I'm not sure. They're anti Israeli and anti Saudi Arabian but so am I
I still remember your post attacking me as a supporter of the zionist regime when I couldn't even remember making one post about Israel - this was well before the anti semites took over Labour
Why is it that sections of the left are so obsessed about one country?
Incidentally I've never referred to Israel as 'a Zionist regime'. These are the sorts of lazy mistakes your mentor Guido makes which is why most posters don't spend too much time quoting him.
What's your opinion of Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara?
I travelled through WS to Mauritania, interesting drive through a minefield at the border, a hangover of the war. Military checkpoints and the finest oysters I've ever had. Morocco needs to get out and give them their desired independence, its Spanish versus French historical influences and all rather messy. The last part of Africa still a colony. WS will be a weak and vulnerable state and will need international support.
Volunteering for the national military of a UK friend and ally makes you a terrorist? In what universe is that a fair point?
Israel is neither a friend nor an ally of the UK. They are the enemy of some of our enemies and supplier of high tech military products. We don't trust them and they certainly don't trust us.
Could you tell me the last time an Israeli blew up kids at an Ariana Grande concert? Thanks!
The difficulty with barrack room lawyering on the nationality topic is that immigration and nationality law is an incredibly complex area and you can only interpret the increasing mess of statute with the assistance of voluminous case-law. I'm an employment lawyer who did a tiny bit of immigration in the mid-noughties, mainly to assist my employer clients get work permits for North Americans and Australasians. I stopped that dabbling in 2008 on joining a new firm that didn't do that sort of work. After another move to a firm keen to get established in the field, in 2013, sought to pick such dabbling back up again, only to find Theresa May as HS had turned it into such an unwieldy mess in the meantime that I would have had to totally re-educate myself at great expense to do so.
The question of service of documents in any area of law (property, corporate, landlord and tenant...) is completely different depending on context. In 2012 a High Court judge allowed service of proceedings by Facebook even though the CPR makes absolutely no mention of social media - or at least didn't then. Does that work in nationality cases? Heaven knows - it's the sort of thing that I get the trainee to research if I have to and if I find that he or she has used Google or Wikipedia I am not best pleased. You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
I am not sure what I think about Shamima Begum. I have a 15 year old son and 15 year old's make mistakes. He has not, so far, run away and joined a murderous death cult but time will tell. I do have an instinctive sympathy for someone of that age who has clearly been exposed to extreme propaganda being misled. I am also open to the idea that she might well have been subjected to brainwashing in that death cult and that this is still reflected in some of the things she has said. Of course Manchester Arena was shocking and unjustifiable but this girl has almost certainly seen far more death, mayhem and brutality close up than most people could even conceive, much of it inflicted by members of ISIS of course.
I would make a few points.
Firstly, those confidently expressing the view that Javid has not conformed with procedure here without good knowledge of what was actually done are indicating their bias rather than an objective view. Secondly, there is much uninformed comment about dumping this problem on Bangladesh. Javid has done nothing of the kind and they are perfectly entitled to refuse to take her. What he has done is come to the view that she is entitled, at least until she is 21, to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. That is a legal requirement for his decision and it appears to have been met. Thirdly, she has a right of appeal against that decision which she and her family are clearly aware of and intend to exercise. That is their right and that process needs to play out. At the moment it seems to me that the law favours Javid's position but like others I do not have all the relevant facts. Javid also had to have information that her presence here would be seriously detrimental to the public good. I am not sure how she was assessed and what evidence he had. I suspect that this may well be an issue in the appeal. Fifthly, there is the issue of her son who is British because his mother was British at the time of his birth. The timing of that is interesting and just maybe compassionate. Allowing her son to return to the UK will raise Article 8 issues (right to family life) and it is not clear what weight, if any, Javid gave those. The recent jurisprudence on this is not encouraging for her but this will be an issue too.
I think for me the question remains whether this girl was identified as a serious threat to our security. If he had good evidence of that I think I would support his decision but it would need to be pretty compelling to outweigh the other factors.
What if the Home Secretary has intelligence which suggests that Shamina Begum would be a danger to the public if she were to return?
The other day a politician seemed to be arguing that the reason we ought to take back the ISIS fighters was because they would otherwise pose a danger "in the region" or something like that, (unless I misunderstood them). If they're going to pose a danger "in the region", surely they might also pose a danger in the UK? Or am I missing something?
The difficulty with barrack room lawyering on the nationality topic is that immigration and nationality law is an incredibly complex area and you can only interpret the increasing mess of statute with the assistance of voluminous case-law. I'm an employment lawyer who did a tiny bit of immigration in the mid-noughties, mainly to assist my employer clients get work permits for North Americans and Australasians. I stopped that dabbling in 2008 on joining a new firm that didn't do that sort of work. After another move to a firm keen to get established in the field, in 2013, sought to pick such dabbling back up again, only to find Theresa May as HS had turned it into such an unwieldy mess in the meantime that I would have had to totally re-educate myself at great expense to do so.
The question of service of documents in any area of law (property, corporate, landlord and tenant...) is completely different depending on context. In 2012 a High Court judge allowed service of proceedings by Facebook even though the CPR makes absolutely no mention of social media - or at least didn't then. Does that work in nationality cases? Heaven knows - it's the sort of thing that I get the trainee to research if I have to and if I find that he or she has used Google or Wikipedia I am not best pleased. You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
Would you be prepared to go out on a limb and opine as to whether a court would consider written notice to be given, if no one at all had been told what had happened until after the event?
Mr. Seal, sounds like a modern day Justinian is needed to codify and simplify existing law.
Governments of all stripes keep making terrible laws to give themselves the look of "doing something". Immigration law, since the introduction of the vaunted "Australian Style" points based system, is an absolute joke.
Is it true that 4 out of 5 panellists on Question Time last night were Remainers?
The BBC's view is that anyone who is in the government counts as a leaver even if they personally backed remain in 2016. I believe that last week's QT was the first since the referendum to have a 3:2 split in favour of leavers based on what they backed in 2016.
The difficulty with barrack room lawyering on the nationality topic is that immigration and nationality law is an incredibly complex area and you can only interpret the increasing mess of statute with the assistance of voluminous case-law. I'm an employment lawyer who did a tiny bit of immigration in the mid-noughties, mainly to assist my employer clients get work permits for North Americans and Australasians. I stopped that dabbling in 2008 on joining a new firm that didn't do that sort of work. After another move to a firm keen to get established in the field, in 2013, sought to pick such dabbling back up again, only to find Theresa May as HS had turned it into such an unwieldy mess in the meantime that I would have had to totally re-educate myself at great expense to do so.
