politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bernie Sanders, 77, decides to take the plunge and moves to th
Comments
-
Broad support and the law may be be necessary aligned.RoyalBlue said:Well done Javid. I can only imagine the number of hand-wringing civil servants and human rights lawyers he has had to contend with to get this through.
This will command very broad public support. I expect that the minority who think droning would have been more appropriate is larger than the minority who think we should let her back into the country.
I am not a fan of that crazy girl but due process and laws need to be upheld.0 -
That's unlikely to be a problem. She will be shot before she has spent much time in prison as many similar women have been.ralphmalph said:
But if the Syrian Govt said we want her to face justice for being a member of ISIS in our courts, then the lefties would be up in outrage about nasty Assad, no human rights in prison, etc.SouthamObserver said:
She was clearly made in Britain. We should take responsibility for her if she is not tried for any crimes she commited while abroad.kle4 said:
That was the line that jumped out in BBC story for me. 'She is believed to be of Bangladeshi heritage but when asked by the BBC, she said did not have a Bangladesh passport and had never been to the country'. Seems like that really needs looking into since you cannot do this based on assumptions.SouthamObserver said:
It is and I’m genuinely shocked. It seems she may not have Bangladeshi citizenship, just the potential right to claim it.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised people are wary of a politician having this power, however awful the person it is used on. I'm surprised that you are acting like this is the first you have heard of this power.SouthamObserver said:
Why is it defending terrorists to believe a politician should not have the right to revoke someone’s British citizenship? If you’re fine with Dianne Abbott or another far left Labour Home Secretary potentially having the power to revoke the UK citizenship of people they consider dangerous, fair enough. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.MaxPB said:
Lol, look at all of you defending the terrorists. It's bloody brilliant that she can't come back to this country. Javid has played a blinder here.kinabalu said:Too old. Somebody should have a word.
Somebody should also have a word with the increasingly risible Sajid Javed.
Although as we've seen from the dual citizenship troubles in Australian politics in the last few years, turns out you can hold citizenship of other nations without even realising it in some instances, depending on what the law is with the other nation.
Can't imagine Bangladesh would be happy with being dumped with the woman though.0 -
I don't know why they don't just cut to the chase and merge with the Lib Dems already. They could be the Liberal Independent Democrats. They'd probably want to get something in about being British, Internationalist and New in there too though.viewcode said:
Hah! I didn't think of that!solarflare said:Are the Tiggers hoping to outnumber the Lib Dems by tomorrow?
BINLIDs.0 -
We could live in hope but Rory Stewart is the only honourable one among them.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.0 -
I think they would have to support any VNOC - or be accused of helping the Tories. They would also refuse to support an Affirmative Confidence Vote in Corbyn.nico67 said:The funny thing is these resignations make Corbyns Unicorn EU vote still on the table more likely to become reality . The 8 won’t support a no confidence vote as they’d likely have a quick end to their careers and don’t want him as PM anyway .
At this rate the DUP won’t be able to bring the government down even if May delivers a backstop in the WA. And Corbyns desperate attempts to avoid a second EU vote could hit the buffers as there’s little chance of getting an election .0 -
-
Only if they want an immediate election, which seems unlikely.justin124 said:
I think they would have to support any VNOC - or be accused of helping the Tories. They would also refuse to support an Affirmative Confidence Vote in Corbyn.nico67 said:The funny thing is these resignations make Corbyns Unicorn EU vote still on the table more likely to become reality . The 8 won’t support a no confidence vote as they’d likely have a quick end to their careers and don’t want him as PM anyway .
At this rate the DUP won’t be able to bring the government down even if May delivers a backstop in the WA. And Corbyns desperate attempts to avoid a second EU vote could hit the buffers as there’s little chance of getting an election .0 -
Very high chance the courts will overturn this.Chris_A said:
We could live in hope but Rory Stewart is the only honourable one among them.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
0 -
Meanwhile, there is a Mock the Week repeat on BBC 2 from last summer. The top 2 stories are Tories unable to agree or make any progress on Brexit and Labour anti-semitism.0
-
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.0 -
-
I don't follow the logic of this. They're already accused of helping the Tories. Yes, it puts them in a bit of a bind when asked to vote no confidence or not, especially since I presume they did vote no confidence in the government last time, but they can abstain on the basis they have no confidence in anyone right now. It would definitely look like saving their own bacon from an early election, but unless they are wildly unrealistic they must have known there was a very real chance they will never win a parliamentary election again no matter when it happens, certainly no, er, certainty they would, so choosing to sit out the main party squabbles seems like something they will be prepared to do.justin124 said:
I think they would have to support any VNOC - or be accused of helping the Tories. They would also refuse to support an Affirmative Confidence Vote in Corbyn.nico67 said:The funny thing is these resignations make Corbyns Unicorn EU vote still on the table more likely to become reality . The 8 won’t support a no confidence vote as they’d likely have a quick end to their careers and don’t want him as PM anyway .
