Shamina Begums lawyer…what do we know about him?

[Neo]

http://waterfordssolicitors.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/mohammedA.jpg (http://waterfordssolicitors.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/mohammedA.jpg)Tasnime is a criminal defence solicitor working in the field of Terrorism and Terrorism related offending, he has been engaged in this field of work within the context of legal defence from 1999 onwards.
http://waterfordssolicitors.co.uk/mohammed-akunjee


Who is paying him to represent Shamina Begum?

[Neo]

All of Mohammed-Akunjee co partners at Waterfords solicitors.
http://waterfordssolicitors.co.uk/who-are-we

As I suspected, all on the take from government funding.

[Big Dummy]

Paki terrorist leaches. The moozie war plan includes getting their kind into all the high paying white collar jobs, so white Christians don’t have the opportunities. Gov policy and their elected stooges makes it easy for them to win.

[UKSmartypants]

And ofc all paid for by Uk 'Human rights ' legal aid, a scheme created by the war criminal Blair to make him and his Barrister wife rich.

[Neo]

And ofc all paid for by Uk 'Human rights ' legal aid, a scheme created by the war criminal Blair to make him and his Barrister wife rich.

Leaving “The European human rights” would make these leeches redundant overnight.

[UKSmartypants]

Is Shamima Begum the UKs responsibility? - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Y4Qs29kiE)

[UKSmartypants]

| Nile Gardiner says Shamima Begum should not return to UK - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkZ-42edm38)



"If Starmer was in power he'd have let her back in, along with 160 other Jihadis. Its Labour in fact who are a threat to National security"

[Crusader]

MI5 or the SAS should just but a bullet in her head and end this.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

The fact that the terrorists haven't killed her suggests they support her return to the UK.

[Trinnity]

I think Negan had it about right, for resourcefulness, that is.

Is Due Process a thing in the UK?

[UKSmartypants]

Shamima Begum is says film maker Andrew Drury - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mIEVtz9Lkw)



A GB news poll suggest 90% of the country dont want her back

[Dubler9]

All people are entitled to a defence. There is no merit in condemning a person you do not like and supporting a person you do like in regard to entitlement to legal process under the rule of law. This is not good for future similar matters. What if a socialist minister had the power and decided to stop one of your guys - just because it is of political benefit. This is why we have the rule of law.
The German Nazi mass killers received due process via tribunal. (Trial) This held Britain and USA in high esteem. We are not like the Nazi's. They carried out summary execution.

Talking law here and its consequences, I am NOT siding with IRA .... The vast majority of Irish people did not support the Easter Rising 1916. They thought it was ridiculous, a recipe for disaster. But the British made a huge mistake. The Minister passed power to an Army General - to apply the judicial procedure called - Field Court Marshall. (not Court Martial) The word "FIELD" is that as used in wartime - to shoot Deserters with expediency.
The captured IRA Rebels were swiftly tried and shot the next day. Because it was FIELD Court Martial .. the General had the power, the politicians washed their hands (except for Robert Peel). As a direct result of these unfair trials and executions .. the whole population of Ireland (controlled by UK) turned against the British.
This unfairness alone created much bigger problems. The Rule Of Law was abused.

[Canadianeye]

All people are entitled to a defence. There is no merit in condemning a person you do not like and supporting a person you do like in regard to entitlement to legal process under the rule of law. This is not good for future similar matters. What if a socialist minister had the power and decided to stop one of your guys - just because it is of political benefit. This is why we have the rule of law.
The German Nazi mass killers received due process via tribunal. (Trial) This held Britain and USA in high esteem. We are not like the Nazi's. They carried out summary execution.

Talking law here and its consequences, I am NOT siding with IRA .... The vast majority of Irish people did not support the Easter Rising 1916. They thought it was ridiculous, a recipe for disaster. But the British made a huge mistake. The Minister passed power to an Army General - to apply the judicial procedure called - Field Court Marshall. (not Court Martial) The word "FIELD" is that as used in wartime - to shoot Deserters with expediency.
The captured IRA Rebels were swiftly tried and shot the next day. Because it was FIELD Court Martial .. the General had the power, the politicians washed their hands (except for Robert Peel). As a direct result of these unfair trials and executions .. the whole population of Ireland (controlled by UK) turned against the British.
This unfairness alone created much bigger problems. The Rule Of Law was abused.