The question of service of documents in any area of law (property, corporate, landlord and tenant...) is completely different depending on context. In 2012 a High Court judge allowed service of proceedings by Facebook even though the CPR makes absolutely no mention of social media - or at least didn't then. Does that work in nationality cases? Heaven knows - it's the sort of thing that I get the trainee to research if I have to and if I find that he or she has used Google or Wikipedia I am not best pleased. You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
Would you be prepared to go out on a limb and opine as to whether a court would consider written notice to be given, if no one at all had been told what had happened until after the event?
[For the avoidance of doubt, the above communication is not to be construed as a solicitation of professional services. ;-) ]
The difficulty with barrack room lawyering on the nationality topic is that immigration and nationality law is an incredibly complex area and you can only interpret the increasing mess of statute with the assistance of voluminous case-law. I'm an employment lawyer who did a tiny bit of immigration in the mid-noughties, mainly to assist my employer clients get work permits for North Americans and Australasians. I stopped that dabbling in 2008 on joining a new firm that didn't do that sort of work. After another move to a firm keen to get established in the field, in 2013, sought to pick such dabbling back up again, only to find Theresa May as HS had turned it into such an unwieldy mess in the meantime that I would have had to totally re-educate myself at great expense to do so.
The question of service of documents in any area of law (property, corporate, landlord and tenant...) is completely different depending on context. In 2012 a High Court judge allowed service of proceedings by Facebook even though the CPR makes absolutely no mention of social media - or at least didn't then. Does that work in nationality cases? Heaven knows - it's the sort of thing that I get the trainee to research if I have to and if I find that he or she has used Google or Wikipedia I am not best pleased. You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
I have also got leave to serve notice of a motion by facebook in a case involving people in Libya. It is also the case, as a generality, that service is a procedural requirement which becomes irrelevant once a party enters process. The issue here would be whether she had a right to make representations before Javid made his decision. If she did and was denied that then the decision itself becomes vulnerable.
As you say our immigration law is an horrific mess with new regulations replacing others in an incoherent way every time the HO gets a decision that it doesn't like.
Firstly, those confidently expressing the view that Javid has not conformed with procedure here without good knowledge of what was actually done are indicating their bias rather than an objective view. Secondly, there is much uninformed comment about dumping this problem on Bangladesh. Javid has done nothing of the kind and they are perfectly entitled to refuse to take her. What he has done is come to the view that she is entitled, at least until she is 21, to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. That is a legal requirement for his decision and it appears to have been met. Thirdly, she has a right of appeal against that decision which she and her family are clearly aware of and intend to exercise. That is their right and that process needs to play out. At the moment it seems to me that the law favours Javid's position but like others I do not have all the relevant facts. Javid also had to have information that her presence here would be seriously detrimental to the public good. I am not sure how she was assessed and what evidence he had. I suspect that this may well be an issue in the appeal. Fifthly, there is the issue of her son who is British because his mother was British at the time of his birth. The timing of that is interesting and just maybe compassionate. Allowing her son to return to the UK will raise Article 8 issues (right to family life) and it is not clear what weight, if any, Javid gave those. The recent jurisprudence on this is not encouraging for her but this will be an issue too.
I think for me the question remains whether this girl was identified as a serious threat to our security. If he had good evidence of that I think I would support his decision but it would need to be pretty compelling to outweigh the other factors.
On point 2 - because Shamima does not already have Bangladeshi citizenship (merely a right to apply for it) the decision by Javid has effectively made her stateless which the law explicitly avoids. And it is that bit that I believe is important - it's one thing to remove someone's second or replacement citizenship (whether it's a second citizenship they still hold today or a former citizenship that they rejected when given British Citizenship) it's entirely different to remove British citizenship because there is a vague possibility Shamima has the right to citizenship elsewhere
And I have no problem with people holding dual or previous citizenship seeing their UK citizenship revoked. Revoking citizenship because of a vague possibility you can make this problem someone elses issue isn't on.
Firstly, those confidently expressing the view that Javid has not conformed with procedure here without good knowledge of what was actually done are indicating their bias rather than an objective view. Secondly, there is much uninformed comment about dumping this problem on Bangladesh. Javid has done nothing of the kind and they are perfectly entitled to refuse to take her. What he has done is come to the view that she is entitled, at least until she is 21, to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. That is a legal requirement for his decision and it appears to have been met. Thirdly, she has a right of appeal against that decision which she and her family are clearly aware of and intend to exercise. That is their right and that process needs to play out. At the moment it seems to me that the law favours Javid's position but like others I do not have all the relevant facts. Javid also had to have information that her presence here would be seriously detrimental to the public good. I am not sure how she was assessed and what evidence he had. I suspect that this may well be an issue in the appeal. Fifthly, there is the issue of her son who is British because his mother was British at the time of his birth. The timing of that is interesting and just maybe compassionate. Allowing her son to return to the UK will raise Article 8 issues (right to family life) and it is not clear what weight, if any, Javid gave those. The recent jurisprudence on this is not encouraging for her but this will be an issue too.
I think for me the question remains whether this girl was identified as a serious threat to our security. If he had good evidence of that I think I would support his decision but it would need to be pretty compelling to outweigh the other factors.
On point 2 - because Shamima does not already have Bangladeshi citizenship (merely a right to apply for it) the decision by Javid has effectively made her stateless which the law explicitly avoids. And it is that bit that I believe is important - it's one thing to remove someone's second or replacement citizenship (whether it's a second citizenship they still hold today or a former citizenship that they rejected when given British Citizenship) it's entirely different to remove British citizenship because there is a vague possibility Shamima has the right to citizenship elsewhere
The legal advice Javid seems to have acted upon (and which the BBC has quoted) is that she is a Bangladeshi citizen automatically. Not that she has to apply for it. Which addresses both of your points.
The difficulty with barrack room lawyering on the nationality topic is that immigration and nationality law is an incredibly complex area and you can only interpret the increasing mess of statute with the assistance of voluminous case-law. I'm an employment lawyer who did a tiny bit of immigration in the mid-noughties, mainly to assist my employer clients get work permits for North Americans and Australasians. I stopped that dabbling in 2008 on joining a new firm that didn't do that sort of work. After another move to a firm keen to get established in the field, in 2013, sought to pick such dabbling back up again, only to find Theresa May as HS had turned it into such an unwieldy mess in the meantime that I would have had to totally re-educate myself at great expense to do so.