At this rate the DUP won’t be able to bring the government down even if May delivers a backstop in the WA. And Corbyns desperate attempts to avoid a second EU vote could hit the buffers as there’s little chance of getting an election .0 -
Surely the surprise was because people were not aware that the woman had dual nationality. If she had not then Javid would have been breaking the law.viewcode said:0 -
Sounds like a pretty cavalierly drafted piece of legislation. I guess subsequent governments saw no need to tighten things up and reduce their power in this matter.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.0 -
-
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.0 -
If they fail to do they lose any appeal to left of centre voters in the same way LibDems suffered post-Coalition entry. Similarly the SNP might not really welcome an early election but would effectively have no choice.Sean_F said:
Only if they want an immediate election, which seems unlikely.justin124 said:
I think they would have to support any VNOC - or be accused of helping the Tories. They would also refuse to support an Affirmative Confidence Vote in Corbyn.nico67 said:The funny thing is these resignations make Corbyns Unicorn EU vote still on the table more likely to become reality . The 8 won’t support a no confidence vote as they’d likely have a quick end to their careers and don’t want him as PM anyway .
At this rate the DUP won’t be able to bring the government down even if May delivers a backstop in the WA. And Corbyns desperate attempts to avoid a second EU vote could hit the buffers as there’s little chance of getting an election .0 -
How many Tories would have to defect for the Conservatives + DUP to lose their majority?0
-
Another thing I don't get - who is un-selfconscious enough to not realise that tweet might cause trouble, but self conscious enough to realise a few minutes later they should delete it (of self conscious enough to recognise the criticism they got for it and decide to react to that)?Scott_P said:0 -
The criteria need to be met. Home Secretary needs to be convinced that:kle4 said:
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
(A) it would be conducive to the public good
(B) she has acted in a manner prejudicial to British interests
C) she has a right to another nationality
I think he should be able to build a case provided that he has done the legwork0 -
They will not support a vonc and see them out of the hoc. Also you are missing the point. They do not want a Corbyn government and will not enable itjustin124 said:
I think they would have to support any VNOC - or be accused of helping the Tories. They would also refuse to support an Affirmative Confidence Vote in Corbyn.nico67 said:The funny thing is these resignations make Corbyns Unicorn EU vote still on the table more likely to become reality . The 8 won’t support a no confidence vote as they’d likely have a quick end to their careers and don’t want him as PM anyway .
At this rate the DUP won’t be able to bring the government down even if May delivers a backstop in the WA. And Corbyns desperate attempts to avoid a second EU vote could hit the buffers as there’s little chance of getting an election .0 -
If so,won't have done his leadership credentials any harm with the right of the party.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.0 -
It's a website where Ryan Creamer posts his wholesome photographs of him doing kind things with no sexual connotations[1]. Other people also post there but those posts are different.TheScreamingEagles said:
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ryan-creamers-pornhub-channel0 -
-
More than one person can administer/run a Twitter feed.kle4 said:
Another thing I don't get - who is un-selfconscious enough to not realise that tweet might cause trouble, but self conscious enough to realise a few minutes later they should delete it (of self conscious enough to recognise the criticism they got for it and decide to react to that)?Scott_P said:
Maybe an adult came into the room?0 -
I’m sure the nation will be greatly concerned.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
The great and the good will clutch their pearls, but this will go down very well with the general public and the Tory membership. Perhaps Javid is good at politics.0 -
And then there were eight.
Who’s next?0 -
May be Tulip could help?TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.0 -
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1097986888085000192kle4 said:Another thing I don't get - who is un-selfconscious enough to not realise that tweet might cause trouble, but self conscious enough to realise a few minutes later they should delete it (of self conscious enough to recognise the criticism they got for it and decide to react to that)?
That's the key, though. They will get away with it because they can, and a nod to Jezza while they do0 -
Con exodus starts tomorrow?AlastairMeeks said:And then there were eight.
Who’s next?0 -
Welcome to Earth. You're new here, I believe. Well, just a few things to start. You see, there's these things called "men"...kyf_100 said:
I suspect SeanT, having the real thing, has little need of the simulation.El_Capitano said:
SeanT knows, I believe?TheScreamingEagles said: 0 -
Do we know what their nationality law is? Because if there are situations where some people are automatically granted it if X then it presumably wouldn't matter if it had ever been requested or officially granted, and they couldn't withdraw that right now we've withdrawn her British citizenship.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
If I were them I'd be pissed. Can't say I'm a fan of politician's having this kind of power (or of pardon for instance) but it should be an intriguing legal case I guess.0 -
This might also explain itkle4 said:Another thing I don't get - who is un-selfconscious enough to not realise that tweet might cause trouble, but self conscious enough to realise a few minutes later they should delete it (of self conscious enough to recognise the criticism they got for it and decide to react to that)?
https://twitter.com/mrwtch/status/10979872594360197130 -
If we got in there first how could they use those exceptional circumstances to deny her a passport? Then it would be them making her stateless, not us (in a very technical sense, granted)TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
-
0
-
Wonder if the ERG have capitulated, with 'Malthouse only later' thrown their way to salvage some of their dignity. (No one understood it anyway.) If so go Theresa!Scott_P said:0 -
I believe in the rule of law.RoyalBlue said:
I’m sure the nation will be greatly concerned.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
The great and the good will clutch their pearls, but this will go down very well with the general public and the Tory membership. Perhaps Javid is good at politics.
