I think you would struggle to find many normal people who consider the Tiggers extremists, but whatever gets you through the night.
I don't think so at all.
Wanting to reverse the 2016 referendum result through any means necessary which is the Tiggers position absolutely is an extremist position. Even to the point of rejecting a deal while supposedly being against no deal.
Just because they're not extremists on antisemitism doesn't mean they're not extremists on Brexit.
Keep taking the pills.
The fact you can't argue with my logic so are turning to ad hominems instead says more about you than me.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. - Greatest PM since Churchill. Though pills isn't particularly wounding, it is a lame personal rather than political attack.
What's extreme about wanting to give the people of the UK a vote on something?
Nothing, that's what general elections are for. It took decades of people campaigning for votes before we had the EU referendum, now we need to implement that votes decision.
Not wanting any deal and not wanting no deal either is an extremist position.
We had a general election, and May’s attempt to get a majority for her Brexit was humiliatingly defeated.
When will Brexiters understand how democracy works?
Surely Liam will have to resign. The Faeroe Islands are all very well, but the explicit promise of Brexit was that absolutely nothing would be worse than it now is, many things would be better and we'd be paid millions for the privilege. I'm not yet seeing it.
You assume that those trade deals are beneficial to the UK.
You might be right. Trade deals are a mug's game. Let's not have any.
Wait, I thought the views of expats were irrelevant?
We need to take into account those of a childlike disposition who have left our shores, have been indoctrinated, are virtually helpless, have no valid opinions about anything, and need rehabilitation.
Wait, I thought the views of expats were irrelevant?
We need to take into account those of a childlike disposition who have left our shores, have been indoctrinated, are virtually helpless, have no valid opinions about anything, and need rehabilitation.
Wait, I thought the views of expats were irrelevant?
We need to take into account those of a childlike disposition who have left our shores, have been indoctrinated, are virtually helpless, have no valid opinions about anything, and need rehabilitation.
Plus we should look after Shamima also.
What's the problem - don't you want these people at her age to be able to vote and chose the next Government of the UK?
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
Fairly predictable but will go down like a lead balloon with the voters who backed the Home Secretary by 78%
Wait till the courts intervene. It may be another 'Enemies of the People' Daily Mail moment. The suggestion that somehow this is Bangladesh's problem is just a moral outrage. One time in a hundred JC is right. He is right now if he suggests that this is our issue to resolve with justice and not a Bangladesh issue.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
From the Standard link: Mr Sands added: “The real question is one of fact and law: was she by this act going to be made stateless and the answer to that seems crystal clear.
“She may be entitled to apply for Bangladeshi nationality but presently she does not appear to have Bangladeshi nationality and there’s a cardinal distinction between the two.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
From the Standard link: Mr Sands added: “The real question is one of fact and law: was she by this act going to be made stateless and the answer to that seems crystal clear.
“She may be entitled to apply for Bangladeshi nationality but presently she does not appear to have Bangladeshi nationality and there’s a cardinal distinction between the two.
Yes - that's the part which I find difficult to reconcile. The legal provisions quoted speak of people having citizenship, not an entitlement to apply for citizenship.
Wait, I thought the views of expats were irrelevant?
We need to take into account those of a childlike disposition who have left our shores, have been indoctrinated, are virtually helpless, have no valid opinions about anything, and need rehabilitation.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
Of course Philippe Sands is right. At least this outrage can be appealed through the courts and the rule of law upheld. (Not to be confused with support for this girl, for whom I have none. In this country the age of criminal responsibility is 10. 15 year olds are perfectly well equipped to distinguish right from wrong and to understand that actions have consequences.)
Fairly predictable but will go down like a lead balloon with the voters who backed the Home Secretary by 78%
Wait till the courts intervene. It may be another 'Enemies of the People' Daily Mail moment. The suggestion that somehow this is Bangladesh's problem is just a moral outrage. One time in a hundred JC is right. He is right now if he suggests that this is our issue to resolve with justice and not a Bangladesh issue.
The public perception that he is siding with terrorists and their supporters against the vast majority of public opinion will just add to attitudes to him
Wait, I thought the views of expats were irrelevant?
We need to take into account those of a childlike disposition who have left our shores, have been indoctrinated, are virtually helpless, have no valid opinions about anything, and need rehabilitation.
Plus we should look after Shamima also.
What's the problem - don't you want these people at her age to be able to vote and chose the next Government of the UK?
