Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Fuck's sake she is a child.
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.
I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.
I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.
I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.
Those interviews she gave - as an adult - didn't exactly show her as a someone who was horrified by what she had got involved with.
Maybe that would have been different if she had been brought back to the UK and entered a deradicalisation programme rather than watching her baby die in a refugee camp.
So once again it's all our fault, is it? Contemptible - she has only herself to blame for ther own actions.
We are heading for some constitutional law and political fun. Lets assume (seems likely) that the SNP have SindyRef2 as a headline policy of their manifesto. Lets further assume they win a large majority in Holyrood.
Sturgeon then says "I will hold a referendum as mandated by the Scottish people". "No" says Cummings. "You can vote for whatever you like, we can and will ignore you, vote Conservative" says Shagger. "Its absolutely right that the will of the people in this democratic vote be ignored" says Gove "as its a distraction from delivering the will of the people's democratic Brexit vote which cannot be ignored". At which point Scotland calls in international election observers and holds a referendum. "ILLEGAL" screams the Tories. "DICTATORS" scream the Scots.
You take my point? I know its 3 centuries ago. I know we are all legally subjects not citizens. But regardless of what the Sheriff of Epping thinks this government cannot deny the will of the people. Not in this parliament having been elected on a will of the people mandate.
This Conservative and Unionist government has done more to critically damage the Union than the combined efforts of hundreds of years of government before it. Scotland will put independence back to the people. Ulster will see the smoothness of its ROI border and the difficulties with the GB border. Wales, well who cares about Wales...
The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
I don't think Starmer would have any problem being on the side of the rule of law and against criminals. He was, after all, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I think he would. A lot of red wall voters are very very hardline on law and order and always have been. I know that many Labour people hated tough on crime tough on the causes of crime and ID cards but this was all red meat to traditional Labour voters.
Begum has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Even if she somehow wins the right to return to the UK it wouldn't be safe for her here. Its appalling and disgusting but thats how it is.
I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?
No need. Boris and the Tory majority at Westminster will refuse indyref2 and ignore a UDI but he does not need to anyway as Sturgeon has correctly said she will not hold indyref2 without Westminster consent and will not declare UDI which means as long as Boris remains PM and Sturgeon remains First Minister there will not be any indyref2 (at least for another generation)
So you know what the SNP: manifesto for next year says?
We are heading for some constitutional law and political fun. Lets assume (seems likely) that the SNP have SindyRef2 as a headline policy of their manifesto. Lets further assume they win a large majority in Holyrood.
Sturgeon then says "I will hold a referendum as mandated by the Scottish people". "No" says Cummings. "You can vote for whatever you like, we can and will ignore you, vote Conservative" says Shagger. "Its absolutely right that the will of the people in this democratic vote be ignored" says Gove "as its a distraction from delivering the will of the people's democratic Brexit vote which cannot be ignored". At which point Scotland calls in international election observers and holds a referendum. "ILLEGAL" screams the Tories. "DICTATORS" scream the Scots.
You take my point? I know its 3 centuries ago. I know we are all legally subjects not citizens. But regardless of what the Sheriff of Epping thinks this government cannot deny the will of the people. Not in this parliament having been elected on a will of the people mandate.
This Conservative and Unionist government has done more to critically damage the Union than the combined efforts of hundreds of years of government before it. Scotland will put independence back to the people. Ulster will see the smoothness of its ROI border and the difficulties with the GB border. Wales, well who cares about Wales...
Under the UK constitution Westminster is supreme and whichever party has a majority at Westminster can legally do whatever it likes.
The SNP got 50% of the vote in Scotland at the general election in 2015 before Brexit, the SNP first won most seats in Scotland at Holyrood in 2007 before Brexit and under a UK Labour government, nothing to do with the Tories.
The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
Indeed. One can be pretty confident that the majority of the British public experiences none of the indulgent soft-headedness towards this case that is apparently the default 'liberal' position. Quite the opposite.
The majority of the British people know so little of the case they base their judgment on poor reporting, hearsay and prejudice. Typical of so many such issues which play into the hands of right wing populists.
