politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bernie Sanders, 77, decides to take the plunge and moves to th
Comments
-
Ian Austin MP says he is going to make a decision by Friday about whether to resign the Labour whip. Wonder if there's going to be a second wave of Labour MPs going TIG?0
-
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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 -
I am referring to the way in which it is being interpreted. As far as I am aware all previous cases have involved people with definite dual nationality, not those who might be able to obtain it if they subsequently applied for it. That is the precedent I believe Javid is setting which if legal then sucks hundreds of thousands of Britons into the net.kle4 said:
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.
Edit. Separately I also disagree in principle with us shirking our responsibilities for our citizens who commit crimes and dumping them on other countries.0 -
Couple of sleepless nights ahead for him then.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:Ian Austin MP says he is going to make a decision by Friday about whether to resign the Labour whip. Wonder if there's going to be a second wave of Labour MPs going TIG?
0 -
I think that there would have to be a proper basis for concluding that continued citizenship was "seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom." But that doesn't seem a particular hurdle in this case.rottenborough said:
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 -
Why do you think she's been indoctrinated?TOPPING said: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 -
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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 -
Amend to remove the power entirely was what I meant.DavidL said:
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 -
A real mystery........AndyJS said:0 -
According to this, “a child born of a Bangladeshi father becomes Bangladesh national ipso facto at birth, irrespective of whether the child is born at home or abroad”
How reliable is this source though? And was her Dad a Bangladeshi national?
Page 8 Part 6
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H1ecjepq80QC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Bangladeshi+Citizenship+Law+of+1982&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false0 -
-
Maybe not:TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
The commission found that Bangladeshi law required them to apply to retain their citizenship at 21, but they failed to do so and were left with only British nationality.
Isis Bride is 19.0 -
Chris WIlliamson on Newsnight: not surprised by Joan Ryan's decision to leave the party.0
-
She was a child. Geddit?AndyJS said:
Why do you think she's been indoctrinated?TOPPING said: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 -
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him could be a major problem for him.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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 -
-
"UK praises Bangladesh’s achievements, amazing development stories"
https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/foreign-affairs/2019/01/27/uk-praises-bangladesh-s-achievements-amazing-development-stories
Things can't be that bad in Bangladesh if this report is true.0 -
Because if the courts strike it down, he can then propose to change the law to make it legal. Perhaps as part of his leadership campaign.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
He has played this brilliantly. This happens to be an issue where the PB centre ground is some distance from the public’s centre ground.
I look forward to the opinion polling on this.0 -
-
But someone on the committee did send it then?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/1097987259436019713
I'm sure Labour will take this extremely seriously .....0 -
-
I don't think he can lose - if it is overturned then public ire will be directed (unfairly, but that's life) at the Immigration Tribunal, not Javid.kle4 said:
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him could be a major problem for him.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
The Daily Mail's 'most liked' comment now has 33,000 likes - put on 5,000 in 20 minutes.0 -
-
Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.0
-
0
-
I think she has forfeited any moral claims that she may have on this country.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
All that matters is whether her legal rights have been infringed.0 -
Have a look at this:[2018] EWCA Civ 2064TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
Could a person be deprived of his status as a British citizen on the basis that he had repudiated his obligation of loyalty? Yes. The right to nationality was an important and weighty right. It was properly described as the right to have other rights, such as the right to reside in the country of residence and to consular protection. That right carried obligations: it derived from feudal law where the obligation of the liege was to protect, and the obligation of the subject was to be faithful0 -
Fair point. And as RoyalBlue notes he can use it as a pitch for what he would do as leader. Perhaps it is smart politics no matter if legal or not (currently). But I will think less of him if it is not.CarlottaVance said:
I don't think he can lose - if it is overturned then public ire will be directed (unfairly, but that's life) at the Immigration Tribunal, not Javid.kle4 said:
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him could be a major problem for him.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
The Daily Mail's 'most liked' comment now has 33,000 likes - put on 5,000 in 20 minutes.