The question of service of documents in any area of law (property, corporate, landlord and tenant...) is completely different depending on context. In 2012 a High Court judge allowed service of proceedings by Facebook even though the CPR makes absolutely no mention of social media - or at least didn't then. Does that work in nationality cases? Heaven knows - it's the sort of thing that I get the trainee to research if I have to and if I find that he or she has used Google or Wikipedia I am not best pleased. You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
I have also got leave to serve notice of a motion by facebook in a case involving people in Libya. It is also the case, as a generality, that service is a procedural requirement which becomes irrelevant once a party enters process. The issue here would be whether she had a right to make representations before Javid made his decision. If she did and was denied that then the decision itself becomes vulnerable.
As you say our immigration law is an horrific mess with new regulations replacing others in an incoherent way every time the HO gets a decision that it doesn't like.
For me, the question isn't whether she had a right to make representations before the order was made (I haven't seen that suggested). The question is whether the legal requirement to give written notice was complied with.
I'm all for being cautious in the absence of full knowledge of what has happened. But let's be sensible. The text of the letter to her mother is in the public domain, and it says the order has already been made. I don't see how that can be consistent with written notice having been given.
The difficulty with barrack room lawyering on the nationality topic is that immigration and nationality law is an incredibly complex area and you can only interpret the increasing mess of statute with the assistance of voluminous case-law. I'm an employment lawyer who did a tiny bit of immigration in the mid-noughties, mainly to assist my employer clients get work permits for North Americans and Australasians. I stopped that dabbling in 2008 on joining a new firm that didn't do that sort of work. After another move to a firm keen to get established in the field, in 2013, sought to pick such dabbling back up again, only to find Theresa May as HS had turned it into such an unwieldy mess in the meantime that I would have had to totally re-educate myself at great expense to do so.
The question of service of documents in any area of law (property, corporate, landlord and tenant...) is completely different depending on context. In 2012 a High Court judge allowed service of proceedings by Facebook even though the CPR makes absolutely no mention of social media - or at least didn't then. Does that work in nationality cases? Heaven knows - it's the sort of thing that I get the trainee to research if I have to and if I find that he or she has used Google or Wikipedia I am not best pleased. You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
Would you be prepared to go out on a limb and opine as to whether a court would consider written notice to be given, if no one at all had been told what had happened until after the event?
[For the avoidance of doubt, the above communication is not to be construed as a solicitation of professional services. ;-) ]
I haven't read the statute recently (if ever) and I am not going down that rabbit hole! In some cases a decision maker makes a decision and only has to notify the effected individual of the right to appeal. The obvious but trivial example of that would be a traffic warden giving a parking ticket. Does the statute allow for the individual to make representations to the SoS before notice is given? If not then there would appear to be no reason for the HS to notify in advance of his making a decision under the act. However, I reiterate, I haven't read it, and I'm not going to!
That wasn't his point and a good reason for not getting your political information from Guido who has an agenda. His point was that if giving support to a foreign power was reason for withdrawing passports why not include those who take up arms for Israel?
Corbyn is saying she should keep her citizenship - the exact opposite of what McDonnell was saying for people fighting for Israel.
These are McDonnell's own words
"Will you be explaining to them that association with those who are intentionally targeting civilians for political ends, or participation in such acts, would involve them in an association with or engaged in, the perpetration of acts that meet the statutory definition of terrorism in the UK?"
So association is strong enough for people serving in Israel but not enough for people joining ISIS?
Why if this is such a great point do we think this comment has been removed from his web site?
What part of what he's saying do you disagree with?
Firstly, those confidently expressing the view that Javid has not conformed with procedure here without good knowledge of what was actually done are indicating their bias rather than an objective view. Secondly, there is much uninformed comment about dumping this problem on Bangladesh. Javid has done nothing of the kind and they are perfectly entitled to refuse to take her. What he has done is come to the view that she is entitled, at least until she is 21, to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. That is a legal requirement for his decision and it appears to have been met. Thirdly, she has a right of appeal against that decision which she and her family are clearly aware of and intend to exercise. That is their right and that process needs to play out. At the moment it seems to me that the law favours Javid's position but like others I do not have all the relevant facts. Javid also had to have information that her presence here would be seriously detrimental to the public good. I am not sure how she was assessed and what evidence he had. I suspect that this may well be an issue in the appeal. Fifthly, there is the issue of her son who is British because his mother was British at the time of his birth. The timing of that is interesting and just maybe compassionate. Allowing her son to return to the UK will raise Article 8 issues (right to family life) and it is not clear what weight, if any, Javid gave those. The recent jurisprudence on this is not encouraging for her but this will be an issue too.
I think for me the question remains whether this girl was identified as a serious threat to our security. If he had good evidence of that I think I would support his decision but it would need to be pretty compelling to outweigh the other factors.
On point 2 - because Shamima does not already have Bangladeshi citizenship (merely a right to apply for it) the decision by Javid has effectively made her stateless which the law explicitly avoids. And it is that bit that I believe is important - it's one thing to remove someone's second or replacement citizenship (whether it's a second citizenship they still hold today or a former citizenship that they rejected when given British Citizenship) it's entirely different to remove British citizenship because there is a vague possibility Shamima has the right to citizenship elsewhere
Not according to the Act. S40(4A)(c) of the 1981 Act as amended says: "(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.
If the information available to Javid was that she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship that is enough.
The difficulty with barrack room lawyering on the nationality topic is that immigration and nationality law is an incredibly complex area and you can only interpret the increasing mess of statute with the assistance of voluminous case-law. I'm an employment lawyer who did a tiny bit of immigration in the mid-noughties, mainly to assist my employer clients get work permits for North Americans and Australasians. I stopped that dabbling in 2008 on joining a new firm that didn't do that sort of work. After another move to a firm keen to get established in the field, in 2013, sought to pick such dabbling back up again, only to find Theresa May as HS had turned it into such an unwieldy mess in the meantime that I would have had to totally re-educate myself at great expense to do so.