Well depends where you draw the line. She is no longer a British citizen so, subject to appeal, the question is moot.
But more broadly, then if she has committed a crime, and serves a sentence for it, and ideally also undergoes rehabilitation, then yes, I do want her to vote and choose the next Government. Plenty of whackos out there who have stopped short of going to Syria to join IS who have the vote.
Or are you volunteering to choose who gets to vote?
Fairly predictable but will go down like a lead balloon with the voters who backed the Home Secretary by 78%
Wait till the courts intervene. It may be another 'Enemies of the People' Daily Mail moment. The suggestion that somehow this is Bangladesh's problem is just a moral outrage. One time in a hundred JC is right. He is right now if he suggests that this is our issue to resolve with justice and not a Bangladesh issue.
I was surprised to read yesterday that – despite all the reactionary flabber on here and elsewhere – this individual has never even visited Bangladesh. Yet somehow we are expecting them to deal with her, and her baby son.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
Labour’s candidate for Colchester, Tina McKay, has claimed that there is “evidence” Anti-Semitism is being used as a plot against Jeremy Corbyn. Commenting on an Essex University Labour Students post which decried Labour Party’s woeful record on dealing with anti-Semitism, McKay said she “would dispute” the student group’s claims that “Anti-semitism isn’t treated as a real issue.” She went on to say:
“There have been individuals who have said that it has been used as a plot, there is evidence of what they said being true.”
Fairly predictable but will go down like a lead balloon with the voters who backed the Home Secretary by 78%
Well this is the man who helped get an ISIS fundraiser out of jail so he could be at home for Christmas...
On the side of the many terrorists, not the few victims, should be Jezza motto...
But Muslims don't see Christmas as a big festival. Eid al Fitr is their important one. So what was the point of that?
Well exactly...and given Jezza's position he could have got the full info on what an absolute shit this guy was, but instead he still wrote a reference for him to aid his release.
But then this is a man who decided he didn't need to inform an MP that the party had received death threats about them. You know, it isn't like we haven't had attacks on MPs in the recent past or anything.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
Of course Philippe Sands is right. At least this outrage can be appealed through the courts and the rule of law upheld. (Not to be confused with support for this girl, for whom I have none. In this country the age of criminal responsibility is 10. 15 year olds are perfectly well equipped to distinguish right from wrong and to understand that actions have consequences.)
Although I agree with the thrust of your post, and accept the age of criminal responsibility in the UK, the UN sets the age of child soldiers at under 18.
Wait, I thought the views of expats were irrelevant?
We need to take into account those of a childlike disposition who have left our shores, have been indoctrinated, are virtually helpless, have no valid opinions about anything, and need rehabilitation.
Plus we should look after Shamima also.
What's the problem - don't you want these people at her age to be able to vote and chose the next Government of the UK?
Well depends where you draw the line. She is no longer a British citizen so, subject to appeal, the question is moot.
But more broadly, then if she has committed a crime, and serves a sentence for it, and ideally also undergoes rehabilitation, then yes, I do want her to vote and choose the next Government. Plenty of whackos out there who have stopped short of going to Syria to join IS who have the vote.
Or are you volunteering to choose who gets to vote?
As long as Laura Pidcock and Michael Fabricant both have the vote, there are no grounds of ability or sanity to deny anyone else who holds UK nationality the vote.
Wait, I thought the views of expats were irrelevant?
We need to take into account those of a childlike disposition who have left our shores, have been indoctrinated, are virtually helpless, have no valid opinions about anything, and need rehabilitation.
Plus we should look after Shamima also.
What's the problem - don't you want these people at her age to be able to vote and chose the next Government of the UK?
Well depends where you draw the line. She is no longer a British citizen so, subject to appeal, the question is moot.
But more broadly, then if she has committed a crime, and serves a sentence for it, and ideally also undergoes rehabilitation, then yes, I do want her to vote and choose the next Government. Plenty of whackos out there who have stopped short of going to Syria to join IS who have the vote.
Or are you volunteering to choose who gets to vote?
As long as Laura Pidcock and Michael Fabricant both have the vote, there are no grounds of ability or sanity to deny anyone else who holds UK nationality the vote.
The Countdown presenter Rachel Riley and former EastEnders actor Tracy Ann Oberman are preparing legal action against up to 70 individuals for tweets relating to their campaign against antisemitism in the Labour party, according to the pair’s lawyer.