She isn't a British citizen.

Was her appeal (lost) to reverse the judiciaries decision to remove her citizenship, and to have her reinstated as a British citizen, to then stand trial as a British citizen.

In this particular case (of which I know little about tbh) the evidence "obtainable" is going to be restricted and very difficult to obtain (for whatever reason of which I am unsure as to why).

That, in reality means she could be given a trial...that would not be able to convict her - and the general current consensus is, is that she is incredibly guilty by her own admissions, and, evidence which is now going to be extremely difficult to obtain.

That then means, there is a high likelihood of her being set free amongst the citizenry of the UK, and by extension Europe and the rest of world.

Now, if what I have written above is the basics of all this - then your position is - the current decision to remove her as a British citizen (and every other judicial decision regarding terrorists) must be reversed or not allowed to happen whatsoever - despite ANY amount of repeated future terrorist attacks involving ANY of them.

My opinion regarding this...is that your comparison to the Nuremburg trials (I assume that is the Trials you meant) is a double edged sword, and, a sword that is COMPLETELY different from the 5 years of the Nuremburg trials, with massive amounts of evidence, optional death penalties - and - no German nationality and/or removal of German nationality issues involved (to my limited knowledge anyways).

An SS guard who oversaw and helped actively coordinate death camps and gas ovens in say, 1943, - was not going to pose a threat to Europe by operating in a death camp somewhere with gas ovens after the war.

Different kettle of legal fish you are trying to draw comparatively to, which I don't think stands, IMO anyways.

Even beyond that, there was a very strong position being held - that there was an awful lot of leniency granted in the Nuremburg Trials and subsequent trials...that produced the perps to be hunted and executed by others exercising judgement when the activist and agenda driven "courts" failed to find justice.

Bottom line, to me anyways, on my first sniff around of your position - is the Nuremburg Trials do not work for me regarding this woman, her citizenship, her terrorism and the current court systems.

That's my take on part of what you are pitching. Not a popular stance you have taken to be sure. I might have drawn Obamas shooting of "suspected" terrorists with no trial at all, as a talking point of Conservatives etc. We all pretty much chirped about Obumba having no frigging right to do that, and what an authoritarian thug he was as he executed "suspects".

[Dubler9]

She isn't a British citizen.

Was her appeal (lost) to reverse the judiciaries decision to remove her citizenship, and to have her reinstated as a British citizen, to then stand trial as a British citizen.

In this particular case (of which I know little about tbh) the evidence "obtainable" is going to be restricted and very difficult to obtain (for whatever reason of which I am unsure as to why).

That, in reality means she could be given a trial...that would not be able to convict her - and the general current consensus is, is that she is incredibly guilty by her own admissions, and, evidence which is now going to be extremely difficult to obtain.

That then means, there is a high likelihood of her being set free amongst the citizenry of the UK, and by extension Europe and the rest of world.

Now, if what I have written above is the basics of all this - then your position is - the current decision to remove her as a British citizen (and every other judicial decision regarding terrorists) must be reversed or not allowed to happen whatsoever - despite ANY amount of repeated future terrorist attacks involving ANY of them.

My opinion regarding this...is that your comparison to the Nuremburg trials (I assume that is the Trials you meant) is a double edged sword, and, a sword that is COMPLETELY different from the 5 years of the Nuremburg trials, with massive amounts of evidence, optional death penalties - and - no German nationality and/or removal of German nationality issues involved (to my limited knowledge anyways).

An SS guard who oversaw and helped actively coordinate death camps and gas ovens in say, 1943, - was not going to pose a threat to Europe by operating in a death camp somewhere with gas ovens after the war.

Different kettle of legal fish you are trying to draw comparatively to, which I don't think stands, IMO anyways.

Even beyond that, there was a very strong position being held - that there was an awful lot of leniency granted in the Nuremburg Trials and subsequent trials...that produced the perps to be hunted and executed by others exercising judgement when the activist and agenda driven "courts" failed to find justice.

Bottom line, to me anyways, on my first sniff around of your position - is the Nuremburg Trials do not work for me regarding this woman, her citizenship, her terrorism and the current court systems.