The question of service of documents in any area of law (property, corporate, landlord and tenant...) is completely different depending on context. In 2012 a High Court judge allowed service of proceedings by Facebook even though the CPR makes absolutely no mention of social media - or at least didn't then. Does that work in nationality cases? Heaven knows - it's the sort of thing that I get the trainee to research if I have to and if I find that he or she has used Google or Wikipedia I am not best pleased. You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
I have also got leave to serve notice of a motion by facebook in a case involving people in Libya. It is also the case, as a generality, that service is a procedural requirement which becomes irrelevant once a party enters process. The issue here would be whether she had a right to make representations before Javid made his decision. If she did and was denied that then the decision itself becomes vulnerable.
As you say our immigration law is an horrific mess with new regulations replacing others in an incoherent way every time the HO gets a decision that it doesn't like.
For me, the question isn't whether she had a right to make representations before the order was made (I haven't seen that suggested). The question is whether the legal requirement to give written notice was complied with.
I'm all for being cautious in the absence of full knowledge of what has happened. But let's be sensible. The text of the letter to her mother is in the public domain, and it says the order has already been made. I don't see how that can be consistent with written notice having been given.
If procedure hasn't been followed correctly the courts will identify that.
Firstly, those confidently expressing the view that Javid has not conformed with procedure here without good knowledge of what was actually done are indicating their bias rather than an objective view. Secondly, there is much uninformed comment about dumping this problem on Bangladesh. Javid has done nothing of the kind and they are perfectly entitled to refuse to take her. What he has done is come to the view that she is entitled, at least until she is 21, to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. That is a legal requirement for his decision and it appears to have been met. Thirdly, she has a right of appeal against that decision which she and her family are clearly aware of and intend to exercise. That is their right and that process needs to play out. At the moment it seems to me that the law favours Javid's position but like others I do not have all the relevant facts. Javid also had to have information that her presence here would be seriously detrimental to the public good. I am not sure how she was assessed and what evidence he had. I suspect that this may well be an issue in the appeal. Fifthly, there is the issue of her son who is British because his mother was British at the time of his birth. The timing of that is interesting and just maybe compassionate. Allowing her son to return to the UK will raise Article 8 issues (right to family life) and it is not clear what weight, if any, Javid gave those. The recent jurisprudence on this is not encouraging for her but this will be an issue too.
I think for me the question remains whether this girl was identified as a serious threat to our security. If he had good evidence of that I think I would support his decision but it would need to be pretty compelling to outweigh the other factors.
On point 2 - because Shamima does not already have Bangladeshi citizenship (merely a right to apply for it) the decision by Javid has effectively made her stateless which the law explicitly avoids. And it is that bit that I believe is important - it's one thing to remove someone's second or replacement citizenship (whether it's a second citizenship they still hold today or a former citizenship that they rejected when given British Citizenship) it's entirely different to remove British citizenship because there is a vague possibility Shamima has the right to citizenship elsewhere
The legal advice Javid seems to have acted upon (and which the BBC has quoted) is that she is a Bangladeshi citizen automatically. Not that she has to apply for it. Which addresses both of your points.
I think you mean the BBC has quoted its own legal advice, not the advice given to Javid, don't you?
On point 2 - because Shamima does not already have Bangladeshi citizenship (merely a right to apply for it) the decision by Javid has effectively made her stateless which the law explicitly avoids. And it is that bit that I believe is important - it's one thing to remove someone's second or replacement citizenship (whether it's a second citizenship they still hold today or a former citizenship that they rejected when given British Citizenship) it's entirely different to remove British citizenship because there is a vague possibility Shamima has the right to citizenship elsewhere
The legal advice Javid seems to have acted upon (and which the BBC has quoted) is that she is a Bangladeshi citizen automatically. Not that she has to apply for it. Which addresses both of your points.
Which doesn't seem to be the case when you look at the piece of law we've seen on this site.
Worse it's offloading a problem created in the UK to an utterly innocent third party (Bangladesh) that had nothing to do with the education and upbringing of Shamama.
Giles Fraser is a really tiresome contrarian. As a liberal Anglican, the antics of the evo wing exasperate and bemuse me in equal measure, but they are always heartfelt. Fraser has just become a troll who does it for the pageviews and the notoriety.
The difficulty with barrack room lawyering on the nationality topic is that immigration and nationality law is an incredibly complex area and you can only interpret the increasing mess of statute with the assistance of voluminous case-law. I'm an employment lawyer who did a tiny bit of immigration in the mid-noughties, mainly to assist my employer clients get work permits for North Americans and Australasians. I stopped that dabbling in 2008 on joining a new firm that didn't do that sort of work. After another move to a firm keen to get established in the field, in 2013, sought to pick such dabbling back up again, only to find Theresa May as HS had turned it into such an unwieldy mess in the meantime that I would have had to totally re-educate myself at great expense to do so.
The question of service of documents in any area of law (property, corporate, landlord and tenant...) is completely different depending on context. In 2012 a High Court judge allowed service of proceedings by Facebook even though the CPR makes absolutely no mention of social media - or at least didn't then. Does that work in nationality cases? Heaven knows - it's the sort of thing that I get the trainee to research if I have to and if I find that he or she has used Google or Wikipedia I am not best pleased. You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
I have also got leave to serve notice of a motion by facebook in a case involving people in Libya. It is also the case, as a generality, that service is a procedural requirement which becomes irrelevant once a party enters process. The issue here would be whether she had a right to make representations before Javid made his decision. If she did and was denied that then the decision itself becomes vulnerable.
As you say our immigration law is an horrific mess with new regulations replacing others in an incoherent way every time the HO gets a decision that it doesn't like.
For me, the question isn't whether she had a right to make representations before the order was made (I haven't seen that suggested). The question is whether the legal requirement to give written notice was complied with.
I'm all for being cautious in the absence of full knowledge of what has happened. But let's be sensible. The text of the letter to her mother is in the public domain, and it says the order has already been made. I don't see how that can be consistent with written notice having been given.
I don't know if there is a requirement to give prior notice. It is not in the Act but as @DougSeal has said the regulations are a briar bush in which I was not born and bred and into which I am reluctant to venture.
I'm not sure. They're anti Israeli and anti Saudi Arabian but so am I
I still remember your post attacking me as a supporter of the zionist regime when I couldn't even remember making one post about Israel - this was well before the anti semites took over Labour
Why is it that sections of the left are so obsessed about one country?
Incidentally I've never referred to Israel as 'a Zionist regime'. These are the sorts of lazy mistakes your mentor Guido makes which is why most posters don't spend too much time quoting him.
Can you remind us all of your exact words then?
Forgive me if I cant remember your exact words.
The point being I posted something you disagreed with (which had nothing to do with Israel and I do not have a history of posting pro Israel points) and your response was to slag me off as a supporter of Israel.
