Why can’t GB News do anything that’s not plain weird? Why hire a pollster that says everything your news channel pushes is hated and stupid?
Do we really have to enter these into the wiki page so the graph goes into such wild misleading gap 🙁
The Labour 42 looks about right. Without knowing how their large others break down (oooer missus), not sure what to make of Conservatives 25, but that does look odd.
What we can say is that all that free publicity (which is the point of the current mad process) isn't helping the Conservative cause.
“What we can say is that all that free publicity (which is the point of the current mad process) isn't helping the Conservative cause.”
Yes I like that line. It’s not so much moments of blue on blue, that mostly came from Truss bluntness, it’s how we have gleaned from what we are hearing to form an opinion.
Some posters push the idea we haven’t a clue what Truss and Kwarzy are going to do yet, it might well be gorgeous one nation response, we have to wait and see. That sort of insults me a bit. The whole flipping point of two months of campaigning is to sell yourself and your approach to things - I should be able to draw on this, and also a fair idea about politicians strengths weaknesses etc from before campaign even started - it’s a bit insulting to tell me I currently can have no idea and need to wait and see. I diplomatically wont mention the posters who push this.
But it does point to ordinary everyday voters liking the idea of a frozen cap, and not liking the Thatcherite response to the idea having made a quite sudden change in the polling.
I’d love to know how Liz proposes to backtrack on the supposed 140 or so new policy announcements she made during the ridiculously long campaign
I think people are expecting her to run the country differently than she ran her campaign. I don’t think she will.
The cabinet appointments will be our first indication
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
Because of yeasts and moulds.
If you are vegan you are probably living on stuff which is nothing but yeast and mould. Check out what Quorn is made of.
All of which points to one harrowing prospect: we may need yet another general election this autumn. Caveats abound about the wisdom of going to the public in the midst of an economic slump, but it may be the only way for a future leader to get their own mandate and majority before the Government is overwhelmed by all those overlapping crises.
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
Because of yeasts and moulds.
If you are vegan you are probably living on stuff which is nothing but yeast and mould. Check out what Quorn is made of.
Yeasts and moulds are amazing - any fan of Belgian beers and wild ales can tell you this. BION most Quorn products aren't vegan - they use egg white to bind. I haven't eaten dairy for a long time now, but when I did I was a sucker for stinky cheese.
Meat replacements can be ok (the Richmond plant-based sausages are excellent) but I like my veg and beans. Just had a delicious lentil, spinach and sweet potato curry. Plenty of calcium in that btw.
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
So you mean I have not just saved the cow from future milking but any milking through their life at all? Why aren't we encouraged to eat more steak?
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
Because of yeasts and moulds.
If you are vegan you are probably living on stuff which is nothing but yeast and mould. Check out what Quorn is made of.
There's a problem with that ?
No. I was countering the suggestion that it's a problem with cheese (which done right is even more delicious than quorn)
According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.
UK courts have to use logic and evidence, so no, they can’t do that as there is no logic or evidence to support that.
A court, in the Begum case, decided that she has Bangladeshi citizenship. You and I may feel they got that wrong, but it was their decision and it stands until it is overturned.
No they didn't
The home secretary decided that she could revoke British Citizenship on the basis that someone said Ms Begum qualified for Bangladeshi citizenship and the courts agreed that that decision wasn't illegal....
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
Because of yeasts and moulds.
If you are vegan you are probably living on stuff which is nothing but yeast and mould. Check out what Quorn is made of.
Yeasts and moulds are amazing - any fan of Belgian beers and wild ales can tell you this. BION most Quorn products aren't vegan - they use egg white to bind. I haven't eaten dairy for a long time now, but when I did I was a sucker for stinky cheese.
Meat replacements can be ok (the Richmond plant-based sausages are excellent) but I like my veg and beans. Just had a delicious lentil, spinach and sweet potato curry. Plenty of calcium in that btw.
As a side note, since having covid (a single bout back in June) I've been craving chilli heat. A friend has experienced the same though he lost his sense of smell whereas mine was unaffected. My tolerance for it has not improved, mind.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pete Buttigieg is also +202 in my book here (Along with everyone else on the planet not mentioned), I'd view him or Harris as the main contenders should Biden not want a second term. But I think it'd be Harris if Biden falls ill or something like that.
Ed Balls and Sharon Shoesmith spring to mind. The right decision, possibly the wrong process.
But this is clearly political. Johnson intimidated Blair into leaving - and let's face it Blair was about a hundred times better than Dick - and nobody called him out for it.
Edit - incidentally for Patel, a notorious bully who should have herself have resigned over the way she treated her staff, to criticise this is the height of nauseating hypocrisy.
Apparently, if we are to believe the report, stating in public that you have "No confidence" in someone or something is unfair and oppressive.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
A plaything of two powerful political parties managed through patronage and fear, not a citizens assembly.
Thing is, I rather suspect the average MP cares rather more than the man in the street about climate change. It is somewhere where despite the impression to the contrary, politicians and the state have led rather than followed. If a citizens' assembly better reflected the consensus on carbon, I suspect rather less would get done than is currently being done. Almost makes you think ER are just in it for the fun of it.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
So you mean I have not just saved the cow from future milking but any milking through their life at all? Why aren't we encouraged to eat more steak?
Did you drop out of biology classes before O level? It tends to be male calves that end up as beef, and they are pretty milking proof
Though I think UK dairy has pretty much gone over to sexed semen which reduces the male calf output
FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)
RochdalePioneers said: » show previous quotes Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.
Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?
I said:
That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.
The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.
The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.
The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.
The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
"eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.
Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.
Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.
The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.
The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
If I understand correctly what I have read, the argument is that the Bangladeshi government really, really doesn't want her. And that they are simply saying things about her eligibility for citizenship, which may not be true.
The real problem goes back to the effective abolition of treason and other laws. She took up arms against the UK. In times past this would have been a simple matter and the trial would have been fairly short - the evidence is pretty clear.
The terrible idea of the deprivation of citizenship at the fiat of the HS is a legal hack to try and get round some of the resulting problems.
If it were up to me -
1) Create a simple and effective treason statute. Penalty up to life imprisonment. 2) Abolish the deprivation of citizenship at the behest of the HS.
I actually conversed with some lawyers on this one.
Apparently, in the Human Rights world, the idea of prosecuting Begum (and other non state actors) for War Crimes is nasty and evil. Despite the fact that she is quite clearly guilty, in her own words, of literal War Crimes under the various conventions.
What war crimes is she guilty of (in her own words)?
