It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either
You know that do you?
The polls are pretty clear
I’ve said it multiple times, Begum should be tried in Syria or Iraq, where she committed her crimes against Syrian/Iraqi people (crimes like owning a Yazidi sex slave)
They will execute her
Nice to see our Leon back here again. I was under the impression that he had gone for ever.
Surely he has a point here. Are we saying that British citizens can go abroad and commit terrible crimes, but then they are entitled to be brought back here to be tried?
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
Well, yes, that as well. That would be nice. I know some swordsmen who get a very high number of conquests because they see it purely as a numbers game, the women are only there for their self-gratification. They play women shamelessly, say whatever they want to hear, shift from woman to woman constantly as soon as the women begin to suspect they're a swine. It's unfortunately quite a successful model, if you're amoral enough to go for it. And plenty are.
Let her be tried in the countries where she committed her crimes: Syria/Iraq. Let THEM have justice - for what these evil ISIS people did to Syrians and Iraqis. Or let them acquit Begum, as they see fit
But Britain does have a responsibility. So we should pay - along with all the other countries who provided foreign ISIS recruits - to set up the tribunals that will bring justice. And if they decide to jail them, we pay for that, too
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
Well, yes, that as well. That would be nice. I know some swordsmen who get a very high number of conquests because they see it purely as a numbers game, the women are only there for their self-gratification. They play women shamelessly, say whatever they want to hear, shift from woman to woman constantly as soon as the women begin to suspect they're a swine. It's unfortunately quite a successful model, if you're amoral enough to go for it. And plenty are.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
But as @Morris_Dancer has shown us, a non trivial number of the grooming victims are boys
I had not known that. Bleakness upon bleakness
It is very bleak indeed. What I was criticising was the idea that the focus should be on not producing a lot of poor damaged girls - and I utterly agree that we should be doing everything we can to stop that. Rather than changing the attitudes of those men who seem to think that others are just bodies to be used - little more than orifices to be screwed. What is bleak is the view of sex which sees it as just that and which leads to abuse of all sorts of women and children, including boys, and including the poor, young and damaged but not just them.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear. To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads
It upsets me that you seem to care so much more about the lives of white girls than brown ones. It upsets me a lot. Maybe because I have two mixed race daughters. My comment was aimed at your hypocrisy and double standards, but if it conveyed an impression that I don't care about any victim of rape or abuse then I am very sorry. It was a million miles from my intention and I phrased it poorly. And incidentally, the same gangs of abusers also abused brown girls, but I've never heard you express even a tiny shred of sympathy for those victims.
“ one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about”
That will stay with you forever. Sorry
Do you want to express any sympathy for the non white, Muslim victims of these gangs?
Absolutely. And I have in fact expressed this many times. The gangs also go after Sikh girls, I believe. Just as appalling
They tend to avoid Muslim girls for obvious reasons
I have only ever heard you talk about white girls. There are plenty of Muslim girls who are also victims of abuse from within their own community. It would be great to hear you expressing concern about all victims of abuse. Including of course girls and young women engaged in sex work, often as a result of trafficking or drugs or mental health problems. As Cyclefree notes, there are many kinds of predators.
"The truth is that Muslims have also been silent victims of sexual abuse. Alexis Jay’s report last week raised a number of concerning points regarding the sexual abuse victims of Pakistani heritage, stating that: “The Board should address as a priority the under-reporting of exploitation and abuse in minority ethnic communities.” She went on to conclude that “one of these myths was that only white girls are victims of sexual exploitation by Asian or Muslim males, as if these men only abuse outside of their own community, driven by hatred and contempt for white females. This belief flies in the face of evidence that shows that those who violate children are most likely to target those who are closest to them and most easily accessible.”"
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
It basically makes millions of us who werent born here second class citizens at best. We can have our citizenship removed simply because a Home Secretary says we have the right to citizenship elsewhere, even if in reality we don't.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
But as @Morris_Dancer has shown us, a non trivial number of the grooming victims are boys
I had not known that. Bleakness upon bleakness
It is very bleak indeed. What I was criticising was the idea that the focus should be on not producing a lot of poor damaged girls - and I utterly agree that we should be doing everything we can to stop that. Rather than changing the attitudes of those men who seem to think that others are just bodies to be used - little more than orifices to be screwed. What is bleak is the view of sex which sees it as just that and which leads to abuse of all sorts of women and children, including boys, and including the poor, young and damaged but not just them.
Actually I think attitudes have changed greatly. Possibly too much. We have problematised sex to the extent young people would rather not have it; porn is easier
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either
You know that do you?
The polls are pretty clear
I’ve said it multiple times, Begum should be tried in Syria or Iraq, where she committed her crimes against Syrian/Iraqi people (crimes like owning a Yazidi sex slave)
They will execute her
Nice to see our Leon back here again. I was under the impression that he had gone for ever.
Surely he has a point here. Are we saying that British citizens can go abroad and commit terrible crimes, but then they are entitled to be brought back here to be tried?
Current UK law says that British citizens can go abroad and commit terrible crimes, but then they are entitled to return to the UK (presuming they can travel and are not lawfully imprisoned for those crimes elsewhere). They don't have a right to be tried here: if you commit a crime in country X, then you are meant to be tried in country X. There are a small number of heinous crimes where a UK court will try you for crimes committed outside the UK, like war crimes.
However, current UK law also says that British citizens who are dual nationals can be stripped of their British citizenship, at which time they lose most of their rights under British law to return.
There is little evidence that Begum committed "terrible crimes", although she certainly supported those who did. (Unsurprisingly, exactly what she did in Syria is pretty unclear, so absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.)