Mark Lewis, who made his name representing phone-hacking victims, said he is contacting people who have either posted allegedly libellous claims about his clients or repeatedly sent them large numbers of messages, which he says is tantamount to harassment.
The lawyer also said he will go to court and force Twitter to release the details of individuals who made the contentious posts if users do not voluntarily comply with his request to provide formal contact details.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
Of course Philippe Sands is right. ...
Why, though?
Read what he has said and see if you can see what is wrong with it. I can't. I wonder whether the AG has given public support to this?..... There's a long way to run yet. BTW I don't see that we should lift a finger to get her home but that's another matter.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
Of course Philippe Sands is right. At least this outrage can be appealed through the courts and the rule of law upheld. (Not to be confused with support for this girl, for whom I have none. In this country the age of criminal responsibility is 10. 15 year olds are perfectly well equipped to distinguish right from wrong and to understand that actions have consequences.)
Why is Philippe Sands "of course" right?
The law as stated in prior equivalent cases and quoted on the BBC News page backs the Home Secretary. She is a citizen from birth sui generis until the age of 21 at which point it would lapse if not claimed. She's not 21 so its not lapsed.
"I am aware of the Government’s policy of detaining and prosecuting those British citizens travelling to fight in the current Middle East conflicts," he wrote. "I am writing to ask if you are aware of how many British citizens are currently fighting with, or are intending to join, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) in and around the Gaza Strip? Will you be making the necessary arrangements to assess the numbers involved?"
The letter, which was written in July 2014, at the height of Israel's war with terrorists in Gaza, went on to ask: "Will you be warning any British citizens considering engagement with the IDF that, in line with established British Government practice (e.g. the deprivation of British citizenship from, to date, at least 40 UK passport holders who have been involved in the Syrian civil war), such engagement may put their British citizenship in jeopardy?
"Given the seriousness of the current situation in Gaza and the apparent escalation of the Israeli attacks on Palestinians, I urge you to address these questions promptly so that any British citizen currently participating or planning to participate in these attacks is warned of the potential consequences and thus may be deterred from acting in this way."
Fairly predictable but will go down like a lead balloon with the voters who backed the Home Secretary by 78%
Wait till the courts intervene. It may be another 'Enemies of the People' Daily Mail moment. The suggestion that somehow this is Bangladesh's problem is just a moral outrage. One time in a hundred JC is right. He is right now if he suggests that this is our issue to resolve with justice and not a Bangladesh issue.
I was surprised to read yesterday that – despite all the reactionary flabber on here and elsewhere – this individual has never even visited Bangladesh. Yet somehow we are expecting them to deal with her, and her baby son.
This is why 'Moral outrage' is a proper description of this government's action in this case. I think there is a chance that it will come back to haunt them.
Wait, I thought the views of expats were irrelevant?
We need to take into account those of a childlike disposition who have left our shores, have been indoctrinated, are virtually helpless, have no valid opinions about anything, and need rehabilitation.
Plus we should look after Shamima also.
What's the problem - don't you want these people at her age to be able to vote and chose the next Government of the UK?
Well depends where you draw the line. She is no longer a British citizen so, subject to appeal, the question is moot.
But more broadly, then if she has committed a crime, and serves a sentence for it, and ideally also undergoes rehabilitation, then yes, I do want her to vote and choose the next Government. Plenty of whackos out there who have stopped short of going to Syria to join IS who have the vote.
Or are you volunteering to choose who gets to vote?
As long as Laura Pidcock and Michael Fabricant both have the vote, there are no grounds of ability or sanity to deny anyone else who holds UK nationality the vote.
Well, when you put it like that, one can see that Shamima has a reasonable chance of surpassing the threshold required to become an MP.
Surely Liam will have to resign. The Faeroe Islands are all very well, but the explicit promise of Brexit was that absolutely nothing would be worse than it now is, many things would be better and we'd be paid millions for the privilege. I'm not yet seeing it.
It's to Liam's credit that he's ensured a supply of Faroese whale meat for when Blitz Spirit II comes to pass.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
Of course Philippe Sands is right. At least this outrage can be appealed through the courts and the rule of law upheld. (Not to be confused with support for this girl, for whom I have none. In this country the age of criminal responsibility is 10. 15 year olds are perfectly well equipped to distinguish right from wrong and to understand that actions have consequences.)
Why is Philippe Sands "of course" right?