Ok, seriously, how could the presented not just call him an outright liar if he said that? It cannot possibly be true.Scott_P said:
0 -
The young woman on the committee who sent it has already identified herself - think she's the YL rep on the NEC, and a medical student. Idiot.Floater said:
But someone on the committee did send it then?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/1097987259436019713
I'm sure Labour will take this extremely seriously .....0 -
I idly wonder what Sadiq Khan’s view of TIG might be.0
-
I agree. I find the youth argument unconvincing since she was plenty old enough to be responsible for her actions, and she apparently would be content things stayed as they were had ISIS not been defeated. The baby is an issue here. But the decision so long as legal I don't have a problem with, even though I'd prefer politicians not have such a power by themselves.Sean_F said:
All that matters is whether her legal rights have been infringed.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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 -
Cheers.DavidL said:
Have a look at this:[2018] EWCA Civ 2064TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
Could a person be deprived of his status as a British citizen on the basis that he had repudiated his obligation of loyalty? Yes. The right to nationality was an important and weighty right. It was properly described as the right to have other rights, such as the right to reside in the country of residence and to consular protection. That right carried obligations: it derived from feudal law where the obligation of the liege was to protect, and the obligation of the subject was to be faithful0 -
Does he want to continue being mayor?El_Capitano said:I idly wonder what Sadiq Khan’s view of TIG might be.
0 -
Technically he's correct because most of the people who dislike Corbyn are leaving the party, which means the percentage who approve of him is always going up.Scott_P said:0 -
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.CarlottaVance said: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#comments
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.0 -
An Independent Labour man has won in London before...RobD said:
Does he want to continue being mayor?El_Capitano said:I idly wonder what Sadiq Khan’s view of TIG might be.
0 -
NO.kle4 said:Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.0 -
-
Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
0 -
In CW's view the party is the Membership.kle4 said:
Fair point. And as RoyalBlue notes he can use it as a pitch for what he would do as leader. Perhaps it is smart politics no matter if legal or not (currently). But I will think less of him if it is not.CarlottaVance said:
I don't think he can lose - if it is overturned then public ire will be directed (unfairly, but that's life) at the Immigration Tribunal, not Javid.kle4 said:
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him could be a major problem for him.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
The Daily Mail's 'most liked' comment now has 33,000 likes - put on 5,000 in 20 minutes.
Ok, seriously, how could the presented not just call him an outright liar if he said that? It cannot possibly be true.Scott_P said:
Have been surprised how the right wingers in my CLP have been more critical of the splitters than me. In that respect my CLP is more United than for ages.0 -
What happened to Chris Williamson? Didn't someone on here say he seemed quite sensible until 2015? I know losing a seat is tough, and he is jolly grateful to Corbyn for helping win it back, but still.0
-
She might be. All a bit sketchy isn’t it? Given she grew up here, was brainwashed as a child and is now, um, all of 18 years old, with a young child, do you not think we have a responsibility as a country to deal with this, rather than go after cheap headlines in the gutter press?CarlottaVance said:
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 -
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left._Anazina_ said:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.CarlottaVance said: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#comments
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.0 -
They can. The 2 Ian's and Dame Margaret next in line.TheScreamingEagles said:
NO.kle4 said:Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.0 -
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?Richard_Nabavi said:Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz20lu2AM2kRoyalBlue said:
Because if the courts strike it down, he can then propose to change the law to make it legal.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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 -
I thought Hodge had firmly rejected the idea?bigjohnowls said:
They can. The 2 Ian's and Dame Margaret next in line.TheScreamingEagles said:
NO.kle4 said:Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.0 -
I thought her while thing was that she married a jihad enthusiast so potentially yes, I guess ISIS were not feminist and housework is a lot harder if you have shitty infrastructure and domestic tech.Y0kel said: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?
But it's kind of ridiculous to be having this conversation without actually knowing about this person's situation.0 -
If it's popular it must by definition be wrong, according to the Guardian-reading classes.blueblue said:
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left._Anazina_ said:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.CarlottaVance said: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#comments
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.0 -
Why don't you engage in the debate instead of the patronising manner you bring to every thread._Anazina_ said:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.CarlottaVance said: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#comments
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.0 -
How well constructed is this bridge? I won't be taken for a fool when purchasing a bridge*TOPPING said:
*again-1 -
Indeed.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 -
LOL - so no response other than la la la not listeningTOPPING said:
0 -
Conversely, someone may have a moral claim on this country, even if they do not have a legal claim. A foreign national who has fought for us, for example, and is in danger in his own country, as a result.kle4 said:
I agree. I find the youth argument unconvincing since she was plenty old enough to be responsible for her actions, and she apparently would be content things stayed as they were had ISIS not been defeated. The baby is an issue here. But the decision so long as legal I don't have a problem with, even though I'd prefer politicians not have such a power by themselves.Sean_F said:
All that matters is whether her legal rights have been infringed.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
It's unreasonable to argue (a) that the rule of law must apply, but (b) if the law favours the government, we have a moral obligation anyway to this woman.0 -
And since when did Hodges become all 'if someone says something it must be true'? This is the guy who was going to write a book on the scandal of Pleb-gate.TOPPING said:0 -
_Anazina_ said:
She might be. All a bit sketchy isn’t it? Given she grew up here, was brainwashed as a child and is now, um, all of 18 years old, with a young child, do you not think we have a responsibility as a country to deal with this, rather than go after cheap headlines in the gutter press?CarlottaVance said:
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.
