Ian Austin MP says he is going to make a decision by Friday about whether to resign the Labour whip. Wonder if there's going to be a second wave of Labour MPs going TIG?
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
No I for one won't. Even if legal it's the wrong decision and done just to make Javid look good in the eyes of the Tories - I bet he even had his special power stance trousers one when he made the decision. She is our responsibility and we should deal with her.
I know we rarely agree on much but on this i think you are absolutely correct both morally and practically. This is morally the wrong decision and it sets a very real and dangerous precedent which could affect hundreds of thousands of Britons from immigrant origins. Extremely bad in all ways.
Surely it is not a precedent since it is already an established power of the Home Secretary? I grant I am not a lawyer by any means, but the concerns about the morality of the decision regardless of its legality seem much more profound that the worry over precedent, since unless I am missing something what precedent is being set that did not already exist apparently?
I am referring to the way in which it is being interpreted. As far as I am aware all previous cases have involved people with definite dual nationality, not those who might be able to obtain it if they subsequently applied for it. That is the precedent I believe Javid is setting which if legal then sucks hundreds of thousands of Britons into the net.
Edit. Separately I also disagree in principle with us shirking our responsibilities for our citizens who commit crimes and dumping them on other countries.
Ian Austin MP says he is going to make a decision by Friday about whether to resign the Labour whip. Wonder if there's going to be a second wave of Labour MPs going TIG?
The power to remove British citizenship was introduced by s40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. It has been amended 5 times. Currently s40 (4A) provides: "But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if— (a) the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation, (b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and (c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory."
It occurs to me that this woman would very probably be entitled to Syrian nationality as a result of her being married to a Syrian and having had 3 children by him. If so, then it seems to me that the Home Secretary could make such an order.
In Aziz and others-v-Secretary of state last year citizenship was removed from a number of men convicted of child grooming offences who had dual UK and Pakistani nationality. Their appeals were unsuccessful.
The Crown retains the right to determine who is or is not a Subject effectively. As long as they are not made stateless. Or have I missed something?
I think that there would have to be a proper basis for concluding that continued citizenship was "seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom." But that doesn't seem a particular hurdle in this case.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
The criteria need to be met. Home Secretary needs to be convinced that:
(A) it would be conducive to the public good
(B) she has acted in a manner prejudicial to British interests
C) she has a right to another nationality
I think he should be able to build a case provided that he has done the legwork
C) is very contentious. Means that British citizens who were born abroad (maybe even second generation migrants) are second class citizens. Awful but quite typical of the Tories.
Sajid Javid is a right-wing nasty c*nt!
A Labour government of 13 years saw no reason to amend this legislation apparently. I do not know how often they ever used it though. But with such a long period to remove what does look like a very general set of rules for removing citizenship, I find it hard to see it as simply 'typical of the Tories'. I have a suspicion that all Home Secretary's found the idea of diminishing their own power once in office to be, shall we say, not a priority.
It has been amended 5 times. Such amendments frequently arise from a reversal in the courts. But the use of the legislation is not that uncommon. Westlaw has about 45 cases where it has been used over the years.
Amend to remove the power entirely was what I meant.
According to this, “a child born of a Bangladeshi father becomes Bangladesh national ipso facto at birth, irrespective of whether the child is born at home or abroad”
How reliable is this source though? And was her Dad a Bangladeshi national?
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
The commission found that Bangladeshi law required them to apply to retain their citizenship at 21, but they failed to do so and were left with only British nationality.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him could be a major problem for him.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Another thing I don't get - who is un-selfconscious enough to not realise that tweet might cause trouble, but self conscious enough to realise a few minutes later they should delete it (of self conscious enough to recognise the criticism they got for it and decide to react to that)?
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him could be a major problem for him.
I don't think he can lose - if it is overturned then public ire will be directed (unfairly, but that's life) at the Immigration Tribunal, not Javid.
The Daily Mail's 'most liked' comment now has 33,000 likes - put on 5,000 in 20 minutes.
Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Could a person be deprived of his status as a British citizen on the basis that he had repudiated his obligation of loyalty? Yes. The right to nationality was an important and weighty right. It was properly described as the right to have other rights, such as the right to reside in the country of residence and to consular protection. That right carried obligations: it derived from feudal law where the obligation of the liege was to protect, and the obligation of the subject was to be faithful
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him could be a major problem for him.
I don't think he can lose - if it is overturned then public ire will be directed (unfairly, but that's life) at the Immigration Tribunal, not Javid.
The Daily Mail's 'most liked' comment now has 33,000 likes - put on 5,000 in 20 minutes.
Fair point. And as RoyalBlue notes he can use it as a pitch for what he would do as leader. Perhaps it is smart politics no matter if legal or not (currently). But I will think less of him if it is not.
Another thing I don't get - who is un-selfconscious enough to not realise that tweet might cause trouble, but self conscious enough to realise a few minutes later they should delete it (of self conscious enough to recognise the criticism they got for it and decide to react to that)?
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?
All that matters is whether her legal rights have been infringed.
I agree. I find the youth argument unconvincing since she was plenty old enough to be responsible for her actions, and she apparently would be content things stayed as they were had ISIS not been defeated. The baby is an issue here. But the decision so long as legal I don't have a problem with, even though I'd prefer politicians not have such a power by themselves.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Could a person be deprived of his status as a British citizen on the basis that he had repudiated his obligation of loyalty? Yes. The right to nationality was an important and weighty right. It was properly described as the right to have other rights, such as the right to reside in the country of residence and to consular protection. That right carried obligations: it derived from feudal law where the obligation of the liege was to protect, and the obligation of the subject was to be faithful
Technically he's correct because most of the people who dislike Corbyn are leaving the party, which means the percentage who approve of him is always going up.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
NO.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him could be a major problem for him.
I don't think he can lose - if it is overturned then public ire will be directed (unfairly, but that's life) at the Immigration Tribunal, not Javid.
The Daily Mail's 'most liked' comment now has 33,000 likes - put on 5,000 in 20 minutes.
Fair point. And as RoyalBlue notes he can use it as a pitch for what he would do as leader. Perhaps it is smart politics no matter if legal or not (currently). But I will think less of him if it is not.
Ok, seriously, how could the presented not just call him an outright liar if he said that? It cannot possibly be true.
In CW's view the party is the Membership.
Have been surprised how the right wingers in my CLP have been more critical of the splitters than me. In that respect my CLP is more United than for ages.
What happened to Chris Williamson? Didn't someone on here say he seemed quite sensible until 2015? I know losing a seat is tough, and he is jolly grateful to Corbyn for helping win it back, but still.
Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
I agree.
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.
She might be entitled to Dutch citizenship through her husband.
She might be. All a bit sketchy isn’t it? Given she grew up here, was brainwashed as a child and is now, um, all of 18 years old, with a young child, do you not think we have a responsibility as a country to deal with this, rather than go after cheap headlines in the gutter press?
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left.
Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
NO.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.
They can. The 2 Ian's and Dame Margaret next in line.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
NO.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.
They can. The 2 Ian's and Dame Margaret next in line.
It's remarkable that there seems to have been little consideration the possibility that Ms Begum was actually a combatant. Based on the public news she appears to have knowingly gone to join an organisation and after that did what exactly? Sit at home?
I thought her while thing was that she married a jihad enthusiast so potentially yes, I guess ISIS were not feminist and housework is a lot harder if you have shitty infrastructure and domestic tech.
But it's kind of ridiculous to be having this conversation without actually knowing about this person's situation.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left.
If it's popular it must by definition be wrong, according to the Guardian-reading classes.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Why don't you engage in the debate instead of the patronising manner you bring to every thread.
Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
The criteria need to be met. Home Secretary needs to be convinced that:
(A) it would be conducive to the public good
she has acted in a manner prejudicial to British interests
C) she has a right to another nationality
I think he should be able to build a case provided that he has done the legwork
That she has the right or that she actually has it? I just went and looked at the rules for dual nationality for Bangladesh and it is not something she would automatically have. She would have to have applied for it and been accepted.
