JD Vance and Turning Point could only fill 25% of this venue in Atlanta, Georgia, per Jake Traylor of MSNOW. Nobody likes MAGA anymore and that’s a beautiful thing.
No, Harry Sission wasn’t at a TPUSA event with JD Vance.
It was the usual photos from some time before the event started, which has become of feature of US social media commentators on both sides in recent years.
Because Veep was there they had secret service doing security so it took ages to get everyone in. Erica Kirk cancelled her attendance on the advice of her own security, there was said to be a credible threat to her car on the journey.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
I was surprised that the British courts ruled that Begum's theoretical entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship was enough to enable the British government to strip her of her British citizenship without leaving her stateless. But they looked at all the evidence and are experienced judges, so that's the way the law as enacted works.
My amateurish legal reasoning sees an obvious parallel with every British citizen's theoretical entitlement to Irish citizenship (British citizenship entities you to reside in Ireland, after a certain number of years of residency you can apply for Irish citizenship). Plus I'm not sure how being moved to a prison in Northern Ireland would interact with the citizenship provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.
Everyone's British citizenship could be at risk from a malicious government.
I'm aiming to get myself three citizenships (Britain, Ireland, Austria) just to be on the safe side.
It wasn't theoretical, they ruled she already had it from birth. That's definitely not the same as being eligible for citizenship after a certain number of years of residence.
I mean it is theoretical, because she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship in reality, and Bangladesh insist that their citizenship law does not work the way it was interpreted by British courts to work.
Statements from politicians, or a finding in a court of law?
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Are we going to deprive Barty of citizenship and deport him?
If she has committed criminal acts then she should be tried but we should not be making people stateless.
It won’t be Ed M. Pb as usual shows a blind spot for Labour politics.
I hate him but it will almost certainly be Andy Burnham in 2028 or 2029.
Not unless he becomes an MP it won't, otherwise it will be Streeting or Rayner in my view if Starmer goes
Starmer won’t be going anywhere any time soon.
Burnham gets into Parliament 2028/2029.
I think this is right. If Labour have any sense (I know...) they would recognise that the voters, ultimately, will value stability, and ditching a sitting PM is, in effect, a vote of no confidence in your own government's record. This communicates itself to the electorate. All the same, it can work, as we saw with Mrs T's replacement by John Major, but she had been in office for over 11 years and the Tories simply had to lance the boil of the poll tax. Sir Keir's only been there for 2 years, and there is no equivalent of the poll tax for a new PM to scrap. Labour need to hold their nerve and stick.
JD Vance and Turning Point could only fill 25% of this venue in Atlanta, Georgia, per Jake Traylor of MSNOW. Nobody likes MAGA anymore and that’s a beautiful thing.
And one of the issues we have is that the media will hound any politician who admits to getting things wrong. Hence current Tories cannot seem to own any of the mistakes from 2010 to 2024, Labour will never accept that they left the finances in 2010 in a terrible state, Tories will never accept that they ran down public services etc
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
The internet is undecided about their UK citizenship. Does Kemi know more about this? It is not clear if she is planning to deport UK citizens, and also unclear where she is planning to deport them. I think we are owed policy clarity on this issue.
This is not the stuff of a serious political leader in a liberal democracy.
✴️Young women are 26 pts less favourable to capitalism than young men, and feel much more positively towards communism than capitalism.
✴️Women u25 dislike capitalism so much, they view it as (un)favourably as fascism.
✴️UK should pay slavery reparations by a 2-1 margin
Young middle class educated white women feel the most strongly about these issues.
✴️17% of ABC1 women have a positive view of capitalism compared to 32% of C2DE women
✴️ABC1 women more likely to think the economy works against them
White women are more critical about the country and their chances in it than those from an ethnic minority background
✴️Young white women are more likely to say the country is racist and sexist
✴️Young white women are less likely to say they feel valued by society
Strikingly, young women are *a lot* more negative about the opposite gender than young men.
✴️6 in 10 (58%) say they would find it difficult to date someone who disagreed on Gaza
✴️3 in 4 (74%) say the say the same about views of Donald Trump, with even more saying they wouldn't date someone who disagreed about social justice
✴️Female graduates hold much more positive views about communism, feminism, socialism and extinction rebellion than non-graduates
✴️Grads are also more likely to back slavery reparations say we need more government intervention to ensure life is fa
I remember A J P Taylor (for younger readers, a famous historian of distinctly radical views) opining that the only thing that surprised him about the 1930s was that the young graduate class of that period didn't go down the fashionable route of the day and embrace fascism (many went for communism instead, of course, which ended up wishing the fashion show among intellectuals).
Overthrowing what makes your life comfortable and sustainable has always been the prerogative of the young. Fortunately their elders are usually able to hold the line.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
The internet is undecided about their UK citizenship. Does Kemi know more about this? It is not clear if she is planning to deport UK citizens, and also unclear where she is planning to deport them. I think we are owed policy clarity on this issue.
This is not the stuff of a serious political leader in a liberal democracy.
Some dark corners of the internet like to suggest that Starmer was involved in the asylum case of the parents, with a deeper implication that he knew this in the heat of the moment (when the shit was hitting the fan after the attack). I'm pretty sure this isn't true, but the internet is a law unto itself.
"Bogus websites, staged protests and pretend atheists: Inside the fake asylum industry"
"If the reporter wanted to declare himself an atheist, the process would start with making posts on social media insulting Islam or the Prophet Muhammad.
"Religious clerics will start making comments threatening to kill you. Then you will see that your evidence has been created," Akhand said.
He would be introduced by the lawyer to atheist organisations in the UK and in Bangladesh that ran online blogs or magazines where, for a fee, he could make posts, again lending credibility to his claims. He suggested the reporter could use AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to write blog or article posts.
He would also need to attend events organised by groups for former Muslims and speak out during them because "this is not the age of posts anymore, it is the age of live videos".
Farage or his party have previously called for deregulation, and proposed a new “bitcoin reserve fund” and the forcing of HMRC to accept crypto as a payment for taxes. Cooper also highlighted the £9m donation Reform received last year from Christopher Harborne, an investor in the cryptocurrency firm Tether, making it the largest donation of its kind in UK history.
And it wasn’t just the usual centrist and left-leaning suspects raising concerns about Farage’s link with Stack.
Fraser Nelson, the former editor of the Spectator, last month described it as “a scandal hiding in plain sight”, adding that most politicians sell shares to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. He also argued that if investors concluded that Farage was within reach of No 10, and believed his party would promote crypto, “the upside becomes self-fulfilling. The investment is not just a bet on bitcoin but on political power itself.”
✴️Young women are 26 pts less favourable to capitalism than young men, and feel much more positively towards communism than capitalism.
✴️Women u25 dislike capitalism so much, they view it as (un)favourably as fascism.
✴️UK should pay slavery reparations by a 2-1 margin
Young middle class educated white women feel the most strongly about these issues.
✴️17% of ABC1 women have a positive view of capitalism compared to 32% of C2DE women
✴️ABC1 women more likely to think the economy works against them
White women are more critical about the country and their chances in it than those from an ethnic minority background
✴️Young white women are more likely to say the country is racist and sexist
✴️Young white women are less likely to say they feel valued by society
Strikingly, young women are *a lot* more negative about the opposite gender than young men.
✴️6 in 10 (58%) say they would find it difficult to date someone who disagreed on Gaza
✴️3 in 4 (74%) say the say the same about views of Donald Trump, with even more saying they wouldn't date someone who disagreed about social justice
✴️Female graduates hold much more positive views about communism, feminism, socialism and extinction rebellion than non-graduates
✴️Grads are also more likely to back slavery reparations say we need more government intervention to ensure life is fa
The contrast between young men and young women is very stark, and widening further.
No wonder they’re not dating any more!
