|
Post by metalhead on Feb 26, 2023 21:21:48 GMT
Can anyone explain why Shamima Begum poses UK such an existential threat above the 400+ other returnees including IS fighters didn't to warrant their Citizenship to be removed This is just a Government Political Stunt in a very high profile case without regard for the rule of law www.ibanet.org/article/518e56a1-801d-4118-a47f-385d7eb9fce4Nothing, but it was a populist decision, so in Sajid Javid's egghead, a no brainer. Ultimately the thought of Begum coming home should turn anyone's stomach. Left, right, centre politically.... She's a terrorist, we don't need or want terrorists. The elephant in the room.... She is our mess to clean up. She may be a total piece of shit but she will always be our shit to clean up. This Bangladeshi citizenship argument is bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 26, 2023 22:19:01 GMT
Can anyone explain why Shamima Begum poses UK such an existential threat above the 400+ other returnees including IS fighters didn't to warrant their Citizenship to be removed This is just a Government Political Stunt in a very high profile case without regard for the rule of law www.ibanet.org/article/518e56a1-801d-4118-a47f-385d7eb9fce4Nothing, but it was a populist decision, so in Sajid Javid's egghead, a no brainer. Ultimately the thought of Begum coming home should turn anyone's stomach. Left, right, centre politically.... She's a terrorist, we don't need or want terrorists. The elephant in the room.... She is our mess to clean up. She may be a total piece of shit but she will always be our shit to clean up. This Bangladeshi citizenship argument is bollocks. I agree. Paragraph 3 should negate paragraph 2 however unpalatable and that’s ultimately where I stand on the issue…..
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 26, 2023 22:39:15 GMT
Nothing, but it was a populist decision, so in Sajid Javid's egghead, a no brainer. Ultimately the thought of Begum coming home should turn anyone's stomach. Left, right, centre politically.... She's a terrorist, we don't need or want terrorists. The elephant in the room.... She is our mess to clean up. She may be a total piece of shit but she will always be our shit to clean up. This Bangladeshi citizenship argument is bollocks. I agree. Paragraph 3 should negate paragraph 2 however unpalatable and that’s ultimately where I stand on the issue….. I completely agree with your and Metalhead's comments It's a slippery slope if we allow Politicians to make decisions which should rightfully fall within the Domain of the Judiciary For the record lest anyone has any doubt I think Begum is a Conniving Bitch, but that is not a good enough reason to corrupt our rules based system
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Mar 10, 2024 20:49:59 GMT
Don't we as a nation have an international obligation to take her back? She was born here, educated here and radicalised here, why should she become Syria's problem, they didn't invite her? What I mean is, imagine if the boot was on the other foot? What if she had been born in Syria and she was here? There would be tabloid headlines every day, demanding that we send her back, why should she become OUR problem? I dont disagree however if she comes back here she will not be rotting in a cell, she would 99.9% be living a normal life spreading her evil under supposed watch from a completely under-resourced service. We’d have also let down the brave people guarding these ISIS lot who just about keep them in and effectively is being used by us and the US no doubt as the next germ bank for whenever they want another version of ISIS to raise its head. So yes its our problem - this country is broken, so we need to change up and the state just eject these people from our shores. Right now, they are used as pawns in a game to influence us all.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 10, 2024 20:54:26 GMT
Don't we as a nation have an international obligation to take her back? She was born here, educated here and radicalised here, why should she become Syria's problem, they didn't invite her? What I mean is, imagine if the boot was on the other foot? What if she had been born in Syria and she was here? There would be tabloid headlines every day, demanding that we send her back, why should she become OUR problem? I dont disagree however if she comes back here she will not be rotting in a cell, she would 99.9% be living a normal life spreading her evil under supposed watch from a completely under-resourced service. We’d have also let down the brave people guarding these ISIS lot who just about keep them in and effectively is being used by us and the US no doubt as the next germ bank for whenever they want another version of ISIS to raise its head. So yes its our problem - this country is broken, so we need to change up and the state just eject these people from our shores. Right now, they are used as pawns in a game to influence us all. If, as the lefties fancy it, she comes back then it will be the last time I take any notice whatsoever of this countries priorities to put this country first. She needs drowning in her own vomit
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 10, 2024 20:58:17 GMT
Don't we as a nation have an international obligation to take her back? She was born here, educated here and radicalised here, why should she become Syria's problem, they didn't invite her? What I mean is, imagine if the boot was on the other foot? What if she had been born in Syria and she was here? There would be tabloid headlines every day, demanding that we send her back, why should she become OUR problem? I dont disagree however if she comes back here she will not be rotting in a cell, she would 99.9% be living a normal life spreading her evil under supposed watch from a completely under-resourced service. We’d have also let down the brave people guarding these ISIS lot who just about keep them in and effectively is being used by us and the US no doubt as the next germ bank for whenever they want another version of ISIS to raise its head. So yes its our problem - this country is broken, so we need to change up and the state just eject these people from our shores. Right now, they are used as pawns in a game to influence us all.