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
As far as their courts are concerned, maybe.
As far as our courts are concerned, they have to rule on the evidence before them.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Yes - and that would have to be tested in the Bangladeshi courts ultimately. It hasn't been, to my knowledge. The English courts are entitled when making a ruling here to rely on expert evidence about foreign law.
But note there is a difference between saying that someone is a citizen and saying that someone may be eligible for citizenship. A person may not be in the first category but still fall into the second.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
It basically makes millions of us who werent born here second class citizens at best. We can have our citizenship removed simply because a Home Secretary says we have the right to citizenship elsewhere, even if in reality we don't.
Subject to the Courts ruling on the matter as has happened here.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
But the Rule of Law was followed...!!!!
So you know better than the Supreme Court?
The current legal situation is one determined by the Supreme Court and other courts before it, not simply the Home Secretary unilaterally.
I know that psychopathic Home Secretaries should not be allowed to lie to court to strip someone of their citizenship, yes.
Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
The whole point in smart motorways is to slow traffic peak speeds down and thus increase average speeds. Same with variable speed limits - everyone goes faster when a 50 limit than getting stuck in the congestion created by fast slow fast slow.
(Morning all)
I don't see Truss's speed limit suggestion going anywhere, other than as a bone to throw to gammons, and she's left herself a way out.
The core of the case against Smart motorways is that they cause more accidents and casualties than traditional motorways (which seem stop be correct). Though personally I suspect the underlying cause is dozy drivers being inattentive or driving when they should be taking a break, and 'no hard shoulders' putting stopped vehicles in their way.
Making speed limits advisory will have exactly the same impact - increasing casualties. In Germany, the number of people killed on motorways is approx. double ours, and they have a far higher death rate on their "no speed limit" sections of their Autobahnen vs the "speed limit" sections, despite the latter usually being more rural.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
But as @Morris_Dancer has shown us, a non trivial number of the grooming victims are boys
I had not known that. Bleakness upon bleakness
It is very bleak indeed. What I was criticising was the idea that the focus should be on not producing a lot of poor damaged girls - and I utterly agree that we should be doing everything we can to stop that. Rather than changing the attitudes of those men who seem to think that others are just bodies to be used - little more than orifices to be screwed. What is bleak is the view of sex which sees it as just that and which leads to abuse of all sorts of women and children, including boys, and including the poor, young and damaged but not just them.
Actually I think attitudes have changed greatly. Possibly too much. We have problematised sex to the extent young people would rather not have it; porn is easier
That single stat is frightening. A third of men between 18-24 have not had sex for a year
That is a different issue but as you say also troubling. I hesitate to get into a discussion with you on this but I think too many seem to think or demand that sex - real sex - should be like porn. When real sex is so much more enjoyable and fulfilling.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
I agree that the current situation is that which the courts have ruled upon. I don't think we've ended up at the right decision.
In earlier posts, I posed a number of points where I disagreed with you. I don't think I've seen you respond to those, so I will presume we are disagreed on those.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
Well, yes, that as well. That would be nice. I know some swordsmen who get a very high number of conquests because they see it purely as a numbers game, the women are only there for their self-gratification. They play women shamelessly, say whatever they want to hear, shift from woman to woman constantly as soon as the women begin to suspect they're a swine. It's unfortunately quite a successful model, if you're amoral enough to go for it. And plenty are.
You seem to be objecting to *the male libido*
Haha - well yeah, perhaps you're right!
Maybe I'm not a typical bloke, maybe I respect women too much, maybe it's 'cos I've always been surrounded by strong women who take no shit, but I've never thought like that. I've not had sex when it's been offered on a plate 'cos it didn't seem right, for whatever reason. I'm no angel, far from it, I've been a bit of a lad at times, but I've always had respect for the woman.
I mean, if they're debasing themselves enough to let me inflict 30 seconds of undistinguished congress on their poor body then I have to respect them.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
As far as their courts are concerned, maybe.
As far as our courts are concerned, they have to rule on the evidence before them.
That is bonkers. So the UK can tell everyone on the planet where they are citizens. Talk about sovereignty reach.
Can other countries decide if you are a British citizen?
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
But the Rule of Law was followed...!!!!
So you know better than the Supreme Court?
The current legal situation is one determined by the Supreme Court and other courts before it, not simply the Home Secretary unilaterally.
I know that psychopathic Home Secretaries should not be allowed to lie to court to strip someone of their citizenship, yes.
What lie?
The claim that she didn't have Bangladeshi citizenship was AFAIK put before the court.
The court has the duty to rule on the evidence before it, does it not? Even @Cyclefree says that at 10:37
I respect the decisions the court has made to this point. That is their rulings and their rulings should be respected pending any appeals as per the terms laid down by the Supreme Court.
Have found the exact quote: ""I agree with you, I absolutely think we need to review them [smart motorways] and stop them if they are not working as soon as possible". So "stop them" means what exactly? When she goes on to state that Smart Motorways "have not worked" and then Nick Ferrari asks her to clarify that she would "stop them" and gets the one word answer "yes".
Dug herself quite a pit there didn't she. Later - "we've done a review and found that most of them work". "But you were definitive in the campaign that they have not worked - the exact opposite", and "Oh [insert random GBeebies presenter here] you must stop misrepresenting my words."
"if they are not working" carrying a lot of weight there.
You are ignoring the later interaction with Ferrari.