Which is not encouraging, as otherwise young men will drift further to the hard right as young women drift to the hard woke left and young men will also continue to turn to Tate and returning to traditional gender roles
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
Not quite. The Bullen case has been covered by the DTel, LBC, Mirror, GB News, Express, D Mail, Sun, Times. Probably others, though I can't find anything from the Guardian or BBC. In the Begum case we heard plenty from both supporters and opponents of citizenship removal. The story had legs - she was 15 when she went and is in a plight which is itself a story.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Prediction: by this time next year Rupert Lowe's party will be on about 10% in the opinion polls, taking almost all of their support from Reform UK. So you could have Ref 20%, Restore 10%. Or Ref 25%, Restore 10% if Reform continue to take support from other parties (but this is less likely).
✴️Young women are 26 pts less favourable to capitalism than young men, and feel much more positively towards communism than capitalism.
✴️Women u25 dislike capitalism so much, they view it as (un)favourably as fascism.
✴️UK should pay slavery reparations by a 2-1 margin
Young middle class educated white women feel the most strongly about these issues.
✴️17% of ABC1 women have a positive view of capitalism compared to 32% of C2DE women
✴️ABC1 women more likely to think the economy works against them
White women are more critical about the country and their chances in it than those from an ethnic minority background
✴️Young white women are more likely to say the country is racist and sexist
✴️Young white women are less likely to say they feel valued by society
Strikingly, young women are *a lot* more negative about the opposite gender than young men.
✴️6 in 10 (58%) say they would find it difficult to date someone who disagreed on Gaza
✴️3 in 4 (74%) say the say the same about views of Donald Trump, with even more saying they wouldn't date someone who disagreed about social justice
✴️Female graduates hold much more positive views about communism, feminism, socialism and extinction rebellion than non-graduates
✴️Grads are also more likely to back slavery reparations say we need more government intervention to ensure life is fa
The contrast between young men and young women is very stark, and widening further.
No wonder they’re not dating any more!
Which is not encouraging, as otherwise young men will drift further to the hard right as young women drift to the hard woke left and young men will also continue to turn to Tate and returning to traditional gender roles
Young men, and to a lesser extent young women, have always been able to turn their minds and time to any subject, opinion and activity under the sun which assists in getting closer to the desired object.
I don't think I would exist had not my mum, who was tone deaf, in the late 1940s managed to discover an interest in opera and Beethoven piano sonatas.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
The lawyers decided Begum had another citizenship.
I mean, I can understand why Bangladesh don't want her. But our legal position has much greater basis than the Bangladeshi's.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
The lawyers decided Begum had another citizenship.
I mean, I can understand why Bangladesh don't want her. But our legal position has much greater basis than the Bangladeshi's.
It is a source of shame to live in a country where UK citizenship for those born in the UK can be removed under any circumstances.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
Not quite. The Bullen case has been covered by the DTel, LBC, Mirror, GB News, Express, D Mail, Sun, Times. Probably others, though I can't find anything from the Guardian or BBC. In the Begum case we heard plenty from both supporters and opponents of citizenship removal. The story had legs - she was 15 when she went and is in a plight which is itself a story.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
It is an outrage of course. But not quite 'arbitrary' because it is, while intrinsically lawless in natural justice, subject to the rule of law from our courts. The SC should rule that removing UK citizenship from those who are so by being born here it is so contrary to basic principles of justice that the statutes and regulations allowing it should be overturned, there being no such thing as a 'reasonable' decision to do it.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
The lawyers decided Begum had another citizenship.
I mean, I can understand why Bangladesh don't want her. But our legal position has much greater basis than the Bangladeshi's.
The lawyers said, essentially, that the Home Sec followed the rules in arbitrarily depriving Begum of citizenship.
That anyone with a second citizenship can lose U.K. citizenship by the decision of the Home Sec.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
Not quite. The Bullen case has been covered by the DTel, LBC, Mirror, GB News, Express, D Mail, Sun, Times. Probably others, though I can't find anything from the Guardian or BBC. In the Begum case we heard plenty from both supporters and opponents of citizenship removal. The story had legs - she was 15 when she went and is in a plight which is itself a story.
So barely a murmur rather than not a murmur.
It's a trope of James O'Brien to claim no-one is talking or reporting about some subject when he is devoting endless time to doing so.
It was an experiment to see if it was possible to set up a land bridge, with the uncertainty over boats and planes in the Gulf, to deliver food from Europe.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
Not quite. The Bullen case has been covered by the DTel, LBC, Mirror, GB News, Express, D Mail, Sun, Times. Probably others, though I can't find anything from the Guardian or BBC. In the Begum case we heard plenty from both supporters and opponents of citizenship removal. The story had legs - she was 15 when she went and is in a plight which is itself a story.
So barely a murmur rather than not a murmur.
It's a trope of James O'Brien to claim no-one is talking or reporting about some subject when he is devoting endless time to doing so.
Bullen has been stripped of citizenship on actual security grounds, which clearly haven't been made public, after as an adult deciding to take another citizenship
"Bogus websites, staged protests and pretend atheists: Inside the fake asylum industry"
"If the reporter wanted to declare himself an atheist, the process would start with making posts on social media insulting Islam or the Prophet Muhammad.
"Religious clerics will start making comments threatening to kill you. Then you will see that your evidence has been created," Akhand said.
He would be introduced by the lawyer to atheist organisations in the UK and in Bangladesh that ran online blogs or magazines where, for a fee, he could make posts, again lending credibility to his claims. He suggested the reporter could use AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to write blog or article posts.
He would also need to attend events organised by groups for former Muslims and speak out during them because "this is not the age of posts anymore, it is the age of live videos".
I have read a bit and heard a bit more on R4 Today on this story. I may be being precipitate but the BBC seems coy and indecisive about a critical matter. It is using the terms 'lawyer' and 'legal adviser' and 'who said he was a barrister' but for the story to be truly interesting it is essential to know if the people they make allegations about are solicitors or barristers with the right to practice and appropriately documented or if they are randomers pretending.
If the latter, the story is no surprise at all. I think we all take for granted this happens on Murphy's principle. If this involved real professionals from identifiable chambers, partnerships and firms of solicitors entitled to practice, it matters a lot.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
It is an outrage of course. But not quite 'arbitrary' because it is, while intrinsically lawless in natural justice, subject to the rule of law from our courts. The SC should rule that removing UK citizenship from those who are so by being born here it is so contrary to basic principles of justice that the statutes and regulations allowing it should be overturned, there being no such thing as a 'reasonable' decision to do it.
That is not how our system works, SCOTUS essentially works on variation of that "We find that this is against the constitution....". Laws are made by men (In our case the Commons), they are not sent down by God.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
Not quite. The Bullen case has been covered by the DTel, LBC, Mirror, GB News, Express, D Mail, Sun, Times. Probably others, though I can't find anything from the Guardian or BBC. In the Begum case we heard plenty from both supporters and opponents of citizenship removal. The story had legs - she was 15 when she went and is in a plight which is itself a story.
So barely a murmur rather than not a murmur.
Is it only a shout out if it's from the BBC and/or Guardian?
Prediction: by this time next year Rupert Lowe's party will be on about 10% in the opinion polls, taking almost all of their support from Reform UK. So you could have Ref 20%, Restore 10%. Or Ref 25%, Restore 10% if Reform continue to take support from other parties (but this is less likely).
Given Restore are standing just 10 candidates in the local elections who cares what Lowe's party is polling if it can't even be bothered to find and put up candidates to vote for? Whatever you think of Farage at least Reform did the hard work to put up a full slate of candidates in May with 4,820 Reform candidates nominated to vote for
"Bogus websites, staged protests and pretend atheists: Inside the fake asylum industry"
"If the reporter wanted to declare himself an atheist, the process would start with making posts on social media insulting Islam or the Prophet Muhammad.
"Religious clerics will start making comments threatening to kill you. Then you will see that your evidence has been created," Akhand said.
