She was "radicalised".
She was 15 years old and was (is?) incapable of making rational decisions about her future and all the consequences her actions would bring. In short, she was a child when she decided to leave the UK.
If this was any other type of criminal nobody would suggest that she should be abandoned by the state, not tried, imprisoned or set free on some kind of licence. If she was a murderer, drug dealer or rapist the people suggesting the "lock her up and throw away the key" approach would rightfully be called nutters.
I'm no expert in law, but if joining ISIS is a crime under UK law then she should be tried for it.
Evidenced should be gathered to find out why she went to ISIS, what she did while there and some actual experts should be assessing her mental state and the risk she poses to the public.
Instead we have snap judgements made to please the rabid masses.
It's also against international law to make a person stateless, which is what the UK state has done.
No court has sat down and actually looked at the case to see if Shamima has Bangladeshi citizenship.
All we know for now is that her mother may be a Bangladeshi citizen and that Shamima may be entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship until she is 21.
Bangladesh has said that they don't want her. As far as they're concerned she is a foreign national and a criminal. Why should they accept her? We wouldn't accept the criminals of another country if they didn't have UK citizenship, would we?
I'd like for our country to follow the rule of law.
I'm also strongly against "the court of public opinion" shit that has gripped this country.
All rational and thought out arguments are suppressed by a storm of loud idiots on "social" media.
I got all my info off BBC News.
If other news agencies say something different then I'll be happy to be wrong about her citizenship.