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pete Buttigieg is also +202 in my book here (Along with everyone else on the planet not mentioned), I'd view him or Harris as the main contenders should Biden not want a second term. But I think it'd be Harris if Biden falls ill or something like that.
Yes, Harris over Buttigieg in that event. In fact I'd back her and lay him at current prices. Except I'm not because for now I'm sticking to the knitting, my genuine specialist field - Donald Trump.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
A plaything of two powerful political parties managed through patronage and fear, not a citizens assembly.
Thing is, I rather suspect the average MP cares rather more than the man in the street about climate change. It is somewhere where despite the impression to the contrary, politicians and the state have led rather than followed. If a citizens' assembly better reflected the consensus on carbon, I suspect rather less would get done than is currently being done. Almost makes you think ER are just in it for the fun of it.
Without getting into the climate change debate either way (fwiw I think we are changing society lightly too slowly but at least we are changing and the forces asking for more change will get their way, just not at the pace they want), a citizens assembly is very different to the House of Commons.
I would like to see perhaps 15% of the Commons and 30% of the Lords chosen by sortition to create independents that the parties have to win over by argument rather than party management.
Why can’t GB News do anything that’s not plain weird? Why hire a pollster that says everything your news channel pushes is hated and stupid?
Do we really have to enter these into the wiki page so the graph goes into such wild misleading gap 🙁
The Labour 42 looks about right. Without knowing how their large others break down (oooer missus), not sure what to make of Conservatives 25, but that does look odd.
What we can say is that all that free publicity (which is the point of the current mad process) isn't helping the Conservative cause.
“What we can say is that all that free publicity (which is the point of the current mad process) isn't helping the Conservative cause.”
Yes I like that line. It’s not so much moments of blue on blue, that mostly came from Truss bluntness, it’s how we have gleaned from what we are hearing to form an opinion.
Some posters push the idea we haven’t a clue what Truss and Kwarzy are going to do yet, it might well be gorgeous one nation response, we have to wait and see. That sort of insults me a bit. The whole flipping point of two months of campaigning is to sell yourself and your approach to things - I should be able to draw on this, and also a fair idea about politicians strengths weaknesses etc from before campaign even started - it’s a bit insulting to tell me I currently can have no idea and need to wait and see. I diplomatically wont mention the posters who push this.
But it does point to ordinary everyday voters liking the idea of a frozen cap, and not liking the Thatcherite response to the idea having made a quite sudden change in the polling.
I’d love to know how Liz proposes to backtrack on the supposed 140 or so new policy announcements she made during the ridiculously long campaign
I think people are expecting her to run the country differently than she ran her campaign. I don’t think she will.
The cabinet appointments will be our first indication
The cabinet appointments will be the next indication, and a very good guide. However whilst Braverman, Badenoch and Tugendhat all get roles so some PB Tories will proclaim its very inclusive, we look to see who sits in on the economic decision making. It appears Mogg is sitting in whilst Truss cabinet has been Team Truss.
It’s pointing towards a fiscal step rightwards to a place UK has not been for more than thirty years.
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
Whether that's true or not, a glass of milk goes really well with a bacon sandwich for breakfast.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
I've only got 1 red but it's a big one.
I guess your red is closer to his orange than my green, and its a bet I would be delighted to lose. It is also a good job that a previous prolific poster has retired or you might get drawn into an argument over whether he is big or just unusually muscular.
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
So you mean I have not just saved the cow from future milking but any milking through their life at all? Why aren't we encouraged to eat more steak?
Did you drop out of biology classes before O level? It tends to be male calves that end up as beef, and they are pretty milking proof
Though I think UK dairy has pretty much gone over to sexed semen which reduces the male calf output
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
I'm sure crack is fucking awesome but that doesn't mean that regular consumption of it is a worthy idea.
Though we didn't evolve enzymes to metabolise crack tens of thousands of years ago.
Wouldn't be so sure. Much of the mammalian liver is there to metabolise the nasty chemicals plants secrete to discourage us and other mammals from eating them. Though the Mexican yam which secretes the contraceptive pill certainly wins the prize for economy, albeit only really working for much shorter generation animals. Giving your herbivores an instant high and doping them so they get eaten byt something else also works quite well. Hence datura, cocaine, etc.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pete Buttigieg is also +202 in my book here (Along with everyone else on the planet not mentioned), I'd view him or Harris as the main contenders should Biden not want a second term. But I think it'd be Harris if Biden falls ill or something like that.
Wide open, then, I think. There would be at least half a dozen runners ... and probably the chance to trade profitably.
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
So you mean I have not just saved the cow from future milking but any milking through their life at all? Why aren't we encouraged to eat more steak?
Did you drop out of biology classes before O level? It tends to be male calves that end up as beef, and they are pretty milking proof
Though I think UK dairy has pretty much gone over to sexed semen which reduces the male calf output
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
I've only got 1 red but it's a big one.
I guess your red is closer to his orange than my green, and its a bet I would be delighted to lose. It is also a good job that a previous prolific poster has retired or you might get drawn into an argument over whether he is big or just unusually muscular.
Yes where has that chap gone? Perhaps he'll return one day. I do hope so. We had such a nice thing going on.
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
Because of yeasts and moulds.
If you are vegan you are probably living on stuff which is nothing but yeast and mould. Check out what Quorn is made of.
Quorn is fungus. Grown out of a little vial and then seeded into a 50m tall fermentor which bucks and shakes at the top as it churns out mycoprotein paste 24 hours a day for over a month.
Vegan food is great - its my living so I have to say that. But, my palate is entirely accustomed to the taste and texture of cow milk and none of the substitutes cut it. And Vegan cheese cannot remove the coconut oil back taste no matter what they do.
So I am on board with the environmental problems caused by dairy farming. But cannot wean myself off cow squit no matter how I try.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
How do we know that?
The SIAC are quite detailed in quoting the law and going through their judgment. Have you read the SIAC judgment on this issue? Where is the lie?
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
How do we know that?
The SIAC are quite detailed in quoting the law and going through their judgment. Have you read the SIAC judgment on this issue? Where is the lie?
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
So you mean I have not just saved the cow from future milking but any milking through their life at all? Why aren't we encouraged to eat more steak?
Did you drop out of biology classes before O level? It tends to be male calves that end up as beef, and they are pretty milking proof
Though I think UK dairy has pretty much gone over to sexed semen which reduces the male calf output
Please! I’m still eating lunch.
How is the foie gras?
I was only joking 😆 the conversation is great, but you just knew Z would inject sperm into it a some point.