The majority tends to take a pretty dim view of those who run away to wage war against us. That probably seems old-fashioned to some trendy liberals, I'm sure...
But it’s against international law to leave someone stateless. The government have used this to whip up public opinion when they could have quietly brought her home years ago, put her on trial and taken it from there.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.
Why would it not be legal,please explain
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.
where does it say that and which court decreed it. If you can show me the section of the union treaty signed in Scotland that states that I will be impressed.
The Act of Union 1707 dissolved the Scottish and English parliament and created the GB parliament. The UK parliament (successor to GB) then passed the Scotland Act 1998.
To go back to my original point which Rob is artfully sidestepping:
"Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament."
I did not say that the Scottish government legally owns the continuation of the Union. I said that legally Scotland is an equal partner. Which it is - two separate Acts of Union in what remains two separate legal systems. Westminster *can* refuse a democratic request from the Scottish government to repeal the Scottish Act and say "its not a devolved power". That is true. But we know that it would not, at least not for long.
Or is the argument that despite two equal Acts of Union cast in two separate legal systems that Scotland is as relevant as Wales or Yorkshire or Sealand?
Legally Scotland as a sovereign entity ceased to exist. It can't be an equal partner if it no longer exists.
But you could say it's equal (to England) in its non existence.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Fuck's sake she is a child.
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.
I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.
I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.
I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.
Those interviews she gave - as an adult - didn't exactly show her as a someone who was horrified by what she had got involved with.
Maybe that would have been different if she had been brought back to the UK and entered a deradicalisation programme rather than watching her baby die in a refugee camp.
So once again it's all our fault, is it? Contemptible - she has only herself to blame for ther own actions.
So the Child Victims of grooming are guilty of their subsequent crimes, interesting view.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.
Why would it not be legal,please explain
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.
where does it say that and which court decreed it. If you can show me the section of the union treaty signed in Scotland that states that I will be impressed.
The Act of Union 1707 dissolved the Scottish and English parliament and created the GB parliament. The UK parliament (successor to GB) then passed the Scotland Act 1998.
To go back to my original point which Rob is artfully sidestepping:
"Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament."
I did not say that the Scottish government legally owns the continuation of the Union. I said that legally Scotland is an equal partner. Which it is - two separate Acts of Union in what remains two separate legal systems. Westminster *can* refuse a democratic request from the Scottish government to repeal the Scottish Act and say "its not a devolved power". That is true. But we know that it would not, at least not for long.
Or is the argument that despite two equal Acts of Union cast in two separate legal systems that Scotland is as relevant as Wales or Yorkshire or Sealand?
Legally Scotland as a sovereign entity ceased to exist. It can't be an equal partner if it no longer exists.
But you could say it's equal (to England) in its non existence.
No as Scotland has its own Parliament too unlike England
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Fuck's sake she is a child.
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.
I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.
I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.
I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.
Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?
As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.
The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
Indeed. One can be pretty confident that the majority of the British public experiences none of the indulgent soft-headedness towards this case that is apparently the default 'liberal' position. Quite the opposite.
The majority of the British people know so little of the case they base their judgment on poor reporting, hearsay and prejudice. Typical of so many such issues which play into the hands of right wing populists.
The majority tends to take a pretty dim view of those who run away to wage war against us. That probably seems old-fashioned to some trendy liberals, I'm sure...
Just on a point of order, wasn't she fighting* against the Assad regime, who we have also been fighting against? * Technically getting raped not fighting. Minor details for our tabloid legal scholars.
Are you going to pretend that IS wasn't waging war on us? Don't talk shit.
I am merely questioning what role she actually played in this conflict.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.
Why would it not be legal,please explain
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.
where does it say that and which court decreed it. If you can show me the section of the union treaty signed in Scotland that states that I will be impressed.
The Act of Union 1707 dissolved the Scottish and English parliament and created the GB parliament. The UK parliament (successor to GB) then passed the Scotland Act 1998.
That is still not a legal view, it is merely your thinking on what is an incredibly complex topic. I will not believe it till it is tested in court.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.
