That's your opinion - it's far from a definitive answer and it's certainly not based on evidence.

You might not see it as a benefit, but a victim of said abuse very likely would - it's not for you alone to determine a benefit.

And a lot of those victims of the grooming scandals initially went into the kebab/mini-cab offices. Or had an Asian boyfriend to start with who deliberately acted all nice.

Issue is they were children. As was Begum.

We can argue all we want about the semantics but we have settled on 18 as the age of majority and we either stick with that or we don't.

If you can show that Begum individually murdered somebody then yes, a crime has been committed and at her age then, deserving of a legal process. But as I understand matters then no.

Look, I don't want her back in the country. I want to wash my hands of her. But none of which alters the law as it stands. She was born here. Whether we like it or not, she is as legally British as I either of us are (assuming you are British which I have no reason to doubt).

Our personal feelings should not come into it.

Let me make a few assumptions:

The underage girl is entering into a relationship that she thinks is a romantic and exciting. This is not something that is confined to one section of the community; it happens probably everywhere. Where this changes is when she is passed around amongst that community. At that point the action becomes a crime but the girl doesn’t realise that at the start.

The East London girl knew what she was doing from the start, what it stood for and where she was going…and used deception to carry out her part of the scenario.

I would repeat that if we are happy with under 18s committing crimes then we will forever be letting kids off and in effect punishing the victims rather than the perpetrators.

Consequently I am happy that the government is doing all it can to prevent her return.

I can understand that line of thinking, but I disagree with it.

I do not think many reasonable people are happy with letting kids off, not least in the context of the severity of some of these offences. But, by definition, a child is uneducated. It seems to me that a key distinction of western societies is a recognition that children - in contrast to adults - should get a second chance. Maybe I am too idealistic on this, but I think it is important.

Just about everything that could go wrong, has gone wrong and she is now stuck in a tent seemingly forever.

There is no harm in showing some compassion and forgiveness to her she was very young and has lost two children and had treatment you wouldn't wish on anybody, whether it was her fault at that age with no one responsible around her, is understandable.

The moment I saw that judge I knew she hadn't a chance.

As far as I am concerned, they could swap them out.

There is no harm in showing some compassion and forgiveness to her she was very young and has lost two children and had treatment you wouldn't wish on anybody, whether it was her fault at that age with no one responsible around her, is understandable.