UK citizen Jarrah Begum dies in Syrian refugee camp

[Dooom35796821595]

No, he didn't. He said it "might" have been "possible" but it would have been politically difficult. See that politically difficult bit? That's the fact of literally everything we've been saying.

As for the bit about political will, that doesn't negate the fact of that the government didn't refuse. They literally didn't. They told them where to go and said that the people they sent them to would be obligated to consider it.

Since you know so much about HMPO and the FCO, perhaps you can answer a question for me then. I've been looking into how applications on behalf of children are handled, and found an article from the BBC in 2014 which is describing how HMPO was folded into the home office. It states "However, the contingency that allowed those applying for passports overseas on behalf of their children to claim emergency travel documents will be ended and the process will return to normal, with this option available only on urgent and compassionate grounds.".

Is this still the case now? Or was it replaced with some other procedure since this article was published?

See the bold, and this sounds like emergency measures to deal with a massive backlog of applications.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

No, he didn't. He said it "might" have been "possible" but it would have been politically difficult. See that politically difficult bit? That's the fact of literally everything we've been saying.

As for the bit about political will, that doesn't negate the fact of that the government didn't refuse. They literally didn't. They told them where to go and said that the people they sent them to would be obligated to consider it.

Since you know so much about HMPO and the FCO, perhaps you can answer a question for me then. I've been looking into how applications on behalf of children are handled, and found an article from the BBC in 2014 which is describing how HMPO was folded into the home office. It states "However, the contingency that allowed those applying for passports overseas on behalf of their children to claim emergency travel documents will be ended and the process will return to normal, with this option available only on urgent and compassionate grounds.
Is this still the case now? Or was it replaced with some other procedure since this article was published?

"If you need an emergency travel document to leave Syria, contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office."

It's almost like the Home Office told them exactly what to do and they apparently didn't. And then if you follow the FCO link

"The UK has suspended all services of the British Embassy in Damascus and all diplomatic and consular staff have been withdrawn from Syria. British nationals requiring assistance should make their way to a neighbouring country where the UK has a consular presence."

They didn't. Again, there are processes in place to do literally all of this. They didn't.

[Scomagia]

That's unfortunate. The only person to blame, of course, the shitbag mother.

[Lamoni]

Who the fuck cares about some terror bitch's baby?

Excessively cruel, the child did nothing wrong.

He most likely would have followed in his Jihadi mother's footsteps. Nothing of value was lost today.

*** Warning for Trolling ***

You will be wanting to review the rules before you post again, or your stay here will likely be short in duration.

[Major-Tom]

Who the fuck cares about some terror bitch's baby?

Provoking shit for the sake of, well, provoking shit. C'mon, fuck that, that's ridiculous, don't do that.

Personally, I harbor very little sympathy for Shamima Begum. I tend to have a plentiful amount of sympathy for refugees, particularly, those fleeing conflicts. But she was complicit in those conflicts and remains largely unapologetic about her role. That is indefensible.

But, fuck, her kid dying? That is also horrible. As much as I may dislike Shamima, I must say it's heartbreaking to hear of a three week or so year old child passing away from pneumonia. I can't imagine.

At this juncture, well...I don't think she should be let back into the UK. If she were to return, realistically, nothing would come of it. She wouldn't be some malevolent terrorist recruiter. But, simultaneously, the principle remains - that is, she was complicit with ISIS and seems to have little remorse beyond the phrase "I was tricked." That doesn't cut it. Perhaps, of course, the Home Office could've done more for her offspring. I'm American, and am not entirely familiar with the roles and prowess the Home Office possesses. I can't say with certainty that they could've been a mitigative and beneficial factor for her kid.

What I do know, though? I know that she can't blame the UK. She joined ISIS. She participated knowingly. In the end, it was her misdeeds that placed her child in that terrible place. And it's sickening.

[Handecanistan]

Since everyone hasn't seem to be taking this into account, I figure I should point this out.

The baby was 3 weeks old and died of pneumonia. As far as I can tell, the baby would have required to be in neonatal care, involving an incubator to provide a stable warm temperature, and a lot of oxygen.

Now let's put this neonate onto a plane for a few hours. To ensure it's survival all of the equipment would have to be used on the plane, and stability would need to be very important. Furthermore you would need a qualified team to look after the neonate during the flight. All of this would be needed, And chances are the baby would still have died from the ordeal. Not to even mention how incredibly expensive this would be and how long it would take to arrange.