If page 8 of this book is reliable, she is a Bangladeshi citizen if her father was. Jus Sanguinis
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H1ecjepq80QC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Bangladeshi+Citizenship+Law+of+1982&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false0 -
No, I'm saying a fair trial in the UK might not be practical.TOPPING said:
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?Richard_Nabavi said:Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.0 -
But i'm not using Hodges as my primary source... just some senior guy from Honda.....Stark_Dawning said:
And since when did Hodges become all 'if someone says something it must be true'? This is the guy who was going to write a book on the scandal of Pleb-gate.TOPPING said:
Apparently TOPPING just knows he is lying0 -
I don't think CLSA has anything to do with Credit Lyonnaise anymore. They bought themselves out about 20 years ago, and basically became of the better Asian focused research shops. Their chief strategist is (or was) highly entertaining. (Albeit you would have literally lost ALL your money if you'd paid any attention to his advice.)Charles said:
Edit to add: did the analyst say Honda (or its IR person) had said Brexit was a factor? If so, then I would be staggered if he were lying. That would be a firing offence at almost any firm. I think the most truth is that he said Brexit was *a* factor, which is almost certainly true. But that doesn't tell you whether it was a 2% factor or a 92% one.0 -
How it would work?TOPPING said:
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?Richard_Nabavi said:Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
She would arrive at LHR
The Met would have been tipped off by the airline and will be there to meet her.
The child would be taken into the custody of Social Services
She would be taken into custody
She would be indicted for various crimes
A magistrate would decide whether bail was in order or not, If it were then control orders would be implemented
There would be a trial
She would - I suspect - be convicted
She would be imprisoned
She would serve her sentence
Does this explain it enough for you?
0 -
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?Richard_Nabavi said:Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.0 -
The real mystery is why Dan Hodges is the go to guy for an opinion about every topic under the sun. What does he know about Japanese automotive companies?Floater said:
A real mystery........AndyJS said:
Edit on Honda. The presumably Leaver MP for Swindon was crass and lacked empathy when he rushed to tweet the closure decision had nothing to do with Brexit with no apparent concern for his constituents being thrown out of a job.0 -
Engage with the debate instead of throwing around cheesy alt-right slogans, would be my advice.blueblue said:
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left._Anazina_ said:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.CarlottaVance said: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#comments
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.0 -
-
Maybe not. I'm open to that argument. But let's not have the bogus ones.Chris said:
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?Richard_Nabavi said:Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Edit: Having said that, if the power is to exist, this looks like an absolutely reasonable application of it, assuming the legal criteria are met.0 -
She will go IMO.kle4 said:
I thought Hodge had firmly rejected the idea?bigjohnowls said:
They can. The 2 Ian's and Dame Margaret next in line.TheScreamingEagles said:
NO.kle4 said:Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.
Ian Austin Ian Murray tomorrow and Thursday.
I have a CLP meeting Friday Hope to see Toby at it.
This is damaging my already remote chances of becoming a Councillor in May.
Found out the ex LD MP is standing against me.
0 -
Perhaps not. But that's not a question able to be asked of a court I would imagine. Which political parties will take up the cause? Labour and the Tories have not, to date. The LDs might, I suppose and were just unwilling or unable to take it up during the coalition years.Chris said:
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?Richard_Nabavi said:Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.0 -
Good luck in the election! Brave.. and perhaps foolishbigjohnowls said:
She will go IMO.kle4 said:
I thought Hodge had firmly rejected the idea?bigjohnowls said:
They can. The 2 Ian's and Dame Margaret next in line.TheScreamingEagles said:
NO.kle4 said:Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.
Ian Austin Ian Murray tomorrow and Thursday.
I have a CLP meeting Friday Hope to see Toby at it.
This is damaging my already remote chances of becoming a Councillor in May.