Personally I found it rather interesting at the time which is why I remember it.
Is it true that 4 out of 5 panellists on Question Time last night were Remainers?
That’s par for the course, it almost makes it fair.
Very odd, and I've rather stopped watching QT, but I had the impression, from sometimes watching the first question, that there were quite a lot of Leavers on it's panels.
You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
Am I the only one who read this sentence and thought, "well why the hell isn't our legal system set up so they can?"
Because the public makes contradictory demands upon our politicians. On the one had we want freedom but also to be kept safe. The Mail reader who moans about " 'elf & safety gone mad" is the first to sue under health and safety laws when he trips on a pavement. The number of traders in the City who are all bullish and libertarian about freedom to contract get mightily unhappy when they didn't get the bonus they want and often come running to people like me crying constructive dismissal. So you get a mass of legislation that attempts to be all things to all people and very clever people have to be paid to resolve the mess.
The difficulty with barrack room lawyering on the nationality topic is that immigration and nationality law is an incredibly complex area and you can only interpret the increasing mess of statute with the assistance of voluminous case-law. I'm an employment lawyer who did a tiny bit of immigration in the mid-noughties, mainly to assist my employer clients get work permits for North Americans and Australasians. I stopped that dabbling in 2008 on joining a new firm that didn't do that sort of work. After another move to a firm keen to get established in the field, in 2013, sought to pick such dabbling back up again, only to find Theresa May as HS had turned it into such an unwieldy mess in the meantime that I would have had to totally re-educate myself at great expense to do so.
The question of service of documents in any area of law (property, corporate, landlord and tenant...) is completely different depending on context. In 2012 a High Court judge allowed service of proceedings by Facebook even though the CPR makes absolutely no mention of social media - or at least didn't then. Does that work in nationality cases? Heaven knows - it's the sort of thing that I get the trainee to research if I have to and if I find that he or she has used Google or Wikipedia I am not best pleased. You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
I have also got leave to serve notice of a motion by facebook in a case involving people in Libya. It is also the case, as a generality, that service is a procedural requirement which becomes irrelevant once a party enters process. The issue here would be whether she had a right to make representations before Javid made his decision. If she did and was denied that then the decision itself becomes vulnerable.
As you say our immigration law is an horrific mess with new regulations replacing others in an incoherent way every time the HO gets a decision that it doesn't like.
For me, the question isn't whether she had a right to make representations before the order was made (I haven't seen that suggested). The question is whether the legal requirement to give written notice was complied with.
I'm all for being cautious in the absence of full knowledge of what has happened. But let's be sensible. The text of the letter to her mother is in the public domain, and it says the order has already been made. I don't see how that can be consistent with written notice having been given.
If procedure hasn't been followed correctly the courts will identify that.
You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
Am I the only one who read this sentence and thought, "well why the hell isn't our legal system set up so they can?"
Because the public makes contradictory demands upon our politicians. On the one had we want freedom but also to be kept safe. The Mail reader who moans about " 'elf & safety gone mad" is the first to sue under health and safety laws when he trips on a pavement. The number of traders in the City who are all bullish and libertarian about freedom to contract get mightily unhappy when they didn't get the bonus they want and often come running to people like me crying constructive dismissal. So you get a mass of legislation that attempts to be all things to all people and very clever people have to be paid to resolve the mess.
And also, thankfully, not so clever ones. Laters. I have a court to attend.
Interesting to observe a potential divide already opening up between the defecting and/or independent MPs. Ian Austin, Frank Field and John Woodcock don't seem to be interested in joining the TIGs.
Volunteering for the national military of a UK friend and ally makes you a terrorist? In what universe is that a fair point?
Israel is neither a friend or an ally of the UK. They are the enemy of some of our enemies and supplier of high tech military products. We don't trust them and they certainly don't trust us.
well we don't trust the Belgians either but British citizens can serve in their army without McDonnell writing letters. So let's be honest, he's using the whole 'dual loyalty' trope in a way I haven't seen anyone doing with, say, dual British/Danish citizenship.
You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
Am I the only one who read this sentence and thought, "well why the hell isn't our legal system set up so they can?"
Because the public makes contradictory demands upon our politicians. On the one had we want freedom but also to be kept safe. The Mail reader who moans about " 'elf & safety gone mad" is the first to sue under health and safety laws when he trips on a pavement. The number of traders in the City who are all bullish and libertarian about freedom to contract get mightily unhappy when they didn't get the bonus they want and often come running to people like me crying constructive dismissal. So you get a mass of legislation that attempts to be all things to all people and very clever people have to be paid to resolve the mess.
There didn't use to be a culture of suing people for relatively minor incidents in this country. Unfortunately we decided to import it from California about 20 years ago.
Interesting to observe a potential divide already opening up between the defecting and/or independent MPs. Ian Austin, Frank Field and John Woodcock don't seem to be interested in joining the TIGs.
What surprises me is the volume and complexity of Bangladeshi citizenship law. I would have guessed, if asked, that the number of people in the world who aren't Bangladeshi but devoutly wish they were, was too small to bother with.
How Beto nearly won. Long read, but very interesting on decentralised canvassing, no polling, very little data analytics, thousands of volunteers knocking on every door.
"Each voter they identified as a Beto supporter was treated not just as a voter, but as a potential volunteer."
You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
Am I the only one who read this sentence and thought, "well why the hell isn't our legal system set up so they can?"
Because the public makes contradictory demands upon our politicians. On the one had we want freedom but also to be kept safe. The Mail reader who moans about " 'elf & safety gone mad" is the first to sue under health and safety laws when he trips on a pavement. The number of traders in the City who are all bullish and libertarian about freedom to contract get mightily unhappy when they didn't get the bonus they want and often come running to people like me crying constructive dismissal. So you get a mass of legislation that attempts to be all things to all people and very clever people have to be paid to resolve the mess.
There didn't use to be a culture of suing people for relatively minor incidents in this country. Unfortunately we decided to import it from California about 20 years ago.
We haven't really.
About half a million civil claims are brought each year, with 400,000 in debt, which would seem to exclude "litigation culture" claims. Just 33,500 were PI for example.
What surprises me is the volume and complexity of Bangladeshi citizenship law. I would have guessed, if asked, that the number of people in the world who aren't Bangladeshi but devoutly wish they were, was too small to bother with.