Still when Brexit becomes a disaster we'll be able to revoke the citizenship of Brexiteers because of the precedent Javid has set because some will argue that all Leavers have Russian citizenship.
Or put it more bluntly, do you want Jeremy Corbyn to have the precedent to remove UK citizenship illegally because it is good politics? I mean you can see why people of Jewish heritage might be scared.0 -
And are you missing the point. The government losing a VoNC does not mean a Corbyn government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They will not support a vonc and see them out of the hoc. Also you are missing the point. They do not want a Corbyn government and will not enable itjustin124 said:
I think they would have to support any VNOC - or be accused of helping the Tories. They would also refuse to support an Affirmative Confidence Vote in Corbyn.nico67 said:The funny thing is these resignations make Corbyns Unicorn EU vote still on the table more likely to become reality . The 8 won’t support a no confidence vote as they’d likely have a quick end to their careers and don’t want him as PM anyway .
At this rate the DUP won’t be able to bring the government down even if May delivers a backstop in the WA. And Corbyns desperate attempts to avoid a second EU vote could hit the buffers as there’s little chance of getting an election .0 -
-
Ah yes. I think whoever controls access to that account needs to have a conference call and see who can be trusted with it!Scott_P said:
This might also explain itkle4 said:Another thing I don't get - who is un-selfconscious enough to not realise that tweet might cause trouble, but self conscious enough to realise a few minutes later they should delete it (of self conscious enough to recognise the criticism they got for it and decide to react to that)?
https://twitter.com/mrwtch/status/10979872594360197130 -
You'd be pissed off, not pissed.kle4 said:
Do we know what their nationality law is? Because if there are situations where some people are automatically granted it if X then it presumably wouldn't matter if it had ever been requested or officially granted, and they couldn't withdraw that right now we've withdrawn her British citizenship.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
If I were them I'd be pissed. Can't say I'm a fan of politician's having this kind of power (or of pardon for instance) but it should be an intriguing legal case I guess.0 -
They will vote against a Corbyn Government - but they cannot be seen to support a Tory Government either. Were they to abstain , they would be very vulnerable to the charge of being 'Tory Little Helpers'. That would stick to them immediately.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They will not support a vonc and see them out of the hoc. Also you are missing the point. They do not want a Corbyn government and will not enable itjustin124 said:
I think they would have to support any VNOC - or be accused of helping the Tories. They would also refuse to support an Affirmative Confidence Vote in Corbyn.nico67 said:The funny thing is these resignations make Corbyns Unicorn EU vote still on the table more likely to become reality . The 8 won’t support a no confidence vote as they’d likely have a quick end to their careers and don’t want him as PM anyway .
At this rate the DUP won’t be able to bring the government down even if May delivers a backstop in the WA. And Corbyns desperate attempts to avoid a second EU vote could hit the buffers as there’s little chance of getting an election .0 -
No - I am aware of thatChris_A said:
And are you missing the point. The government losing a VoNC does not mean a Corbyn government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They will not support a vonc and see them out of the hoc. Also you are missing the point. They do not want a Corbyn government and will not enable itjustin124 said:
I think they would have to support any VNOC - or be accused of helping the Tories. They would also refuse to support an Affirmative Confidence Vote in Corbyn.nico67 said:The funny thing is these resignations make Corbyns Unicorn EU vote still on the table more likely to become reality . The 8 won’t support a no confidence vote as they’d likely have a quick end to their careers and don’t want him as PM anyway .
At this rate the DUP won’t be able to bring the government down even if May delivers a backstop in the WA. And Corbyns desperate attempts to avoid a second EU vote could hit the buffers as there’s little chance of getting an election .0 -
If Bangladesh law allows them to deny someone citizenship then they aren't revoking it because she never had it, so she becomes the UK's problems in the eyes of various treaties.kle4 said:
If we got in there first how could they use those exceptional circumstances to deny her a passport? Then it would be them making her stateless, not us (in a very technical sense, granted)TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
The Best rated (28,000 likes):
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6720367/Shamima-Begum-expect-spoken-returns-UK-police-chief.html#comments0 -
They were busy voting on whether to delete the tweet that caused upset yesterday, last I heard. Student politics at its finest.kle4 said:
Ah yes. I think whoever controls access to that account needs to have a conference call and see who can be trusted with it!Scott_P said:
This might also explain itkle4 said:Another thing I don't get - who is un-selfconscious enough to not realise that tweet might cause trouble, but self conscious enough to realise a few minutes later they should delete it (of self conscious enough to recognise the criticism they got for it and decide to react to that)?
https://twitter.com/mrwtch/status/10979872594360197130 -
That's an unfair response even if to an unfair point. It is not yet clear that Javid has removed someone's citizenship illegally. Until that is established surely someone could support his action without being presumed to be against the rule of law? Perhaps some supportive of the decision will indeed change their minds if it is shown Javid has acted illegally.TheScreamingEagles said:
I believe in the rule of law.RoyalBlue said:
I’m sure the nation will be greatly concerned.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
The great and the good will clutch their pearls, but this will go down very well with the general public and the Tory membership. Perhaps Javid is good at politics.