Found out the ex LD MP is standing against me. 0 -
Tykejohnno said:
Why don't you engage in the debate instead of the patronising manner you bring to every thread._Anazina_ said:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.CarlottaVance said: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#comments
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
I have already written several posts on the matter, they are there for you to read with your own eyes.0 -
Are there never arguments over foreign policy at meetings?bigjohnowls said:
In CW's view the party is the Membership.kle4 said:
Fair point. And as RoyalBlue notes he can use it as a pitch for what he would do as leader. Perhaps it is smart politics no matter if legal or not (currently). But I will think less of him if it is not.CarlottaVance said:
I don't think he can lose - if it is overturned then public ire will be directed (unfairly, but that's life) at the Immigration Tribunal, not Javid.kle4 said:
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him could be a major problem for him.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
The Daily Mail's 'most liked' comment now has 33,000 likes - put on 5,000 in 20 minutes.
Ok, seriously, how could the presented not just call him an outright liar if he said that? It cannot possibly be true.Scott_P said:
Have been surprised how the right wingers in my CLP have been more critical of the splitters than me. In that respect my CLP is more United than for ages.
Ryan said in her dear jez note left on mantelpiece the anti semitism never existed in Labour until Corbyns leadership. Has he emboldened something already there? Imported it with entryism? Merely shifted Israel policy to not recognising it as a legitimate state to kick off the hoo hah?
What is Labours current policy towards Israel bigjohn, has it changed since 20150 -
Good luck!bigjohnowls said:
This is damaging my already remote chances of becoming a Councillor in May.kle4 said:
I thought Hodge had firmly rejected the idea?bigjohnowls said:
They can. The 2 Ian's and Dame Margaret next in line.TheScreamingEagles said:
NO.kle4 said:Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.0 -
Nope. And Eagles and Richard Tyndall are hardly raging leftwingers.Richard_Nabavi said:
If it's popular it must by definition be wrong, according to the Guardian-reading classes.blueblue said:
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left._Anazina_ said:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.CarlottaVance said: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#comments
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.0 -
They didn't cite the popularity of the measure as a reason to object to it, as you did._Anazina_ said:
Nope. And Eagles and Richard Tyndall are hardly raging leftwingers.Richard_Nabavi said:
If it's popular it must by definition be wrong, according to the Guardian-reading classes.blueblue said:
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left._Anazina_ said:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.CarlottaVance said: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#comments
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.0 -
Oh I don't think so. They have no incentive to pick fights with their Civic driving target customer profile .RobD said:
Or indeed with their soon to be sacked workforce that will be split be between appalled Remainers and embarrassed Leavers.0 -
Nothing there I disagree with. Perhaps others on here need it explaining however.Chris_A said:
How it would work?TOPPING said:
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?Richard_Nabavi said:Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
She would arrive at LHR
The Met would have been tipped off by the airline and will be there to meet her.
The child would be taken into the custody of Social Services
She would be taken into custody
She would be indicted for various crimes
A magistrate would decide whether bail was in order or not, If it were then control orders would be implemented
There would be a trial
She would - I suspect - be convicted
She would be imprisoned
She would serve her sentence
Does this explain it enough for you?0 -
RoyalBlue said:
Because if the courts strike it down, he can then propose to change the law to make it legal. Perhaps as part of his leadership campaign.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
He has played this brilliantly. This happens to be an issue where the PB centre ground is some distance from the public’s centre ground.
I look forward to the opinion polling on this.
Yes, as several people have noted quite clearly, it will be popular. So what?0 -
I think the Home Secretary can do it legally. I meant maybe he shouldn't have that legal power.kle4 said:
Perhaps not. But that's not a question able to be asked of a court I would imagine. Which political parties will take up the cause? Labour and the Tories have not, to date. The LDs might, I suppose and were just unwilling or unable to take it up during the coalition years.Chris said:
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?Richard_Nabavi said:Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.0 -
-
Ah, those thoughtless tweets of youth that come back to bite you on the arse when you're older and wiser. Can't relate.Scott_P said:0 -
4. She’s being made a special case because she’s a media star and her mouth is box office. Greater risks have come back for de programming without the same action against them.Richard_Nabavi said:
Maybe not. I'm open to that argument. But let's not have the bogus ones.Chris said:
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?Richard_Nabavi said:Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Edit: Having said that, if the power is to exist, this looks like an absolutely reasonable application of it, assuming the legal criteria are met.