If their main Citizenship Act was passed in 1951, as I believe it was, it means they inherited it from a time when they were "East Pakistan". Sorting that lot out after independence from Pakistan would take some doing. Also the partition of Bengal in 1947 would have created all sorts of issues.
What surprises me is the volume and complexity of Bangladeshi citizenship law. I would have guessed, if asked, that the number of people in the world who aren't Bangladeshi but devoutly wish they were, was too small to bother with.
You have to remember that East Pakistan Bangladesh has been occupied/governed by both the UK and Pakistan in living memory, and they do have people living in both India and Pakistan who would like to be living in Bangladesh but cannot always do when they'd like to.
The War of Liberation really did mess things up for a lot of families in both what was East and West Pakistan.
You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
Am I the only one who read this sentence and thought, "well why the hell isn't our legal system set up so they can?"
Because the public makes contradictory demands upon our politicians. On the one had we want freedom but also to be kept safe. The Mail reader who moans about " 'elf & safety gone mad" is the first to sue under health and safety laws when he trips on a pavement. The number of traders in the City who are all bullish and libertarian about freedom to contract get mightily unhappy when they didn't get the bonus they want and often come running to people like me crying constructive dismissal. So you get a mass of legislation that attempts to be all things to all people and very clever people have to be paid to resolve the mess.
Thanks. Good points. I just find it intensely frustrating that seemingly straightforward questions like how much effort is needed to try and contact someone with no known address can't be codified in a simple way without opening the door to challenge from a slightly cleverer lawyer than the one who wrote the original legislation. Celebrities being let off traffic offences via loopholes is another perennial bugbear.
Do you think Fraser's aware of the concept of people who don't have children?
I find Frasers comment about daughter's responsibilities somewhat unpleasant and unfortunate, given that our daughter died (of MND) in her late 40's. Are we, if we get to that sad stage, supposed to rely on our daughters in law? After all, A son is a son till he takes him a wife. But a daughter's a daughter all of her life.
Do you think Fraser's aware of the concept of people who don't have children?
I find Frasers comment about daughter's responsibilities somewhat unpleasant and unfortunate, given that our daughter died (of MND) in her late 40's. Are we, if we get to that sad stage, supposed to rely on our daughters in law? After all, A son is a son till he takes him a wife. But a daughter's a daughter all of her life.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
To be honest, Fraser's article is disgusting in so many ways it's really hard to choose which ones are worst.
Scottish lawyer 'obsessed' with neighbour's noisy toilet
A Scottish lawyer is seeking an injunction over a neighbour's "growling" toilet.
52-year-old James Morris, who was a partner at Scottish firm Blackadders, alleges that the toilet in the flat above his apartment in Fife is creating unacceptable noise due to the installation of a grinding fan, rather than a normal plumbing system. A proof hearing at Kirkcaldy court, filled to the brim with toilet chat, is now underway.
Morris claims that the "loud mechanical growling" of the offending bog is similar to the sound of a revving motorbike or a chainsaw. He also says that an acoustics expert has confirmed that the noise is in excess of World Health Organisation guidelines (there's an expert for everything). Morris complains that the sound of pulverised waste is ruining his and his wife's lives.
The flat at the centre of the shitstorm is owned by Robert Curran and Jo McGarry-Curran, a couple based well out of ear-shot in Hawaii, who rent their property to guests on Airbnb.
Morris has kept a detailed log (phrasing) about the movements (phrasing) of the various visitors to the property. The entries include bathroom habits as well as details of other activities such as arrival times, when they go to the bins, and their movements from room to room. Morris has spotted patterns from his diary entries, such as American guests taking a shower as soon as they arrive at the property, even if late at night, and that women often use the toilet as soon as they get in.
Whilst lawyers are known for the attention to detail, this episode paints a bleak picture of where the profession can lead a person, specifically to a kitchen table at midnight, bug-eyed with rage and scrawling flush times in a Blackadders notebook.
Do you think Fraser's aware of the concept of people who don't have children?
I find Frasers comment about daughter's responsibilities somewhat unpleasant and unfortunate, given that our daughter died (of MND) in her late 40's. Are we, if we get to that sad stage, supposed to rely on our daughters in law? After all, A son is a son till he takes him a wife. But a daughter's a daughter all of her life.
Do you think Fraser's aware of the concept of people who don't have children?
I find Frasers comment about daughter's responsibilities somewhat unpleasant and unfortunate, given that our daughter died (of MND) in her late 40's. Are we, if we get to that sad stage, supposed to rely on our daughters in law? After all, A son is a son till he takes him a wife. But a daughter's a daughter all of her life.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
To be honest, Fraser's article is disgusting in so many ways it's really hard to choose which ones are worst.
Thank you, Mr (assumption) S. It was five years ago now so we're living with it.
And you're right about Fraser's article. It was just that bit about daughter's 'responsibilites' that particularly riled me. And, since the man's name is of Scottish origin one of his forebears must have left his native place to come to England.
Do you think Fraser's aware of the concept of people who don't have children?
I find Frasers comment about daughter's responsibilities somewhat unpleasant and unfortunate, given that our daughter died (of MND) in her late 40's. Are we, if we get to that sad stage, supposed to rely on our daughters in law? After all, A son is a son till he takes him a wife. But a daughter's a daughter all of her life.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
To be honest, Fraser's article is disgusting in so many ways it's really hard to choose which ones are worst.
Thank you, Mr (assumption) S. It was five years ago now so we're living with it.
And you're right about Fraser's article. It was just that bit about daughter's 'responsibilites' that particularly riled me. And, since the man's name is of Scottish origin one of his forebears must have left his native place to come to England.
He is clearly no liberal, since the logic of his argument is that no one should have the right to choose whether they live within a hundred yards of their parents and uncles or not.
How Beto nearly won. Long read, but very interesting on decentralised canvassing, no polling, very little data analytics, thousands of volunteers knocking on every door.
"Each voter they identified as a Beto supporter was treated not just as a voter, but as a potential volunteer."
Do you think Fraser's aware of the concept of people who don't have children?
I find Frasers comment about daughter's responsibilities somewhat unpleasant and unfortunate, given that our daughter died (of MND) in her late 40's. Are we, if we get to that sad stage, supposed to rely on our daughters in law? After all, A son is a son till he takes him a wife. But a daughter's a daughter all of her life.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
To be honest, Fraser's article is disgusting in so many ways it's really hard to choose which ones are worst.
Thank you, Mr (assumption) S. It was five years ago now so we're living with it.