That's my take on part of what you are pitching. Not a popular stance you have taken to be sure. I might have drawn Obamas shooting of "suspected" terrorists with no trial at all, as a talking point of Conservatives etc. We all pretty much chirped about Obumba having no frigging right to do that, and what an authoritarian thug he was as he executed "suspects".
You make valid observations. The basis of my stance has always formed around choice and choice made for political expediency rather than the Rule Of Law. A minister will play to the gallery in order to gain public support - a partisan choice. The ISAC hearing ruled that the minister did not act outside his authority. The merits of Begums case were no the courts remit.
In short; A Labour minister may choose to let her keep her citizenship - she is British by birth- for reasons akin to leftie dear-heart tendencies.
My views are my own, neither right nor left. I know a substantial number of people oppose my view. I never set my stance aligning with the majority because the majority say so.

I simply looked at her age. A 15 year old girl deserves a second chance. That is my view. She did not harm anyone. I also firmly believe a British Citizen should always be returned to Britain to face the music. For me this is a solid principle of the process.

The minister had the authority to remove her citizenship. He also had the authority to allow her to keep it. The political situation meant he needed the plus points.

Todays headlines in England is about an Albanian who committed numerous rapes and violent offences, illegally entered Britain, was deported and returned to Britain. He lives with his brother in Bolton because the Prosecution lawyer failed to attend court. ??!! This man is a proven very violent person who has harmed people. No Minister on his case.

[Trinnity]

Was her citizenship taken in a lawful way? Is due process a thing in the UK?

[UKSmartypants]

Was her citizenship taken in a lawful way? Is due process a thing in the UK?


Three different courts have decided now that the Home Secretary lawfully exercised his legal power to strip her of citizenship, without leaving her stateless, on the intelligence provided by MI5, some of which has not been released due to security issues, and Mi5 still say she is a threat to national security and played a major part in ISIS. The Home Secretary has the legal obligation to exercise this power to protect national security.

There no argument about it. Its all perfectly legal.


And the argument in the video is perfectly reasonable. She committed criminal offenses in a foreign country, and therefore like everyone else who commits a criminal offence ina foreign country, its entirely the prerogative of that country to try her. Theres even a TV reality series on this, called "Brits Banged Up Abroad".

if you want her tried, go ask the Syrian Government to try her, or her two other alternative nationalities, the Dutch or the Bangladshi. She is no longer a british Citizen so not our problem any more.

[Dubler9]

I am not arguing for the sake of it. The fact is I am the single voice, in this forum, in support of Begum returning to UK. I think debates to do with rights and rule of law are fundamental beliefs of people who are not leftist liberals. We value the rule of law, leftists do not. This does not mean opposing views are all wrong. Every court has a defence and a prosecution lawyer so obviously seeking settled grounds is the best way.

My opinion is based upon the real outcome that if the Minister was not Sajid Javid this other minister may well have allowed her to return to UK. This is my stance. In the same way Trump would send in the National Guard to round up Antifa whereas Biden never will.

Blair and Bush acted "lawfully" by hanging Saddam ? but they had to work hard to find the law to suit their actions. I ask if any of you know on what basis in law they hanged Saddam. It was not a formality. They could not do it on merit (he is a very naughty boy) they had to be lawful to avoid challenges. Most agreed they were right to hang him but that is opinion.
The "right wing" Trump supporters of which I am 100% solid for M.A.G.A.... are not lefties because they have an opposing view on a legal matter - as in politicians involvement. Pence is "right wing republican" I would never trust Pence, would you?
The former head of MI6 Counter terrorism group supports Begums return to Britain.

[UKSmartypants]

I am not arguing for the sake of it. The fact is I am the single voice, in this forum, in support of Begum returning to UK. I think debates to do with rights and rule of law are fundamental beliefs of people who are not leftist liberals. We value the rule of law, leftists do not. This does not mean opposing views are all wrong. Every court has a defence and a prosecution lawyer so obviously seeking settled grounds is the best way.

My opinion is based upon the real outcome that if the Minister was not Sajid Javid this other minister may well have allowed her to return to UK. This is my stance. In the same way Trump would send in the National Guard to round up Antifa whereas Biden never will.

Blair and Bush acted "lawfully" by hanging Saddam ? but they had to work hard to find the law to suit their actions. I ask if any of you know on what basis in law they hanged Saddam. It was not a formality. They could not do it on merit (he is a very naughty boy) they had to be lawful to avoid challenges. Most agreed they were right to hang him but that is opinion.
The "right wing" Trump supporters of which I am 100% solid for M.A.G.A.... are not lefties because they have an opposing view on a legal matter - as in politicians involvement. Pence is "right wing republican" I would never trust Pence, would you?
The former head of MI6 Counter terrorism group supports Begums return to Britain.