Now, this does sound like the sort of policy she will later deny, like regional pay; apparently made up on the hoof after accepting the premise of a partisan speaker; likely to be dropped when someone points out the full implications; but she did say it.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Yes - and that would have to be tested in the Bangladeshi courts ultimately. It hasn't been, to my knowledge. The English courts are entitled when making a ruling here to rely on expert evidence about foreign law.
But note there is a difference between saying that someone is a citizen and saying that someone may be eligible for citizenship. A person may not be in the first category but still fall into the second.
Bangladesh has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either
You know that do you?
The polls are pretty clear
I’ve said it multiple times, Begum should be tried in Syria or Iraq, where she committed her crimes against Syrian/Iraqi people (crimes like owning a Yazidi sex slave)
They will execute her
Nice to see our Leon back here again. I was under the impression that he had gone for ever.
Surely he has a point here. Are we saying that British citizens can go abroad and commit terrible crimes, but then they are entitled to be brought back here to be tried?
Current UK law says that British citizens can go abroad and commit terrible crimes, but then they are entitled to return to the UK (presuming they can travel and are not lawfully imprisoned for those crimes elsewhere). They don't have a right to be tried here: if you commit a crime in country X, then you are meant to be tried in country X. There are a small number of heinous crimes where a UK court will try you for crimes committed outside the UK, like war crimes.
However, current UK law also says that British citizens who are dual nationals can be stripped of their British citizenship, at which time they lose most of their rights under British law to return.
There is little evidence that Begum committed "terrible crimes", although she certainly supported those who did. (Unsurprisingly, exactly what she did in Syria is pretty unclear, so absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.)
There is absolute evidence Begum committed “terrible crimes”. Membership of ISIS by itself is a capital crime in Syria and Iraq. Which is where she is, and where she committed the crime
Let them have their justice. What is this imperialist mindset that says “we” must bring her “home” to face our superior justice?
If you get caught killing people while drunk driving in America or Australia we don’t campaign for you to be brought “back to the UK”
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
As far as their courts are concerned, maybe.
As far as our courts are concerned, they have to rule on the evidence before them.
That is bonkers. So the UK can tell everyone on the planet where they are citizens. Talk about sovereignty reach.
Can other countries decide if you are a British citizen?
As usual BR is quite happy to remove the rights of others but would be horrified if the same was done to his own family.
FPT: When I read the BBC article on the attacks in Chorley, I was struck by what wasn't in it: fathers. Of either the attackers or the vicims.
Would the absence of fathers be common in such areas?
(I have long thought that, were some enterprising reporter to investigate, they would find that few of Jeffrey Epstein's victimshad fathers in their lives.)
Yes it would. As you move down the social scale fewer and fewer men marry, and those that do are more likely to divorce. On top of that cohabiting couples are twice as likely to split up.
This social class inequality has worsened in recent years too. Half of children are born out of wedlock, and half of fathers have little or no contact with their children. Rates tend to be worst in post industrial areas as part of a general disintegration of traditional family life.
For all the talk of social conservatism in the working classes, it is actually middle class professionals in urban areas that have the most 1950s like family values, and are more likely to attend religious services etc.
Amongst the richest fifth of UK white households 84% are married. Amongst the poorest fifth though just 19% are married.
Poor Chinese and Indian children though are much more likely to still have married parents and that shows up in their well above average exam results
Weddings are quite expensive though - there's going to be a growing portion of unmarried stable two parent families particularly as you go down the income scale.
To an extent but you can just have a simple wedding of less than 50 guests and a reception at the local pub, it doesn't need to be a huge affair.
Plus as I said poor British Indian and Chinese couples still manage to afford to get married
I once dated an eminent professor's daughter (Who was unmarried to his very long term partner) in the most middle class stable guardian two parent household you could possibly imagine.
Some secular, wealthy, upper middle class white left liberals will not get married and some religious, poor white working class couples will get married, both on ideological grounds.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Yes - and that would have to be tested in the Bangladeshi courts ultimately. It hasn't been, to my knowledge. The English courts are entitled when making a ruling here to rely on expert evidence about foreign law.
But note there is a difference between saying that someone is a citizen and saying that someone may be eligible for citizenship. A person may not be in the first category but still fall into the second.
Bangladesh has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed.
How is that any different to "The UK has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed."
The courts are presented the evidence and they make the decisions. Just because a government, whether its the UK government or the Bangladeshi one says something, does not make it true.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Bangladesh does have the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen. The UK courts have the final say on whether she is a UK citizen. They may, in making a decision, decide that they know better than the Bangladeshi government's statements. You or I may feel they are mistaken in doing so.
The UK courts, one might also note, have not had a *final* say. They've said Begum can appeal; she just can't at the moment do so.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
It basically makes millions of us who werent born here second class citizens at best. We can have our citizenship removed simply because a Home Secretary says we have the right to citizenship elsewhere, even if in reality we don't.
Shamima Begum was born and raised in Tower Hamlets. She's as British as I am.
Regardless of the legal niceties, I have no doubt that had Begum been white, and born to white British parents, the powers that be wouldn't have been desperately flailing around to find a way of denying or removing her British citizenship.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Yes - and that would have to be tested in the Bangladeshi courts ultimately. It hasn't been, to my knowledge. The English courts are entitled when making a ruling here to rely on expert evidence about foreign law.
But note there is a difference between saying that someone is a citizen and saying that someone may be eligible for citizenship. A person may not be in the first category but still fall into the second.
Bangladesh has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed.
How is that any different to "The UK has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed."
The courts are presented the evidence and they make the decisions. Just because a government, whether its the UK government or the Bangladeshi one says something, does not make it true.