So if you don't disagree, you too believe that we have international obligation to take her back?
Eject which people and to where, Begum was born in Britain?
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Mar 10, 2024 21:02:21 GMT
Don't we as a nation have an international obligation to take her back? She was born here, educated here and radicalised here, why should she become Syria's problem, they didn't invite her? What I mean is, imagine if the boot was on the other foot? What if she had been born in Syria and she was here? There would be tabloid headlines every day, demanding that we send her back, why should she become OUR problem? I dont disagree however if she comes back here she will not be rotting in a cell, she would 99.9% be living a normal life spreading her evil under supposed watch from a completely under-resourced service. We’d have also let down the brave people guarding these ISIS lot who just about keep them in and effectively is being used by us and the US no doubt as the next germ bank for whenever they want another version of ISIS to raise its head. So yes its our problem - this country is broken, so we need to change up and the state just eject these people from our shores. Right now, they are used as pawns in a game to influence us all. I struggle with this particular case and what I think about what should happen. I suppose my question to you is when you say “eject these people”, where do you propose that they should be elected to? Currently, she’s in a Syrian refugee camp. However, she’s not Syrian, she’s born in England. So, why should they have to keep her? We have issues with this over here as well: apnews.com/article/islamic-state-group-politics-syria-crime-prisons-dfb3cde1330e15b69a4c18552c837664I think that the home countries should just try them in a Syrian court and have done with it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 10, 2024 21:13:22 GMT
I dont disagree however if she comes back here she will not be rotting in a cell, she would 99.9% be living a normal life spreading her evil under supposed watch from a completely under-resourced service. We’d have also let down the brave people guarding these ISIS lot who just about keep them in and effectively is being used by us and the US no doubt as the next germ bank for whenever they want another version of ISIS to raise its head. So yes its our problem - this country is broken, so we need to change up and the state just eject these people from our shores. Right now, they are used as pawns in a game to influence us all. If, as the lefties fancy it, she comes back then it will be the last time I take any notice whatsoever of this countries priorities to put this country first. She needs drowning in her own vomit
If we refuse to take her back, then why should other nations take back their nationals from us, or are you saying that we should have to be responsible for other countries' dog shit?
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 10, 2024 21:22:29 GMT
If, as the lefties fancy it, she comes back then it will be the last time I take any notice whatsoever of this countries priorities to put this country first. She needs drowning in her own vomit
If we refuse to take her back, then why should other nations take back their nationals from us, or are you saying that we should have to be responsible for other countries' dog shit?