Still when Brexit becomes a disaster we'll be able to revoke the citizenship of Brexiteers because of the precedent Javid has set because some will argue that all Leavers have Russian citizenship.
Or put it more bluntly, do you want Jeremy Corbyn to have the precedent to remove UK citizenship illegally because it is good politics? I mean you can see why people of Jewish heritage might be scared.0 -
That she has the right or that she actually has it? I just went and looked at the rules for dual nationality for Bangladesh and it is not something she would automatically have. She would have to have applied for it and been accepted.Charles said:
The criteria need to be met. Home Secretary needs to be convinced that:kle4 said:
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
(A) it would be conducive to the public good
she has acted in a manner prejudicial to British interests
C) she has a right to another nationality
I think he should be able to build a case provided that he has done the legwork
If Javid is claiming it is only necessary for someone to have the right to apply then every single Briton of Bangladeshi descent could be stripped of their British nationality on the whim of the Home Secretary.0 -
-
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1097987495906738176
Interesting. What's this "investigating the Iraqi war"?
We've had three public inquiries iirc.0 -
Could people do this in an orderly manner? Some of us have thread headers to write.GIN1138 said:
Con exodus starts tomorrow?AlastairMeeks said:And then there were eight.
Who’s next?0 -
It could be more than one person.kle4 said:
Another thing I don't get - who is un-selfconscious enough to not realise that tweet might cause trouble, but self conscious enough to realise a few minutes later they should delete it (of self conscious enough to recognise the criticism they got for it and decide to react to that)?Scott_P said:0 -
The power to remove British citizenship was introduced by s40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. It has been amended 5 times. Currently s40 (4A) provides:
"But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a) the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and
(c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory."
It occurs to me that this woman would very probably be entitled to Syrian nationality as a result of her being married to a Syrian and having had 3 children by him. If so, then it seems to me that the Home Secretary could make such an order.
In Aziz and others-v-Secretary of state last year citizenship was removed from a number of men convicted of child grooming offences who had dual UK and Pakistani nationality. Their appeals were unsuccessful.
0 -
Well if they are serious about a new politics they will need to bring some former Tories in anyway, and strike their own identity rather than pine for Labour all the time, I don't see how they can avoid being seen either as Diet Labour or Tories Little Helpers, either of which will mute their appeal with someone.justin124 said:
They will vote against a Corbyn Government - but they cannot be seen to support a Tory Government either. Were they to abstain , they would be very vulnerable to the charge of being 'Tory Little Helpers'. That would stick to them immediately.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They will not support a vonc and see them out of the hoc. Also you are missing the point. They do not want a Corbyn government and will not enable itjustin124 said:
I think they would have to support any VNOC - or be accused of helping the Tories. They would also refuse to support an Affirmative Confidence Vote in Corbyn.nico67 said:The funny thing is these resignations make Corbyns Unicorn EU vote still on the table more likely to become reality . The 8 won’t support a no confidence vote as they’d likely have a quick end to their careers and don’t want him as PM anyway .
At this rate the DUP won’t be able to bring the government down even if May delivers a backstop in the WA. And Corbyns desperate attempts to avoid a second EU vote could hit the buffers as there’s little chance of getting an election .0 -
-
C) is very contentious. Means that British citizens who were born abroad (maybe even second generation migrants) are second class citizens. Awful but quite typical of the Tories.Charles said:
The criteria need to be met. Home Secretary needs to be convinced that:kle4 said:
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
(A) it would be conducive to the public good
(B) she has acted in a manner prejudicial to British interests
C) she has a right to another nationality
I think he should be able to build a case provided that he has done the legwork
Sajid Javid is a right-wing nasty c*nt!0 -
You can guarantee something major is going to happen tomorrow, I'm busy for most of tomorrow.AlastairMeeks said:
Could people do this in an orderly manner? Some of us have thread headers to write.GIN1138 said:
Con exodus starts tomorrow?AlastairMeeks said:And then there were eight.
Who’s next?0 -
I'm listening to the experts who think Javid is on very shaky legal grounds.kle4 said:
That's an unfair response even if to an unfair point. It is not yet clear that Javid has removed someone's citizenship illegally. Until that is established surely someone could support his action without being presumed to be against the rule of law? Perhaps some supportive of the decision will indeed change their minds if it is shown Javid has acted illegally.TheScreamingEagles said:
I believe in the rule of law.RoyalBlue said:
I’m sure the nation will be greatly concerned.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
The great and the good will clutch their pearls, but this will go down very well with the general public and the Tory membership. Perhaps Javid is good at politics.
Still when Brexit becomes a disaster we'll be able to revoke the citizenship of Brexiteers because of the precedent Javid has set because some will argue that all Leavers have Russian citizenship.