If Javid is claiming it is only necessary for someone to have the right to apply then every single Briton of Bangladeshi descent could be stripped of their British nationality on the whim of the Home Secretary.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?
All that matters is whether her legal rights have been infringed.
I agree. I find the youth argument unconvincing since she was plenty old enough to be responsible for her actions, and she apparently would be content things stayed as they were had ISIS not been defeated. The baby is an issue here. But the decision so long as legal I don't have a problem with, even though I'd prefer politicians not have such a power by themselves.
Conversely, someone may have a moral claim on this country, even if they do not have a legal claim. A foreign national who has fought for us, for example, and is in danger in his own country, as a result.
It's unreasonable to argue (a) that the rule of law must apply, but (b) if the law favours the government, we have a moral obligation anyway to this woman.
Ask the head of automotive research at CLSA in Tokyo. He said it was because of Brexit.
Ask the guy from Honda who said
"This is not a Brexit-related issue for us.”
And I have a bridge to sell you.
And since when did Hodges become all 'if someone says something it must be true'? This is the guy who was going to write a book on the scandal of Pleb-gate.
Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
I agree.
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.
She might be entitled to Dutch citizenship through her husband.
She might be. All a bit sketchy isn’t it? Given she grew up here, was brainwashed as a child and is now, um, all of 18 years old, with a young child, do you not think we have a responsibility as a country to deal with this, rather than go after cheap headlines in the gutter press?
If page 8 of this book is reliable, she is a Bangladeshi citizen if her father was. Jus Sanguinis
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?
No, I'm saying a fair trial in the UK might not be practical.
Ask the head of automotive research at CLSA in Tokyo. He said it was because of Brexit.
Ask the guy from Honda who said
"This is not a Brexit-related issue for us.”
And I have a bridge to sell you.
And since when did Hodges become all 'if someone says something it must be true'? This is the guy who was going to write a book on the scandal of Pleb-gate.
But i'm not using Hodges as my primary source... just some senior guy from Honda.....
Ask the head of automotive research at CLSA in Tokyo. He said it was because of Brexit.
Is Credit Lyonaisse still a thing?!
I’ll go with the statement from Honda thanks
I don't think CLSA has anything to do with Credit Lyonnaise anymore. They bought themselves out about 20 years ago, and basically became of the better Asian focused research shops. Their chief strategist is (or was) highly entertaining. (Albeit you would have literally lost ALL your money if you'd paid any attention to his advice.)
Edit to add: did the analyst say Honda (or its IR person) had said Brexit was a factor? If so, then I would be staggered if he were lying. That would be a firing offence at almost any firm. I think the most truth is that he said Brexit was *a* factor, which is almost certainly true. But that doesn't tell you whether it was a 2% factor or a 92% one.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?
How it would work? She would arrive at LHR The Met would have been tipped off by the airline and will be there to meet her. The child would be taken into the custody of Social Services She would be taken into custody She would be indicted for various crimes A magistrate would decide whether bail was in order or not, If it were then control orders would be implemented There would be a trial She would - I suspect - be convicted She would be imprisoned She would serve her sentence
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
The real mystery is why Dan Hodges is the go to guy for an opinion about every topic under the sun. What does he know about Japanese automotive companies?
Edit on Honda. The presumably Leaver MP for Swindon was crass and lacked empathy when he rushed to tweet the closure decision had nothing to do with Brexit with no apparent concern for his constituents being thrown out of a job.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left.
Engage with the debate instead of throwing around cheesy alt-right slogans, would be my advice.
The real mystery is why Dan Hodges is the go to guy for an opinion about every topic under the sun. What does he know about Japanese automotive companies?
Same might be asked about Honda executives it seems.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Maybe not. I'm open to that argument. But let's not have the bogus ones.
Edit: Having said that, if the power is to exist, this looks like an absolutely reasonable application of it, assuming the legal criteria are met.