We already are. I’d be happy for England to take her back and be fed to the tigers at the nearest zoo
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 10, 2024 21:35:54 GMT
She is exactly where she belongs and any idea of responsibility or fairness for her welfare does not even register on my giveafuckometer
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 11, 2024 0:05:33 GMT
There are many troubling things about this case not least Begum herself who I doubt anyone would care to defend from a character perspective I don't think many of the facts are disrupted, maybe I'll find out differently What does it say about British Society that would cause 3 Children to become groomed and go to Syria to link up with a TerroristOrganisation ISIS.. In British Law a child is not culpable in making certain decisions. Being Groomed and Trafficked further reduces culpability to zero It is not disputed that Begum was Trafficked into Syria by an undercover Agent working for Canadian Counter Intelligence and that almost simultaneously MI5 and Met were informed Begum is referred to in Media as an ISIS Child Bride, which of course is true. This is another breach of British Law whether committed in Britain or Overseas if it involves a British Citizen Under UK Law the Home Secretary has the Legal Power to remove British Citizenship which in Begum's case he did. Unlike in a Court of Law where a Judge gives a summation of how he/she has reached that decision. This is indeed wide-ranging power. Under UK Statute the Home Secretary does not have the Legal Power to remove British Citizenship if it causes that person to become Stateless. The subsequent justification of removing Begum's Citizenship despite her becoming Stateless was that technically Begum up to the age of 21 and then 19 she could apply for Bangladeshi Citizenship even though Bangladesh had already said at the time Javid made his decision that there was no prospect they would grant her Citizenship. This is stretching Theory and Actuality to its very legal limits. In theory I may get a Dinner Date with Margot Robbie but in Actuality there's no chance unfortunately The Immigration Appeals Court SIAC tested on the narrow grounds if Javid had the Legal power to deprive Begum of Citizenship and found he had. SIAC did not have the power to consider Begum was a Child, Groomed, Trafficked or if Javid's decision would make her Stateless. I'm also troubled that Begum poses such a risk to thie Security of this Country that she cannot enter these shores while about 400 others already have (previously linked) including these who engaged in active combat Are our Security and Court Systems so inadequate that she is unable to be put on trial in this Country. There are already provisions in place where "in Camera" Trials where sensitive evidence can be withheld from defence and shown only to a Court Appointed person. If found guilty of charges is our prison system so inadequate that it is unable to confine her, indefinitely if the charges she may be convicted off warrant. We have not heard the last of this by a long way, unless of course she were to die It will be tested most likely in UK Supreme Court and/or very likely ECHR The case will be, "Did UK Government act Legally under Domestic and International Law in depriving Shamima Begum British Citizenship"
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 11, 2024 17:39:56 GMT
There are many troubling things about this case not least Begum herself who I doubt anyone would care to defend from a character perspective I don't think many of the facts are disrupted, maybe I'll find out differently What does it say about British Society that would cause 3 Children to become groomed and go to Syria to link up with a TerroristOrganisation ISIS.. In British Law a child is not culpable in making certain decisions. Being Groomed and Trafficked further reduces culpability to zero It is not disputed that Begum was Trafficked into Syria by an undercover Agent working for Canadian Counter Intelligence and that almost simultaneously MI5 and Met were informed Begum is referred to in Media as an ISIS Child Bride, which of course is true. This is another breach of British Law whether committed in Britain or Overseas if it involves a British Citizen Under UK Law the Home Secretary has the Legal Power to remove British Citizenship which in Begum's case he did. Unlike in a Court of Law where a Judge gives a summation of how he/she has reached that decision. This is indeed wide-ranging power. Under UK Statute the Home Secretary does not have the Legal Power to remove British Citizenship if it causes that person to become Stateless. The subsequent justification of removing Begum's Citizenship despite her becoming Stateless was that technically Begum up to the age of 21 and then 19 she could apply for Bangladeshi Citizenship even though Bangladesh had already said at the time Javid made his decision that there was no prospect they would grant her Citizenship. This is stretching Theory and Actuality to its very legal limits. In theory I may get a Dinner Date with Margot Robbie but in Actuality there's no chance