The law as stated in prior equivalent cases and quoted on the BBC News page backs the Home Secretary. She is a citizen from birth sui generis until the age of 21 at which point it would lapse if not claimed. She's not 21 so its not lapsed.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
Of course Philippe Sands is right. At least this outrage can be appealed through the courts and the rule of law upheld. (Not to be confused with support for this girl, for whom I have none. In this country the age of criminal responsibility is 10. 15 year olds are perfectly well equipped to distinguish right from wrong and to understand that actions have consequences.)
Why is Philippe Sands "of course" right?
The law as stated in prior equivalent cases and quoted on the BBC News page backs the Home Secretary. She is a citizen from birth sui generis until the age of 21 at which point it would lapse if not claimed. She's not 21 so its not lapsed.
What exactly makes it a Bangladeshi problem?
It's not a Bangladeshi problem. It's a Shamima Begum problem, a disagreeable consequence of her own vile actions.
"I am aware of the Government’s policy of detaining and prosecuting those British citizens travelling to fight in the current Middle East conflicts," he wrote. "I am writing to ask if you are aware of how many British citizens are currently fighting with, or are intending to join, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) in and around the Gaza Strip? Will you be making the necessary arrangements to assess the numbers involved?"
The letter, which was written in July 2014, at the height of Israel's war with terrorists in Gaza, went on to ask: "Will you be warning any British citizens considering engagement with the IDF that, in line with established British Government practice (e.g. the deprivation of British citizenship from, to date, at least 40 UK passport holders who have been involved in the Syrian civil war), such engagement may put their British citizenship in jeopardy?
"Given the seriousness of the current situation in Gaza and the apparent escalation of the Israeli attacks on Palestinians, I urge you to address these questions promptly so that any British citizen currently participating or planning to participate in these attacks is warned of the potential consequences and thus may be deterred from acting in this way."
"I am aware of the Government’s policy of detaining and prosecuting those British citizens travelling to fight in the current Middle East conflicts," he wrote. "I am writing to ask if you are aware of how many British citizens are currently fighting with, or are intending to join, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) in and around the Gaza Strip? Will you be making the necessary arrangements to assess the numbers involved?"
The letter, which was written in July 2014, at the height of Israel's war with terrorists in Gaza, went on to ask: "Will you be warning any British citizens considering engagement with the IDF that, in line with established British Government practice (e.g. the deprivation of British citizenship from, to date, at least 40 UK passport holders who have been involved in the Syrian civil war), such engagement may put their British citizenship in jeopardy?
"Given the seriousness of the current situation in Gaza and the apparent escalation of the Israeli attacks on Palestinians, I urge you to address these questions promptly so that any British citizen currently participating or planning to participate in these attacks is warned of the potential consequences and thus may be deterred from acting in this way."
Ex-Tory MP Heidi Allen told ITV's Peston programme "a third" of Tory MPs were fed up with the party's direction.
Given that people always overestimate their own support (this applies to everyone and isn't aimed at Heidi Allen), the notion that two-thirds of Tory MPs aren't fed up with the party's direction I find surprising under the circumstances.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
Of course Philippe Sands is right. At least this outrage can be appealed through the courts and the rule of law upheld. (Not to be confused with support for this girl, for whom I have none. In this country the age of criminal responsibility is 10. 15 year olds are perfectly well equipped to distinguish right from wrong and to understand that actions have consequences.)
Why is Philippe Sands "of course" right?
The law as stated in prior equivalent cases and quoted on the BBC News page backs the Home Secretary. She is a citizen from birth sui generis until the age of 21 at which point it would lapse if not claimed. She's not 21 so its not lapsed.
It looks like Javid has bungled by not giving her notice of the removal of citizenship. Assuming therefore that as a consequence she has it temporarily restored, there would then exist a window in which the Bangladeshi authorities could remove her citizenship of Bangladesh, then making a subsequent attempt from Javid to remove her citizenship in accordance with the law impossible. Messy.
Just seen someone on Sky News say by 2025 new homes shouldn't be on the gas grid.
I though gas boiled central heating was more efficient. Are we supposed to switch to electrical heating? Electric heating sucks in my experience.
Air source heat pumps. More efficient than a basic electric heating element.
Ground source heat pumps are more efficient, but ££££££ to install.
It apparently won't work nationwide without replacing the national grid
The gas network has 200 GW of capacity and it's this gas usage that ideally needs to end before 2050 The elec network has 8 GW spare capacity.
Huge problem whichever way you do it.