The real mystery is why Dan Hodges is the go to guy for an opinion about every topic under the sun. What does he know about Japanese automotive companies?
Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
NO.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.
They can. The 2 Ian's and Dame Margaret next in line.
I thought Hodge had firmly rejected the idea?
She will go IMO.
Ian Austin Ian Murray tomorrow and Thursday.
I have a CLP meeting Friday Hope to see Toby at it.
This is damaging my already remote chances of becoming a Councillor in May.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Perhaps not. But that's not a question able to be asked of a court I would imagine. Which political parties will take up the cause? Labour and the Tories have not, to date. The LDs might, I suppose and were just unwilling or unable to take it up during the coalition years.
Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
NO.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.
They can. The 2 Ian's and Dame Margaret next in line.
I thought Hodge had firmly rejected the idea?
She will go IMO.
Ian Austin Ian Murray tomorrow and Thursday.
I have a CLP meeting Friday Hope to see Toby at it.
This is damaging my already remote chances of becoming a Councillor in May.
Found out the ex LD MP is standing against me.
Good luck in the election! Brave.. and perhaps foolish
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Why don't you engage in the debate instead of the patronising manner you bring to every thread.
I have already written several posts on the matter, they are there for you to read with your own eyes.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him could be a major problem for him.
I don't think he can lose - if it is overturned then public ire will be directed (unfairly, but that's life) at the Immigration Tribunal, not Javid.
The Daily Mail's 'most liked' comment now has 33,000 likes - put on 5,000 in 20 minutes.
Fair point. And as RoyalBlue notes he can use it as a pitch for what he would do as leader. Perhaps it is smart politics no matter if legal or not (currently). But I will think less of him if it is not.
Ok, seriously, how could the presented not just call him an outright liar if he said that? It cannot possibly be true.
In CW's view the party is the Membership.
Have been surprised how the right wingers in my CLP have been more critical of the splitters than me. In that respect my CLP is more United than for ages.
Are there never arguments over foreign policy at meetings?
Ryan said in her dear jez note left on mantelpiece the anti semitism never existed in Labour until Corbyns leadership. Has he emboldened something already there? Imported it with entryism? Merely shifted Israel policy to not recognising it as a legitimate state to kick off the hoo hah?
What is Labours current policy towards Israel bigjohn, has it changed since 2015
Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
NO.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.
They can. The 2 Ian's and Dame Margaret next in line.
I thought Hodge had firmly rejected the idea?
This is damaging my already remote chances of becoming a Councillor in May.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left.
If it's popular it must by definition be wrong, according to the Guardian-reading classes.
Nope. And Eagles and Richard Tyndall are hardly raging leftwingers.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left.
If it's popular it must by definition be wrong, according to the Guardian-reading classes.
Nope. And Eagles and Richard Tyndall are hardly raging leftwingers.
They didn't cite the popularity of the measure as a reason to object to it, as you did.
The real mystery is why Dan Hodges is the go to guy for an opinion about every topic under the sun. What does he know about Japanese automotive companies?
Same might be asked about Honda executives it seems.
Oh I don't think so. They have no incentive to pick fights with their Civic driving target customer profile .
Or indeed with their soon to be sacked workforce that will be split be between appalled Remainers and embarrassed Leavers.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?
How it would work? She would arrive at LHR The Met would have been tipped off by the airline and will be there to meet her. The child would be taken into the custody of Social Services She would be taken into custody She would be indicted for various crimes A magistrate would decide whether bail was in order or not, If it were then control orders would be implemented There would be a trial She would - I suspect - be convicted She would be imprisoned She would serve her sentence
Does this explain it enough for you?
Nothing there I disagree with. Perhaps others on here need it explaining however.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Perhaps not. But that's not a question able to be asked of a court I would imagine. Which political parties will take up the cause? Labour and the Tories have not, to date. The LDs might, I suppose and were just unwilling or unable to take it up during the coalition years.
I think the Home Secretary can do it legally. I meant maybe he shouldn't have that legal power.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Maybe not. I'm open to that argument. But let's not have the bogus ones.