You really are dancing on pinheads. 1. UK government applies to have British citizenship removed because she is eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship 2. Bangladesh confirms no she isn't and never was 3. UK keeps lying to the simple minded and ideological zealots. Who keep repeating the lie.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
It basically makes millions of us who werent born here second class citizens at best. We can have our citizenship removed simply because a Home Secretary says we have the right to citizenship elsewhere, even if in reality we don't.
Subject to the Courts ruling on the matter as has happened here.
It would be obscene even if the courts were properly involved rather than saying they can't take the case as the appellant is not in the UK and is not allowed in the UK.
If someone has chosen dual citizenship fair enough. If someone has a right to citizenship elsewhere that is not appropriate grounds for removing UK citizenship. If someone has a right to citizenship elsewhere, but only if a foreign sovereign nation accepted a UK courts interpretation of their citizenship laws, rather than their own sovereign courts interpretation, then it is blatantly obvious we are making someone stateless, which we say we will not do.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
It basically makes millions of us who werent born here second class citizens at best. We can have our citizenship removed simply because a Home Secretary says we have the right to citizenship elsewhere, even if in reality we don't.
There was a pro-Boris caller on LBC at the weekend. Who told the born in Africa presenter that her and Rashford and all the other people who aren't British should "shut up"
People like that must know Boris Johnson was also born in forrin parts. But don't care because he is white like them.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Yes - and that would have to be tested in the Bangladeshi courts ultimately. It hasn't been, to my knowledge. The English courts are entitled when making a ruling here to rely on expert evidence about foreign law.
But note there is a difference between saying that someone is a citizen and saying that someone may be eligible for citizenship. A person may not be in the first category but still fall into the second.
It is my understanding that SIAC ruled she *is* a Bangladeshi citizen.
"SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951." https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Bangladesh does have the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen. The UK courts have the final say on whether she is a UK citizen. They may, in making a decision, decide that they know better than the Bangladeshi government's statements. You or I may feel they are mistaken in doing so.
The UK courts, one might also note, have not had a *final* say. They've said Begum can appeal; she just can't at the moment do so.
Agreed 100%
And surely pending any appeal she is as it stands not a British citizen, as that is the ruling of the tribunal?
IANAL but it is my understand someone convicted of murder may be entitled to an appeal, but they can still legally be referred to as a murderer because the legal ruling stands pending any future appeal.
The decision to revoke her citizenship, as approved by the tribunal, could ultimately be successfully appealed but unless or until it happens surely the current legal standing is that she is not a citizen? And as far as we are concerned, matters of her Bangladeshi citizenship or otherwise are surely matters for our courts to determine, not press statements of the Bangladeshi government or otherwise.
The courts may decide to take Bangladeshi statements into account, but that is a matter for the courts.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Stop trolling FFS. It is obvious what was meant in context with Begum, which you have handily snipped.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
But as @Morris_Dancer has shown us, a non trivial number of the grooming victims are boys
I had not known that. Bleakness upon bleakness
It is very bleak indeed. What I was criticising was the idea that the focus should be on not producing a lot of poor damaged girls - and I utterly agree that we should be doing everything we can to stop that. Rather than changing the attitudes of those men who seem to think that others are just bodies to be used - little more than orifices to be screwed. What is bleak is the view of sex which sees it as just that and which leads to abuse of all sorts of women and children, including boys, and including the poor, young and damaged but not just them.
Actually I think attitudes have changed greatly. Possibly too much. We have problematised sex to the extent young people would rather not have it; porn is easier
That single stat is frightening. A third of men between 18-24 have not had sex for a year
Actually, the article doesn't attribute lack of sexual activity to availability of porn, but rather to the availability of other things to do, such as binge-watching TV series. I'm not sure that's a terrible thing. Sure, good sex is great, but does it need to be everyone's primary objective all the time? If you would really rather spend your evenings for a while catching up with the new streamed series or playing online poker, is that a decisive flaw in your personality, or merely your choosing to vary your lifestyle?
The general tolerance of any kind of consensual sex between adults (which IMO is real progress) has had an accidental side-effect that we've come to think that it's what life is all about. It's said that some apparently successful people (Wellington?) spent their entire lives as virgins - clearly they've missed out on something lovely, but is it really frighrening, rather than just a pity?
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
But the Rule of Law was followed...!!!!
So you know better than the Supreme Court?
The current legal situation is one determined by the Supreme Court and other courts before it, not simply the Home Secretary unilaterally.
I know that psychopathic Home Secretaries should not be allowed to lie to court to strip someone of their citizenship, yes.
What lie?
The claim that she didn't have Bangladeshi citizenship was AFAIK put before the court.
The court has the duty to rule on the evidence before it, does it not? Even @Cyclefree says that at 10:37
I respect the decisions the court has made to this point. That is their rulings and their rulings should be respected pending any appeals as per the terms laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court did not, as I understand it, rule on Begum's citizenship. It ruled on whether she was allowed to enter the country to appeal the decision, but not on the actual decision.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Yes - and that would have to be tested in the Bangladeshi courts ultimately. It hasn't been, to my knowledge. The English courts are entitled when making a ruling here to rely on expert evidence about foreign law.
But note there is a difference between saying that someone is a citizen and saying that someone may be eligible for citizenship. A person may not be in the first category but still fall into the second.
Bangladesh has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed.
How is that any different to "The UK has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed."
The courts are presented the evidence and they make the decisions. Just because a government, whether its the UK government or the Bangladeshi one says something, does not make it true.