5. Javids motives are driven by appealing to a narrow constituency of media and party members who will pick the next Tory leader. Since the times began pushing this he’s had sleepless nights about his leadership chances and shat himself at least once whilst sat at his desk in his office.0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
No, I'm saying a fair trial in the UK might not be practical.TOPPING said:
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?Richard_Nabavi said:Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
It will be as practical as any other in the same field.0 -
ISIS used to be popular - within a certain demographic..._Anazina_ said:RoyalBlue said:
Because if the courts strike it down, he can then propose to change the law to make it legal. Perhaps as part of his leadership campaign.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
He has played this brilliantly. This happens to be an issue where the PB centre ground is some distance from the public’s centre ground.
I look forward to the opinion polling on this.
Yes, as several people have noted quite clearly, it will be popular. So what?0 -
T
Nope, wrong again. I merely said that its popularity was not in question, and that the fact it is popular doesn’t make it right.Richard_Nabavi said:
They didn't cite the popularity of the measure as a reason to object to it, as you did._Anazina_ said:
Nope. And Eagles and Richard Tyndall are hardly raging leftwingers.Richard_Nabavi said:
If it's popular it must by definition be wrong, according to the Guardian-reading classes.blueblue said:
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left._Anazina_ said:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.CarlottaVance said: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#comments
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.0 -
No less ridiculous than the debate around whether the Home Secretary just fancies a good headline. That she could have been a combatant who assisted in the IS effort in an active form should be considered. If she was, it will come outedmundintokyo said:
I thought her while thing was that she married a jihad enthusiast so potentially yes, I guess ISIS were not feminist and housework is a lot harder if you have shitty infrastructure and domestic tech.Y0kel said: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?
But it's kind of ridiculous to be having this conversation without actually knowing about this person's situation.0 -
As an aside, for those who think the EU-Japan trade deal is solely responsible for the closure of Swindon and/or for the Nissan decision re the Xtrail, it is worth remembering that the EU is only slowly lowering the tariffs on cars imported from Japan. They decline at 1% per year, so in 2021, will still be 6-7%.0
-
dots said:bigjohnowls said:
It hasn't changed.kle4 said:
Are there never arguments over foreign policy at meetings?CarlottaVance said:
In CW's view the party is the Membership.kle4 said:
Yes, but the potential to blow up in his face before that contest by proving himself an incompetent if this goes against him uld do as leader. Perhaps it is smart politics no matter if legal or not (currently). But I will think less of him if it is not.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because he's a politician and thinks there might be a Tory leadership contest soon.kle4 said:
Sounds like Javid is indeed probably on shaky ground. Why would he be so reckless, even knowing it will be a popular decision?TheScreamingEagles said:
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.html
Ok, seriously, how could the presented not just call him an outright liar if he said that? It cannot possibly be true.Scott_P said:
Have been surprised how the right wingers in my CLP have been more critical of the splitters than me. In that respect my CLP is more United than for ages.
Ryan said in her dear jez note left on mantelpiece the anti semitism never existed in Labour until Corbyns leadership. Has he emboldened something already there? Imported it with entryism? Merely shifted Israel policy to not recognising it as a legitimate state to kick off the hoo hah?
What is Labours current policy towards Israel bigjohn, has it changed since 2015
Blair Campbell had some horrendous AS trope posters in their time. Look up flying pig and Fagin campaign poster campaign.
Foreign policy only argument I remember was over Toby not supporting Labour's Saudi Arabia arms motion.0 -
They are to varying degree fairly extreme liberals though, which is more relevant than left-right._Anazina_ said:
Nope. And Eagles and Richard Tyndall are hardly raging leftwingers.Richard_Nabavi said:
If it's popular it must by definition be wrong, according to the Guardian-reading classes.blueblue said:
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left._Anazina_ said:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.CarlottaVance said: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#comments
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Most people understand it is right that in extreme circumstances a state should have the ability to rescind the rights and obligations of citizenship. If you argue that this isn't one of those cases then you must believe there isn't any case, which is an extremist position.0 -
I know, that was my point. Which political party is going to stand up and suggest the power should be removed? Current Labour is different than it was, maybe Corbyn has a different take on it than Labour did while they were in power before.Chris said:
I think the Home Secretary can do it legally. I meant maybe he shouldn't have that legal power.kle4 said:
Perhaps not. But that's not a question able to be asked of a court I would imagine. Which political parties will take up the cause? Labour and the Tories have not, to date. The LDs might, I suppose and were just unwilling or unable to take it up during the coalition years.Chris said:
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?Richard_Nabavi said:Some points on the ISIS bride:
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is.
1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't.
1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this.
1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.0