Why would it not be legal,please explain
Malc, it has been explained to you and Stuart, patiently and at great length, with relevant citations, that sovereign powers are reserved to Westminster. That includes the power to hold another referendum on independence. Any attempt to hold it without that sanction might be both invalid - as in, having no standing - and unlawful, insofar as it would be an improper use of government funds.
In any case since Westminster would under recent Supreme Court rulings have to pass a bill dissolving the union, as Holyrood doesn’t have that competency, the point is moot.
I know some lunatic fringe elements like Cherry disagree. Sturgeon is far too wily to be trapped like that. In any case, the longer Westminster is seen to be blocking a referendum the better her chances of winning one. Privately, she’s probably very happy indeed with the current situation.
That’s entirely separate from the question of whether it should happen.
Ydoethur , imaginary legal rights from barrack room lawyers on here do not make it right. I think you talk bollox on the legal front. Until it is tested in court we are both talking bollox. However in a democracy it is hard to see the current English dictatorship being in the right in any shape or form.
There is no English dictatorship, Westminster includes Scottish MPs as well as English MPs
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.
Why would it not be legal,please explain
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.
where does it say that and which court decreed it. If you can show me the section of the union treaty signed in Scotland that states that I will be impressed.
The Act of Union 1707 dissolved the Scottish and English parliament and created the GB parliament. The UK parliament (successor to GB) then passed the Scotland Act 1998.
To go back to my original point which Rob is artfully sidestepping:
"Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament."
I did not say that the Scottish government legally owns the continuation of the Union. I said that legally Scotland is an equal partner. Which it is - two separate Acts of Union in what remains two separate legal systems. Westminster *can* refuse a democratic request from the Scottish government to repeal the Scottish Act and say "its not a devolved power". That is true. But we know that it would not, at least not for long.
Or is the argument that despite two equal Acts of Union cast in two separate legal systems that Scotland is as relevant as Wales or Yorkshire or Sealand?
Legally Scotland as a sovereign entity ceased to exist. It can't be an equal partner if it no longer exists.
Comments
Sturgeon then says "I will hold a referendum as mandated by the Scottish people". "No" says Cummings. "You can vote for whatever you like, we can and will ignore you, vote Conservative" says Shagger. "Its absolutely right that the will of the people in this democratic vote be ignored" says Gove "as its a distraction from delivering the will of the people's democratic Brexit vote which cannot be ignored". At which point Scotland calls in international election observers and holds a referendum. "ILLEGAL" screams the Tories. "DICTATORS" scream the Scots.
You take my point? I know its 3 centuries ago. I know we are all legally subjects not citizens. But regardless of what the Sheriff of Epping thinks this government cannot deny the will of the people. Not in this parliament having been elected on a will of the people mandate.
This Conservative and Unionist government has done more to critically damage the Union than the combined efforts of hundreds of years of government before it. Scotland will put independence back to the people. Ulster will see the smoothness of its ROI border and the difficulties with the GB border. Wales, well who cares about Wales...
Begum has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Even if she somehow wins the right to return to the UK it wouldn't be safe for her here. Its appalling and disgusting but thats how it is.
has held a referendum and dissolved itself
The SNP got 50% of the vote in Scotland at the general election in 2015 before Brexit, the SNP first won most seats in Scotland at Holyrood in 2007 before Brexit and under a UK Labour government, nothing to do with the Tories.
Northern Ireland still wants to stay in the UK
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nireland-poll/poll-shows-northern-ireland-majority-against-united-ireland-idUSKBN20C0WI
So the Child Victims of grooming are guilty of their subsequent crimes, interesting view.
https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1283733981532508160?s=20
As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.
1974 F 91.7% (11/12 MPs)
1974 O 83.3% (10/12 MPs)
1979 75.0% (9/12 MPs)
1983 88.2% (15/17 MPs)
1987 76.5% (13/17 MPs)
1992 76.5% (13/17 MPs)
1997 72.2% (13/18 MPs)
2001 61.1% (11/18 MPs)
2005 55.6% (10/18 MPs)
2010 50.0% (9/18 MPs)
2015 61.1% (11/18 MPs)
2017 55.6% (10/18 MPs)
2019 44.4% (8/18 MPs)