Now as far as I can tell, there are only 2 ways this baby could have gotten out of the tragedy with his life.
1) The pregnant mother would be transported to a location with a decent level of health care at the same level as the UK.
2) The medical equipment required to treat the baby could be sent to where the baby is, and when his condition stabilised and it was considered safe, the baby could be flown to the UK to stay with his family.

Now for 1, the plead for a return to the UK was quite late into the pregnancy, there was not much time to bring her over before she went into labour. Furthermore travelling when heavily pregnant and at risk of going into labour isn't exactly recommended. Not to mention what everyone has already been debating on this forum already.

For number 2, it really is easier said than done. We'd need to know exactly what the baby needed, rush to get the supplies and equipment and quickly send it over. This takes time, good communication and money.

Overall, the baby was screwed the minute it didn't get born in a country with a developed medical system. It's a sad tragedy, but I'd hardly say the UK had an easy solution, same with the Dutch. The mother betrayed her country and suddenly asked to return when things didn't work out (Even though she was manipulated and brainwashed at age 15). The father probably commited many atrocities in the name of Allah.

The innocent baby is just another victim of the dickheads that are ISIS.

[Old Tyrannia]

As tragic as this outcome is, there's nothing that Her Majesty's Government could realistically be expected to have done to avoid it. Ultimately the fault lies with the mother, and I have to say that I would rather the money resources that would have gone into mounting a mission to rescue this baby from Syria by wresting him from his obstinate mother who seemed determined to use him as leverage to get herself out of the hole she has dug for herself went towards child protection services here in the UK. Far more children could be helped that way.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Unfortunate the child died. But the blame is completely on the mother.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Another victim of the British government and its disregard for human life.

[Terruana]

Since you know so much about HMPO and the FCO, perhaps you can answer a question for me then. I've been looking into how applications on behalf of children are handled, and found an article from the BBC in 2014 which is describing how HMPO was folded into the home office. It states "However, the contingency that allowed those applying for passports overseas on behalf of their children to claim emergency travel documents will be ended and the process will return to normal, with this option available only on urgent and compassionate grounds.
Is this still the case now? Or was it replaced with some other procedure since this article was published?

"If you need an emergency travel document to leave Syria, contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office."

It's almost like the Home Office told them exactly what to do and they apparently didn't. And then if you follow the FCO link

"The UK has suspended all services of the British Embassy in Damascus and all diplomatic and consular staff have been withdrawn from Syria. British nationals requiring assistance should make their way to a neighbouring country where the UK has a consular presence."

They didn't. Again, there are processes in place to do literally all of this. They didn't.

On reflection, you may be right. It seems they did not follow the correct procedure, so sticking to the established processes would mean the home office responding exactly the way they did.

[Terruana]

Since you know so much about HMPO and the FCO, perhaps you can answer a question for me then. I've been looking into how applications on behalf of children are handled, and found an article from the BBC in 2014 which is describing how HMPO was folded into the home office. It states "However, the contingency that allowed those applying for passports overseas on behalf of their children to claim emergency travel documents will be ended and the process will return to normal, with this option available only on urgent and compassionate grounds.".

Is this still the case now? Or was it replaced with some other procedure since this article was published?

See the bold, and this sounds like emergency measures to deal with a massive backlog of applications.

I was actually more interested in the sentence at the end, about different options being available on urgent and compassionate grounds. But either way, I concede that the home office response was entirely in keeping with their established procedures.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Since you know so much about HMPO and the FCO, perhaps you can answer a question for me then. I've been looking into how applications on behalf of children are handled, and found an article from the BBC in 2014 which is describing how HMPO was folded into the home office. It states "However, the contingency that allowed those applying for passports overseas on behalf of their children to claim emergency travel documents will be ended and the process will return to normal, with this option available only on urgent and compassionate grounds.
Is this still the case now? Or was it replaced with some other procedure since this article was published?

"If you need an emergency travel document to leave Syria, contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office."

It's almost like the Home Office told them exactly what to do and they apparently didn't. And then if you follow the FCO link

"The UK has suspended all services of the British Embassy in Damascus and all diplomatic and consular staff have been withdrawn from Syria. British nationals requiring assistance should make their way to a neighbouring country where the UK has a consular presence."

They didn't. Again, there are processes in place to do literally all of this. They didn't.

Can you tell me how it is practical for a single teenage woman alone with a newborn baby to travel through a war zone, through a closed border, and attempt to find a British embassy?