Well were back on this argument that refuse to acknowledge. The opinion of the former head of MI6 is irrelevant, because hes the former head. The only thing that counts is the opinion of MI5, the Homne Secretary, and the Court, and three times they have ruled the Home Secretary has acted legally and proper.

The next point you ignore is that she has committed no criminal offenses in the UK per se, that could be easily proved. All her criminality took place in a foreign country, and so she should be tried in that country, like every other brit that commits crimes in a foreign land.

She wants to come back here to simply thwart justice, because she knows the worst we could convict her on are a couple of minor charges of aiding terrorists, wheras MI5 KNOW shes committed far worse but cannot use their evidence in open court without compromising national security. The Syrians have far more evidence that can be used to convict her of much more serious offenses. Consequently if you really wanted her to face justice, you'd want her to face a Syrian court. But pushing for her to be brought here, you aid her plan to evade justice, by trying her under soft useless left biassed uk Courts who will merely slap her wrists then let her loose on the rest of us, a dangerous terrorist according to MI5.

But since we legally removed her citizenship, as agreed by three separate Courts, shes no longer our problem. Let the Syrians try her, and if you disgree, then you become a useful idiot of the lefty cabal trying to help her evade justice.

[UKSmartypants]

Now as for Saddam, that was war, and in war, the winning side gets to administer summary justice via a war crimes court to the peopel who conduted and prosecuted the war.

Begum was not a leader of ISIS, otherwise we could have hung her, MI5 knows what she did,but knows its hard to prove in the UK, and easier to prove in Syria, and so the Home Secretary has to take national security into account as well as the rights of the citizens of this country, so revoking her citizenship basically lets her off lightly, the dutch and bangladeshi governments will hang her if they get thier hands on her.

So i think she should thank her lucky stars shes still alive, and stop whining about her self inflicted predicament. Do the victims of the Manchester bomb get a second chance? Or the Hostages ISIS beheaded? She a narcissist manipulative sociopath, and id be happy to execute her myself, and give her the same chance her ISIS mates gave their victims.

[Dubler9]

There are laws re invading a sovereign country. Saddam was not hanged by dint of "war" you can not do that. You must adhere to law. If there is no law then it is murder. Thats the way it works. I am not arguing, I have an opinion. Because I do not agree with you it is NOT an argument and certainly not ME arguing and YOU not arguing. I do not have to agree with anyone. That is not argument. That is my side of things. An argument is when you tell your child to put her coat on and she disobeys. The child is arguing. Anyway, I respect your opinions. It is good to hear varying opinions. I always knew my stance is in the minority camp before I post my comments.

Saddam was hanged because his personal guard tried to assassinate him, they failed, so he rounded them up and shot them all - without trial. He was hanged for the offence of killing his guard without giving them a fair trial. This was how Bush and Blair could legally have him killed. They then complied with international law.

I think Blair is a war criminal who murdered many thousands of innocent people. He walks the streets and makes multi millions of dollars from it - he makes Begum look like an angel.

[UKSmartypants]

There are laws re invading a sovereign country. Saddam was not hanged by dint of "war" you can not do that. You must adhere to law. If there is no law then it is murder. Thats the way it works. I am not arguing, I have an opinion. Because I do not agree with you it is NOT an argument and certainly not ME arguing and YOU not arguing. I do not have to agree with anyone. That is not argument. That is my side of things. An argument is when you tell your child to put her coat on and she disobeys. The child is arguing. Anyway, I respect your opinions. It is good to hear varying opinions. I always knew my stance is in the minority camp before I post my comments.

Saddam was hanged because his personal guard tried to assassinate him, they failed, so he rounded them up and shot them all - without trial. He was hanged for the offence of killing his guard without giving them a fair trial. This was how Bush and Blair could legally have him killed. They then complied with international law.

I think Blair is a war criminal who murdered many thousands of innocent people. He walks the streets and makes multi millions of dollars from it - he makes Begum look like an angel.