I grew up on a working farm, the only complaint I have is we are not allowed to hunt foxes and vegans. 😈
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
How do we know that?
The SIAC are quite detailed in quoting the law and going through their judgment. Have you read the SIAC judgment on this issue? Where is the lie?
“holds Bangladeshi citizenship”
She does. That's what Bangladesh's law says, according to the SIAC ruling.
The SIAC like all courts has to follow the rule of law.
The factual background Ms Begum's father was born in Bangladesh in 1958. He came to the United Kingdom in November 1975 (when he was granted indefinite leave to enter) and he was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1993. He has never naturalised as a British citizen. Her mother was born in 1964 in Bangladesh and married her father there in March 1980. She obtained indefinite leave to enter on coming to the United Kingdom to join Ms Begum's father in November 1981. She naturalised in November 2009.
Ms Begum was born on 25 August 1999 in the United Kingdom, where she was brought up. At birth, she held British citizenship under section 1(1) of the BNA because her parents were both settled in the United Kingdom. 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.
Publishing Lord Pannick's advice would be interesting constitutionally, if ministers intend by doing so to criticise the Privileges Committee and its procedure. How would that not be government impeaching or questioning proceedings in Parliament, contrary to the Bill of Rights?
If it's published via the House of Commons library in order to get round this problem, it'll be interesting to see who exactly does that. Johnson himself, perhaps, rather than (for example) the Attorney General who'd unmistakably be acting for the government.
I mention these things because the BBC story https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62763975 says "the Cabinet Office is to publish" the advice. I think I'd be reluctant to update a http://gov.uk website to do that, if I were a civil servant.
I'm quite surprised to see that it has indeed been published on http://gov.uk, by the PM's Office and Boris Johnson MP.
According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.
UK courts have to use logic and evidence, so no, they can’t do that as there is no logic or evidence to support that.
A court, in the Begum case, decided that she has Bangladeshi citizenship. You and I may feel they got that wrong, but it was their decision and it stands until it is overturned.
No they didn't
The home secretary decided that she could revoke British Citizenship on the basis that someone said Ms Begum qualified for Bangladeshi citizenship and the courts agreed that that decision wasn't illegal....
The SIAC, as all courts, wrote a judgement explaining its reasoning. Within that reasoning, it concluded that Begum has Bangladeshi citizenship.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
I've only got 1 red but it's a big one.
I guess your red is closer to his orange than my green, and its a bet I would be delighted to lose. It is also a good job that a previous prolific poster has retired or you might get drawn into an argument over whether he is big or just unusually muscular.
Yes where has that chap gone? Perhaps he'll return one day. I do hope so. We had such a nice thing going on.
Remember @BluestBlue ? Hasn't posted for over a year - unless, using your legendary powers, you have detected a name-change?
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Thanks to @IshmaelZ who had already found the SIAC judgement when I was typing that.
FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)
RochdalePioneers said: » show previous quotes Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.
Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?
I said:
That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.
The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.
The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.
The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.
The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
"eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.
Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.
Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.
The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.
The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
If I understand correctly what I have read, the argument is that the Bangladeshi government really, really doesn't want her. And that they are simply saying things about her eligibility for citizenship, which may not be true.
The real problem goes back to the effective abolition of treason and other laws. She took up arms against the UK. In times past this would have been a simple matter and the trial would have been fairly short - the evidence is pretty clear.
The terrible idea of the deprivation of citizenship at the fiat of the HS is a legal hack to try and get round some of the resulting problems.
If it were up to me -
1) Create a simple and effective treason statute. Penalty up to life imprisonment. 2) Abolish the deprivation of citizenship at the behest of the HS.
I actually conversed with some lawyers on this one.
Apparently, in the Human Rights world, the idea of prosecuting Begum (and other non state actors) for War Crimes is nasty and evil. Despite the fact that she is quite clearly guilty, in her own words, of literal War Crimes under the various conventions.
What war crimes is she guilty of (in her own words)?
Abuse of non-combatant civilians Abuse of prisoners Accessory to rape (the women who were sold as “slaves”)
That’s off the top of my head. Under the various conventions, those can be capital crimes.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
I've only got 1 red but it's a big one.
I guess your red is closer to his orange than my green, and its a bet I would be delighted to lose. It is also a good job that a previous prolific poster has retired or you might get drawn into an argument over whether he is big or just unusually muscular.
Yes where has that chap gone? Perhaps he'll return one day. I do hope so. We had such a nice thing going on.
Remember @BluestBlue ? Hasn't posted for over a year - unless, using your legendary powers, you have detected a name-change?
Poor guy was sooo happy about Johnson's midas touch, and fell apart when it did
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
I'm sure crack is fucking awesome but that doesn't mean that regular consumption of it is a worthy idea.
Though we didn't evolve enzymes to metabolise crack tens of thousands of years ago.
Wouldn't be so sure. Much of the mammalian liver is there to metabolise the nasty chemicals plants secrete to discourage us and other mammals from eating them. Though the Mexican yam which secretes the contraceptive pill certainly wins the prize for economy, albeit only really working for much shorter generation animals. Giving your herbivores an instant high and doping them so they get eaten byt something else also works quite well. Hence datura, cocaine, etc.
Trueish - but we certainly evolved to possess a specific enzyme for (eg) alcohol, and I don't think there's anything similar for cocaine - as this article for example implies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293209/
The factual background Ms Begum's father was born in Bangladesh in 1958. He came to the United Kingdom in November 1975 (when he was granted indefinite leave to enter) and he was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1993. He has never naturalised as a British citizen. Her mother was born in 1964 in Bangladesh and married her father there in March 1980. She obtained indefinite leave to enter on coming to the United Kingdom to join Ms Begum's father in November 1981. She naturalised in November 2009.
Ms Begum was born on 25 August 1999 in the United Kingdom, where she was brought up. At birth, she held British citizenship under section 1(1) of the BNA because her parents were both settled in the United Kingdom. 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.
"5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-
(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or
(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh."
So I suppose depends whether her parents notified the Bangladesh Mission in London?
As an aside - how have I ended up researching this? The internet is an incredible tool, but I should really be doing something else.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Thanks to @IshmaelZ who had already found the SIAC judgement when I was typing that.
Why can’t GB News do anything that’s not plain weird? Why hire a pollster that says everything your news channel pushes is hated and stupid?
Do we really have to enter these into the wiki page so the graph goes into such wild misleading gap 🙁
The Labour 42 looks about right. Without knowing how their large others break down (oooer missus), not sure what to make of Conservatives 25, but that does look odd.