He would be introduced by the lawyer to atheist organisations in the UK and in Bangladesh that ran online blogs or magazines where, for a fee, he could make posts, again lending credibility to his claims. He suggested the reporter could use AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to write blog or article posts.
He would also need to attend events organised by groups for former Muslims and speak out during them because "this is not the age of posts anymore, it is the age of live videos".
I have read a bit and heard a bit more on R4 Today on this story. I may be being precipitate but the BBC seems coy and indecisive about a critical matter. It is using the terms 'lawyer' and 'legal adviser' and 'who said he was a barrister' but for the story to be truly interesting it is essential to know if the people they make allegations about are solicitors or barristers with the right to practice and appropriately documented or if they are randomers pretending.
If the latter, the story is no surprise at all. I think we all take for granted this happens on Murphy's principle. If this involved real professionals from identifiable chambers, partnerships and firms of solicitors entitled to practice, it matters a lot.
In this instance, they have said:
"Akhand qualified as a barrister in 2022 but does not hold a licence to practice, meaning he is what is known as a non-practising or unregistered barrister.
It is illegal for someone in that position to refer to themselves as a barrister in connection to legal services."
Kemi wriggling and squirming but just digging a deeper hole.
She can't rewrite her call to war. Backed by her foreign secretary the MP for Tel Aviv.
If she just for once admitt6she made an error of judgement it would draw a line.
Her shithousery, downright lies and constant denial mean this issue will end her leadership.
I don't think Kemi said anything wrong from her supporters side, she backed the RAF launching strikes against Iranian missile sites.
Not her fault Trump is too chicken to send in the ground troops to actually remove the Iranian regime
Kemi asked serious questions about Lord Robertson's report and Starmer just blustered so much so the Speaker intervened telling him it is Prime Minister questions
Embarrassing and Kemi is taking the fight on defence v welfare plus oil and gas direct to Starmer who has no answer
I expect the public will be on Kemi's side
She is going nowhere despite frantic attempts by some to discredit her
Beth Rigby on Sky very much saying Starmer has really difficult and uncomfortable questions to answer
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
The lawyers decided Begum had another citizenship.
I mean, I can understand why Bangladesh don't want her. But our legal position has much greater basis than the Bangladeshi's.
I don't understand the lawyers' position on this one (as someone who has harboured doubts about left wing activism in the Judiciary too).
She is not a Bangladeshi citizen. The idea she could be is purely theoretical. Does anyone seriously expect Bangladesh to take her? Can you imagine how we would feel if we were trying to deport someone to the country of their birth, a country that said they were washing their hands of the person and instead suggested they be sent to a third country that the person could theoretically apply for citizenship of?
Kemi wriggling and squirming but just digging a deeper hole.
She can't rewrite her call to war. Backed by her foreign secretary the MP for Tel Aviv.
If she just for once admitt6she made an error of judgement it would draw a line.
Her shithousery, downright lies and constant denial mean this issue will end her leadership.
An utterly piss-poor performance by our Prime Minister. Even the Speaker has had enough of his wanky "answers" that are unrelated to any question asked.
He is only still our Prime Minister because - as this thread illustrates - there is nobody to take the job off him.
Prediction: by this time next year Rupert Lowe's party will be on about 10% in the opinion polls, taking almost all of their support from Reform UK. So you could have Ref 20%, Restore 10%. Or Ref 25%, Restore 10% if Reform continue to take support from other parties (but this is less likely).
Given Restore are standing just 10 candidates in the local elections who cares what Lowe's party is polling if it can't even be bothered to find and put up candidates to vote for? Whatever you think of Farage at least Reform did the hard work to put up a full slate of candidates in May with 4,820 Reform candidates nominated to vote for
To be honest Restore is irrelevant and will either merge with Reform or go the same way as your party
.@POTUS: "We've had no help — ZERO — from NATO. We're there for them, they're not there for us... if they're not going to be with us on Iran, they're not going to be with us on a much bigger subject than Iran."
.@POTUS: "We've had no help — ZERO — from NATO. We're there for them, they're not there for us... if they're not going to be with us on Iran, they're not going to be with us on a much bigger subject than Iran."
He's got bigger subjects than a conflagration in the Middle East on his mind? And that is why we're not with him.
.@POTUS: "We've had no help — ZERO — from NATO. We're there for them, they're not there for us... if they're not going to be with us on Iran, they're not going to be with us on a much bigger subject than Iran."
Seriously William. Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin and Vance said cutting aid to Ukraine was one of his proudest achievements. And if Trump is struggling on Iran why should anyone think he'll succeed on a 'much bigger subject' (whatever that is) without allied support.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
I was surprised that the British courts ruled that Begum's theoretical entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship was enough to enable the British government to strip her of her British citizenship without leaving her stateless. But they looked at all the evidence and are experienced judges, so that's the way the law as enacted works.
My amateurish legal reasoning sees an obvious parallel with every British citizen's theoretical entitlement to Irish citizenship (British citizenship entities you to reside in Ireland, after a certain number of years of residency you can apply for Irish citizenship). Plus I'm not sure how being moved to a prison in Northern Ireland would interact with the citizenship provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.
Everyone's British citizenship could be at risk from a malicious government.
I'm aiming to get myself three citizenships (Britain, Ireland, Austria) just to be on the safe side.
It wasn't theoretical, they ruled she already had it from birth. That's definitely not the same as being eligible for citizenship after a certain number of years of residence.
I mean it is theoretical, because she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship in reality, and Bangladesh insist that their citizenship law does not work the way it was interpreted by British courts to work.
Statements from politicians, or a finding in a court of law?
A British court does not have jurisdiction over Bangladeshi citizenship. As I understand it the question of Begum's Bangladeshi citizenship has not been tested in a Bangladeshi court.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
The lawyers decided Begum had another citizenship.
I mean, I can understand why Bangladesh don't want her. But our legal position has much greater basis than the Bangladeshi's.
The lawyers said, essentially, that the Home Sec followed the rules in arbitrarily depriving Begum of citizenship.
That anyone with a second citizenship can lose U.K. citizenship by the decision of the Home Sec.
Which leads to the ridiculousness of a race between two countries' legal systems to deprive some-one of their citizenship. Whoever's courts are slowest gets to keep them.
Kemi wriggling and squirming but just digging a deeper hole.
She can't rewrite her call to war. Backed by her foreign secretary the MP for Tel Aviv.
If she just for once admitt6she made an error of judgement it would draw a line.
Her shithousery, downright lies and constant denial mean this issue will end her leadership.
I don't think Kemi said anything wrong from her supporters side, she backed the RAF launching strikes against Iranian missile sites.
Not her fault Trump is too chicken to send in the ground troops to actually remove the Iranian regime
Kemi asked serious questions about Lord Robertson's report and Starmer just blustered so much so the Speaker intervened telling him it is Prime Minister questions
Embarrassing and Kemi is taking the fight on defence v welfare plus oil and gas direct to Starmer who has no answer
I expect the public will be on Kemi's side
She is going nowhere despite frantic attempts by some to discredit her
Beth Rigby on Sky very much saying Starmer has really difficult and uncomfortable questions to answer
Kemi has not got a leg to stand on re defence
She. might want to lie more and deny it, she needs to own as does every fucking Tory the wilful destruction of our Armed Forces 2010 to 2024
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
It was an executive decision by a government minister that the courts confirmed was in accordance with the law.
I do not see the distinction you are trying to draw, but it is wrong in fact anyway.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
I was surprised that the British courts ruled that Begum's theoretical entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship was enough to enable the British government to strip her of her British citizenship without leaving her stateless. But they looked at all the evidence and are experienced judges, so that's the way the law as enacted works.
My amateurish legal reasoning sees an obvious parallel with every British citizen's theoretical entitlement to Irish citizenship (British citizenship entities you to reside in Ireland, after a certain number of years of residency you can apply for Irish citizenship). Plus I'm not sure how being moved to a prison in Northern Ireland would interact with the citizenship provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.