The best bet is probably electric heat pumps in the back of beyond - which shouldn't need new cables, as a lot of folk are on storage heaters and their demand would be reduced - and something like this in towns and cities
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
Of course Philippe Sands is right. ...
Why, though?
Read what he has said and see if you can see what is wrong with it. I can't. I wonder whether the AG has given public support to this?..... There's a long way to run yet. BTW I don't see that we should lift a finger to get her home but that's another matter.
Sees to be a very sausage like report ... with too much of all kinds of random baloney, plus a lot of motherhood and apple pie, with not enough ideas how to actually do anything.
Some of the stuff eg rainwater harvesting and GSHP, are noughties Broon style solutions - expensive and gimmicky ... now only viable in very niche cases.
And they want it done to all the new Houses between now and 2022. Have they the foggiest idea how long it takes to bring in new Building Regs or even get Planning Permission?
ASHP yes, but rather marginal under current building regs, never find that current building regs are horribly ineffectively enforced. Building Regs improvement needs to start by actually building to the existing ones, via things like every-unit rather than 1-in-20 inspection on new estates.
The low hanging fruit is the existing stock, working to regs, then following the Irish in increasing quality of build.
The elephant in the room is the energy efficiency of the owner occupied sector, which does not seem to be mentioned.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
From the Standard link: Mr Sands added: “The real question is one of fact and law: was she by this act going to be made stateless and the answer to that seems crystal clear.
“She may be entitled to apply for Bangladeshi nationality but presently she does not appear to have Bangladeshi nationality and there’s a cardinal distinction between the two.
He really should try reading the section of the Act. She does not need to have Bangladeshi citizenship. It is enough if she is eligible for it.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
From the Standard link: Mr Sands added: “The real question is one of fact and law: was she by this act going to be made stateless and the answer to that seems crystal clear.
“She may be entitled to apply for Bangladeshi nationality but presently she does not appear to have Bangladeshi nationality and there’s a cardinal distinction between the two.
He really should try reading the section of the Act. She does not need to have Bangladeshi citizenship. It is enough if she is eligible for it.
I am not a lawyer and haven't read up on this. But I think Mr Sands is saying the effect of the act, as it stands in law, would be to make this woman stateless.
Even if she is eligible for another nationality, the fact that she hasn't applied for it or got it, means that there is uncertainty regarding her status.
I assume that, for any number of legal reasons, the government cannot act in a way that makes someone stateless, which it is what it looks like will happen here.
"The row over the fate of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum escalated today as one of Britain’s top lawyers branded the Home Secretary’s decision to strip of her British citizenship “completely incompetent” and unlawful. Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
From the Standard link: Mr Sands added: “The real question is one of fact and law: was she by this act going to be made stateless and the answer to that seems crystal clear.
“She may be entitled to apply for Bangladeshi nationality but presently she does not appear to have Bangladeshi nationality and there’s a cardinal distinction between the two.
He really should try reading the section of the Act. She does not need to have Bangladeshi citizenship. It is enough if she is eligible for it.
This is the relevant part of the Act: (2)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good. ... (4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.
(4A)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.
The part about eligibility at the end applies only if the UK citizenship is from naturalisation.
That's why Sands says the distinction between having citizenship and being eligible to obtain it is important. But what I don't understand is why Sands thinks she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship already.
Comments
Plus we should look after Shamima also.
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/uk/uk-politics/next-mp-to-join-sit-with-independent-group/228137793/
*Stolen from Sir Edric.
Whereas the ERG, in their determination to break ties with the large landmass to our east, could be renamed the In-continent Gr... I'll get my coat.
Philippe Sands QC, an international human rights barrister from London’s Matrix chambers, said that it appeared “crystal clear” that 19-year-old Ms Begum had been made stateless by Mr Javid’s actions and did not hold Bangladeshi citizenship as the Home Office claimed."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/shamima-begum-latest-top-human-rights-lawyer-blasts-decision-to-strip-isis-bride-of-her-citizenship-a4072781.html
A bit difficult to see how that point of view is consistent with the provisions of Bangladeshi law quoted in previous cases.
“She may be entitled to apply for Bangladeshi nationality but presently she does not appear to have Bangladeshi nationality and there’s a cardinal distinction between the two.
Of course Philippe Sands is right. At least this outrage can be appealed through the courts and the rule of law upheld. (Not to be confused with support for this girl, for whom I have none. In this country the age of criminal responsibility is 10. 15 year olds are perfectly well equipped to distinguish right from wrong and to understand that actions have consequences.)