Or put it more bluntly, do you want Jeremy Corbyn to have the precedent to remove UK citizenship illegally because it is good politics? I mean you can see why people of Jewish heritage might be scared.0 -
I thought her husband was Dutch? The Dutch don't allow dual citizenship - but have been revisiting that as a result of Brexit - the baby could almost certainly claim Dutch citizenship.DavidL said:It occurs to me that this woman would very probably be entitled to Syrian nationality as a result of her being married to a Syrian and having had 3 children by him. If so, then it seems to me that the Home Secretary could make such an order.
0 -
A Labour government of 13 years saw no reason to amend this legislation apparently. I do not know how often they ever used it though. But with such a long period to remove what does look like a very general set of rules for removing citizenship, I find it hard to see it as simply 'typical of the Tories'. I have a suspicion that all Home Secretary's found the idea of diminishing their own power once in office to be, shall we say, not a priority.murali_s said:
C) is very contentious. Means that British citizens who were born abroad (maybe even second generation migrants) are second class citizens. Awful but quite typical of the Tories.Charles said:
The criteria need to be met. Home Secretary needs to be convinced that:kle4 said:
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
(A) it would be conducive to the public good
(B) she has acted in a manner prejudicial to British interests
C) she has a right to another nationality
I think he should be able to build a case provided that he has done the legwork
Sajid Javid is a right-wing nasty c*nt!
0 -
The right to was what the Beeb flashed on the screen. That is the full extent of my knowledge.Richard_Tyndall said:
That she has the right or that she actually has it? I just went and looked at the rules for dual nationality for Bangladesh and it is not something she would automatically have. She would have to have applied for it and been accepted.Charles said:
The criteria need to be met. Home Secretary needs to be convinced that:kle4 said:
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
(A) it would be conducive to the public good she has acted in a manner prejudicial to British interests
C) she has a right to another nationality
I think he should be able to build a case provided that he has done the legwork
If Javid is claiming it is only necessary for someone to have the right to apply then every single Briton of Bangladeshi descent could be stripped of their British nationality on the whim of the Home Secretary.0 -
He's the next PM.murali_s said:
C) is very contentious. Means that British citizens who were born abroad (maybe even second generation migrants) are second class citizens. Awful but quite typical of the Tories.Charles said:
The criteria need to be met. Home Secretary needs to be convinced that:kle4 said:
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
(A) it would be conducive to the public good
(B) she has acted in a manner prejudicial to British interests
C) she has a right to another nationality
I think he should be able to build a case provided that he has done the legwork
Sajid Javid is a right-wing nasty c*nt!0 -
On the first tweet, if the HS sent the letter before the baby was born then the baby wouldn't be eligible to inherit British citizenship, just Dutch citizenship from the father.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
The Crown retains the right to determine who is or is not a Subject effectively. As long as they are not made stateless. Or have I missed something?DavidL said:The power to remove British citizenship was introduced by s40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. It has been amended 5 times. Currently s40 (4A) provides:
"But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a) the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and
(c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory."
It occurs to me that this woman would very probably be entitled to Syrian nationality as a result of her being married to a Syrian and having had 3 children by him. If so, then it seems to me that the Home Secretary could make such an order.
In Aziz and others-v-Secretary of state last year citizenship was removed from a number of men convicted of child grooming offences who had dual UK and Pakistani nationality. Their appeals were unsuccessful.0 -
I thought she "married" an ISIS fighter in Syria. Was he Dutch? Didn't know that.CarlottaVance said:
I thought her husband was Dutch? The Dutch don't allow dual citizenship - but have been revisiting that as a result of Brexit - the baby could almost certainly claim Dutch citizenship.DavidL said:It occurs to me that this woman would very probably be entitled to Syrian nationality as a result of her being married to a Syrian and having had 3 children by him. If so, then it seems to me that the Home Secretary could make such an order.
0 -
Perhaps we should clarify public opinion on the matter with a referendum? We could even make it legally binding this time.TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm listening to the experts who think Javid is on very shaky legal grounds.kle4 said:
That's an unfair response even if to an unfair point. It is not yet clear that Javid has removed someone's citizenship illegally. Until that is established surely someone could support his action without being presumed to be against the rule of law? Perhaps some supportive of the decision will indeed change their minds if it is shown Javid has acted illegally.TheScreamingEagles said:
I believe in the rule of law.RoyalBlue said:
I’m sure the nation will be greatly concerned.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
The great and the good will clutch their pearls, but this will go down very well with the general public and the Tory membership. Perhaps Javid is good at politics.
Still when Brexit becomes a disaster we'll be able to revoke the citizenship of Brexiteers because of the precedent Javid has set because some will argue that all Leavers have Russian citizenship.
Or put it more bluntly, do you want Jeremy Corbyn to have the precedent to remove UK citizenship illegally because it is good politics? I mean you can see why people of Jewish heritage might be scared.0 -
-
Doesn't her husband have Netherlander nationality?DavidL said:The power to remove British citizenship was introduced by s40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. It has been amended 5 times. Currently s40 (4A) provides:
"But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a) the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and
(c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory."