Everyone's British citizenship could be at risk from a malicious government.
I'm aiming to get myself three citizenships (Britain, Ireland, Austria) just to be on the safe side.
It wasn't theoretical, they ruled she already had it from birth. That's definitely not the same as being eligible for citizenship after a certain number of years of residence.
I mean it is theoretical, because she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship in reality, and Bangladesh insist that their citizenship law does not work the way it was interpreted by British courts to work.
Statements from politicians, or a finding in a court of law?
A British court does not have jurisdiction over Bangladeshi citizenship. As I understand it the question of Begum's Bangladeshi citizenship has not been tested in a Bangladeshi court.
The thing is I presume we have foreign criminals we want to deport to Syria. Is that on the cards whilst we refuse to take Begum?
Kemi wriggling and squirming but just digging a deeper hole.
She can't rewrite her call to war. Backed by her foreign secretary the MP for Tel Aviv.
If she just for once admitt6she made an error of judgement it would draw a line.
Her shithousery, downright lies and constant denial mean this issue will end her leadership.
I don't think Kemi said anything wrong from her supporters side, she backed the RAF launching strikes against Iranian missile sites.
Not her fault Trump is too chicken to send in the ground troops to actually remove the Iranian regime
Kemi asked serious questions about Lord Robertson's report and Starmer just blustered so much so the Speaker intervened telling him it is Prime Minister questions
Embarrassing and Kemi is taking the fight on defence v welfare plus oil and gas direct to Starmer who has no answer
I expect the public will be on Kemi's side
She is going nowhere despite frantic attempts by some to discredit her
Beth Rigby on Sky very much saying Starmer has really difficult and uncomfortable questions to answer
Kemi has not got a leg to stand on re defence
She. might want to lie more and deny it, she needs to own as does every fucking Tory the wilful destruction of our Armed Forces 2010 to 2024
"Bogus websites, staged protests and pretend atheists: Inside the fake asylum industry"
"If the reporter wanted to declare himself an atheist, the process would start with making posts on social media insulting Islam or the Prophet Muhammad.
"Religious clerics will start making comments threatening to kill you. Then you will see that your evidence has been created," Akhand said.
He would be introduced by the lawyer to atheist organisations in the UK and in Bangladesh that ran online blogs or magazines where, for a fee, he could make posts, again lending credibility to his claims. He suggested the reporter could use AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to write blog or article posts.
He would also need to attend events organised by groups for former Muslims and speak out during them because "this is not the age of posts anymore, it is the age of live videos".
I have read a bit and heard a bit more on R4 Today on this story. I may be being precipitate but the BBC seems coy and indecisive about a critical matter. It is using the terms 'lawyer' and 'legal adviser' and 'who said he was a barrister' but for the story to be truly interesting it is essential to know if the people they make allegations about are solicitors or barristers with the right to practice and appropriately documented or if they are randomers pretending.
If the latter, the story is no surprise at all. I think we all take for granted this happens on Murphy's principle. If this involved real professionals from identifiable chambers, partnerships and firms of solicitors entitled to practice, it matters a lot.
In this instance, they have said:
"Akhand qualified as a barrister in 2022 but does not hold a licence to practice, meaning he is what is known as a non-practising or unregistered barrister.
It is illegal for someone in that position to refer to themselves as a barrister in connection to legal services."
Thanks. Bent people with a variety of legal qualifications is part of life, like the weather. Bent solicitors and barristers practising as such is a different matter altogether.
Kemi wriggling and squirming but just digging a deeper hole.
She can't rewrite her call to war. Backed by her foreign secretary the MP for Tel Aviv.
If she just for once admitt6she made an error of judgement it would draw a line.
Her shithousery, downright lies and constant denial mean this issue will end her leadership.
I don't think Kemi said anything wrong from her supporters side, she backed the RAF launching strikes against Iranian missile sites.
Not her fault Trump is too chicken to send in the ground troops to actually remove the Iranian regime
Kemi asked serious questions about Lord Robertson's report and Starmer just blustered so much so the Speaker intervened telling him it is Prime Minister questions
Embarrassing and Kemi is taking the fight on defence v welfare plus oil and gas direct to Starmer who has no answer
I expect the public will be on Kemi's side
She is going nowhere despite frantic attempts by some to discredit her
Beth Rigby on Sky very much saying Starmer has really difficult and uncomfortable questions to answer
Kemi gas it got a leg to stand on re defence
She. might want to lie more and deny it, she needs to own as does every fucking Tory the wilful destruction of our Armed Forces 2010 to 2024
Maybe read Lord Robertson report as he firmly attacks Starmer and Reeves for underfunding defence and instead handing out benefits
It is very obviously a difficult attack from one of labour's own, and no amount of whataboutery is going to deflect from the questions Lord Robertson asks of his own government
Tables from yesterdays Telegraph JLP Wales and LE MRP https://www.jlpartners.co.uk/polling-results Something for everyone in there. London much better for Labour than so far proposed, The shires a washout for Tories but some strong showings elsewhere, Reform doing well generally but quite poorly in London, LDs and Greens also with strong areas. Some fairly obvious clangers too as always with MRPs (esp wrt Local Elections where council strength and national VI are at odds)
Watch British tourists harass an Israeli couple in Vietnam. They sing “Boom boom Tel Aviv” and call them “rats”. They even invoke the Nazi trope of Jews being kicked out of “110 countries”.
Kemi wriggling and squirming but just digging a deeper hole.
She can't rewrite her call to war. Backed by her foreign secretary the MP for Tel Aviv.
If she just for once admitt6she made an error of judgement it would draw a line.
Her shithousery, downright lies and constant denial mean this issue will end her leadership.
I don't think Kemi said anything wrong from her supporters side, she backed the RAF launching strikes against Iranian missile sites.
Not her fault Trump is too chicken to send in the ground troops to actually remove the Iranian regime
Kemi asked serious questions about Lord Robertson's report and Starmer just blustered so much so the Speaker intervened telling him it is Prime Minister questions
Embarrassing and Kemi is taking the fight on defence v welfare plus oil and gas direct to Starmer who has no answer
I expect the public will be on Kemi's side
She is going nowhere despite frantic attempts by some to discredit her
Beth Rigby on Sky very much saying Starmer has really difficult and uncomfortable questions to answer
Kemi gas it got a leg to stand on re defence
She. might want to lie more and deny it, she needs to own as does every fucking Tory the wilful destruction of our Armed Forces 2010 to 2024
Maybe read Lord Robertson report as he firmly attacks Starmer and Reeves for underfunding defence and instead handing out benefits
It is very obviously a difficult attack from one of labour's own, and no amount of whataboutery is going to deflect from the questions Lord Robertson asks of his own government
It not exactly whataboutery, since the current state uf our armed forces is largely down to the last decade and a half of Tory government. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.
Thanks to them, Starmer has some tough decisions to make ... and has put them off for the best part of a year.
Having read quite a few posts from GotV I can't think of a poster I would less like to read if I wanted a thoughtful opinion on a viable future for the centre Left........
However leopards can change their spots so...........
"A shadow industry of law firms and advisers is charging thousands of pounds to help migrants pretend to be gay in order to stay in the UK, the BBC has found.
In the first part of a major undercover investigation, we reveal how migrants whose visas are due to run out are being given fake cover stories and instructed in how to obtain fabricated evidence, including supporting letters, photographs and medical reports.
They then apply for asylum claiming to be gay and in fear for their lives if they return to Pakistan or Bangladesh."
We’ve been assured it doesn’t happen and been told it’s racist and homophobic for claiming it.
No doubt @bondegezou will be on here shortly to tell us you don't get asylum successfully approved unless it's a bona fide genuine claim and absolutely no-one is in a 4* hotel.