It does, actually, in this case; a country's statements about citizenship of itself are performative rather than declaratory. Compare "I now pronounce you husband and wife" - that is not a statement of opinion, it brings about what it says.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Yes - and that would have to be tested in the Bangladeshi courts ultimately. It hasn't been, to my knowledge. The English courts are entitled when making a ruling here to rely on expert evidence about foreign law.
But note there is a difference between saying that someone is a citizen and saying that someone may be eligible for citizenship. A person may not be in the first category but still fall into the second.
Bangladesh has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed.
How is that any different to "The UK has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed."
The courts are presented the evidence and they make the decisions. Just because a government, whether its the UK government or the Bangladeshi one says something, does not make it true.
You really are dancing on pinheads. 1. UK government applies to have British citizenship removed because she is eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship 2. Bangladesh confirms no she isn't and never was 3. UK keeps lying to the simple minded and ideological zealots. Who keep repeating the lie.
You're the one dancing on pinheads.
This matter was put before the courts and the courts issued their ruling.
It is my understanding that SIAC ruled she *is* a Bangladeshi citizen.
"SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951." https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html
You may think you know better than the courts, but I respect the rule of law.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
It basically makes millions of us who werent born here second class citizens at best. We can have our citizenship removed simply because a Home Secretary says we have the right to citizenship elsewhere, even if in reality we don't.
There was a pro-Boris caller on LBC at the weekend. Who told the born in Africa presenter that her and Rashford and all the other people who aren't British should "shut up"
People like that must know Boris Johnson was also born in forrin parts. But don't care because he is white like them.
Shamima Begum was born and raised in Tower Hamlets. She's as British as I am.
Regardless of the legal niceties, I have no doubt that had Begum been white, and born to white British parents, the powers that be wouldn't have been desperately flailing around to find a way of denying or removing her British citizenship.
Perhaps not quite the same, but these nice white middle class parents were met with the full force of the law:
On 18 August 2019 it was reported that the British government had revoked Letts' British citizenship. However, the Home Office declined to comment on the case.[38] In response, Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale described the move as a "unilateral action to off-load [the UK's consular] responsibilities," leaving Canada responsible for further diplomatic assistance for Letts.[39]
Shamima Begum was born and raised in Tower Hamlets. She's as British as I am.
Regardless of the legal niceties, I have no doubt that had Begum been white, and born to white British parents, the powers that be wouldn't have been desperately flailing around to find a way of denying or removing her British citizenship.
If she had looked like Summer out of Coronation Street the British government would have been turning their ringpieces inside out to get her back.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Yes - and that would have to be tested in the Bangladeshi courts ultimately. It hasn't been, to my knowledge. The English courts are entitled when making a ruling here to rely on expert evidence about foreign law.
But note there is a difference between saying that someone is a citizen and saying that someone may be eligible for citizenship. A person may not be in the first category but still fall into the second.
Bangladesh has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed.
How is that any different to "The UK has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed."
The courts are presented the evidence and they make the decisions. Just because a government, whether its the UK government or the Bangladeshi one says something, does not make it true.
You really are dancing on pinheads. 1. UK government applies to have British citizenship removed because she is eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship 2. Bangladesh confirms no she isn't and never was 3. UK keeps lying to the simple minded and ideological zealots. Who keep repeating the lie.
You're the one dancing on pinheads.
This matter was put before the courts and the courts issued their ruling.
It is my understanding that SIAC ruled she *is* a Bangladeshi citizen.
"SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951." https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html
You may think you know better than the courts, but I respect the rule of law.
Lol. I actually pity you for the backflips you are having to do on this one. SAIC cannot tell the Bangladeshis who is eligible for citizenship, and their argument that she actually was Bangladeshi was wrong. Incorrect. Baseless. A lie. And lies told to the court do not follow the Rule of Law.
I think we should strip your daughter of her citizenship and expel her. Because the politicians decide they can. And why not - you support such actions.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Bangladesh does have the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen. The UK courts have the final say on whether she is a UK citizen. They may, in making a decision, decide that they know better than the Bangladeshi government's statements. You or I may feel they are mistaken in doing so.
The UK courts, one might also note, have not had a *final* say. They've said Begum can appeal; she just can't at the moment do so.
Agreed 100%
And surely pending any appeal she is as it stands not a British citizen, as that is the ruling of the tribunal?
IANAL but it is my understand someone convicted of murder may be entitled to an appeal, but they can still legally be referred to as a murderer because the legal ruling stands pending any future appeal.
The decision to revoke her citizenship, as approved by the tribunal, could ultimately be successfully appealed but unless or until it happens surely the current legal standing is that she is not a citizen? And as far as we are concerned, matters of her Bangladeshi citizenship or otherwise are surely matters for our courts to determine, not press statements of the Bangladeshi government or otherwise.
The courts may decide to take Bangladeshi statements into account, but that is a matter for the courts.
Do you think it was a good decision for a rights-based democracy to say that someone born and raised a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship because they may have a right to a citizenship of another country that was never exercised and was denied by that country's government? At present, the courts have said that is legal, we agree on that, but do you think it was a good decision?
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
But as @Morris_Dancer has shown us, a non trivial number of the grooming victims are boys
I had not known that. Bleakness upon bleakness
It is very bleak indeed. What I was criticising was the idea that the focus should be on not producing a lot of poor damaged girls - and I utterly agree that we should be doing everything we can to stop that. Rather than changing the attitudes of those men who seem to think that others are just bodies to be used - little more than orifices to be screwed. What is bleak is the view of sex which sees it as just that and which leads to abuse of all sorts of women and children, including boys, and including the poor, young and damaged but not just them.