unfortunately The Immigration Appeals Court SIAC tested on the narrow grounds if Javid had the Legal power to deprive Begum of Citizenship and found he had. SIAC did not have the power to consider Begum was a Child, Groomed, Trafficked or if Javid's decision would make her Stateless. I'm also troubled that Begum poses such a risk to thie Security of this Country that she cannot enter these shores while about 400 others already have (previously linked) including these who engaged in active combat Are our Security and Court Systems so inadequate that she is unable to be put on trial in this Country. There are already provisions in place where "in Camera" Trials where sensitive evidence can be withheld from defence and shown only to a Court Appointed person. If found guilty of charges is our prison system so inadequate that it is unable to confine her, indefinitely if the charges she may be convicted off warrant. We have not heard the last of this by a long way, unless of course she were to die It will be tested most likely in UK Supreme Court and/or very likely ECHR The case will be, "Did UK Government act Legally under Domestic and International Law in depriving Shamima Begum British Citizenship" Didn't the court ruling confirm that the Home Secretary has the right to remove citizenship on the grounds of national security? The court did not rule on whether Begum is actually a threat to national security as that wasn't the remit of the judgement - they just confirmed that he had the right to make that decision on those grounds. I'm not sure whether there is any other court that can actually over rule the Home Secretary's decision. They might disagree that Begum is in fact a threat but that doesn't overrule the Home Secretary's right to make that judgement call. Personally I don't think she is a threat to national security. I think she should retain her citizenship, returned home and put on trail for whatever she did to support a terrorist group and she can put forward her defence in court. From what I can gather she has shown little remorse for what she did other than feel sorry for herself and if put on trial and found guilty should be punished accordingly. If she had shown some remorse I'd have some sympathy for the trafficking argument and her immaturity should be taken into account in terms of any judgement on her culpability. If she shows no remorse I would hope she would be found guilty and punished appropriately. As it stands I have very little sympathy for her as an individual but I'm not convinced she should have lost her citizenship on the grounds of being a threat to national security - there are people out their way ahead of her on that list I think the Home Secretary made a political decision to strip her of her citizenship because this would be better received by the electorate. However it looks like he had the right to make that call so regardless of what think she is stateless and we've dumped our problem on someone else which for me is irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 11, 2024 19:54:30 GMT
There are many troubling things about this case not least Begum herself who I doubt anyone would care to defend from a character perspective I don't think many of the facts are disrupted, maybe I'll find out differently What does it say about British Society that would cause 3 Children to become groomed and go to Syria to link up with a TerroristOrganisation ISIS.. In British Law a child is not culpable in making certain decisions. Being Groomed and Trafficked further reduces culpability to zero It is not disputed that Begum was Trafficked into Syria by an undercover Agent working for Canadian Counter Intelligence and that almost simultaneously MI5 and Met were informed Begum is referred to in Media as an ISIS Child Bride, which of course is true. This is another breach of British Law whether committed in Britain or Overseas if it involves a British Citizen Under UK Law the Home Secretary has the Legal Power to remove British Citizenship which in Begum's case he did. Unlike in a Court of Law where a Judge gives a summation of how he/she has reached that decision. This is indeed wide-ranging power. Under UK Statute the Home Secretary does not have the Legal Power to remove British Citizenship if it causes that person to become Stateless. The subsequent justification of removing Begum's Citizenship despite her becoming Stateless was that technically Begum up to the age of 21 and then 19 she could apply for Bangladeshi Citizenship even though Bangladesh had already said at the time Javid made his decision that there was no prospect they would grant her Citizenship. This is stretching Theory and Actuality to its very legal limits. In theory I may get a Dinner Date with Margot Robbie but in Actuality there's no chance unfortunately The Immigration Appeals Court SIAC tested on the narrow grounds if Javid had the Legal power to deprive Begum of Citizenship and found he had. SIAC did not have the power to consider Begum was a Child, Groomed, Trafficked or if Javid's decision would make her Stateless. I'm also troubled that Begum poses such a risk to thie Security of