosis of journalistic legal ignorance, announced:

“Shamima Begum is on legal aid despite being stripped of UK citizenship”.
In much the same way that the people I prosecute and defend are granted legal aid despite being accused of criminal offences. Or diabetes patients are treated on the NHS despite having diabetes.

By Charles D P Miller from Basingstoke, United Kingdom – Justice, CC BY 2.0,

The Secret Barrister goes all Magna Carta:-

Everybody – no matter what they have done or are alleged to have done – is entitled to equal treatment before the law. That is the building block not only of the rule of law, but of our entire democracy. You don’t earn equal treatment, or qualify for it through good behaviour. It applies universally. The day we start making exceptions for the people who offend us the most is the day our civilisation crumbles.

Everybody is also entitled to a fair hearing where a legal decision has been taken which affects them. The removal of a person’s citizenship – a government telling a British-born citizen You have no right to exist within our borders – is one of the most far-reaching decisions the state can make. We do not want to live in a country where politicians can act with unchecked power; the rule of law requires that those affected have a route to challenge a decision and have an independent court review the evidence and decide whether that decision was taken in accordance with the law

I await some of the commenters here to start howling that Begum’s ideology and her actions, as described by the various news outlets, showed no justice towards those she had in her power. There’s a very elementary point about what I expect from our society in its ideal form, and what I expect from hers which I can’t be bothered making.

http://hurryupharry.org/2019/04/15/best-of-british-to-you/

The secret Barrister is right of course and as much as I detest the fact she is receiving legal aid. Either people back this aspect within our law or they need to have this changed.

Are now people against our laws?

Are they actually being patriotic here?

What does need to happen is an update ammendment to the treason law. Which she should be charged with

Would not piss on her if she was on fire !

She is not a British citizen... she is an Islamist terrorist!

What if Britain didn't pay for her lawyer? That would mean that the UK government reserved the right not only to take away your citizenship, but then throw you into court and force you to try to represent yourself.

I don't think anybody really wants the UK to be like that.

Nobody is throwing her into court or forcing her to do anything...

Tommy Monk wrote:Nobody is throwing her into court or forcing her to do anything...

Yet you stand in opposition to British laws

Which is odd really, as she did the same

Go figure

phildidge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Nobody is throwing her into court or forcing her to do anything...

Yet you stand in opposition to British laws

Which is odd really, as she did the same

Go figure

Hardly...


The whole of democratic process is proposing and opposing laws...


Flying half way round the world to join up with ISIS is completely different...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Yet you stand in opposition to British laws

Which is odd really, as she did the same

Go figure

Hardly...


The whole of democratic process is proposing and opposing laws...


Flying half way round the world to join up with ISIS is completely different...!!!

So you back a second referendum then?

No... I back the result if the EU referendum being enacted... and I back the law of article 50 being adhered to, in that it clearly states that having declared our intention to leave the EU by the declaration of article 50... that we have the option of negotiating for a period of up to 2 years in which to try to agree an arrangement on our future trade tariff terms between UK and EU... but if we have not left the EU with an agreement on the terms of our future trade arrangement after this period of 2 years, then we still leave the EU after this period of 2 years (as was always set out as our exit date under EU law, as is set out in article 50)... but we then just leave the EU on the tariff terms set out by the WTO instead of on some other tariff terms that we were unable to agree on within this 2 year period of tariff terms negotiations...


WTO terms is a good default starting point for future UK/EU trade tariffs, with the UK being outside of the EU... as was decided by the British people in the referendum to leave the EU...!


So... time to get on with it!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

No... I back the result if the EU referendum being enacted... and I back the law of article 50 being adhered to, in that it clearly states that having declared our intention to leave the EU by the declaration of article 50... that we have the option of negotiating for a period of up to 2 years in which to try to agree an arrangement on our future trade tariff terms between UK and EU... but if we have not left the EU with an agreement on the terms of our future trade arrangement after this period of 2 years, then we still leave the EU after this period of 2 years (as was always set out as our exit date under EU law, as is set out in article 50)... but we then just leave the EU on the tariff terms set out by the WTO instead of on some other tariff terms that we were unable to agree on within this 2 year period of tariff terms negotiations...


WTO terms is a good default starting point for future UK/EU trade tariffs, with the UK being outside of the EU... as was decided by the British people in the referendum to leave the EU...!


So... time to get on with it!!!

So you back British law then?

Which means paying for people in defense

Do you want to change this centruy old law?

Yes or no?

The EU do.

Aren't you talking about 'defence', as in, 'criminal defence'...?


As in... the right to legal representation for a defendent during a trial...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Aren't you talking about 'defence', as in, 'criminal defence'...?


As in... the right to legal representation for a defendent during a trial...?

I am talking about British legal rights and laws

phildidge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Aren't you talking about 'defence', as in, 'criminal defence'...?


As in... the right to legal representation for a defendent during a trial...?

I am talking about British legal rights and laws

What rights are you talking about...!?


She is not a British citizen... and she is not on trial here in UK...!


So... what rights are you talking about whereby the British taxpayer has to pay for a foreign ISIS terrorists legal fees!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I am talking about British legal rights and laws

What rights are you talking about...!?


She is not a British citizen... and she is not on trial here in UK...!


So... what rights are you talking about whereby the British taxpayer has to pay for a foreign ISIS terrorists legal fees!?

Its open to legal debate on whether she is still a citizen


She was born here and thus is entittled, no matter if a terrorist supporter

So show me the law that denies people legal aid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHd-0x8x5Os