What we can say is that all that free publicity (which is the point of the current mad process) isn't helping the Conservative cause.
“What we can say is that all that free publicity (which is the point of the current mad process) isn't helping the Conservative cause.”
Yes I like that line. It’s not so much moments of blue on blue, that mostly came from Truss bluntness, it’s how we have gleaned from what we are hearing to form an opinion.
Some posters push the idea we haven’t a clue what Truss and Kwarzy are going to do yet, it might well be gorgeous one nation response, we have to wait and see. That sort of insults me a bit. The whole flipping point of two months of campaigning is to sell yourself and your approach to things - I should be able to draw on this, and also a fair idea about politicians strengths weaknesses etc from before campaign even started - it’s a bit insulting to tell me I currently can have no idea and need to wait and see. I diplomatically wont mention the posters who push this.
But it does point to ordinary everyday voters liking the idea of a frozen cap, and not liking the Thatcherite response to the idea having made a quite sudden change in the polling.
I’d love to know how Liz proposes to backtrack on the supposed 140 or so new policy announcements she made during the ridiculously long campaign
I think people are expecting her to run the country differently than she ran her campaign. I don’t think she will.
The cabinet appointments will be our first indication
I believe the young people call it "copium".
After all, if she governs as she runs, we've got thirty months or so of ERG / "Boris was robbed" / libertarian fanfic / culture war to look forward to.
Taz passed on this from the Guardian: "Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.
Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities."
I hope some enterprising reporter asks them if they want to ban breast feeding. And, of course, selling breast milk -- which is not plant based. (In the US, some breast milk is donated, and some is sold. A quick search suggests that 3 dollars an ounce is a common price.)
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
How do we know that?
The SIAC are quite detailed in quoting the law and going through their judgment. Have you read the SIAC judgment on this issue? Where is the lie?
“holds Bangladeshi citizenship”
The SIAC judgement offers at length its reasoning as to why that is the case.
I think it is morally dubious for country X to disown someone because of some theoretical right to country Y’s citizenship that they have never exercised. However, the court made a ruling on the current law and the court explained how it came to its conclusion under the current law.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)
RochdalePioneers said: » show previous quotes Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.
Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?
I said:
That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.
The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.
The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.
The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.
The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
"eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.
Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.
Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.
The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.
The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
If I understand correctly what I have read, the argument is that the Bangladeshi government really, really doesn't want her. And that they are simply saying things about her eligibility for citizenship, which may not be true.
The real problem goes back to the effective abolition of treason and other laws. She took up arms against the UK. In times past this would have been a simple matter and the trial would have been fairly short - the evidence is pretty clear.
The terrible idea of the deprivation of citizenship at the fiat of the HS is a legal hack to try and get round some of the resulting problems.
If it were up to me -
1) Create a simple and effective treason statute. Penalty up to life imprisonment. 2) Abolish the deprivation of citizenship at the behest of the HS.
I actually conversed with some lawyers on this one.
Apparently, in the Human Rights world, the idea of prosecuting Begum (and other non state actors) for War Crimes is nasty and evil. Despite the fact that she is quite clearly guilty, in her own words, of literal War Crimes under the various conventions.
What war crimes is she guilty of (in her own words)?
Abuse of non-combatant civilians Abuse of prisoners Accessory to rape (the women who were sold as “slaves”)
That’s off the top of my head. Under the various conventions, those can be capital crimes.
Where does she say she did these things? Is that in the paywalled 2019 Times article?
I heard that the full annual energy bill for @imperialcollege is expected to be £20 Million more than usual this coming year.😮 Can someone tell leadership that running deep freezers at -70C saves 25% of the energy of running at -80C? We have hundreds of these on campus. https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfTomEllis/status/1565329528456880128
Boris Johnson still believes he could return to Downing Street but sees making money as his immediate priority, one of his closest allies has said.
Lord Marland, a Conservative peer and longtime friend who led Johnson’s London mayoral campaign, said there was a “distinct possibility” that he would aim for No 10 again. However, he said the prime minister had told him that he first wanted to “put hay in the loft” and join the international speaking circuit, where he could earn more than a million pounds a year.
Johnson is said to fear that parliament’s investigation of whether he misled MPs over the No 10 parties scandal will be used by critics to end his political career.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Thanks to @IshmaelZ who had already found the SIAC judgement when I was typing that.
"She held that [Bangladeshi] citizenship as of right. The citizenship was not in the gift of the government, and could not be denied by the government in any circumstances".
And yet this is the British government removing British citizenship which is theirs by right and is absolutely the gift of the government. British exceptionalism - do as we say not as we do.
I expect if the roles were reversed, and Begum's parents were British, though she was born and living in Bangladesh we had something akin to the Bangladeshi 1951 (Amended 1972) citizenship act on our books our courts would find that she was in fact a British citizen. It looks, unless the SIAC has read Bangladeshi law very wrong that in fact it is the Gov't of Bangladesh playing politics here rather than following their own law.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
How do we know that?
The SIAC are quite detailed in quoting the law and going through their judgment. Have you read the SIAC judgment on this issue? Where is the lie?
“holds Bangladeshi citizenship”
The SIAC judgement offers at length its reasoning as to why that is the case.
I think it is morally dubious for country X to disown someone because of some theoretical right to country Y’s citizenship that they have never exercised. However, the court made a ruling on the current law and the court explained how it came to its conclusion under the current law.
Precisely. Some people are conflating separate issues: what they think the law should be, and what the law actually is. The law says, rightly or wrongly, that the Home Secretary can strip someone of their citizenship if they hold another country's citizenship at the time of their decision.
Did Begum have Bangladeshi citizenship at the time of the Home Secretary's decision? The SIAC goes into this and says she did.
Should the Home Secretary have this power? That's a complicated question, and its one that they have long had. I thought that the decision had been made under statute passed by Tony Blair, but reading from the SIAC judgment it seems it was under a 1981 statute, so very well established law.
Perhaps the law should be changed to remove this power from the Home Secretary. If so that would require Parliament to change the law, and if it does change the law it should not change it retrospectively.
Taz passed on this from the Guardian: "Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.
Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities."
I hope some enterprising reporter asks them if they want to ban breast feeding. And, of course, selling breast milk -- which is not plant based. (In the US, some breast milk is donated, and some is sold. A quick search suggests that 3 dollars an ounce is a common price.)
Nah. I know lots of vegans (though I drink higher-welfare organic cow's milk myself), and their objection is always to the fact that milk is based on removing the offspring from the mother at an early age, creating a surplus of mother's milk that is sold. The belief, which seems credible, is that early removal of the offspring causes distress to both. None of that applies to human breast milk.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Thanks to @IshmaelZ who had already found the SIAC judgement when I was typing that.