this Country that she cannot enter these shores while about 400 others already have (previously linked) including these who engaged in active combat Are our Security and Court Systems so inadequate that she is unable to be put on trial in this Country. There are already provisions in place where "in Camera" Trials where sensitive evidence can be withheld from defence and shown only to a Court Appointed person. If found guilty of charges is our prison system so inadequate that it is unable to confine her, indefinitely if the charges she may be convicted off warrant. We have not heard the last of this by a long way, unless of course she were to die It will be tested most likely in UK Supreme Court and/or very likely ECHR The case will be, "Did UK Government act Legally under Domestic and International Law in depriving Shamima Begum British Citizenship" 1. Didn't the court ruling confirm that the Home Secretary has the right to remove citizenship on the grounds of national security? The court did not rule on whether Begum is actually a threat to national security as that wasn't the remit of the judgement - they just confirmed that he had the right to make that decision on those grounds. I'm not sure whether there is any other court that can actually over rule the Home Secretary's decision. They might disagree that Begum is in fact a threat but that doesn't overrule the Home Secretary's right to make that judgement call. Personally I don't think she is a threat to national security. I think she should retain her citizenship, returned home and put on trail for whatever she did to support a terrorist group and she can put forward her defence in court. From what I can gather she has shown little remorse for what she did other than feel sorry for herself and if put on trial and found guilty should be punished accordingly. If she had shown some remorse I'd have some sympathy for the trafficking argument and her immaturity should be taken into account in terms of any judgement on her culpability. If she shows no remorse I would hope she would be found guilty and punished appropriately. As it stands I have very little sympathy for her as an individual but I'm not convinced she should have lost her citizenship on the grounds of being a threat to national security - there are people out their way ahead of her on that list I think the Home Secretary made a political decision to strip her of her citizenship because this would be better received by the electorate. However it looks like he had the right to make that call so regardless of what think she is stateless and we've dumped our problem on someone else which for me is irresponsible. 1. No, not as such. Begum's Lawyers argued that because Muslims are disproportionately represented by the removal of British Citizenship Javid's decision was in breach of Equalities Legislation. This was dismissed and not considered as the Equalities Law can be overruled in matters of National Security not that Javid could remove Citizenship on grounds of National Security The only grounds SIAC considered and upheld was on the single issue Javid had acted Legally to remove Begum's British Citizenship because at that time he didn't make her Stateless because "technically" she could apply for Bangladeshi Citizenship. This is dancing on the head of a pin. I am quite sure the decision will be tested in Supreme Court and/or ECHR. In the former it will depend on which grounds if any Supreme Court will consider the most central being was the decision perverse which if Javid relies on the Bangladeshi Passport can relatively easily be refuted from Public Records. Whether Trafficing and Duty of care to a British Citizen, at that time, would only add to the docket. ECHR if it gets that far would only consider if the removal of British Citizenship was justified leading to Statelessness I have no idea if Begum poses a threat to National Security, or indeed if she has committed crimes, but it seems extraordinary that Britain is unable to deal with those two issues other than by exclusion. Yes she does come across in interviews as self entitled and lacking remorse but she has yet to be convicted of any crime as far as I'm aware. I concur with your view that it was a Political decision. I disagree that the decision has been tested Legally. SIAC is an Appeal Court for Immigration Decisions made by Home Office itself, it would be strange if they didn't uphold their own Case Law and therefore not consider other non Immigration Laws. There will be no such impediment to High Court/Supreme Court/ECHR
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 11, 2024 22:20:20 GMT