Edit: Having said that, if the power is to exist, this looks like an absolutely reasonable application of it, assuming the legal criteria are met.
4. She’s being made a special case because she’s a media star and her mouth is box office. Greater risks have come back for de programming without the same action against them.
5. Javids motives are driven by appealing to a narrow constituency of media and party members who will pick the next Tory leader. Since the times began pushing this he’s had sleepless nights about his leadership chances and shat himself at least once whilst sat at his desk in his office.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?
No, I'm saying a fair trial in the UK might not be practical.
It will be as practical as any other in the same field.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left.
If it's popular it must by definition be wrong, according to the Guardian-reading classes.
Nope. And Eagles and Richard Tyndall are hardly raging leftwingers.
They didn't cite the popularity of the measure as a reason to object to it, as you did.
Nope, wrong again. I merely said that its popularity was not in question, and that the fact it is popular doesn’t make it right.
It's remarkable that there seems to have been little consideration the possibility that Ms Begum was actually a combatant. Based on the public news she appears to have knowingly gone to join an organisation and after that did what exactly? Sit at home?
I thought her while thing was that she married a jihad enthusiast so potentially yes, I guess ISIS were not feminist and housework is a lot harder if you have shitty infrastructure and domestic tech.
But it's kind of ridiculous to be having this conversation without actually knowing about this person's situation.
No less ridiculous than the debate around whether the Home Secretary just fancies a good headline. That she could have been a combatant who assisted in the IS effort in an active form should be considered. If she was, it will come out
As an aside, for those who think the EU-Japan trade deal is solely responsible for the closure of Swindon and/or for the Nissan decision re the Xtrail, it is worth remembering that the EU is only slowly lowering the tariffs on cars imported from Japan. They decline at 1% per year, so in 2021, will still be 6-7%.
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him uld do as leader. Perhaps it is smart politics no matter if legal or not (currently). But I will think less of him if it is not.
Ok, seriously, how could the presented not just call him an outright liar if he said that? It cannot possibly be true.
In CW's view the party is the Membership.
Have been surprised how the right wingers in my CLP have been more critical of the splitters than me. In that respect my CLP is more United than for ages.
Are there never arguments over foreign policy at meetings?
Ryan said in her dear jez note left on mantelpiece the anti semitism never existed in Labour until Corbyns leadership. Has he emboldened something already there? Imported it with entryism? Merely shifted Israel policy to not recognising it as a legitimate state to kick off the hoo hah?
What is Labours current policy towards Israel bigjohn, has it changed since 2015
It hasn't changed.
Blair Campbell had some horrendous AS trope posters in their time. Look up flying pig and Fagin campaign poster campaign.
Foreign policy only argument I remember was over Toby not supporting Labour's Saudi Arabia arms motion.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left.
If it's popular it must by definition be wrong, according to the Guardian-reading classes.
Nope. And Eagles and Richard Tyndall are hardly raging leftwingers.
They are to varying degree fairly extreme liberals though, which is more relevant than left-right.
Most people understand it is right that in extreme circumstances a state should have the ability to rescind the rights and obligations of citizenship. If you argue that this isn't one of those cases then you must believe there isn't any case, which is an extremist position.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Perhaps not. But that's not a question able to be asked of a court I would imagine. Which political parties will take up the cause? Labour and the Tories have not, to date. The LDs might, I suppose and were just unwilling or unable to take it up during the coalition years.
I think the Home Secretary can do it legally. I meant maybe he shouldn't have that legal power.
I know, that was my point. Which political party is going to stand up and suggest the power should be removed? Current Labour is different than it was, maybe Corbyn has a different take on it than Labour did while they were in power before.
Comments
Edit. Separately I also disagree in principle with us shirking our responsibilities for our citizens who commit crimes and dumping them on other countries.
How reliable is this source though? And was her Dad a Bangladeshi national?
Page 8 Part 6
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H1ecjepq80QC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Bangladeshi+Citizenship+Law+of+1982&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
The commission found that Bangladeshi law required them to apply to retain their citizenship at 21, but they failed to do so and were left with only British nationality.