Actually I think attitudes have changed greatly. Possibly too much. We have problematised sex to the extent young people would rather not have it; porn is easier
That single stat is frightening. A third of men between 18-24 have not had sex for a year
Actually, the article doesn't attribute lack of sexual activity to availability of porn, but rather to the availability of other things to do, such as binge-watching TV series. I'm not sure that's a terrible thing. Sure, good sex is great, but does it need to be everyone's primary objective all the time? If you would really rather spend your evenings for a while catching up with the new streamed series or playing online poker, is that a decisive flaw in your personality, or merely your choosing to vary your lifestyle?
The general tolerance of any kind of consensual sex between adults (which IMO is real progress) has had an accidental side-effect that we've come to think that it's what life is all about. It's said that some apparently successful people (Wellington?) spent their entire lives as virgins - clearly they've missed out on something lovely, but is it really frighrening, rather than just a pity?
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Stop trolling FFS. It is obvious what was meant in context with Begum, which you have handily snipped.
It’s not “trolling” to point out when someone has said something casually racist and deeply offensive, and this from @OnlyLivingBoy is definitely that
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Shamima Begum was born and raised in Tower Hamlets. She's as British as I am.
Regardless of the legal niceties, I have no doubt that had Begum been white, and born to white British parents, the powers that be wouldn't have been desperately flailing around to find a way of denying or removing her British citizenship.
Well that should be easy enough for you to find an example of then.
White British ISIS recruits who have been allowed to return to Britain having had all of their ISIS activities tolerated by the UK government.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
But as @Morris_Dancer has shown us, a non trivial number of the grooming victims are boys
I had not known that. Bleakness upon bleakness
It is very bleak indeed. What I was criticising was the idea that the focus should be on not producing a lot of poor damaged girls - and I utterly agree that we should be doing everything we can to stop that. Rather than changing the attitudes of those men who seem to think that others are just bodies to be used - little more than orifices to be screwed. What is bleak is the view of sex which sees it as just that and which leads to abuse of all sorts of women and children, including boys, and including the poor, young and damaged but not just them.
Actually I think attitudes have changed greatly. Possibly too much. We have problematised sex to the extent young people would rather not have it; porn is easier
That single stat is frightening. A third of men between 18-24 have not had sex for a year
Actually, the article doesn't attribute lack of sexual activity to availability of porn, but rather to the availability of other things to do, such as binge-watching TV series. I'm not sure that's a terrible thing. Sure, good sex is great, but does it need to be everyone's primary objective all the time? If you would really rather spend your evenings for a while catching up with the new streamed series or playing online poker, is that a decisive flaw in your personality, or merely your choosing to vary your lifestyle?
The general tolerance of any kind of consensual sex between adults (which IMO is real progress) has had an accidental side-effect that we've come to think that it's what life is all about. It's said that some apparently successful people (Wellington?) spent their entire lives as virgins - clearly they've missed out on something lovely, but is it really frighrening, rather than just a pity?
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
Yes. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled she has Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh('s government) says she doesn't. Begum has sought to appeal the decision, but is unable to as she cannot enter the country.
Indeed, so we are agreed.
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Surely Bangladesh has the final say on whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Yes - and that would have to be tested in the Bangladeshi courts ultimately. It hasn't been, to my knowledge. The English courts are entitled when making a ruling here to rely on expert evidence about foreign law.
But note there is a difference between saying that someone is a citizen and saying that someone may be eligible for citizenship. A person may not be in the first category but still fall into the second.
Bangladesh has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed.
How is that any different to "The UK has said she isn't a citizen. Case closed."
The courts are presented the evidence and they make the decisions. Just because a government, whether its the UK government or the Bangladeshi one says something, does not make it true.
You really are dancing on pinheads. 1. UK government applies to have British citizenship removed because she is eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship 2. Bangladesh confirms no she isn't and never was 3. UK keeps lying to the simple minded and ideological zealots. Who keep repeating the lie.
You're the one dancing on pinheads.
This matter was put before the courts and the courts issued their ruling.
It is my understanding that SIAC ruled she *is* a Bangladeshi citizen.
"SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951." https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html
You may think you know better than the courts, but I respect the rule of law.
I'm not certain why you quoted me so. I was merely laying out what I understand SIAC to have said.
I respect the rule of law. I have not suggested anyone should smuggle Begum into the UK.
I think the current law should be changed. I know you think the current law should be changed on many issues, but I don't go around saying you aren't respecting the rule of law because you think that.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either
You know that do you?
The polls are pretty clear
I’ve said it multiple times, Begum should be tried in Syria or Iraq, where she committed her crimes against Syrian/Iraqi people (crimes like owning a Yazidi sex slave)
They will execute her
Nice to see our Leon back here again. I was under the impression that he had gone for ever.
Surely he has a point here. Are we saying that British citizens can go abroad and commit terrible crimes, but then they are entitled to be brought back here to be tried?
Current UK law says that British citizens can go abroad and commit terrible crimes, but then they are entitled to return to the UK (presuming they can travel and are not lawfully imprisoned for those crimes elsewhere). They don't have a right to be tried here: if you commit a crime in country X, then you are meant to be tried in country X. There are a small number of heinous crimes where a UK court will try you for crimes committed outside the UK, like war crimes.
However, current UK law also says that British citizens who are dual nationals can be stripped of their British citizenship, at which time they lose most of their rights under British law to return.
There is little evidence that Begum committed "terrible crimes", although she certainly supported those who did. (Unsurprisingly, exactly what she did in Syria is pretty unclear, so absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.)