1. Didn't the court ruling confirm that the Home Secretary has the right to remove citizenship on the grounds of national security? The court did not rule on whether Begum is actually a threat to national security as that wasn't the remit of the judgement - they just confirmed that he had the right to make that decision on those grounds. I'm not sure whether there is any other court that can actually over rule the Home Secretary's decision. They might disagree that Begum is in fact a threat but that doesn't overrule the Home Secretary's right to make that judgement call. Personally I don't think she is a threat to national security. I think she should retain her citizenship, returned home and put on trail for whatever she did to support a terrorist group and she can put forward her defence in court. From what I can gather she has shown little remorse for what she did other than feel sorry for herself and if put on trial and found guilty should be punished accordingly. If she had shown some remorse I'd have some sympathy for the trafficking argument and her immaturity should be taken into account in terms of any judgement on her culpability. If she shows no remorse I would hope she would be found guilty and punished appropriately. As it stands I have very little sympathy for her as an individual but I'm not convinced she should have lost her citizenship on the grounds of being a threat to national security - there are people out their way ahead of her on that list I think the Home Secretary made a political decision to strip her of her citizenship because this would be better received by the electorate. However it looks like he had the right to make that call so regardless of what think she is stateless and we've dumped our problem on someone else which for me is irresponsible. 1. No, not as such. Begum's Lawyers argued that because Muslims are disproportionately represented by the removal of British Citizenship Javid's decision was in breach of Equalities Legislation. This was dismissed and not considered as the Equalities Law can be overruled in matters of National Security not that Javid could remove Citizenship on grounds of National Security The only grounds SIAC considered and upheld was on the single issue Javid had acted Legally to remove Begum's British Citizenship because at that time he didn't make her Stateless because "technically" she could apply for Bangladeshi Citizenship. This is dancing on the head of a pin. I am quite sure the decision will be tested in Supreme Court and/or ECHR. In the former it will depend on which grounds if any Supreme Court will consider the most central being was the decision perverse which if Javid relies on the Bangladeshi Passport can relatively easily be refuted from Public Records. Whether Trafficing and Duty of care to a British Citizen, at that time, would only add to the docket. ECHR if it gets that far would only consider if the removal of British Citizenship was justified leading to Statelessness I have no idea if Begum poses a threat to National Security, or indeed if she has committed crimes, but it seems extraordinary that Britain is unable to deal with those two issues other than by exclusion. Yes she does come across in interviews as self entitled and lacking remorse but she has yet to be convicted of any crime as far as I'm aware. I concur with your view that it was a Political decision. I disagree that the decision has been tested Legally. SIAC is an Appeal Court for Immigration Decisions made by Home Office itself, it would be strange if they didn't uphold their own Case Law and therefore not consider other non Immigration Laws. There will be no such impediment to High Court/Supreme Court/ECHR Thank you for clarifying the situation - much appreciated. From what I can make out it isn't clear cut as to whether Begum has grounds to appeal. Even if a higher court rule that in all other respects Begum should not have been stripped of her citizenship if the Home Secretary sticks to the line that he/she believes Begum is a threat to National Security it hard to see how another court can override this assessment because (as I understand it) the decision is within the gift of the Home Secretary. It seems to me it's unlikely that the UK government would defer to the ECHR on a decision pertaining to national security - it will claim national security trumps human rights and the ECHR has no authority to make decisions on the UK's national security. I can't say whether Begum is a threat to national security or not (it seems unlikely to me) but the only opinion that matters is that of the Home Secretary. I'm not saying this is right, just that I can't see how an appeal might succeed.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 11, 2024 23:42:29 GMT
1. No, not as such. Begum's Lawyers argued that because Muslims are disproportionately represented by the removal of British Citizenship Javid's decision was in breach of Equalities Legislation. This was dismissed and not considered as the Equalities Law can be overruled in matters of National Security not that Javid could remove Citizenship on grounds of National Security The only grounds SIAC considered and upheld was on the single issue Javid had acted Legally to remove Begum's British Citizenship because at that time he didn't make her Stateless because "technically" she could apply for Bangladeshi Citizenship. This is dancing on the head of a pin. I am quite sure the decision will be tested in Supreme Court and/or ECHR. In the former it will depend on which grounds if any Supreme Court will consider the most central being was the decision perverse which if Javid relies on the