The 4* hotel thing is a straight-up fiction. If somewhere was a 4* hotel, but you remove all the services, strip out the amenities and put multiple bunkbeds in one room, it's clearly a lie to call that still a 4* hotel.
I've never said the asylum system in the UK gets everything right. Indeed, I've said the opposite. The system was run down under the Conservatives, so it was inefficient with long waits. I've long said we need a better system to better make decisions, which means more promptly, but also more accurately. We should only be giving asylum to those with bona fide claims and not to those without, we should make those decisions as quickly as possible, and we should deport those who don't have valid claims. That is clearly not what currently happens. Good on the BBC for their reporting in this case, and I hope appropriate action is taken.
Is pretending to be gay a widespread and successful tactic for getting asylum? The number of cases is low. A lower proportion of asylum claimants purport to be gay than the proportion in the general population who say they are gay. Do some asylum claimants make fraudulent claims? Yes, and we should have a system that spots those as well as possible.
The BBC article identifies a particular issue with Pakistani and Bangladeshi claimants. There are more asylum applicants claiming to be gay from those two countries than all other countries put together. Asylum applicants are a diverse group. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/ has a useful Table 1. This shows applications by country, top ten countries shown (2024 data on application numbers, 2021-3 data for success rates). You get some countries where there are undeniably conflicts and repression going on, and applicants from these countries have high acceptance rates (e.g., Eritrea, Syria and Sudan all on 99%, Iran on 87%). These claimants have often come into the country on a boat across the channel. But then you also have a lot of applications from countries that appear more stable and safer with, unsurprisingly, lower acceptance rates, including in South Asia: there's Pakistan (57%), Bangladesh (26%) and India (6%). These claimants have often come into the country on some sort of visa, but then claim asylum once over here, often when their visa is about to run out.
A lot of outrage is directed as those coming over on small boats, who generally are fleeing real persecution, whereas the fake asylum claimants (if we go on who gets rejected) have typically come into the country on visas and then claim. The solution to this is not to machine gun small boats in the channel. It's bilateral deals to address the issue with particular countries, as Sunak successfully* did with Albania.
It baffles me that people seriously argue the 4* hotel point. Even if we agree that the migrants aren’t getting 4* hotel treatment, the fact remains that what once was a 4* hotel is now a refugee centre, and locals are right to be angry about the way their town or village is going. Obviously it’s a handy tactic to be able to put the idea in people’s minds that the migrants are getting 4* treatment, but even without that it’s not on
In Chelmsford they are living in what are marketed as luxury flats, so they are getting accommodation above the level of the native people who are struggling
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
It is an outrage of course. But not quite 'arbitrary' because it is, while intrinsically lawless in natural justice, subject to the rule of law from our courts. The SC should rule that removing UK citizenship from those who are so by being born here it is so contrary to basic principles of justice that the statutes and regulations allowing it should be overturned, there being no such thing as a 'reasonable' decision to do it.
On balance I think it would be even more dangerous for the cause of liberty were the Supreme Court to seek to acquire an arbitrary power to strike down Statute law. What might rogues do with such power were they to find themselves appointed to the Supreme Court?
.@POTUS: "We've had no help — ZERO — from NATO. We're there for them, they're not there for us... if they're not going to be with us on Iran, they're not going to be with us on a much bigger subject than Iran."
Finally your man gets something right. The rest of NATO won't be supporting his invasion of Canada, no.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
She then went on to commit a large number of serious crimes. Including war crimes. According to her own account.
For which she should be in court in the Uk and sentenced as appropriate.
Just because she committed crimes doesn’t allow us to dump our problem on another country
If she was still in the country, yes, but this was a rare instance of the trash taking itself out - and there was a legal option to close the door behind her.
No qualms with closing the door behind her, following the rule of law.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
Oops - The court found that the protections of the law were followed.
That's the thing with the law, you are arguing for the law as you want it to be, rather than the law as it is.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
.@POTUS: "We've had no help — ZERO — from NATO. We're there for them, they're not there for us... if they're not going to be with us on Iran, they're not going to be with us on a much bigger subject than Iran."
Finally your man gets something right. The rest of NATO won't be supporting his invasion of Canada, no.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
I was surprised that the British courts ruled that Begum's theoretical entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship was enough to enable the British government to strip her of her British citizenship without leaving her stateless. But they looked at all the evidence and are experienced judges, so that's the way the law as enacted works.
My amateurish legal reasoning sees an obvious parallel with every British citizen's theoretical entitlement to Irish citizenship (British citizenship entities you to reside in Ireland, after a certain number of years of residency you can apply for Irish citizenship). Plus I'm not sure how being moved to a prison in Northern Ireland would interact with the citizenship provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.
Everyone's British citizenship could be at risk from a malicious government.
I'm aiming to get myself three citizenships (Britain, Ireland, Austria) just to be on the safe side.
It wasn't theoretical, they ruled she already had it from birth. That's definitely not the same as being eligible for citizenship after a certain number of years of residence.
I mean it is theoretical, because she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship in reality, and Bangladesh insist that their citizenship law does not work the way it was interpreted by British courts to work.
Statements from politicians, or a finding in a court of law?
A British court does not have jurisdiction over Bangladeshi citizenship. As I understand it the question of Begum's Bangladeshi citizenship has not been tested in a Bangladeshi court.
It’s not a question of jurisdiction, rather one of interpretation. They have to do that all the time in extradition cases.
"A shadow industry of law firms and advisers is charging thousands of pounds to help migrants pretend to be gay in order to stay in the UK, the BBC has found.
In the first part of a major undercover investigation, we reveal how migrants whose visas are due to run out are being given fake cover stories and instructed in how to obtain fabricated evidence, including supporting letters, photographs and medical reports.
They then apply for asylum claiming to be gay and in fear for their lives if they return to Pakistan or Bangladesh."
If you create ridiculous systems like this people will game the system. That is a story as old as time. The only way to stop this nonsense is to abolish the "right" to asylum. We can choose to give it in cases where we think that is appropriate but the whole concept of rights in this area is fraught with problems and creates absurdities.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Are we going to deprive Barty of citizenship and deport him?
If she has committed criminal acts then she should be tried but we should not be making people stateless.
Kemi wriggling and squirming but just digging a deeper hole.
She can't rewrite her call to war. Backed by her foreign secretary the MP for Tel Aviv.
If she just for once admitt6she made an error of judgement it would draw a line.
Her shithousery, downright lies and constant denial mean this issue will end her leadership.
I don't think Kemi said anything wrong from her supporters side, she backed the RAF launching strikes against Iranian missile sites.
Not her fault Trump is too chicken to send in the ground troops to actually remove the Iranian regime
Kemi asked serious questions about Lord Robertson's report and Starmer just blustered so much so the Speaker intervened telling him it is Prime Minister questions
Embarrassing and Kemi is taking the fight on defence v welfare plus oil and gas direct to Starmer who has no answer
I expect the public will be on Kemi's side
She is going nowhere despite frantic attempts by some to discredit her
Beth Rigby on Sky very much saying Starmer has really difficult and uncomfortable questions to answer
Kemi gas it got a leg to stand on re defence
She. might want to lie more and deny it, she needs to own as does every fucking Tory the wilful destruction of our Armed Forces 2010 to 2024
Maybe read Lord Robertson report as he firmly attacks Starmer and Reeves for underfunding defence and instead handing out benefits
It is very obviously a difficult attack from one of labour's own, and no amount of whataboutery is going to deflect from the questions Lord Robertson asks of his own government
It not exactly whataboutery, since the current state uf our armed forces is largely down to the last decade and a half of Tory government. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.
Thanks to them, Starmer has some tough decisions to make ... and has put them off for the best part of a year.