It occurs to me that this woman would very probably be entitled to Syrian nationality as a result of her being married to a Syrian and having had 3 children by him. If so, then it seems to me that the Home Secretary could make such an order.
In Aziz and others-v-Secretary of state last year citizenship was removed from a number of men convicted of child grooming offences who had dual UK and Pakistani nationality. Their appeals were unsuccessful.0 -
No I for one won't. Even if legal it's the wrong decision and done just to make Javid look good in the eyes of the Tories - I bet he even had his special power stance trousers one when he made the decision. She is our responsibility and we should deal with her.kle4 said:
That's an unfair response even if to an unfair point. It is not yet clear that Javid has removed someone's citizenship illegally. Until that is established surely someone could support his action without being presumed to be against the rule of law? Perhaps some supportive of the decision will indeed change their minds if it is shown Javid has acted illegally.TheScreamingEagles said:
I believe in the rule of law.RoyalBlue said:
I’m sure the nation will be greatly concerned.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
The great and the good will clutch their pearls, but this will go down very well with the general public and the Tory membership. Perhaps Javid is good at politics.
Still when Brexit becomes a disaster we'll be able to revoke the citizenship of Brexiteers because of the precedent Javid has set because some will argue that all Leavers have Russian citizenship.
Or put it more bluntly, do you want Jeremy Corbyn to have the precedent to remove UK citizenship illegally because it is good politics? I mean you can see why people of Jewish heritage might be scared.0 -
-
And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm listening to the experts who think Javid is on very shaky legal grounds.kle4 said:
That's an unfair response even if to an unfair point. It is not yet clear that Javid has removed someone's citizenship illegally. Until that is established surely someone could support his action without being presumed to be against the rule of law? Perhaps some supportive of the decision will indeed change their minds if it is shown Javid has acted illegally.TheScreamingEagles said:
I believe in the rule of law.RoyalBlue said:
I’m sure the nation will be greatly concerned.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If m sure.Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
The great and the good will clutch their pearls, but this will go down very well with the general public and the Tory membership. Perhaps Javid is good at politics.
Still when Brexit becomes a disaster we'll be able to revoke the citizenship of Brexiteers because of the precedent Javid has set because some will argue that all Leavers have Russian citizenship.
Or put it more bluntly, do you want Jeremy Corbyn to have the precedent to remove UK citizenship illegally because it is good politics? I mean you can see why people of Jewish heritage might be scared.0 -
It's remarkable that there seems to have been little consideration the possibility that Ms Begum was actually a combatant. Based on the public news she appears to have knowingly gone to join an organisation and after that did what exactly? Sit at home?0
-
If you feel that way, set up a JustGiving page. Let’s see how much support you get.Chris_A said:
No I for one won't. Even if legal it's the wrong decision and done just to make Javid look good in the eyes of the Tories - I bet he even had his special power stance trousers one when he made the decision. She is our responsibility and we should deal with her.kle4 said:
That's an unfair response even if to an unfair point. It is not yet clear that Javid has removed someone's citizenship illegally. Until that is established surely someone could support his action without being presumed to be against the rule of law? Perhaps some supportive of the decision will indeed change their minds if it is shown Javid has acted illegally.TheScreamingEagles said:
I believe in the rule of law.RoyalBlue said:
I’m sure the nation will be greatly concerned.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
The great and the good will clutch their pearls, but this will go down very well with the general public and the Tory membership. Perhaps Javid is good at politics.
Still when Brexit becomes a disaster we'll be able to revoke the citizenship of Brexiteers because of the precedent Javid has set because some will argue that all Leavers have Russian citizenship.
Or put it more bluntly, do you want Jeremy Corbyn to have the precedent to remove UK citizenship illegally because it is good politics? I mean you can see why people of Jewish heritage might be scared.0 -
I suggest we introduce a swear box with fines going to the sitemurali_s said:
C) is very contentious. Means that British citizens who were born abroad (maybe even second generation migrants) are second class citizens. Awful but quite typical of the Tories.Charles said:
The criteria need to be met. Home Secretary needs to be convinced that:kle4 said:
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
(A) it would be conducive to the public good
(B) she has acted in a manner prejudicial to British interests
C) she has a right to another nationality
I think he should be able to build a case provided that he has done the legwork
Sajid Javid is a right-wing nasty c*nt!0 -
She might be entitled to Dutch citizenship through her husband.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.0 -
This 'foreign interventionism' you keep going on about, is it the same interventionism as we did in Kosovo, or failed to do in the Rwanda genocide?The_Apocalypse said:
My point was, what many self declared centrists see as ‘sensible’ and ‘rational’ are not neccessarily what the public see as those things. I used foreign interventionism and education policy as examples.IanB2 said:
You seem to have forgotten that the LibDems were almost alone in opposing Iraq. And foreign intervention is out of fashion, now, and won't be an issue with the diminished status we are heading for. Is anyone proposing actually to abolish academy or free schools?The_Apocalypse said:FPT:
I don’t think it’s just Blair’s name that’s the problem. There quite a few beliefs among those who themselves centrists - e.g. support for academies and free schools, or foreign interventionism - that don’t seem to be that much popular among the public.IanB2 said:
Faced with the ERG and the Corbynistas, some calm rational and competent politics is very much in demand. Just so long as you don't attach Blair's name to it.The_Apocalypse said:I don’t see that much evidence that ‘Blairism’ is that much in demand amongst the public.