There is absolute evidence Begum committed “terrible crimes”. Membership of ISIS by itself is a capital crime in Syria and Iraq. Which is where she is, and where she committed the crime
Let them have their justice. What is this imperialist mindset that says “we” must bring her “home” to face our superior justice?
If you get caught killing people while drunk driving in America or Australia we don’t campaign for you to be brought “back to the UK”
For someone who has narrated their younger self's series of life choice "errors" on here, Over time you have repented and been issued redemption by society and moved on with your life.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
But as @Morris_Dancer has shown us, a non trivial number of the grooming victims are boys
I had not known that. Bleakness upon bleakness
It is very bleak indeed. What I was criticising was the idea that the focus should be on not producing a lot of poor damaged girls - and I utterly agree that we should be doing everything we can to stop that. Rather than changing the attitudes of those men who seem to think that others are just bodies to be used - little more than orifices to be screwed. What is bleak is the view of sex which sees it as just that and which leads to abuse of all sorts of women and children, including boys, and including the poor, young and damaged but not just them.
Actually I think attitudes have changed greatly. Possibly too much. We have problematised sex to the extent young people would rather not have it; porn is easier
That single stat is frightening. A third of men between 18-24 have not had sex for a year
Actually, the article doesn't attribute lack of sexual activity to availability of porn, but rather to the availability of other things to do, such as binge-watching TV series. I'm not sure that's a terrible thing. Sure, good sex is great, but does it need to be everyone's primary objective all the time? If you would really rather spend your evenings for a while catching up with the new streamed series or playing online poker, is that a decisive flaw in your personality, or merely your choosing to vary your lifestyle?
The general tolerance of any kind of consensual sex between adults (which IMO is real progress) has had an accidental side-effect that we've come to think that it's what life is all about. It's said that some apparently successful people (Wellington?) spent their entire lives as virgins - clearly they've missed out on something lovely, but is it really frighrening, rather than just a pity?
Put £20 on Democrats holding the house last night. Feels possible, oh and £120 on Putin winning the next Russian election at a smidgen under evens which is surely wrong
Hat tip @Quincel for the Putin bet, there's £69 @ 1.96 for anyone who wants to follow me in. If the bet's a loser then tbh you've probably won more than your stake back on your energy bill anyway.
Alaska gives another illustration of how important candidate selection is in US elections.
A standard GOP candidate would have won comfortably but Palin had a -10% personal vote.
This does not bode well for GOP chances in the Senate with the Trump endorsed candidates.
Final result 51.47% to 48.53% for the dem candidate.
A triumph for AV!
Did not see that coming, thought Palin would have enough transfers to get over the line but she truly was completely toxic.
Would love to dig into what that means for trasnfers vs did not have a trasnfer vote.
Top result in Alaska. Sanity returning or just special set of circumstances?
"At 49, Ms. Peltola will become the first Alaska Native to serve in Congress" - NY Times
Ok, this is a twitter lefty, but this penny is dropping beyond lefty twitter now. A lot of businesses are going to shut suddenly very soon.
The supermarket near me has had half its lights switched off for a couple of weeks now. Either they’re waiting ages for a sparkie or it’s to save money. I suspect the latter. People are noticing.
Truss better have something or she’s buggered. And not in a good way.
Comments
Surely he has a point here. Are we saying that British citizens can go abroad and commit terrible crimes, but then they are entitled to be brought back here to be tried?
Let her be tried in the countries where she committed her crimes: Syria/Iraq. Let THEM have justice - for what these evil ISIS people did to Syrians and Iraqis. Or let them acquit Begum, as they see fit
But Britain does have a responsibility. So we should pay - along with all the other countries who provided foreign ISIS recruits - to set up the tribunals that will bring justice. And if they decide to jail them, we pay for that, too
Problem solved
The current position is one determined by the Courts. The Tribunal determined that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship, despite arguments made prior to the Tribunal that she didn't. And while she has a right to an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled on the public safety matters prior to that.
People are rightly allowed appeals in our country, but that doesn't mean prior rulings can just be ignored pending the closure of any and all appeals.
The current situation is that which the courts, from the SIAC all the way up to the Supreme Court, have ruled upon.
Including of course girls and young women engaged in sex work, often as a result of trafficking or drugs or mental health problems. As Cyclefree notes, there are many kinds of predators.
"The truth is that Muslims have also been silent victims of sexual abuse. Alexis Jay’s report last week raised a number of concerning points regarding the sexual abuse victims of Pakistani heritage, stating that: “The Board should address as a priority the under-reporting of exploitation and abuse in minority ethnic communities.” She went on to conclude that “one of these myths was that only white girls are victims of sexual exploitation by Asian or Muslim males, as if these men only abuse outside of their own community, driven by hatred and contempt for white females. This belief flies in the face of evidence that shows that those who violate children are most likely to target those who are closest to them and most easily accessible.”"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/rotherham-muslims-victims-sexual-abuse-vulnerable-girls-muslim-communities
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/young-adults-especially-men-having-sex-less-frequently
That single stat is frightening. A third of men between 18-24 have not had sex for a year
However, current UK law also says that British citizens who are dual nationals can be stripped of their British citizenship, at which time they lose most of their rights under British law to return.
There is little evidence that Begum committed "terrible crimes", although she certainly supported those who did. (Unsurprisingly, exactly what she did in Syria is pretty unclear, so absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.)
As far as our courts are concerned, they have to rule on the evidence before them.
But note there is a difference between saying that someone is a citizen and saying that someone may be eligible for citizenship. A person may not be in the first category but still fall into the second.