You are talking of the peace dividend enjoyed by countries over decades and the reliance on US contributions to NATO
There was no political objection to defence spending cuts as nobody expected the Trump effect
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is Lord Robertson is effectively saying they are prioritizing welfare spending at the cost of an urgent and substantial increases in defence spending which in view of Iran will chime with the public
It is Starmer and Reeves misfortune to be the one's in office and if they do not prioritize defence spending then they will have to answer to the electorate, not previous government's
It happened with Boris on the war in Ukraine and covid and now a very unpopular PM and COE before this crisis has to face the reality they are in government
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
I was surprised that the British courts ruled that Begum's theoretical entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship was enough to enable the British government to strip her of her British citizenship without leaving her stateless. But they looked at all the evidence and are experienced judges, so that's the way the law as enacted works.
My amateurish legal reasoning sees an obvious parallel with every British citizen's theoretical entitlement to Irish citizenship (British citizenship entities you to reside in Ireland, after a certain number of years of residency you can apply for Irish citizenship). Plus I'm not sure how being moved to a prison in Northern Ireland would interact with the citizenship provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.
Everyone's British citizenship could be at risk from a malicious government.
I'm aiming to get myself three citizenships (Britain, Ireland, Austria) just to be on the safe side.
It wasn't theoretical, they ruled she already had it from birth. That's definitely not the same as being eligible for citizenship after a certain number of years of residence.
I mean it is theoretical, because she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship in reality, and Bangladesh insist that their citizenship law does not work the way it was interpreted by British courts to work.
Statements from politicians, or a finding in a court of law?
A British court does not have jurisdiction over Bangladeshi citizenship. As I understand it the question of Begum's Bangladeshi citizenship has not been tested in a Bangladeshi court.
The thing is I presume we have foreign criminals we want to deport to Syria. Is that on the cards whilst we refuse to take Begum?
I don't know whether that is on the cards within the current legal framework and precedence, given the stringency of the legal test applied when British courts decide if a country is safe for someone to be deported to anyway.
And the Syrian government may decide that there are other concessions they want from the British government - possibly simply cash - more than they want to get rid of Begum.
But on your general point, yes, Britain's ability to deport foreign criminals could be hammered by a refusal to accept the return of British criminals other countries wish to deport in turn.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
The lawyers decided Begum had another citizenship.
I mean, I can understand why Bangladesh don't want her. But our legal position has much greater basis than the Bangladeshi's.
It is a source of shame to live in a country where UK citizenship for those born in the UK can be removed under any circumstances.
Then may I suggest you lobby your MP to ensure that is the subject of statute to provide the protection you seek.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
The lawyers decided Begum had another citizenship.
I mean, I can understand why Bangladesh don't want her. But our legal position has much greater basis than the Bangladeshi's.
I don't understand the lawyers' position on this one (as someone who has harboured doubts about left wing activism in the Judiciary too).
She is not a Bangladeshi citizen. The idea she could be is purely theoretical. Does anyone seriously expect Bangladesh to take her? Can you imagine how we would feel if we were trying to deport someone to the country of their birth, a country that said they were washing their hands of the person and instead suggested they be sent to a third country that the person could theoretically apply for citizenship of?
Enough angel’s danced on a pin head to make her a potential Bangladeshi citizen in UK law.
Bit like how handing Chagos to Mauritius someone settles the claims of the Chagos islanders. 5 minutes acquaintanceship with history tells us that they would be at the back of the queue for whatever largess the Mauritius government got.
But asking the Chagos Islanders what they wanted wouldn’t have got the right number of angels on the pin head. Or something.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
The lawyers decided Begum had another citizenship.
I mean, I can understand why Bangladesh don't want her. But our legal position has much greater basis than the Bangladeshi's.
It is a source of shame to live in a country where UK citizenship for those born in the UK can be removed under any circumstances.
Then may I suggest you lobby your MP to ensure that is the subject of statute to provide the protection you seek.
Until then, it is not there.
A lot of Jewish people are also worried by this ad they have dual nationality.
It’s not difficult to imagine how a hard right or hard left government strips them of their British citizenship.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
Oops - The court found that the protections of the law were followed.
That's the thing with the law, you are arguing for the law as you want it to be, rather than the law as it is.
Some years ago, I came across some letters to and from an RN midshipman serving on the anti-slavery patrols.
He was killed in boarding action. His boats crew were upset by this. So they “showed no quarter” and wiped out the slavers, as pirates.
All legal, at the time.
Do you think that if we changed the law back, so that RN boarding parties could decide on instant mass execution for those they deemed pirates, that this would be ok?
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
The state didn't. The law did, as interpeted by lawyers.
The Home Sec. has the power to deprive anyone of citizenship. In practise, this means they have to have another citizenship. Since legally, you can’t make someone stateless.
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
The lawyers decided Begum had another citizenship.
I mean, I can understand why Bangladesh don't want her. But our legal position has much greater basis than the Bangladeshi's.
It is a source of shame to live in a country where UK citizenship for those born in the UK can be removed under any circumstances.
Then may I suggest you lobby your MP to ensure that is the subject of statute to provide the protection you seek.
Until then, it is not there.
A lot of Jewish people are also worried by this ad they have dual nationality.
It’s not difficult to imagine how a hard right or hard left government strips them of their British citizenship.
Then if you don't think this should be the law, change the law.
But as it stands, it is the law.
You can either be in favour of the rule of law, or against it, but in this case Begum's case was the rule of law in action - the law was followed to the letter.
Interesting, though i expect a boost for them after May as even if 25 is right they'll have a good night at the locals.
The 5% decline is more than MOE?
I think you're right about a Reform boost as the Labour and Tory skittles fall in May but with three years to go Reform really don't look as they have sealed the deal at all. Greens on just 13% will be good news for Labour too.
There was a time when, conceivably, the Tories faced an extinction event. That time seems to have passed. Labour always less vulnerable - and Greens, in my view, possibly more of a threat to the LibDems? Maybe a discussion to be had there?
Kemi wriggling and squirming but just digging a deeper hole.
She can't rewrite her call to war. Backed by her foreign secretary the MP for Tel Aviv.
If she just for once admitt6she made an error of judgement it would draw a line.
Her shithousery, downright lies and constant denial mean this issue will end her leadership.
I don't think Kemi said anything wrong from her supporters side, she backed the RAF launching strikes against Iranian missile sites.
Not her fault Trump is too chicken to send in the ground troops to actually remove the Iranian regime
Kemi asked serious questions about Lord Robertson's report and Starmer just blustered so much so the Speaker intervened telling him it is Prime Minister questions
Embarrassing and Kemi is taking the fight on defence v welfare plus oil and gas direct to Starmer who has no answer
I expect the public will be on Kemi's side
She is going nowhere despite frantic attempts by some to discredit her
Beth Rigby on Sky very much saying Starmer has really difficult and uncomfortable questions to answer
Kemi gas it got a leg to stand on re defence
She. might want to lie more and deny it, she needs to own as does every fucking Tory the wilful destruction of our Armed Forces 2010 to 2024
Maybe read Lord Robertson report as he firmly attacks Starmer and Reeves for underfunding defence and instead handing out benefits
It is very obviously a difficult attack from one of labour's own, and no amount of whataboutery is going to deflect from the questions Lord Robertson asks of his own government
It not exactly whataboutery, since the current state uf our armed forces is largely down to the last decade and a half of Tory government. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.
Thanks to them, Starmer has some tough decisions to make ... and has put them off for the best part of a year.
You are talking of the peace dividend enjoyed by countries over decades and the reliance on US contributions to NATO
There was no political objection to defence spending cuts as nobody expected the Trump effect
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is Lord Robertson is effectively saying they are prioritizing welfare spending at the cost of an urgent and substantial increases in defence spending which in view of Iran will chime with the public
It is Starmer and Reeves misfortune to be the one's in office and if they do not prioritize defence spending then they will have to answer to the electorate, not previous government's
It happened with Boris on the war in Ukraine and covid and now a very unpopular PM and COE before this crisis has to face the reality they are in government
That is the politics
Your defence of the Tories is about as convincing as Brixian's of Starmer. Precisely the same putting off of hard choices (Ajax, for example) and penny pinching, characterises their record on defence.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
Oops - The court found that the protections of the law were followed.