"She held that [Bangladeshi] citizenship as of right. The citizenship was not in the gift of the government, and could not be denied by the government in any circumstances".
And yet this is the British government removing British citizenship which is theirs by right and is absolutely the gift of the government. British exceptionalism - do as we say not as we do.
No, it's not - she can't be made stateless. So, either we could revoke her citizenship, or they could, but not both. First move advantage, rather than exceptionalism.
Whoever didn't get in first, is stuck with her. Clearly Bangladesh is annoyed we beat them to the punch.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
But, in effect, you are arguing that the British government does things that are wrong in law, but that the Bangladeshi government never does things that are wrong in law. That is inconsistent. The Bangladeshi government was just as politically motivated to disown Begum as the British government. I don’t ultimately know who is right on this point of Bangladeshi law, but it seems apparent that the Bangladeshi government could be wrong.
If Bangladesh subsequently changed the law, that is not the British governments problem (in law). The question is whether Begum was a Bangladeshi citizen when British citizenship was withdrawn.
Here's the latest US jobs report: "The U.S. labor market added 315,000 jobs in August, hitting a 20-month streak in strong job growth that’s powering an economy through ominously high inflation.
The unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 3.7 percent, according to a monthly jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, with 344,000 more people unemployed than the previous month. . . . Inflation rose 8.5 percent in July compared with the previous year, while wages rose by only 5.2 percent during the same period." source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/02/august-jobs-report/
There are about two open jobs for every job seeker.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Thanks to @IshmaelZ who had already found the SIAC judgement when I was typing that.
"She held that [Bangladeshi] citizenship as of right. The citizenship was not in the gift of the government, and could not be denied by the government in any circumstances".
And yet this is the British government removing British citizenship which is theirs by right and is absolutely the gift of the government. British exceptionalism - do as we say not as we do.
Citizenship can be acquired and lost by law, not by press release.
The Home Secretary has the power to remove citizenship following the procedures of the British Nationality Act 1981, which were followed, not by press release.
Unless the Bangladeshi Government had removed her citizenship under an equivalent of the BNA, and unless they'd done so before the Home Secretary removed her citizenship, then she had Bangladeshi citizenship at the time of the decision.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
I've only got 1 red but it's a big one.
I guess your red is closer to his orange than my green, and its a bet I would be delighted to lose. It is also a good job that a previous prolific poster has retired or you might get drawn into an argument over whether he is big or just unusually muscular.
Yes where has that chap gone? Perhaps he'll return one day. I do hope so. We had such a nice thing going on.
Remember @BluestBlue ? Hasn't posted for over a year - unless, using your legendary powers, you have detected a name-change?
Poor guy was sooo happy about Johnson's midas touch, and fell apart when it did
Boris Johnson still believes he could return to Downing Street but sees making money as his immediate priority, one of his closest allies has said.
Lord Marland, a Conservative peer and longtime friend who led Johnson’s London mayoral campaign, said there was a “distinct possibility” that he would aim for No 10 again. However, he said the prime minister had told him that he first wanted to “put hay in the loft” and join the international speaking circuit, where he could earn more than a million pounds a year.
Johnson is said to fear that parliament’s investigation of whether he misled MPs over the No 10 parties scandal will be used by critics to end his political career.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
A plaything of two powerful political parties managed through patronage and fear, not a citizens assembly.
Thing is, I rather suspect the average MP cares rather more than the man in the street about climate change. It is somewhere where despite the impression to the contrary, politicians and the state have led rather than followed. If a citizens' assembly better reflected the consensus on carbon, I suspect rather less would get done than is currently being done. Almost makes you think ER are just in it for the fun of it.
Without getting into the climate change debate either way (fwiw I think we are changing society lightly too slowly but at least we are changing and the forces asking for more change will get their way, just not at the pace they want), a citizens assembly is very different to the House of Commons.
I would like to see perhaps 15% of the Commons and 30% of the Lords chosen by sortition to create independents that the parties have to win over by argument rather than party management.
It could be worth having that proportional to the non-turned-out. Maybe half the non-turned-out percentage for sortition in the Commons and the non-turned-out percentage for sortition in the Lords. From last time, it'd be 16.4% for the Commons and 32.7% for the Lords. Highest sortition level would have been 20.3% in the Commons in 2001 and 40.6% in the Lords.
Give the parties incentive to boost turnout (fewer to have to convince) and a need for positive campaigning instead of negative.
Here's the latest US jobs report: "The U.S. labor market added 315,000 jobs in August, hitting a 20-month streak in strong job growth that’s powering an economy through ominously high inflation.
The unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 3.7 percent, according to a monthly jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, with 344,000 more people unemployed than the previous month. . . . Inflation rose 8.5 percent in July compared with the previous year, while wages rose by only 5.2 percent during the same period." source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/02/august-jobs-report/
There are about two open jobs for every job seeker.
Inflation at 13.9% in the USA then, given it was 5.4% last July. Not great.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Thanks to @IshmaelZ who had already found the SIAC judgement when I was typing that.
"She held that [Bangladeshi] citizenship as of right. The citizenship was not in the gift of the government, and could not be denied by the government in any circumstances".
And yet this is the British government removing British citizenship which is theirs by right and is absolutely the gift of the government. British exceptionalism - do as we say not as we do.
If Bangladeshi law offers more protections than our law, good for them. But that doesn’t change the logic of the SIAC ruling.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
But it’s obviously not going to be Trump vs AOC. The Dems will pick a non-loon candidate. None of the front runners for the Dem nomination are loons.
They are very clear: this is about putting in place an insurance policy ready for if this happens. The planning to get on the ballot has to happen this far out from the election.
The Ukrainian claims that the IAEA mission has been misled sound like a tacit admission that the UN will be finding against their claim that the Russians are basing artillery at the plant (perhaps the Russians were doing so but have pulled it out?), and possibly also the claim that the Russians are bombarding themselves there, rather than the more intuitively plausible version that Ukrainians are bombarding Russians.
But I wonder how far the IAEA report will actually go - the fact that they're keeping a mission there permanently may be what matters. If the net outcome is that the Russians don't base offensive weapons there (whether they did before or not) and the Ukrainians don't shell it (ditto), that's probably a good thing regardless of the rights and wrongs of the claims - an example of a UN agency using its neutrality effectively.
