-
Posts
-
Doing some research she and 2 others went over with her. One other said died..where is her third friend? They married too? Where their children? Something smells.
Hmmm….
something certainly smells…
Now let’s say that the third woman also has a baby, or a toddler. And she wants to come home. And the baby/toddler is also in danger.
Not inconceivable. In one camp just set up outside the last ISIS stronghold in Syria, 62 children have died .
Now what is the reaction? You still going to let the children die?
That seems to real question, because sooner or later the grown woman will return to Britain.
Everybody (well some) says that their heart goes out to the innocent baby of Shemima Begum, but it’s a bit late now. The baby is dead.
You going to let the other baby die? And your heart go out once the baby is dead???
Nem, you ready to answer that??
Losing a child is probably the most heart breaking, soul destroying thing a mother can go through. I know this, I lost 4 babies.
Her baby’s death could possibly have been prevented but so could others.
She didn’t end up in a refugee camp because she’s a victim. She is, or at least was, a terrorist (Or at least supports and is married – by choice – to a terrorist)
Yes, it breaks my heart an innocent child died but she has to accept responsibility for her part in it. I believe she refused to give up her child allowing them to come here alone. If it really was about the child then she would have let the child go to save his life.
There are children dying all over the world, famine, drought, natural disasters and war, what about those children? Mothers that trek miles a day to collect filthy, disease ridden water. Faced with giving their children contaminated water that is highly likely to make them ill, could well kill them or die of thirst. I’d be trying to save them before even thinking of the likes of this woman who pretty much chose to be in that position.
Linda and Nem, you both make the same basic point – that the baby’s death was the mother’s responsibility – and you’re both dead wrong.
The State does have a moral responsibility to protect children from dying, especially the children who are part of the nation – they do in the UK, anyway. That’s why making someone stateless is illegal under international law – it’s called human rights. It’s one of the reasons we set up a Welfare State. The fact of Britain being a nation-state means that the fate of British babies is its first concern, along with any non-British babies and children who live here.
I’ve known several women who’ve lost children – stillborn, newborn or even grownup children – and the effects are devastating. You have my full sympathies, Nem, for the loss of your children. That means that you know better than I do what Shemima Begum, who is still in her teens, must be going through
If a British baby or child is in real danger, you don’t ask questions about the why, or whether the mother’s politics are acceptable or not; you take action, no questions asked. If the hospital services or the social services are responsible for any child’s death – and in the austerity conditions of today, that can happen – then you don’t go around shouting out that it’s the mother’s fault because she should have had a job, or should have been married to someone with a job, or shouldn’t be so poor, or shouldn’t sympathise with someone we all hate. The baby is all that matters, and saving the baby’s life is the priority. It’s the fault of the State for not fulfilling its responsibilities.
The same holds if a British baby is born abroad in a war situation. The chances of saving the baby are much lower than they are even in austerity Britain, but an attempt has to be made. It’s totally immoral not to make the attempt.
Shemima Begum was stupid enough to go to a killing zone. That was her choice. She now says that she’s made a mistake and wants to bring her baby home for safety. The fact that she was in a refugee camp meant that the chances of her child dying were high; but it’s the responsibility of the British government to attempt to save the child, no questions asked about her politics or why the child is in danger. No attempt was made or considered, there is no evidence that she would have resisted being brought back here with the child, but there’s no way of proving or disproving it because no attempt was made. Quite the opposite – an (almost certainly) illegal action was taken to make her stateless and the callous attitude towards the baby expressed here on the boards is truly chilling. What sort of message is being sent out?
By the way, Linda, I really don’t understand the point you’re trying to make about the 62 children who died. It’s the responsibility of world governments to ensure that refugee camps are temporary and as healthy as possible, which is why we have a United Nations and its refugee and children’s agencies, along with international law and international aid. The camp where 62 children died was run by one of the more responsible groups, the same group which ran the camp in which Shemima Begum lost her baby. Malnutrition is rife in both camps, as the group is a military one. Most of the 62 children who died were Yazidis, the victims of ISIS.