And you're right about Fraser's article. It was just that bit about daughter's 'responsibilites' that particularly riled me. And, since the man's name is of Scottish origin one of his forebears must have left his native place to come to England.
There are parts of the article that I'd disagree with, although the premise that one should look after elderly parents is correct.
Sorry if this has been covered but I'd missed this .... Corbyn hides behind process rather than express a view and the trademark look away gives away his usual temper flash... I must admit I wasn't sure who the 'he' was in the tweet as might have been Jezza himself?
Do you think Fraser's aware of the concept of people who don't have children?
I find Frasers comment about daughter's responsibilities somewhat unpleasant and unfortunate, given that our daughter died (of MND) in her late 40's. Are we, if we get to that sad stage, supposed to rely on our daughters in law? After all, A son is a son till he takes him a wife. But a daughter's a daughter all of her life.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
To be honest, Fraser's article is disgusting in so many ways it's really hard to choose which ones are worst.
Thank you, Mr (assumption) S. It was five years ago now so we're living with it.
And you're right about Fraser's article. It was just that bit about daughter's 'responsibilites' that particularly riled me. And, since the man's name is of Scottish origin one of his forebears must have left his native place to come to England.
There are parts of the article that I'd disagree with, although the premise that one should look after elderly parents is correct.
Quite frankly I'd rather my children made arrangements to have me looked after than actually do it themselves. One son lives in Thailand; the suggestion is that if I become alone and enfeebled they find a small flat for me, with a Thai lady to live-in and look after me.
There are now 20 Independent MPs in Parliament - 11 TIG and 9 other independents.
"BBC Research" says 11 + 8 - and it's not that they've forgotten Austin - they were wrong yesterday when they had 11 + 7.
If they can't get something as simple as this correct (and it's correct on Parliament website) what hope is there of them getting more complex data correct?
One of these great twitter polls that Rachael from Swindon loves is needed, who is more rattled whilst trying to look the most supportive to the cult leader:
There are now 20 Independent MPs in Parliament - 11 TIG and 9 other independents.
"BBC Research" says 11 + 8 - and it's not that they've forgotten Austin - they were wrong yesterday when they had 11 + 7.
If they can't get something as simple as this correct (and it's correct on Parliament website) what hope is there of them getting more complex data correct?
I expect they've forgotten Lady Sylvia Hermon. Everyone always does.
Agree with Chris Williamson that Austin should be forced to fight a by-election.
I was shocked when the Conservative spokesperson on QT last night didn't seem to think these MPs should hold by elections (even though the audience was very strongly in favour of by elections being held)
Hopefully the next government will legislate to say that if an MP changes their party they have to get the consent of their electorate by holding by elections by law.
Alastair, the Welsh poll has a special place in the hearts of all PBers. It is customary and, might I add, gentlemanly, to issue a Welsh Poll Alert when one is due.
There are now 20 Independent MPs in Parliament - 11 TIG and 9 other independents.
"BBC Research" says 11 + 8 - and it's not that they've forgotten Austin - they were wrong yesterday when they had 11 + 7.
If they can't get something as simple as this correct (and it's correct on Parliament website) what hope is there of them getting more complex data correct?
I expect they've forgotten Lady Sylvia Hermon. Everyone always does.
Everyone except her constituents. Juxtaposing, the entire media hivemind will remember Chuka; right till his constituents forget him.
Volunteering for the national military of a UK friend and ally makes you a terrorist? In what universe is that a fair point?
Israel is neither a friend or an ally of the UK. They are the enemy of some of our enemies and supplier of high tech military products. We don't trust them and they certainly don't trust us.
Well successive Prime Ministers have referred to Israel as both a friend and an ally so clearly the official position is very different to yours.
Do you think Fraser's aware of the concept of people who don't have children?
I find Frasers comment about daughter's responsibilities somewhat unpleasant and unfortunate, given that our daughter died (of MND) in her late 40's. Are we, if we get to that sad stage, supposed to rely on our daughters in law? After all, A son is a son till he takes him a wife. But a daughter's a daughter all of her life.
Alastair, the Welsh poll has a special place in the hearts of all PBers. It is customary and, might I add, gentlemanly, to issue a Welsh Poll Alert when one is due.
Volunteering for the national military of a UK friend and ally makes you a terrorist? In what universe is that a fair point?
Israel is neither a friend or an ally of the UK. They are the enemy of some of our enemies and supplier of high tech military products. We don't trust them and they certainly don't trust us.
Well successive Prime Ministers have referred to Israel as both a friend and an ally so clearly the official position is very different to yours.
Strictly speaking doesn’t there need to be a signed treaty for a country to be legally an ally?
One of these great twitter polls that Rachael from Swindon loves is needed, who is more rattled whilst trying to look the most supportive to the cult leader:
There is no such thing as a let down in the world of Welsh polling.
Every poll emanating from the Principality is box office.
I Remember a couple of welsh polls at the start of the 2017 general election suggesting Con would get a majority of Welsh seats for the first time since JackW was a twinkle in his mothers eye...
Comments
The question of service of documents in any area of law (property, corporate, landlord and tenant...) is completely different depending on context. In 2012 a High Court judge allowed service of proceedings by Facebook even though the CPR makes absolutely no mention of social media - or at least didn't then. Does that work in nationality cases? Heaven knows - it's the sort of thing that I get the trainee to research if I have to and if I find that he or she has used Google or Wikipedia I am not best pleased. You can't just read a section of an act and opine even if you are a QC.
I would make a few points.
Firstly, those confidently expressing the view that Javid has not conformed with procedure here without good knowledge of what was actually done are indicating their bias rather than an objective view.
Secondly, there is much uninformed comment about dumping this problem on Bangladesh. Javid has done nothing of the kind and they are perfectly entitled to refuse to take her. What he has done is come to the view that she is entitled, at least until she is 21, to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. That is a legal requirement for his decision and it appears to have been met.
Thirdly, she has a right of appeal against that decision which she and her family are clearly aware of and intend to exercise. That is their right and that process needs to play out. At the moment it seems to me that the law favours Javid's position but like others I do not have all the relevant facts.
Javid also had to have information that her presence here would be seriously detrimental to the public good. I am not sure how she was assessed and what evidence he had. I suspect that this may well be an issue in the appeal.
Fifthly, there is the issue of her son who is British because his mother was British at the time of his birth. The timing of that is interesting and just maybe compassionate. Allowing her son to return to the UK will raise Article 8 issues (right to family life) and it is not clear what weight, if any, Javid gave those. The recent jurisprudence on this is not encouraging for her but this will be an issue too.