0 -
It has been amended 5 times. Such amendments frequently arise from a reversal in the courts. But the use of the legislation is not that uncommon. Westlaw has about 45 cases where it has been used over the years.kle4 said:
A Labour government of 13 years saw no reason to amend this legislation apparently. I do not know how often they ever used it though. But with such a long period to remove what does look like a very general set of rules for removing citizenship, I find it hard to see it as simply 'typical of the Tories'. I have a suspicion that all Home Secretary's found the idea of diminishing their own power once in office to be, shall we say, not a priority.murali_s said:
C) is very contentious. Means that British citizens who were born abroad (maybe even second generation migrants) are second class citizens. Awful but quite typical of the Tories.Charles said:
The criteria need to be met. Home Secretary needs to be convinced that:kle4 said:
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
(A) it would be conducive to the public good
(B) she has acted in a manner prejudicial to British interests
C) she has a right to another nationality
I think he should be able to build a case provided that he has done the legwork
Sajid Javid is a right-wing nasty c*nt!0 -
And that's a perfectly valid opinion to hold, but it was not the point of contention I had with TSE's suggestion. As you say it might be legal but one could still disagree with it. But one might also agree but only because it is legal, and if it is not I for one would not support the decision.Chris_A said:
No I for one won't. Even if legal it's the wrong decision and done just to make Javid look good in the eyes of the Tories - I bet he even had his special power stance trousers one when he made the decision. She is our responsibility and we should deal with her.kle4 said:
That's has acted illegally.TheScreamingEagles said:
I believe in the rule of law.RoyalBlue said:
I’m sure the nation will be greatly concerned.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
The great and the good will clutch their pearls, but this will go down very well with the general public and the Tory membership. Perhaps Javid is good at politics.
Still when Brexit becomes a disaster we'll be able to revoke the citizenship of Brexiteers because of the precedent Javid has set because some will argue that all Leavers have Russian citizenship.
Or put it more bluntly, do you want Jeremy Corbyn to have the precedent to remove UK citizenship illegally because it is good politics? I mean you can see why people of Jewish heritage might be scared.0 -
So what do we do when a Dutch born and raised dual national of the UK and Netherlands has their citizenship revoked by the Netherlands for joining ISIS. Will we then be obligated to allow a random Dutch terrorist into the country?0
-
-
James Forsythe is uneasy with Sajid's decision.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/sajid-javid-is-wrong-to-strip-shamima-begum-of-her-british-citizenship/0 -
Not if he resigns because he acted illegally while chasing a popular news headline. We shall see.AndyJS said:
He's the next PM.murali_s said:
C) is very contentious. Means that British citizens who were born abroad (maybe even second generation migrants) are second class citizens. Awful but quite typical of the Tories.Charles said:
The criteria need to be met. Home Secretary needs to be convinced that:kle4 said:
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
(A) it would be conducive to the public good
(B) she has acted in a manner prejudicial to British interests
C) she has a right to another nationality
I think he should be able to build a case provided that he has done the legwork
Sajid Javid is a right-wing nasty c*nt!0 -
Maybe it makes her Holland's issue? The legal advice may be that she has recourse for Dutch citizenship through her husband.DavidL said:
I thought she "married" an ISIS fighter in Syria. Was he Dutch? Didn't know that.CarlottaVance said:
I thought her husband was Dutch? The Dutch don't allow dual citizenship - but have been revisiting that as a result of Brexit - the baby could almost certainly claim Dutch citizenship.DavidL said:It occurs to me that this woman would very probably be entitled to Syrian nationality as a result of her being married to a Syrian and having had 3 children by him. If so, then it seems to me that the Home Secretary could make such an order.
0 -
I know we rarely agree on much but on this i think you are absolutely correct both morally and practically. This is morally the wrong decision and it sets a very real and dangerous precedent which could affect hundreds of thousands of Britons from immigrant origins. Extremely bad in all ways.Chris_A said:
No I for one won't. Even if legal it's the wrong decision and done just to make Javid look good in the eyes of the Tories - I bet he even had his special power stance trousers one when he made the decision. She is our responsibility and we should deal with her.0 -
Why are the EU having a summit in Egypt?TGOHF said:0 -
So @Carlotta says. I didn't know that. I would have thought that Dutch law is more likely to be like ours and not give citizenship by marriage. That might explain where the Bangladeshi angle comes in. But as I have said the use of this legislation is a long way from novel.TheScreamingEagles said:
Doesn't her husband have Netherlander nationality?DavidL said:The power to remove British citizenship was introduced by s40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. It has been amended 5 times. Currently s40 (4A) provides:
"But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a) the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and
(c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory."