[Terruana]

Since everyone hasn't seem to be taking this into account, I figure I should point this out.

The baby was 3 weeks old and died of pneumonia. As far as I can tell, the baby would have required to be in neonatal care, involving an incubator to provide a stable warm temperature, and a lot of oxygen.

Now let's put this neonate onto a plane for a few hours. To ensure it's survival all of the equipment would have to be used on the plane, and stability would need to be very important. Furthermore you would need a qualified team to look after the neonate during the flight. All of this would be needed, And chances are the baby would still have died from the ordeal. Not to even mention how incredibly expensive this would be and how long it would take to arrange.

Now as far as I can tell, there are only 2 ways this baby could have gotten out of the tragedy with his life.
1) The pregnant mother would be transported to a location with a decent level of health care at the same level as the UK.
2) The medical equipment required to treat the baby could be sent to where the baby is, and when his condition stabilised and it was considered safe, the baby could be flown to the UK to stay with his family.

Now for 1, the plead for a return to the UK was quite late into the pregnancy, there was not much time to bring her over before she went into labour. Furthermore travelling when heavily pregnant and at risk of going into labour isn't exactly recommended. Not to mention what everyone has already been debating on this forum already.

For number 2, it really is easier said than done. We'd need to know exactly what the baby needed, rush to get the supplies and equipment and quickly send it over. This takes time, good communication and money.

Overall, the baby was screwed the minute it didn't get born in a country with a developed medical system. It's a sad tragedy, but I'd hardly say the UK had an easy solution, same with the Dutch. The mother betrayed her country and suddenly asked to return when things didn't work out (Even though she was manipulated and brainwashed at age 15). The father probably commited many atrocities in the name of Allah.

The innocent baby is just another victim of the dickheads that are ISIS.

My initial thinking was that something should have been done before he got pneumonia. The government had known about him and where he was for 3 weeks, and took no steps towards safeguarding him. They were so caught up in preventing the mother from coming home that it seems nobody even considered what was best for the baby.

However, as other posters have made clear, there was no easy way to get the child out of Syria due to the lack of an active embassy. The established rules and regulations regarding passports and citizens stranded in active warzones apparently prevent any attempt at assistance anyway.

[The New California Republic]

Unfortunate the child died. But the blame is completely on the mother.

Yup. All three children dying is predictable when you try to raise them in a war zone.

[Conserative Morality]

"UK citizen"

Does this mean the Brits add child endangerment or manslaughter to the list of reasons she's a scumbag?

[Terruana]

"UK citizen"

Does this mean the Brits add child endangerment or manslaughter to the list of reasons she's a scumbag?

Probably not, because she wasn't pregnant when she left the uk, and since she was underage when she was married, it would be classed as statutory rape. I guess you could argue the father would be responsible for child endangerment though?

[Valentine Z]

It's unfortunate that the child died, that's all.

I would say that at the very least, the kid could be taken to some orphanage to be adopted. I mean... I'm sure that even when labelled as the "child of a terrorist", no three-week-old deserves to go that way because of terrible circumstances.

[Conserative Morality]

Probably not, because she wasn't pregnant when she left the uk,

Doesn't matter. She failed to follow the instructions of the UK's government, and in doing so, ended up killing a UK citizen.

[Terruana]

Probably not, because she wasn't pregnant when she left the uk,

Doesn't matter. She failed to follow the instructions of the UK's government, and in doing so, ended up killing a UK citizen.

But unless she got pregnant willingly, the only person she endangered by leaving was herself.

[Conserative Morality]

But unless she got pregnant willingly, the only person she endangered by leaving was herself.

It's not leaving that got the kid killed. It was failing to go through the recommended procedure to get out of a fucking warzone, because she knew that by following said procedure, she'd have to take responsibility for her actions regarding joining a fucking terrorist organization.

[Terruana]

But unless she got pregnant willingly, the only person she endangered by leaving was herself.

It's not leaving that got the kid killed. It was failing to go through the recommended procedure to get out of a fucking warzone, because she knew that by following said procedure, she'd have to take responsibility for her actions regarding joining a fucking terrorist organization.

Maybe, but as has already been established, there is no procedure in place for getting out of Syria, except possibly walking to a neighbouring country with an embassy (not a viable option with a neonate).

Also, once her citizenship had been stripped, she had no way of leaving at all

[Eitoan]

An excellent start.