I think for me the question remains whether this girl was identified as a serious threat to our security. If he had good evidence of that I think I would support his decision but it would need to be pretty compelling to outweigh the other factors.
As to what intelligence Sajid Javid possesses - well clearly no fool but he is increasingly looking like a lightweight.
As you say our immigration law is an horrific mess with new regulations replacing others in an incoherent way every time the HO gets a decision that it doesn't like.
And it is that bit that I believe is important - it's one thing to remove someone's second or replacement citizenship (whether it's a second citizenship they still hold today or a former citizenship that they rejected when given British Citizenship) it's entirely different to remove British citizenship because there is a vague possibility Shamima has the right to citizenship elsewhere
And I have no problem with people holding dual or previous citizenship seeing their UK citizenship revoked. Revoking citizenship because of a vague possibility you can make this problem someone elses issue isn't on.
Spiked loon, Conservative MP and financial secretary to the Treasury, Labour MP and shadow transport secretary.
* Don't let on to @DougSeal
I'm all for being cautious in the absence of full knowledge of what has happened. But let's be sensible. The text of the letter to her mother is in the public domain, and it says the order has already been made. I don't see how that can be consistent with written notice having been given.
If the information available to Javid was that she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship that is enough.
https://twitter.com/giles_fraser/status/1098896087425912832?s=21
Worse it's offloading a problem created in the UK to an utterly innocent third party (Bangladesh) that had nothing to do with the education and upbringing of Shamama.
Do we think she will have changed her mind now?
So long as we don't crash out with No Deal on 29/3 of course.
Brexity types don't seem very keen on letting (currently) citizen of nowhere Shamima back to the bosom of her family.
Forgive me if I cant remember your exact words.
The point being I posted something you disagreed with (which had nothing to do with Israel and I do not have a history of posting pro Israel points) and your response was to slag me off as a supporter of Israel.
Personally I found it rather interesting at the time which is why I remember it.
Note. For the avoidance of doubt I don't think he should be. Just leave him chuntering in his shed where he can't do any more harm.
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1098911468412637184
The contrast between Tom Watson and the Wingnut in Chief to Austin's exit is remarkable...
"Each voter they identified as a Beto supporter was treated not just as a voter, but as a potential volunteer."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/22/beto-orourke-campaign-strategy-2020-225193
Could he repeat for 2020?
https://twitter.com/vladamir_12/status/1098906419850555392
About half a million civil claims are brought each year, with 400,000 in debt, which would seem to exclude "litigation culture" claims. Just 33,500 were PI for example.
My impression of the legal system is that it's set up (explicitly?) to provide continuing employment opportunities for lawyers.
The War of Liberation really did mess things up for a lot of families in both what was East and West Pakistan.
Leavers do have a bloody cheek when they talk about taking back control and view the EU as an evil empire.
Are we, if we get to that sad stage, supposed to rely on our daughters in law?
After all,
A son is a son till he takes him a wife.
But a daughter's a daughter all of her life.
To be honest, Fraser's article is disgusting in so many ways it's really hard to choose which ones are worst.
When he's caught
Will go to prison.
Scottish lawyer 'obsessed' with neighbour's noisy toilet
A Scottish lawyer is seeking an injunction over a neighbour's "growling" toilet.
52-year-old James Morris, who was a partner at Scottish firm Blackadders, alleges that the toilet in the flat above his apartment in Fife is creating unacceptable noise due to the installation of a grinding fan, rather than a normal plumbing system. A proof hearing at Kirkcaldy court, filled to the brim with toilet chat, is now underway.
Morris claims that the "loud mechanical growling" of the offending bog is similar to the sound of a revving motorbike or a chainsaw. He also says that an acoustics expert has confirmed that the noise is in excess of World Health Organisation guidelines (there's an expert for everything). Morris complains that the sound of pulverised waste is ruining his and his wife's lives.
The flat at the centre of the shitstorm is owned by Robert Curran and Jo McGarry-Curran, a couple based well out of ear-shot in Hawaii, who rent their property to guests on Airbnb.
Morris has kept a detailed log (phrasing) about the movements (phrasing) of the various visitors to the property. The entries include bathroom habits as well as details of other activities such as arrival times, when they go to the bins, and their movements from room to room. Morris has spotted patterns from his diary entries, such as American guests taking a shower as soon as they arrive at the property, even if late at night, and that women often use the toilet as soon as they get in.
Whilst lawyers are known for the attention to detail, this episode paints a bleak picture of where the profession can lead a person, specifically to a kitchen table at midnight, bug-eyed with rage and scrawling flush times in a Blackadders notebook.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/scottish-lawyer-obsessed-neighbours-noisy-toilet
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/22/brexit-latest-news-theresa-may-facing-tory-rebel-move-delay/
nb ignore URL title - open link to see actual story
The only chance Labour have of avoiding a mass exodus is to back a second vote .
https://twitter.com/roger_scully/status/1098920596732370944
[Intentional flippant comment since I know I have no chance of "winning" this]
And you're right about Fraser's article. It was just that bit about daughter's 'responsibilites' that particularly riled me.
And, since the man's name is of Scottish origin one of his forebears must have left his native place to come to England.
https://twitter.com/ProgressOnline/status/1098887911272005633
The Parliament website has been updated and Ian Austin is the 90th non-duopoly MP in the Commons.
Perhaps they'll make it to a hundred next week.
There are now 20 Independent MPs in Parliament - 11 TIG and 9 other independents.
"BBC Research" says 11 + 8 - and it's not that they've forgotten Austin - they were wrong yesterday when they had 11 + 7.
If they can't get something as simple as this correct (and it's correct on Parliament website) what hope is there of them getting more complex data correct?
However, he carefully doesn't say what has moved!
Chris Williamson (wingnut in chief)
vs
Owen Jones
I was shocked when the Conservative spokesperson on QT last night didn't seem to think these MPs should hold by elections (even though the audience was very strongly in favour of by elections being held)
Hopefully the next government will legislate to say that if an MP changes their party they have to get the consent of their electorate by holding by elections by law.
There is no such thing as a let down in the world of Welsh polling.
Every poll emanating from the Principality is box office.
Juxtaposing, the entire media hivemind will remember Chuka; right till his constituents forget him.
https://twitter.com/roger_scully/status/1098923926430904323
And look how that ended up!