Bangladeshi Passport can relatively easily be refuted from Public Records. Whether Trafficing and Duty of care to a British Citizen, at that time, would only add to the docket. ECHR if it gets that far would only consider if the removal of British Citizenship was justified leading to Statelessness I have no idea if Begum poses a threat to National Security, or indeed if she has committed crimes, but it seems extraordinary that Britain is unable to deal with those two issues other than by exclusion. Yes she does come across in interviews as self entitled and lacking remorse but she has yet to be convicted of any crime as far as I'm aware. I concur with your view that it was a Political decision. I disagree that the decision has been tested Legally. SIAC is an Appeal Court for Immigration Decisions made by Home Office itself, it would be strange if they didn't uphold their own Case Law and therefore not consider other non Immigration Laws. There will be no such impediment to High Court/Supreme Court/ECHR Thank you for clarifying the situation - much appreciated. From what I can make out it isn't clear cut as to whether Begum has grounds to appeal. Even if a higher court rule that in all other respects Begum should not have been stripped of her citizenship if the Home Secretary sticks to the line that he/she believes Begum is a threat to National Security it hard to see how another court can override this assessment because (as I understand it) the decision is within the gift of the Home Secretary. It seems to me it's unlikely that the UK government would defer to the ECHR on a decision pertaining to national security - it will claim national security trumps human rights and the ECHR has no authority to make decisions on the UK's national security. I can't say whether Begum is a threat to national security or not (it seems unlikely to me) but the only opinion that matters is that of the Home Secretary. I'm not saying this is right, just that I can't see how an appeal might succeed. Oh I agree that it is far from clear cut, but the Home Secretary's decision can not be made on the basis of National Security if it renders a British Citizen Stateless Section 40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981 says Under section 40(4) of the BNA 1981, a decision to deprive a person of British citizenship, on the basis that to do so is conducive to the public good, cannot be made if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.However, section 40(4A) of the BNA 1981, introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, provides for the deprivation of British citizenship on conducive grounds, even if it would render a person stateless, if they have conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK and if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able to become a national of another country or territory.www.gov.uk/government/publications/deprivation-of-british-citizenship-caseworker-guidance/deprivation-of-british-citizenship-accessible-versionSo in my mind if the Supreme Court decides to hear argument the decision will rest with whether Javid's reliance on Begum having access to Bangladeshi Citizenship, at that time, was reasonable or perverse. Given the contemporaneous documented pronouncements by Bangladeshi Government that it would refuse Citizenship if Begum applied at the same time Javid made the decision I don't see how his decision can stand up. I tend to agree with you regarding ECHR, if the UK Supreme Court has made a determination the ECHR is unlikely to overturn it. If the Supreme Court refuse to hear an Appeal by Begum and the only recourse is ECHR then I can't but believe that ECHR will find in favour of Begum under various Conventions Whether this has any practical effect will be a Policitical decision as it was originally to revoke her British Citizenship. The difference being its likely to be under a different Government Administration Your second last paragraph hits the nail on the head for me. I have little sympathy for Begum but I'm even more uncomfortable in giving a Home Secretary such wide ranging powers without recourse to Judicial Scrutiny I.e. the precept that everyone should be "allowed their day in Court"
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 11, 2024 23:58:44 GMT
More than happy for Begz to be lobbed into the tower of London and spend her remaining years there. But, I persist, she is our problem. It's our soft, centre left government that allow Islamic extremism to prosper in this country while totally destroying the social fabric of the nation. Why should bloody Syria be left to deal with this distasteful lady? Bring her back and lock her up.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 12, 2024 8:12:02 GMT
More than happy for Begz to be lobbed into the tower of London and spend her remaining years there. But, I persist, she is our problem. It's our soft, centre left government that allow Islamic extremism to prosper in this country while totally destroying the social fabric of the nation. Why should bloody Syria be left to deal with this distasteful lady? Bring her back and lock her up. Cutting through the hyperbole and presuming Begum is given a fair trial before incarceration I agree with that. Apart from the bit about this government being centre left which is just laughable.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 12, 2024 8:13:38 GMT