[Caracasus]

An excellent start.

Why is that then?

[Handecanistan]

Since everyone hasn't seem to be taking this into account, I figure I should point this out.

The baby was 3 weeks old and died of pneumonia. As far as I can tell, the baby would have required to be in neonatal care, involving an incubator to provide a stable warm temperature, and a lot of oxygen.

Now let's put this neonate onto a plane for a few hours. To ensure it's survival all of the equipment would have to be used on the plane, and stability would need to be very important. Furthermore you would need a qualified team to look after the neonate during the flight. All of this would be needed, And chances are the baby would still have died from the ordeal. Not to even mention how incredibly expensive this would be and how long it would take to arrange.

Now as far as I can tell, there are only 2 ways this baby could have gotten out of the tragedy with his life.
1) The pregnant mother would be transported to a location with a decent level of health care at the same level as the UK.
2) The medical equipment required to treat the baby could be sent to where the baby is, and when his condition stabilised and it was considered safe, the baby could be flown to the UK to stay with his family.

Now for 1, the plead for a return to the UK was quite late into the pregnancy, there was not much time to bring her over before she went into labour. Furthermore travelling when heavily pregnant and at risk of going into labour isn't exactly recommended. Not to mention what everyone has already been debating on this forum already.

For number 2, it really is easier said than done. We'd need to know exactly what the baby needed, rush to get the supplies and equipment and quickly send it over. This takes time, good communication and money.

Overall, the baby was screwed the minute it didn't get born in a country with a developed medical system. It's a sad tragedy, but I'd hardly say the UK had an easy solution, same with the Dutch. The mother betrayed her country and suddenly asked to return when things didn't work out (Even though she was manipulated and brainwashed at age 15). The father probably commited many atrocities in the name of Allah.

The innocent baby is just another victim of the dickheads that are ISIS.

My initial thinking was that something should have been done before he got pneumonia. The government had known about him and where he was for 3 weeks, and took no steps towards safeguarding him. They were so caught up in preventing the mother from coming home that it seems nobody even considered what was best for the baby.

However, as other posters have made clear, there was no easy way to get the child out of Syria due to the lack of an active embassy. The established rules and regulations regarding passports and citizens stranded in active warzones apparently prevent any attempt at assistance anyway.

Do you think the kid just developed sudden pneumonia at 3 weeks old? I'm about 90% confident the baby was born and instantly needed medical attention. That, or the baby was not cared for appropriately after birth. My point is that during this 3 week period of the baby's life there was no realistic way to transport the baby back to the UK that it would have been able to tolerate. At that stage the only option would have been to send medical aid instead of putting the poor thing onto a plane.

I don't actually know exactly what health issues the baby had, other than the pneumonia at death, but I can guarantee that it was in no state to travel, and that it probably had many complicated health issues that would need to have been resolved.

I stand by my claim that the only real hope this child had to survive would have been if he was born in a location with a developed health system, but that would involve bringing his criminal mother back to the UK or into another country. Furthermore there wasn't enough time for this to be arranged before the mother went in to labour anyway.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

My initial thinking was that something should have been done before he got pneumonia. The government had known about him and where he was for 3 weeks, and took no steps towards safeguarding him. They were so caught up in preventing the mother from coming home that it seems nobody even considered what was best for the baby.

However, as other posters have made clear, there was no easy way to get the child out of Syria due to the lack of an active embassy. The established rules and regulations regarding passports and citizens stranded in active warzones apparently prevent any attempt at assistance anyway.

Do you think the kid just developed sudden pneumonia at 3 weeks old? I'm about 90% confident the baby was born and instantly needed medical attention. That, or the baby was not cared for appropriately after birth. My point is that during this 3 week period of the baby's life there was no realistic way to transport the baby back to the UK that it would have been able to tolerate. At that stage the only option would have been to send medical aid instead of putting the poor thing onto a plane.

I don't actually know exactly what health issues the baby had, other than the pneumonia at death, but I can guarantee that it was in no state to travel, and that it probably had many complicated health issues that would need to have been resolved.

I stand by my claim that the only real hope this child had to survive would have been if he was born in a location with a developed health system, but that would involve bringing his criminal mother back to the UK or into another country. Furthermore there wasn't enough time for this to be arranged before the mother went in to labour anyway.

The UK could have negotiated an arrangement with Turkey, a country it has good relations with, to allow the baby to have been treated there, could it not?