As already stated the father was Dutch who is on record as saying when he is free he wants to take his wife and child back to Holland.So why didnt the Dutch jump in to help her?
Scep you pig headed and strong and will make your points to blue in your face. So will I. Told you long time ago..you met your match.
62 other children died in an ISIS camp? Where was the U.N. then may I ask? Where were those children salvation then? Which Country stepped in then when reports made or heard? A woman makes head lines and government drops everything for her? Her child..no questions asked? Are you that easily tricked that it could of been a game plan? Or you let the media convince you as always as you are the persuasive type in which they need to bring up news get sympathy by the masses. This is what it did. How many others have tried to escape..not hit the news?
And if Somer’s comment is correct..why not take his family back to where he from. Not easy I assume..he would of been denied as well I assume. So plea on the mercy of a woman..her child..both smart if ask me. She should of tried to leave when first became pregnant again knowing what happened to last 2..not wait till almost delivery time. If she so worried..or wait to have another child knowing conditions..
And yes loss of any child innocent is a great worry. I too lost twins at 5 months..me almost too. Know what I was told..the weaker one was taking from the stronger one taking them both down in survival of the fittest.. I was in no war zone, camp..well fed..good medical care and even in the womb children are innocent as my healthier one was…some times all battles are not won even for the sake of one child..
Well, one reason, Somer.
She’s British.
If the Dutch give her nationality, then they would be responsible, and we would have none.
But they didn’t.
When she eventually returns, she’ll be held to account for any crimes committed, and treated like any other British criminal. She’ll then be monitored like all the other jihadists and ex-jihadists who’ve returned. About half of all repentant jihadists then revert to their original views, and they have to be carefully checked. I’m not under any illusion about the dangers.
We could certainly save money on all the criminals and jihadists by beheading them and sticking their heads in public wastebaskets, but then we’d be no better than ISIS.
P.s. I recall well oh yes. June 7th, 1989.. does she remember dates of her loss?
The babies death was preventable as it died from pneumonia
So instead of helping the child sajid javid gave in to lynch mob and stripped the mother of citizenship therefore forcing a new born baby to live in a refugee camp where it caught pneumonia and tragically died and all that could have simply been prevented by allowing her home to have the child
so can someone explain how he doesn’t have blood on his hands
2 members liked this post.
Can not blame one man alone. Sure others had to make decision as well. Then blame all your leaders and condemn u.k. government. Their decision.. she a risk. Not baby..made a decision..right or wrong. It was made..
and the buck stopped with Javid.
he made the decision.
The consequence was that the baby died.
Right or wrong about Shemima Begum (and it’s almost certainly illegal), the consequence was the death of the baby.
His heart, like everyone else’s, might go out to the baby, and crocodile tears galore may be shed, but he’s responsible for the baby’s death.
A moral coward was how The Observer described him, whiter than white may be how Britain First would describe him, a moral sleazebag is how I would describe him, but the baby’s death is on his hands, for the reasons I gave above.
Sajid 1, Shemima nil, baby dead.
Well, one reason, Somer.
She’s British.
If the Dutch give her nationality, then they would be responsible, and we would have none.
But they didn’t.
When she eventually returns, she’ll be held to account for any crimes committed, and treated like any other British criminal. She’ll then be monitored like all the other jihadists and ex-jihadists who’ve returned. About half of all repentant jihadists then revert to their original views, and they have to be carefully checked. I’m not under any illusion about the dangers.
We could certainly save money on all the criminals and jihadists by beheading them and sticking their heads in public wastebaskets, but then we’d be no better than ISIS.
But she married a Dutch fighter that to me shows Holland didnt want to know.Theres been a case where a uk man has married an iranian woman and shes still in a iranian jail where the uk are trying to get her out and home.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!