It occurs to me that this woman would very probably be entitled to Syrian nationality as a result of her being married to a Syrian and having had 3 children by him. If so, then it seems to me that the Home Secretary could make such an order.
In Aziz and others-v-Secretary of state last year citizenship was removed from a number of men convicted of child grooming offences who had dual UK and Pakistani nationality. Their appeals were unsuccessful.0 -
And then there were 8.....0
-
“I wouldn’t have found someone like my husband [Yago Riedijk, 26, a Muslim convert from the Netherlands] in the UK. I had my kids, I had a good time there.”DavidL said:
I thought she "married" an ISIS fighter in Syria. Was he Dutch? Didn't know that.CarlottaVance said:
I thought her husband was Dutch? The Dutch don't allow dual citizenship - but have been revisiting that as a result of Brexit - the baby could almost certainly claim Dutch citizenship.DavidL said:It occurs to me that this woman would very probably be entitled to Syrian nationality as a result of her being married to a Syrian and having had 3 children by him. If so, then it seems to me that the Home Secretary could make such an order.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/17/bethnal-green-jihadi-bride-shamima-begum-has-given-birth-family/0 -
Meh - does she really want to come to the Uk and face a phalanx of pitchforks.TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm listening to the experts who think Javid is on very shaky legal grounds.kle4 said:
That's an unfair response even if to an unfair point. It is not yet clear that Javid has removed someone's citizenship illegally. Until that is established surely someone could support his action without being presumed to be against the rule of law? Perhaps some supportive of the decision will indeed change their minds if it is shown Javid has acted illegally.TheScreamingEagles said:
I believe in the rule of law.RoyalBlue said:
I’m sure the nation will be greatly concerned.TheScreamingEagles said:
But Bangladesh might refuse to give it to her, thus making her stateless.Charles said:
The Beeb put some quotes from the 1981 Act up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree.CarlottaVance said:
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....kle4 said:
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?Chris_A said:Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
The HS only needs to be convinced that she has the *right* to another nationality not that she already *has* it.
You can understand why they'd not want to grant it, even before we consider she's never been there.
The great and the good will clutch their pearls, but this will go down very well with the general public and the Tory membership. Perhaps Javid is good at politics.
Still when Brexit becomes a disaster we'll be able to revoke the citizenship of Brexiteers because of the precedent Javid has set because some will argue that all Leavers have Russian citizenship.
Or put it more bluntly, do you want Jeremy Corbyn to have the precedent to remove UK citizenship illegally because it is good politics? I mean you can see why people of Jewish heritage might be scared.
She’ll need a new identity.
Approaching Bulger killer and Maxine whatsherface levels of bile.0 -
-
Surely it is not a precedent since it is already an established power of the Home Secretary? I grant I am not a lawyer by any means, but the concerns about the morality of the decision regardless of its legality seem much more profound that the worry over precedent, since unless I am missing something what precedent is being set that did not already exist apparently?Richard_Tyndall said:
I know we rarely agree on much but on this i think you are absolutely correct both morally and practically. This is morally the wrong decision and it sets a very real and dangerous precedent which could affect hundreds of thousands of Britons from immigrant origins. Extremely bad in all ways.Chris_A said:
No I for one won't. Even if legal it's the wrong decision and done just to make Javid look good in the eyes of the Tories - I bet he even had his special power stance trousers one when he made the decision. She is our responsibility and we should deal with her.0 -
Nuance, it'll never catch on.kle4 said:And you, and they, may be right. But how does that make it reasonable to say someone supportive of his decision does not support the rule of law, given Javid, one would hope, took the advice of experts in the Home Office, who apparently said it was lawful? They might be wrong about that, government's can be after all, but supporting the at the moment presumed lawful decision does not mean someone automatically supports the decision even if it is proven unlawful, which is the accusation you have made.
Have a read of this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/british-citizenship-removal-isis-terrorists-extremists-stateless-illegal-blocked-court-bangladesh-a8645241.html0 -
She was a child until last year and has evidently been indoctrinated. She has (had) British citizenship.
Now, is it our job to try to rehabilitate her? Yes it sort of is.
She should come back, be tried for whatever crimes she has committed and then be helped back into society.0 -
Was her marriage valid under dutch law?MaxPB said:
Maybe it makes her Holland's issue? The legal advice may be that she has recourse for Dutch citizenship through her husband.DavidL said:
I thought she "married" an ISIS fighter in Syria. Was he Dutch? Didn't know that.CarlottaVance said:
I thought her husband was Dutch? The Dutch don't allow dual citizenship - but have been revisiting that as a result of Brexit - the baby could almost certainly claim Dutch citizenship.DavidL said:It occurs to me that this woman would very probably be entitled to Syrian nationality as a result of her being married to a Syrian and having had 3 children by him. If so, then it seems to me that the Home Secretary could make such an order.
This does all still seem very messy, which rather underscores why removing the citizenship of even very bad people cannot be done lightly - I hope very much that Javid has not acted rashly and did in fact ensure these various issues were looked into.0