I expect if the roles were reversed, and Begum's parents were British, though she was born and living in Bangladesh we had something akin to the Bangladeshi 1951 (Amended 1972) citizenship act on our books our courts would find that she was in fact a British citizen. It looks, unless the SIAC has read Bangladeshi law very wrong that in fact it is the Gov't of Bangladesh playing politics here rather than following their own law.
Government's break their own laws. Ours does. And amends its own laws. And interprets them to suit themselves. AIUI its illegal for us to remove citizenship from someone who de jure has no other citizenship. Whether that is true de facto or not.
Again, we cannot compel another sovereign state to interpret their laws the way we want. We may very well say "she is Bangladeshi" and pull up part of a 60 year old law to back it up. And they can pull up the more recent changes to their law and say "no". Are we really saying the Bangladeshi government is wrong in how it interprets Bangladeshi law? And would we accept the same in reverse where we find ourselves compelled to take someone who we do not accept is British?
Only this government could get me cheering on Sadiq Khan. I mean, FFS. The woman was beyond useless. All she was good at was covering up earlier cock ups and ultimately she even messed that up.
On topic, Cyclefree raises highly pertinent questions.
Governments regularly, of course, receive legal advice to try to ensure its decisions are lawful and to defend challenges from those who claim they aren't.
But that just isn't the situation. This has absolutely nothing to do with Government decisions. Johnson is facing a House of Commons disciplinary process into things he personally said in the Chamber, and their somewhat strained relationship with reality.
If any of us was facing a disciplinary process at work, we might quite fancy getting some legal advice on the lawfulness of the process, options for challenging the outcome and so on. But if we do, we might be able to get help from a trade union or whatever, but our employer is highly unlikely to be paying up front for that (if we won there might be an issue of them covering reasonable costs but it certainly isn't the starting point). If we went to our employer and asked them to pay for our lawyer, they'd laugh. If we said it was Lord Pannick QC they'd fall off their chair.
I can't see any justification whatsoever for the Cabinet Office (and ultimately us) paying for this advice. In light of Legal Aid cuts, it's absolutely taking the p1ss that the PM gets a personal exemption at our expense. Particularly given Pannick is, shall we say, at the very top end of the market and his invoice will basically read "Three metric f***tons of cash plus VAT - pls pay within 14 days".
I expect if the roles were reversed, and Begum's parents were British, though she was born and living in Bangladesh we had something akin to the Bangladeshi 1951 (Amended 1972) citizenship act on our books our courts would find that she was in fact a British citizen. It looks, unless the SIAC has read Bangladeshi law very wrong that in fact it is the Gov't of Bangladesh playing politics here rather than following their own law.
Government's break their own laws. Ours does. And amends its own laws. And interprets them to suit themselves. AIUI its illegal for us to remove citizenship from someone who de jure has no other citizenship. Whether that is true de facto or not.
Again, we cannot compel another sovereign state to interpret their laws the way we want. We may very well say "she is Bangladeshi" and pull up part of a 60 year old law to back it up. And they can pull up the more recent changes to their law and say "no". Are we really saying the Bangladeshi government is wrong in how it interprets Bangladeshi law? And would we accept the same in reverse where we find ourselves compelled to take someone who we do not accept is British?
All this is covered in the SIAC ruling.
Under Pharm principles, it is de jure that matters even if the foreign country is de facto breaking its own laws. Even if de facto the foreign country's courts are de facto breaking them too. The courts in this country follow the de jure rule of law, and de jure the finding is that she was a citizen.
We can't compel Bangladesh to follow the rule of law, but we do expect our own courts to do so.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
A plaything of two powerful political parties managed through patronage and fear, not a citizens assembly.
Thing is, I rather suspect the average MP cares rather more than the man in the street about climate change. It is somewhere where despite the impression to the contrary, politicians and the state have led rather than followed. If a citizens' assembly better reflected the consensus on carbon, I suspect rather less would get done than is currently being done. Almost makes you think ER are just in it for the fun of it.
Without getting into the climate change debate either way (fwiw I think we are changing society lightly too slowly but at least we are changing and the forces asking for more change will get their way, just not at the pace they want), a citizens assembly is very different to the House of Commons.
I would like to see perhaps 15% of the Commons and 30% of the Lords chosen by sortition to create independents that the parties have to win over by argument rather than party management.
Well I do see the distinction there. What you are arguing for is actually less democracy. Though not without precedent - there are echoes of ancient Athens there. It's an interesting idea and perhaps next time TSE feels the need to write another thread about AV we could raise this as a discussion point.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
But, in effect, you are arguing that the British government does things that are wrong in law, but that the Bangladeshi government never does things that are wrong in law. That is inconsistent. The Bangladeshi government was just as politically motivated to disown Begum as the British government. I don’t ultimately know who is right on this point of Bangladeshi law, but it seems apparent that the Bangladeshi government could be wrong.
If Bangladesh subsequently changed the law, that is not the British governments problem (in law). The question is whether Begum was a Bangladeshi citizen when British citizenship was withdrawn.
She wasn't. Whether Bangladeshi law gives a blanket "she's a citizen" or not, they do not recognise it as such. She remains not a citizen of Bangladesh. Or anywhere. AIUI Bangladesh has changed it citizenship laws late last decade which excludes her and anyone else who hadn't registered. Retroactive changes to the law happens here as well, government refusing to accept x is the law happens here as well. All we needed to do was confirm her citizenship with Bangladesh...
I expect if the roles were reversed, and Begum's parents were British, though she was born and living in Bangladesh we had something akin to the Bangladeshi 1951 (Amended 1972) citizenship act on our books our courts would find that she was in fact a British citizen. It looks, unless the SIAC has read Bangladeshi law very wrong that in fact it is the Gov't of Bangladesh playing politics here rather than following their own law.
Government's break their own laws. Ours does. And amends its own laws. And interprets them to suit themselves. AIUI its illegal for us to remove citizenship from someone who de jure has no other citizenship. Whether that is true de facto or not.
Again, we cannot compel another sovereign state to interpret their laws the way we want. We may very well say "she is Bangladeshi" and pull up part of a 60 year old law to back it up. And they can pull up the more recent changes to their law and say "no". Are we really saying the Bangladeshi government is wrong in how it interprets Bangladeshi law? And would we accept the same in reverse where we find ourselves compelled to take someone who we do not accept is British?
If we had the same act that Bangladesh does on our books then yes we would have to accept said person as a citizen. The courts would be clear on that. When did Bangladesh amend it's laws such that the 1972 amendment was not in fact their law ?