That's the thing with the law, you are arguing for the law as you want it to be, rather than the law as it is.
Some years ago, I came across some letters to and from an RN midshipman serving on the anti-slavery patrols.
He was killed in boarding action. His boats crew were upset by this. So they “showed no quarter” and wiped out the slavers, as pirates.
All legal, at the time.
Do you think that if we changed the law back, so that RN boarding parties could decide on instant mass execution for those they deemed pirates, that this would be ok?
Do I? No, because it goes against my principles as being against the death penalty.
If Parliament votes to change the law though, the law should be changed. I would oppose that change, and want it changing back though.
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
Oops - The court found that the protections of the law were followed.
That's the thing with the law, you are arguing for the law as you want it to be, rather than the law as it is.
Yes. I'm well aware that I'm arguing for a change in the law. It's perfectly possible for an otherwise democratic and law-abiding country to make a law that contradicts fundamental legal principles.
The British use of internment in Northern Ireland is another example. Or the Israeli apartheid execution law.
Giving the state the power to strip citizenship from its citizens puts the citizen in a very vulnerable position in relation to the state. It fundamentally alters the power dynamic between the two, and weakens every citizens legal protection from the exercise of arbitrary state power.
But, of course, it can be legal if suitably codified in an Act of Parliament. I dunno, you seem to be arguing against a different person and a different argument. I've always said that the law is an arbitrary human-created thing. I don't see why that contradicts my argument at all.
The government's problems in defence are compounded by the UK's restricted access to the European defence market (and EU funding).
A characteristic tale of UK innovation.
Military drone maker warns it may need to leave UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvlk146mzo A British business making state-of-the-art military drones has warned it may have to leave the UK without further support from the government. Skycutter - based in the East Midlands - recently secured a contract with the US military which the firm said could ultimately be worth $200m (£151m). Vince Gardner, operations director at Skycutter, told the BBC the UK government was moving "too slowly" and questioned whether it still made "financial sense" to remain in the country. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it wanted the UK to be "the best place in the world to start and grow a defence business". Skycutter - which has been designing drones for Ukraine in partnership with the MoD - said it was considering its options after being offered the US contract...
Rudakubana's parents knew their son was stockpiling weapons and planning an attack. They chose silence. Three little girls paid with their lives.
As I said yesterday morning, they should face the consequences of their actions, or indeed their inaction. If they escape criminal charges on a technicality, the Government should deport them.
And if the ECHR stands in the way?
That tells you everything you need to know about why we must leave.
It's not directly analogous in that Bullen definitely has Russian citizenship - Russia has been clear he is welcome and indeed he's been there for a decade.
For Begum, I think the courts have accepted she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship by birth. But Bangladesh dispute this and have suggested she'd face the death penalty if she entered the country.
So whereas Bullen is living high on the hog courtesy of Uncle Vlad, Begum is in a seemingly permanent limbo in a Syrian detention camp.
You can say she brought it upon herself, and I actually have a bit of sympathy for that. But she really isn't in a comparable situation to Bullen.
She was also groomed as a minor and is a victim of human trafficking. Her demonization is victim blaming at its most extreme.
Where were her sympathies when people were being set alight in cages?
With ISIS.
Yes. I find what she did abhorrent and I find the desire to expel her from our club (of British citizenship) understandable.
But, y'know, there's that thing about the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one.
I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give the state the power to strip you of your citizenship.
Oops - The court found that the protections of the law were followed.
That's the thing with the law, you are arguing for the law as you want it to be, rather than the law as it is.
Yes. I'm well aware that I'm arguing for a change in the law. It's perfectly possible for an otherwise democratic and law-abiding country to make a law that contradicts fundamental legal principles.
The British use of internment in Northern Ireland is another example. Or the Israeli apartheid execution law.
Giving the state the power to strip citizenship from its citizens puts the citizen in a very vulnerable position in relation to the state. It fundamentally alters the power dynamic between the two, and weakens every citizens legal protection from the exercise of arbitrary state power.
But, of course, it can be legal if suitably codified in an Act of Parliament. I dunno, you seem to be arguing against a different person and a different argument. I've always said that the law is an arbitrary human-created thing. I don't see why that contradicts my argument at all.
I was replying to your second paragraph, the protections of the law existing for everyone - including the most depraved killer - or they exist for no-one . . . the protections of the law were followed, in full.
Any further protections don't exist and are not law. Maybe they should be, but if they are, there's nothing preventing a future government from changing the law back and cancelling those protections.
Comments
It was the usual photos from some time before the event started, which has become of feature of US social media commentators on both sides in recent years.
Because Veep was there they had secret service doing security so it took ages to get everyone in. Erica Kirk cancelled her attendance on the advice of her own security, there was said to be a credible threat to her car on the journey.
If she has committed criminal acts then she should be tried but we should not be making people stateless.
All the same, it can work, as we saw with Mrs T's replacement by John Major, but she had been in office for over 11 years and the Tories simply had to lance the boil of the poll tax. Sir Keir's only been there for 2 years, and there is no equivalent of the poll tax for a new PM to scrap. Labour need to hold their nerve and stick.
Sadly, this isn’t necessarily an indicator for MAGA fading.
No wonder they’re not dating any more!
This is not the stuff of a serious political leader in a liberal democracy.
Overthrowing what makes your life comfortable and sustainable has always been the prerogative of the young. Fortunately their elders are usually able to hold the line.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86eew6jpjgo
"Bogus websites, staged protests and pretend atheists: Inside the fake asylum industry"
"Religious clerics will start making comments threatening to kill you. Then you will see that your evidence has been created," Akhand said.
He would be introduced by the lawyer to atheist organisations in the UK and in Bangladesh that ran online blogs or magazines where, for a fee, he could make posts, again lending credibility to his claims. He suggested the reporter could use AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to write blog or article posts.
He would also need to attend events organised by groups for former Muslims and speak out during them because "this is not the age of posts anymore, it is the age of live videos".
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/15/how-a-2m-bitcoin-order-made-nigel-farage-the-political-face-of-uk-crypto
Farage or his party have previously called for deregulation, and proposed a new “bitcoin reserve fund” and the forcing of HMRC to accept crypto as a payment for taxes. Cooper also highlighted the £9m donation Reform received last year from Christopher Harborne, an investor in the cryptocurrency firm Tether, making it the largest donation of its kind in UK history.
And it wasn’t just the usual centrist and left-leaning suspects raising concerns about Farage’s link with Stack.
Fraser Nelson, the former editor of the Spectator, last month described it as “a scandal hiding in plain sight”, adding that most politicians sell shares to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. He also argued that if investors concluded that Farage was within reach of No 10, and believed his party would promote crypto, “the upside becomes self-fulfilling. The investment is not just a bet on bitcoin but on political power itself.”
Women, believed to be Thai or Malaysian, robs pensioner in Buckinghamshire"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/15/female-sex-attacker-targets-second-man-in-his-70s/
No answers from him regarding Lord Robertson's charge of his "corrosive complacency".
Stroke of the pen.
If that isn’t the state being arbitrary, what is?
"Trump warns that UK trade deal 'can always be changed'"
So Trump is Darth Vader and Starmer has been upgraded to Lando Calrissian?
I don't think I would exist had not my mum, who was tone deaf, in the late 1940s managed to discover an interest in opera and Beethoven piano sonatas.
@DPJHodges
Got to be honest, it's becoming increasingly impossible to work out precisely who is supposed to be blockading whom, and why.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2044361230530277459
I mean, I can understand why Bangladesh don't want her. But our legal position has much greater basis than the Bangladeshi's.