Wars do not have rules, until the winners decide what the rules were. War is not a game of cricket where you have a little book where you can check if the other man is offside. War is not the opposite of peace. War is the absence of civilisation. They may pretend is all very civilized, and have pretend "Rules of engagement", but weve seen what happen when one side has them and the other side hasnt, the side with no rules wins.


War is about killing as many of the other side as possible, including their leaders. if you havent grasped that yet them im at a loss for words. As Bomber Harris remarked when he heard some anti war activists From the Bombing Restriction Committee were accusing him of murder for bombing Dresden, "We know what this is about. its all about German Shepherdesses. What would they have called us if we had stood by and done nothing about Hitler and his Bloody Gang". and ISIS declared war on us.


Your position is absurd. In war you fight for survival, and there are no rules, if you are smart and really want to survive. So bitching because we executed one of the vilest mass murderers in history without trial really is pathetic and unrealistic. War is war, and the winner writes the rules and history.

And in the case of begum, her crime was to join the enemy to help kill us, that makes her a traitor of the worst kind, and she was lucky to get away with her life when caught . In WW2 traitors were usually shot in front of a firing squad or hung at the first possible opportunity. personally I think it would have been a great object lesson for muzzie girls in the UK to see Begum swinging by her neck on a Gallows in Raqqua

[Trinnity]

I am not arguing for the sake of it. The fact is I am the single voice, in this forum, in support of Begum returning to UK. Not the only one, sort of. I'm all for due process. She was how old when she did this? I don't have a "side" in this, more like I'm curious, since you brits are talking about it a lot.

[Canadianeye]

Not the only one, sort of. I'm all for due process. She was how old when she did this? I don't have a "side" in this, more like I'm curious, since you brits are talking about it a lot.

It's difficult if one is being honest with ones self.

I am certainly trying to understand Dublers position on this...but am thoroughly on the page of hang this bitch on the street, or put a bullet in her.

That is because I am aware of how they abuse our systems - as they bend us over and terrorize all of us, endlessly. Decade after decade after decade.

In my brain I weigh the value/gain of the position Dubler is taking a stand on, and the value/gain of sending a message by fucking this manipulative and dangerous traitor over in any way possible - and even her life at the hands of the Syrians etc.

[UKSmartypants]

Not the only one, sort of. I'm all for due process. She was how old when she did this? I don't have a "side" in this, more like I'm curious, since you brits are talking about it a lot.


She ran away from home at 15 to with two mates to join ISIS.

whilst there her two mates got killed. She was rounded up after ISIS were defeated aged 19 in Raqqua and has sat in a Syrian prison camp since then. While she was in there she was legally stripped of her citizenship by the Home secretary, legally, because she has alternatives, she can take Bangladeshi citizenship via her parents, of she married an ISIS Jihadist in Syria, hes now sat in a Dutch prison because hes Dutch, and she can take Dutch citizenship. However both countries have stated if she sets foot in either country they will hang her as a terrorist - but thats not our problem, thats an issue of her own making.

Hence shes desperate to get her UK citizenship back

According to her she did little more than cook meals for her husband. While she was over there she had three kids all of whom died. At an interview when she was first rounded up , she said the Manchester Arena Attack, in which a bomb placed at a music concert killed 23 people, mainly kids and teenagers, and injured more than 1000 others, was "fair retaliation", she stated she wasnt bothered by seeing severed heads in buckets, and hasnt shown a shred of remorse.

Since then she has been coached by lefties, and has stopped wearing moslem clothes, and changed her narrative, and has been conducting a PR campaign aided by lefty journos and lawyers

MI5 say her involvement was far more than that, she sewed and fitted suicide vests on jihadists and was part of the womens "Morality Police", beating up and punishing women not obeying strict Moslem dress code. MI5 also have other evidence against her they wont release, but say she is an ongoing threat to national security and must not be allowed in

Several Journalists who have met her also say she is a manipulative narcissist liar and dangerous. She was 15 when she left and over 16 when she committed all these crimes in another country. She was above the age of criminal responsibility at the time

as for the absurd claim she was 'trafficed', its bollox, Who trafficed her? She traveled of her own free will to Turkey then to Syria. Before she went she had a smartphone and a TV, she saw the images of the barbarity and savagery of ISIS and at 15 was old enough to know right from wrong, and she decided to ally herself with the enemy, ISIS, and join in the savagery and war crimes. She knew exactly what she was signing up for when she set off from the UK.