The Ukrainian claims that the IAEA mission has been misled sound like a tacit admission that the UN will be finding against their claim that the Russians are basing artillery at the plant (perhaps the Russians were doing so but have pulled it out?), and possibly also the claim that the Russians are bombarding themselves there, rather than the more intuitively plausible version that Ukrainians are bombarding Russians.
But I wonder how far the IAEA report will actually go - the fact that they're keeping a mission there permanently may be what matters. If the net outcome is that the Russians don't base offensive weapons there (whether they did before or not) and the Ukrainians don't shell it (ditto), that's probably a good thing regardless of the rights and wrongs of the claims - an example of a UN agency using its neutrality effectively.
The truly weird thing is that this plant is still providing electricity to most of southern Ukraine. I mean, why? These countries are at war. Why is Russia still giving the Ukranians power? I just don't get it.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
On topic, Cyclefree raises highly pertinent questions.
Governments regularly, of course, receive legal advice to try to ensure its decisions are lawful and to defend challenges from those who claim they aren't.
But that just isn't the situation. This has absolutely nothing to do with Government decisions. Johnson is facing a House of Commons disciplinary process into things he personally said in the Chamber, and their somewhat strained relationship with reality.
If any of us was facing a disciplinary process at work, we might quite fancy getting some legal advice on the lawfulness of the process, options for challenging the outcome and so on. But if we do, we might be able to get help from a trade union or whatever, but our employer is highly unlikely to be paying up front for that (if we won there might be an issue of them covering reasonable costs but it certainly isn't the starting point). If we went to our employer and asked them to pay for our lawyer, they'd laugh. If we said it was Lord Pannick QC they'd fall off their chair.
I can't see any justification whatsoever for the Cabinet Office (and ultimately us) paying for this advice. In light of Legal Aid cuts, it's absolutely taking the p1ss that the PM gets a personal exemption at our expense. Particularly given Pannick is, shall we say, at the very top end of the market and his invoice will basically read "Three metric f***tons of cash plus VAT - pls pay within 14 days".
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
But, in effect, you are arguing that the British government does things that are wrong in law, but that the Bangladeshi government never does things that are wrong in law. That is inconsistent. The Bangladeshi government was just as politically motivated to disown Begum as the British government. I don’t ultimately know who is right on this point of Bangladeshi law, but it seems apparent that the Bangladeshi government could be wrong.
If Bangladesh subsequently changed the law, that is not the British governments problem (in law). The question is whether Begum was a Bangladeshi citizen when British citizenship was withdrawn.
She wasn't. Whether Bangladeshi law gives a blanket "she's a citizen" or not, they do not recognise it as such. She remains not a citizen of Bangladesh. Or anywhere. AIUI Bangladesh has changed it citizenship laws late last decade which excludes her and anyone else who hadn't registered. Retroactive changes to the law happens here as well, government refusing to accept x is the law happens here as well. All we needed to do was confirm her citizenship with Bangladesh...
Again all of this is covered by the SIAC so is now news. It doesn't matter what they recognise or not, it matters what the law is. If the law says she is a citizen of Bangladesh, then she is, even if they don't recognise it.
If the law was retrospectively changed then that was Bangladesh making her stateless, since the UK's decision was taken first and is based in law upon whether or not she held citizenship at the time, which she did.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
Comments
I think people are expecting her to run the country differently than she ran her campaign. I don’t think she will.
The cabinet appointments will be our first indication
https://capx.co/why-we-need-an-autumn-election/
Meat replacements can be ok (the Richmond plant-based sausages are excellent) but I like my veg and beans. Just had a delicious lentil, spinach and sweet potato curry. Plenty of calcium in that btw.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
The home secretary decided that she could revoke British Citizenship on the basis that someone said Ms Begum qualified for Bangladeshi citizenship and the courts agreed that that decision wasn't illegal....
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
DfE may want a word.....
Almost makes you think ER are just in it for the fun of it.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “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.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Though I think UK dairy has pretty much gone over to sexed semen which reduces the male calf output
I would like to see perhaps 15% of the Commons and 30% of the Lords chosen by sortition to create independents that the parties have to win over by argument rather than party management.
It’s pointing towards a fiscal step rightwards to a place UK has not been for more than thirty years.
She seems to have retained the world's worst expert on Bangladeshi law
There would be at least half a dozen runners ... and probably the chance to trade profitably.
Vegan food is great - its my living so I have to say that. But, my palate is entirely accustomed to the taste and texture of cow milk and none of the substitutes cut it. And Vegan cheese cannot remove the coconut oil back taste no matter what they do.
So I am on board with the environmental problems caused by dairy farming. But cannot wean myself off cow squit no matter how I try.
The SIAC are quite detailed in quoting the law and going through their judgment. Have you read the SIAC judgment on this issue? Where is the lie?
I grew up on a working farm, the only complaint I have is we are not allowed to hunt foxes and vegans. 😈
The SIAC like all courts has to follow the rule of law.
Ms Begum's father was born in Bangladesh in 1958. He came to the United Kingdom in November 1975 (when he was granted indefinite leave to enter) and he was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1993. He has never naturalised as a British citizen. Her mother was born in 1964 in Bangladesh and married her father there in March 1980. She obtained indefinite leave to enter on coming to the United Kingdom to join Ms Begum's father in November 1981. She naturalised in November 2009.
Ms Begum was born on 25 August 1999 in the United Kingdom, where she was brought up. At birth, she held British citizenship under section 1(1) of the BNA because her parents were both settled in the United Kingdom. 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.
If it's published via the House of Commons library in order to get round this problem, it'll be interesting to see who exactly does that. Johnson himself, perhaps, rather than (for example) the Attorney General who'd unmistakably be acting for the government.
I mention these things because the BBC story https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62763975 says "the Cabinet Office is to publish" the advice. I think I'd be reluctant to update a http://gov.uk website to do that, if I were a civil servant.
I'm quite surprised to see that it has indeed been published on http://gov.uk, by the PM's Office and Boris Johnson MP.
https://twitter.com/carlgardner/status/1565678573658284032
Abuse of prisoners
Accessory to rape (the women who were sold as “slaves”)
That’s off the top of my head. Under the various conventions, those can be capital crimes.
It just happens to not be very good.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293209/
"5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-
(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or
(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh."
So I suppose depends whether her parents notified the Bangladesh Mission in London?
As an aside - how have I ended up researching this? The internet is an incredible tool, but I should really be doing something else.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/SIAC/2020/SC_163_2019.html
After all, if she governs as she runs, we've got thirty months or so of ERG / "Boris was robbed" / libertarian fanfic / culture war to look forward to.
Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities."
I hope some enterprising reporter asks them if they want to ban breast feeding. And, of course, selling breast milk -- which is not plant based. (In the US, some breast milk is donated, and some is sold. A quick search suggests that 3 dollars an ounce is a common price.)
I think it is morally dubious for country X to disown someone because of some theoretical right to country Y’s citizenship that they have never exercised. However, the court made a ruling on the current law and the court explained how it came to its conclusion under the current law.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
For those of us betting on POTUS 2024, there are plans afoot to run a third party joint ticket of sane GOP/Dem centrists if BOTH parties choose loons.
This would be activated if say it is Trump vs AOC.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/opinion/third-presidential-candidate-2024.html
@imperialcollege
is expected to be £20 Million more than usual this coming year.😮 Can someone tell leadership that running deep freezers at -70C saves 25% of the energy of running at -80C? We have hundreds of these on campus.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfTomEllis/status/1565329528456880128
Lord Marland, a Conservative peer and longtime friend who led Johnson’s London mayoral campaign, said there was a “distinct possibility” that he would aim for No 10 again. However, he said the prime minister had told him that he first wanted to “put hay in the loft” and join the international speaking circuit, where he could earn more than a million pounds a year.
Johnson is said to fear that parliament’s investigation of whether he misled MPs over the No 10 parties scandal will be used by critics to end his political career.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-final-bid-clear-name-over-no-10-parties-95c283fj8
"She held that [Bangladeshi] citizenship as of right. The citizenship was not in the gift of the government, and could not be denied by the government in any circumstances".
And yet this is the British government removing British citizenship which is theirs by right and is absolutely the gift of the government. British exceptionalism - do as we say not as we do.
So that Michigan abortion rights petition, the one that deadlocked the election board because of no spaces between some words?
Turns out spaces are there electronically, but for some reason don’t display on official copy.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CitizenCohn/status/1565672117324111873
It looks, unless the SIAC has read Bangladeshi law very wrong that in fact it is the Gov't of Bangladesh playing politics here rather than following their own law.
Did Begum have Bangladeshi citizenship at the time of the Home Secretary's decision? The SIAC goes into this and says she did.
Should the Home Secretary have this power? That's a complicated question, and its one that they have long had. I thought that the decision had been made under statute passed by Tony Blair, but reading from the SIAC judgment it seems it was under a 1981 statute, so very well established law.
Perhaps the law should be changed to remove this power from the Home Secretary. If so that would require Parliament to change the law, and if it does change the law it should not change it retrospectively.
Whoever didn't get in first, is stuck with her. Clearly Bangladesh is annoyed we beat them to the punch.
If Bangladesh subsequently changed the law, that is not the British governments problem (in law). The question is whether Begum was a Bangladeshi citizen when British citizenship was withdrawn.
The unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 3.7 percent, according to a monthly jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, with 344,000 more people unemployed than the previous month.
. . .
Inflation rose 8.5 percent in July compared with the previous year, while wages rose by only 5.2 percent during the same period."
source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/02/august-jobs-report/
There are about two open jobs for every job seeker.
The Home Secretary has the power to remove citizenship following the procedures of the British Nationality Act 1981, which were followed, not by press release.
Unless the Bangladeshi Government had removed her citizenship under an equivalent of the BNA, and unless they'd done so before the Home Secretary removed her citizenship, then she had Bangladeshi citizenship at the time of the decision.
The law is the law, not press releases.
Hair transplant?
Maybe half the non-turned-out percentage for sortition in the Commons and the non-turned-out percentage for sortition in the Lords.
From last time, it'd be 16.4% for the Commons and 32.7% for the Lords.
Highest sortition level would have been 20.3% in the Commons in 2001 and 40.6% in the Lords.
Give the parties incentive to boost turnout (fewer to have to convince) and a need for positive campaigning instead of negative.
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
But I wonder how far the IAEA report will actually go - the fact that they're keeping a mission there permanently may be what matters. If the net outcome is that the Russians don't base offensive weapons there (whether they did before or not) and the Ukrainians don't shell it (ditto), that's probably a good thing regardless of the rights and wrongs of the claims - an example of a UN agency using its neutrality effectively.
Again, we cannot compel another sovereign state to interpret their laws the way we want. We may very well say "she is Bangladeshi" and pull up part of a 60 year old law to back it up. And they can pull up the more recent changes to their law and say "no". Are we really saying the Bangladeshi government is wrong in how it interprets Bangladeshi law? And would we accept the same in reverse where we find ourselves compelled to take someone who we do not accept is British?
Governments regularly, of course, receive legal advice to try to ensure its decisions are lawful and to defend challenges from those who claim they aren't.
But that just isn't the situation. This has absolutely nothing to do with Government decisions. Johnson is facing a House of Commons disciplinary process into things he personally said in the Chamber, and their somewhat strained relationship with reality.
If any of us was facing a disciplinary process at work, we might quite fancy getting some legal advice on the lawfulness of the process, options for challenging the outcome and so on. But if we do, we might be able to get help from a trade union or whatever, but our employer is highly unlikely to be paying up front for that (if we won there might be an issue of them covering reasonable costs but it certainly isn't the starting point). If we went to our employer and asked them to pay for our lawyer, they'd laugh. If we said it was Lord Pannick QC they'd fall off their chair.
I can't see any justification whatsoever for the Cabinet Office (and ultimately us) paying for this advice. In light of Legal Aid cuts, it's absolutely taking the p1ss that the PM gets a personal exemption at our expense. Particularly given Pannick is, shall we say, at the very top end of the market and his invoice will basically read "Three metric f***tons of cash plus VAT - pls pay within 14 days".
Arguing that the Government broke the law when they broke the law was relatively easy.
Arguing that BoZo didn't, when he did, is harder.
Under Pharm principles, it is de jure that matters even if the foreign country is de facto breaking its own laws. Even if de facto the foreign country's courts are de facto breaking them too. The courts in this country follow the de jure rule of law, and de jure the finding is that she was a citizen.
We can't compel Bangladesh to follow the rule of law, but we do expect our own courts to do so.
It's an interesting idea and perhaps next time TSE feels the need to write another thread about AV we could raise this as a discussion point.
https://twitter.com/carlgardner/status/1565680024711299072
not cabinet office, private solrs instructed on behalf of fatboi
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
If the law was retrospectively changed then that was Bangladesh making her stateless, since the UK's decision was taken first and is based in law upon whether or not she held citizenship at the time, which she did.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?