.....or as it will turn out, perhaps not.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/feb/20/west-indies-england-first-odi-match-report#img-1
But more broadly, then if she has committed a crime, and serves a sentence for it, and ideally also undergoes rehabilitation, then yes, I do want her to vote and choose the next Government. Plenty of whackos out there who have stopped short of going to Syria to join IS who have the vote.
Or are you volunteering to choose who gets to vote?
On the side of the many terrorists, not the few victims, should be Jezza motto...
“There have been individuals who have said that it has been used as a plot, there is evidence of what they said being true.”
https://order-order.com/2019/02/21/labour-candidate-claims-anti-semistism-used-anti-corbyn-plot/
But then this is a man who decided he didn't need to inform an MP that the party had received death threats about them. You know, it isn't like we haven't had attacks on MPs in the recent past or anything.
https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/ending-the-use-of-child-soldiers/
Mark Lewis, who made his name representing phone-hacking victims, said he is contacting people who have either posted allegedly libellous claims about his clients or repeatedly sent them large numbers of messages, which he says is tantamount to harassment.
The lawyer also said he will go to court and force Twitter to release the details of individuals who made the contentious posts if users do not voluntarily comply with his request to provide formal contact details.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/21/rachel-riley-and-tracy-ann-oberman-to-take-legal-action-after-twitter-abuse-antisemitism
Read what he has said and see if you can see what is wrong with it. I can't. I wonder whether the AG has given public support to this?..... There's a long way to run yet. BTW I don't see that we should lift a finger to get her home but that's another matter.
The law as stated in prior equivalent cases and quoted on the BBC News page backs the Home Secretary. She is a citizen from birth sui generis until the age of 21 at which point it would lapse if not claimed. She's not 21 so its not lapsed.
"I am aware of the Government’s policy of detaining and prosecuting those British citizens travelling to fight in the current Middle East conflicts," he wrote. "I am writing to ask if you are aware of how many British citizens are currently fighting with, or are intending to join, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) in and around the Gaza Strip? Will you be making the necessary arrangements to assess the numbers involved?"
The letter, which was written in July 2014, at the height of Israel's war with terrorists in Gaza, went on to ask: "Will you be warning any British citizens considering engagement with the IDF that, in line with established British Government practice (e.g. the deprivation of British citizenship from, to date, at least 40 UK passport holders who have been involved in the Syrian civil war), such engagement may put their British citizenship in jeopardy?
"Given the seriousness of the current situation in Gaza and the apparent escalation of the Israeli attacks on Palestinians, I urge you to address these questions promptly so that any British citizen currently participating or planning to participate in these attacks is warned of the potential consequences and thus may be deterred from acting in this way."
The one thing that will burst TIGs balloon is if only a small handfall now join them
NEW THREAD
Ex-Tory MP Heidi Allen told ITV's Peston programme "a third" of Tory MPs were fed up with the party's direction.
Given that people always overestimate their own support (this applies to everyone and isn't aimed at Heidi Allen), the notion that two-thirds of Tory MPs aren't fed up with the party's direction I find surprising under the circumstances.
http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf
The point is that they speak of people being deemed to be citizens, not of people having an entitlement to apply for citizenship.
What Sands says seems to be in flat contradiction of those laws.
Some of the stuff eg rainwater harvesting and GSHP, are noughties Broon style solutions - expensive and gimmicky ... now only viable in very niche cases.
And they want it done to all the new Houses between now and 2022. Have they the foggiest idea how long it takes to bring in new Building Regs or even get Planning Permission?
ASHP yes, but rather marginal under current building regs, never find that current building regs are horribly ineffectively enforced. Building Regs improvement needs to start by actually building to the existing ones, via things like every-unit rather than 1-in-20 inspection on new estates.
The low hanging fruit is the existing stock, working to regs, then following the Irish in increasing quality of build.
The elephant in the room is the energy efficiency of the owner occupied sector, which does not seem to be mentioned.
A dark room awaits this report.
Even if she is eligible for another nationality, the fact that she hasn't applied for it or got it, means that there is uncertainty regarding her status.
I assume that, for any number of legal reasons, the government cannot act in a way that makes someone stateless, which it is what it looks like will happen here.
(2)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.
...
(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.
(4A)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.
The part about eligibility at the end applies only if the UK citizenship is from naturalisation.
That's why Sands says the distinction between having citizenship and being eligible to obtain it is important. But what I don't understand is why Sands thinks she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship already.