I'd say it is more robbery than a sex-motivated attack,
The "sex-worker" aspect was the presentation and approach to a pensioner.
She can't rewrite her call to war. Backed by her foreign secretary the MP for Tel Aviv.
If she just for once admitt6she made an error of judgement it would draw a line.
Her shithousery, downright lies and constant denial mean this issue will end her leadership.
That anyone with a second citizenship can lose U.K. citizenship by the decision of the Home Sec.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/uae/2026/04/14/uk-lorries-hit-the-road-to-stock-up-uae-supermarkets/
It was an experiment to see if it was possible to set up a land bridge, with the uncertainty over boats and planes in the Gulf, to deliver food from Europe.
If the latter, the story is no surprise at all. I think we all take for granted this happens on Murphy's principle. If this involved real professionals from identifiable chambers, partnerships and firms of solicitors entitled to practice, it matters a lot.
Not her fault Trump is too chicken to send in the ground troops to actually remove the Iranian regime
"Akhand qualified as a barrister in 2022 but does not hold a licence to practice, meaning he is what is known as a non-practising or unregistered barrister.
It is illegal for someone in that position to refer to themselves as a barrister in connection to legal services."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c05dd2yj3z3o
"Google to punish sites that trap people in with back button tricks"
Embarrassing and Kemi is taking the fight on defence v welfare plus oil and gas direct to Starmer who has no answer
I expect the public will be on Kemi's side
She is going nowhere despite frantic attempts by some to discredit her
Beth Rigby on Sky very much saying Starmer has really difficult and uncomfortable questions to answer
She is not a Bangladeshi citizen. The idea she could be is purely theoretical. Does anyone seriously expect Bangladesh to take her? Can you imagine how we would feel if we were trying to deport someone to the country of their birth, a country that said they were washing their hands of the person and instead suggested they be sent to a third country that the person could theoretically apply for citizenship of?
He is only still our Prime Minister because - as this thread illustrates - there is nobody to take the job off him.
.@POTUS: "We've had no help — ZERO — from NATO. We're there for them, they're not there for us... if they're not going to be with us on Iran, they're not going to be with us on a much bigger subject than Iran."
And that is why we're not with him.
Whoever's courts are slowest gets to keep them.
She. might want to lie more and deny it, she needs to own as does every fucking Tory the wilful destruction of our Armed Forces 2010 to 2024
I do not see the distinction you are trying to draw, but it is wrong in fact anyway.
Reform drops to 25% in this weeks voting intention their lowest since April 2025. They lead the Tories by 3 & Labour by 4
➡️ REF UK 25% (-5)
🌳 CON 22% (+3)
🌹 LAB 21% (+1)
🌍 GREEN 13% (+1)
🔶 LIB DEM 12% (nc)
❓OTH 3% (nc)
🟡 SNP 2% (nc)"
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2044303698600350089
It is very obviously a difficult attack from one of labour's own, and no amount of whataboutery is going to deflect from the questions Lord Robertson asks of his own government
The Biden comparison is painfully apt
https://www.jlpartners.co.uk/polling-results
Something for everyone in there.
London much better for Labour than so far proposed, The shires a washout for Tories but some strong showings elsewhere, Reform doing well generally but quite poorly in London, LDs and Greens also with strong areas.
Some fairly obvious clangers too as always with MRPs (esp wrt Local Elections where council strength and national VI are at odds)
Parties need to do some accurate targetting
https://x.com/heidibachram/status/2044361845369159974
Watch British tourists harass an Israeli couple in Vietnam. They sing “Boom boom Tel Aviv” and call them “rats”. They even invoke the Nazi trope of Jews being kicked out of “110 countries”.
Pretending otherwise is dishonest.
Thanks to them, Starmer has some tough decisions to make ... and has put them off for the best part of a year.
In the first part of a major undercover investigation, we reveal how migrants whose visas are due to run out are being given fake cover stories and instructed in how to obtain fabricated evidence, including supporting letters, photographs and medical reports.
They then apply for asylum claiming to be gay and in fear for their lives if they return to Pakistan or Bangladesh."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937wldkkw8o
https://x.com/ThomasVLinge/status/2044370633006731401
In Chelmsford they are living in what are marketed as luxury flats, so they are getting accommodation above the level of the native people who are struggling
No qualms with closing the door behind her, following the rule of law.
That's the thing with the law, you are arguing for the law as you want it to be, rather than the law as it is.
Stellar company.
Nor Cuba.
There was no political objection to defence spending cuts as nobody expected the Trump effect
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is Lord Robertson is effectively saying they are prioritizing welfare spending at the cost of an urgent and substantial increases in defence spending which in view of Iran will chime with the public
It is Starmer and Reeves misfortune to be the one's in office and if they do not prioritize defence spending then they will have to answer to the electorate, not previous government's
It happened with Boris on the war in Ukraine and covid and now a very unpopular PM and COE before this crisis has to face the reality they are in government
That is the politics
And the Syrian government may decide that there are other concessions they want from the British government - possibly simply cash - more than they want to get rid of Begum.
But on your general point, yes, Britain's ability to deport foreign criminals could be hammered by a refusal to accept the return of British criminals other countries wish to deport in turn.
Until then, it is not there.
Bit like how handing Chagos to Mauritius someone settles the claims of the Chagos islanders. 5 minutes acquaintanceship with history tells us that they would be at the back of the queue for whatever largess the Mauritius government got.
But asking the Chagos Islanders what they wanted wouldn’t have got the right number of angels on the pin head. Or something.
It’s not difficult to imagine how a hard right or hard left government strips them of their British citizenship.
He was killed in boarding action. His boats crew were upset by this. So they “showed no quarter” and wiped out the slavers, as pirates.
All legal, at the time.
Do you think that if we changed the law back, so that RN boarding parties could decide on instant mass execution for those they deemed pirates, that this would be ok?
But as it stands, it is the law.
You can either be in favour of the rule of law, or against it, but in this case Begum's case was the rule of law in action - the law was followed to the letter.
Rule of law != rule of principles.
I think you're right about a Reform boost as the Labour and Tory skittles fall in May but with three years to go Reform really don't look as they have sealed the deal at all. Greens on just 13% will be good news for Labour too.
There was a time when, conceivably, the Tories faced an extinction event. That time seems to have passed. Labour always less vulnerable - and Greens, in my view, possibly more of a threat to the LibDems? Maybe a discussion to be had there?
All in all, all to play for, surely.
Precisely the same putting off of hard choices (Ajax, for example) and penny pinching, characterises their record on defence.
If Parliament votes to change the law though, the law should be changed. I would oppose that change, and want it changing back though.
The British use of internment in Northern Ireland is another example. Or the Israeli apartheid execution law.
Giving the state the power to strip citizenship from its citizens puts the citizen in a very vulnerable position in relation to the state. It fundamentally alters the power dynamic between the two, and weakens every citizens legal protection from the exercise of arbitrary state power.
But, of course, it can be legal if suitably codified in an Act of Parliament. I dunno, you seem to be arguing against a different person and a different argument. I've always said that the law is an arbitrary human-created thing. I don't see why that contradicts my argument at all.
A characteristic tale of UK innovation.
Military drone maker warns it may need to leave UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvlk146mzo
A British business making state-of-the-art military drones has warned it may have to leave the UK without further support from the government.
Skycutter - based in the East Midlands - recently secured a contract with the US military which the firm said could ultimately be worth $200m (£151m).
Vince Gardner, operations director at Skycutter, told the BBC the UK government was moving "too slowly" and questioned whether it still made "financial sense" to remain in the country.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it wanted the UK to be "the best place in the world to start and grow a defence business".
Skycutter - which has been designing drones for Ukraine in partnership with the MoD - said it was considering its options after being offered the US contract...
Any further protections don't exist and are not law. Maybe they should be, but if they are, there's nothing preventing a future government from changing the law back and cancelling those protections.