7 stabbings 209 arrests 74 cops injured and a murder
I don't see Truss's speed limit suggestion going anywhere, other than as a bone to throw to gammons, and she's left herself a way out.
The core of the case against Smart motorways is that they cause more accidents and casualties than traditional motorways (which seem stop be correct). Though personally I suspect the underlying cause is dozy drivers being inattentive or driving when they should be taking a break, and 'no hard shoulders' putting stopped vehicles in their way.
Making speed limits advisory will have exactly the same impact - increasing casualties. In Germany, the number of people killed on motorways is approx. double ours, and they have a far higher death rate on their "no speed limit" sections of their Autobahnen vs the "speed limit" sections, despite the latter usually being more rural.
I don't see it happening.
* https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/tips-advice/356727/driving-autobahn-speed-limits-driving-tips-and-history
In earlier posts, I posed a number of points where I disagreed with you. I don't think I've seen you respond to those, so I will presume we are disagreed on those.
Maybe I'm not a typical bloke, maybe I respect women too much, maybe it's 'cos I've always been surrounded by strong women who take no shit, but I've never thought like that. I've not had sex when it's been offered on a plate 'cos it didn't seem right, for whatever reason. I'm no angel, far from it, I've been a bit of a lad at times, but I've always had respect for the woman.
I mean, if they're debasing themselves enough to let me inflict 30 seconds of undistinguished congress on their poor body then I have to respect them.
Can other countries decide if you are a British citizen?
The claim that she didn't have Bangladeshi citizenship was AFAIK put before the court.
The court has the duty to rule on the evidence before it, does it not? Even @Cyclefree says that at 10:37
I respect the decisions the court has made to this point. That is their rulings and their rulings should be respected pending any appeals as per the terms laid down by the Supreme Court.
Now, this does sound like the sort of policy she will later deny, like regional pay; apparently made up on the hoof after accepting the premise of a partisan speaker; likely to be dropped when someone points out the full implications; but she did say it.
Let them have their justice. What is this imperialist mindset that says “we” must bring her “home” to face our superior justice?
If you get caught killing people while drunk driving in America or Australia we don’t campaign for you
to be brought “back to the UK”
However they are the exception not the rule
The courts are presented the evidence and they make the decisions. Just because a government, whether its the UK government or the Bangladeshi one says something, does not make it true.
The UK courts, one might also note, have not had a *final* say. They've said Begum can appeal; she just can't at the moment do so.
Regardless of the legal niceties, I have no doubt that had Begum been white, and born to white British parents, the powers that be wouldn't have been desperately flailing around to find a way of denying or removing her British citizenship.
1. UK government applies to have British citizenship removed because she is eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship
2. Bangladesh confirms no she isn't and never was
3. UK keeps lying to the simple minded and ideological zealots. Who keep repeating the lie.
If someone has chosen dual citizenship fair enough. If someone has a right to citizenship elsewhere that is not appropriate grounds for removing UK citizenship. If someone has a right to citizenship elsewhere, but only if a foreign sovereign nation accepted a UK courts interpretation of their citizenship laws, rather than their own sovereign courts interpretation, then it is blatantly obvious we are making someone stateless, which we say we will not do.
Indeed. I enjoy vigorous debate as much as I enjoy *other things* but it’s probably a bit early for a stramash over types of sexual intercourse
People like that must know Boris Johnson was also born in forrin parts. But don't care because he is white like them.
"SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951." https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html
And surely pending any appeal she is as it stands not a British citizen, as that is the ruling of the tribunal?
IANAL but it is my understand someone convicted of murder may be entitled to an appeal, but they can still legally be referred to as a murderer because the legal ruling stands pending any future appeal.
The decision to revoke her citizenship, as approved by the tribunal, could ultimately be successfully appealed but unless or until it happens surely the current legal standing is that she is not a citizen? And as far as we are concerned, matters of her Bangladeshi citizenship or otherwise are surely matters for our courts to determine, not press statements of the Bangladeshi government or otherwise.
The courts may decide to take Bangladeshi statements into account, but that is a matter for the courts.
The general tolerance of any kind of consensual sex between adults (which IMO is real progress) has had an accidental side-effect that we've come to think that it's what life is all about. It's said that some apparently successful people (Wellington?) spent their entire lives as virgins - clearly they've missed out on something lovely, but is it really frighrening, rather than just a pity?
This matter was put before the courts and the courts issued their ruling. You may think you know better than the courts, but I respect the rule of law.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-48676894
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Letts
On 18 August 2019 it was reported that the British government had revoked Letts' British citizenship. However, the Home Office declined to comment on the case.[38] In response, Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale described the move as a "unilateral action to off-load [the UK's consular] responsibilities," leaving Canada responsible for further diplomatic assistance for Letts.[39]
I think we should strip your daughter of her citizenship and expel her. Because the politicians decide they can. And why not - you support such actions.
It’s not “trolling” to point out when someone has said something casually racist and deeply offensive, and this from @OnlyLivingBoy is definitely that
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
I don’t think any context improves it, TBH
White British ISIS recruits who have been allowed to return to Britain having had all of their ISIS activities tolerated by the UK government.
I respect the rule of law. I have not suggested anyone should smuggle Begum into the UK.
I think the current law should be changed. I know you think the current law should be changed on many issues, but I don't go around saying you aren't respecting the rule of law because you think that.
Why do you want Shamima Begum executed?
The supermarket near me has had half its lights switched off for a couple of weeks now. Either they’re waiting ages for a sparkie or it’s to save money. I suspect the latter. People are noticing.
Truss better have something or she’s buggered. And not in a good way.