Isis Bride is 19.
https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/foreign-affairs/2019/01/27/uk-praises-bangladesh-s-achievements-amazing-development-stories
Things can't be that bad in Bangladesh if this report is true.
He has played this brilliantly. This happens to be an issue where the PB centre ground is some distance from the public’s centre ground.
I look forward to the opinion polling on this.
I'm sure Labour will take this extremely seriously .....
The Daily Mail's 'most liked' comment now has 33,000 likes - put on 5,000 in 20 minutes.
Absolutely bonkers.
All that matters is whether her legal rights have been infringed.
Could a person be deprived of his status as a British citizen on the basis that he had repudiated his obligation of loyalty? Yes. The right to nationality was an important and weighty right. It was properly described as the right to have other rights, such as the right to reside in the country of residence and to consular protection. That right carried obligations: it derived from feudal law where the obligation of the liege was to protect, and the obligation of the subject was to be faithful
"This is not a Brexit-related issue for us.”
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Have been surprised how the right wingers in my CLP have been more critical of the splitters than me. In that respect my CLP is more United than for ages.
But it's kind of ridiculous to be having this conversation without actually knowing about this person's situation.
*again
It's unreasonable to argue (a) that the rule of law must apply, but (b) if the law favours the government, we have a moral obligation anyway to this woman.
I’ll go with the statement from Honda thanks
If page 8 of this book is reliable, she is a Bangladeshi citizen if her father was. Jus Sanguinis
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H1ecjepq80QC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Bangladeshi+Citizenship+Law+of+1982&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Apparently TOPPING just knows he is lying
Edit to add: did the analyst say Honda (or its IR person) had said Brexit was a factor? If so, then I would be staggered if he were lying. That would be a firing offence at almost any firm. I think the most truth is that he said Brexit was *a* factor, which is almost certainly true. But that doesn't tell you whether it was a 2% factor or a 92% one.
She would arrive at LHR
The Met would have been tipped off by the airline and will be there to meet her.
The child would be taken into the custody of Social Services
She would be taken into custody
She would be indicted for various crimes
A magistrate would decide whether bail was in order or not, If it were then control orders would be implemented
There would be a trial
She would - I suspect - be convicted
She would be imprisoned
She would serve her sentence
Does this explain it enough for you?
Edit on Honda. The presumably Leaver MP for Swindon was crass and lacked empathy when he rushed to tweet the closure decision had nothing to do with Brexit with no apparent concern for his constituents being thrown out of a job.
Edit: Having said that, if the power is to exist, this looks like an absolutely reasonable application of it, assuming the legal criteria are met.
Ian Austin Ian Murray tomorrow and Thursday.
I have a CLP meeting Friday Hope to see Toby at it.
This is damaging my already remote chances of becoming a Councillor in May.
Found out the ex LD MP is standing against me.
I have already written several posts on the matter, they are there for you to read with your own eyes.
Ryan said in her dear jez note left on mantelpiece the anti semitism never existed in Labour until Corbyns leadership. Has he emboldened something already there? Imported it with entryism? Merely shifted Israel policy to not recognising it as a legitimate state to kick off the hoo hah?
What is Labours current policy towards Israel bigjohn, has it changed since 2015
Or indeed with their soon to be sacked workforce that will be split be between appalled Remainers and embarrassed Leavers.
Yes, as several people have noted quite clearly, it will be popular. So what?
"global market trends" is Honda marketing speak for "you guys are fucking insane"
5. Javids motives are driven by appealing to a narrow constituency of media and party members who will pick the next Tory leader. Since the times began pushing this he’s had sleepless nights about his leadership chances and shat himself at least once whilst sat at his desk in his office.
It will be as practical as any other in the same field.
Most people understand it is right that in extreme circumstances a state should have the ability to rescind the rights and obligations of citizenship. If you argue that this isn't one of those cases then you must believe there isn't any case, which is an extremist position.