LET THE GIRL COME HOME

I don’t know why I paused on the remote when question time came up. I usually avoid watching as it tends to send me round the bend. I am particularly incensed by the arrogance of some of the political guests, most notably those from the conservative party. I am biased I admit, but there are moments when one just chokes with despair.  The topic raised, at the time I came in on the discussion, was whether or not Shamima Begum should be brought back to the United Kingdom. Most of the participating audience appeared to be of the view that she should be allowed to return and face whatever consequences she would have to face in the courts. Although one is not exactly sure what charges might be brought against her, it would seem most of the audience took a charitable but harsh view, and were quite prepared to give her a chance to explain herself in court and let the rule of law be the judge of the outcome. The rule of law was mentioned by several people. On the other hand we had James Heappey MP, whose short and sweet point of view was NO. She should not be allowed back and her British Citizenship was rightly withdrawn. He, by the way, mentioned Sajid Javid’s comment “If you knew what I knew you’d agree” and went on to hint that in his position as minister he too had knowledge that makes him agree with Mr, Javid. They are of course, unable to share their high security knowledge with the rest of us – so they say. Why not? What can be so secure about the behaviour of a 15 year old clearly silly and impressionable girl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have heard that phrase before, used in connection with sensitive material known only to the powers that be and those close to them. In 1992 sadly, a young woman, Rachel Nickell, was killed on Wimbledon Common. The police investigating the crime came up with a suspect, a Mr. Colin Stagg. Despite the paucity of evidence, the police were convinced that he was the killer as he fit some sort of profile.  An undercover operation was put in place, and during a subsequent trial of Mr Stag, the operation, known as Operation Edzell, was revealed in court and rightly dismissed by the Judge as entrapment of the worst kind, and Mr Stagg was acquitted. This was in 1994 some two years after the commission of the offence.

I can recall a discussion I had with a barrister of note, who, when I expressed the view that the police conduct was outrageous and that there was no evidence at all to warrant the behaviour of the prosecution, the barrister said “If you knew what I knew, you’d think differently.” I was not told what he knew, and I insisted that it changed nothing, or why wasn’t what he knew brought out in court. Indeed for some time after, the police still continued to believe that Mr. Stagg was guilty. The lead detective on the case stated on an ITV Real Crime documentary in 2001:

 "Colin stagg has been through a version of justice, albeit truncated, and he has been found not guilty. But I wonder whether he can actually say hand on heart that he believes people will meet him in the street and believe that."

In 2002, more advanced forensic techniques examined the evidence, the case was re-opened and finally in December of 2008, a Mr. Robert Napper pleaded guilty to the crime. As to the lead detective, he retired and later faced corruption charges.

So whenever I hear someone say, “If you knew what I knew, you’d think differently” I would hope never to make the mistake of relying on such secure sensitive information.  Tony Blair did just that in Iraq and the piles of weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found.

Mr Stagg was under a police cloud for over ten years. The pursuit of Mr Stagg cost the public £3 million, followed by legal costs and damages paid dealing with the suits against the Police. Mr Stagg sued for wrongful prosecution and was later awarded £706,000 set by an independent assessor on the 13^th August 2008. The undercover officer who so diligently tried to get Mr Stagg to admit to something he hadn’t done, also sued the police and received an out of court settlement of £125,000. Her solicitor claiming "The willingness of the Metropolitan Police to pay substantial damages must indicate their recognition that she sustained serious psychiatric injury"

Ms Nickell’s son, who was present on the common and must have witnessed his mother being killed, was granted £22,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. This is less than one fifth of the pay out to the undercover officer who apparently suffered psychiatric injury for participating in a honeytrap operation that she must have volunteered for, or was she told, “Do this or you’re fired”. I do wonder.

So, so far as Shamima Begum is concerned, cut the crap and bring the girl back to face whatever she has to face in a court of law assuming there is even a case against her. The question time audience were more than willing to let the people decide what should be done to a British citizen, born and brought up in the United Kingdom, although I have no idea why she would even want to come back to the thoughtless and crass behaviour of the present Government and some of its, shall we say, more dogmatic citizens. Perhaps she knows something I don’t.