Thank you for clarifying the situation - much appreciated. From what I can make out it isn't clear cut as to whether Begum has grounds to appeal. Even if a higher court rule that in all other respects Begum should not have been stripped of her citizenship if the Home Secretary sticks to the line that he/she believes Begum is a threat to National Security it hard to see how another court can override this assessment because (as I understand it) the decision is within the gift of the Home Secretary. It seems to me it's unlikely that the UK government would defer to the ECHR on a decision pertaining to national security - it will claim national security trumps human rights and the ECHR has no authority to make decisions on the UK's national security. I can't say whether Begum is a threat to national security or not (it seems unlikely to me) but the only opinion that matters is that of the Home Secretary. I'm not saying this is right, just that I can't see how an appeal might succeed. Oh I agree that it is far from clear cut, but the Home Secretary's decision can not be made on the basis of National Security if it renders a British Citizen Stateless Section 40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981 says Under section 40(4) of the BNA 1981, a decision to deprive a person of British citizenship, on the basis that to do so is conducive to the public good, cannot be made if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.However, section 40(4A) of the BNA 1981, introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, provides for the deprivation of British citizenship on conducive grounds, even if it would render a person stateless, if they have conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK and if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able to become a national of another country or territory.www.gov.uk/government/publications/deprivation-of-british-citizenship-caseworker-guidance/deprivation-of-british-citizenship-accessible-versionSo in my mind if the Supreme Court decides to hear argument the decision will rest with whether Javid's reliance on Begum having access to Bangladeshi Citizenship, at that time, was reasonable or perverse. Given the contemporaneous documented pronouncements by Bangladeshi Government that it would refuse Citizenship if Begum applied at the same time Javid made the decision I don't see how his decision can stand up. I tend to agree with you regarding ECHR, if the UK Supreme Court has made a determination the ECHR is unlikely to overturn it. If the Supreme Court refuse to hear an Appeal by Begum and the only recourse is ECHR then I can't but believe that ECHR will find in favour of Begum under various Conventions Whether this has any practical effect will be a Policitical decision as it was originally to revoke her British Citizenship. The difference being its likely to be under a different Government Administration Your second last paragraph hits the nail on the head for me. I have little sympathy for Begum but I'm even more uncomfortable in giving a Home Secretary such wide ranging powers without recourse to Judicial Scrutiny I.e. the precept that everyone should be "allowed their day in Court" Cheers - that's really helpful.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Mar 12, 2024 9:12:28 GMT
It wont be a "day" in court though will it ?.... it will be months, probably years, of cases and subsequent appeals.
I imagine this woman has already eaten up more of our taxes than everyone on here combined will do in their whole lifetime. She is an enemy of this country and an affront to our values, we've had forty years of weak, hang wringing governments, and look where it's got us.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 12, 2024 9:39:37 GMT
It wont be a "day" in court though will it ?.... it will be months, probably years, of cases and subsequent appeals. I imagine this woman has already eaten up more of our taxes than everyone on here combined will do in their whole lifetime. She is an enemy of this country and an affront to our values, we've had forty years of weak, hang wringing governments, and look where it's got us. It will probably be that anyway until she inevitably gets sent back at some point.....
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Mar 12, 2024 10:14:12 GMT
I hope she rots in hell but let’s just cut to the chase ….she’ll eventually end up back here
In the meantime our taxes are being eaten up by lawyers making a fortune fighting the inevitable
Just bring her back and be done with it
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Mar 12, 2024 11:09:39 GMT
Quote from opening scene of jurassic park
"shoot her , shoot her "
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Mar 12, 2024 11:17:26 GMT
I hope she rots in hell but let’s just cut to the chase ….she’ll eventually end up back here In the meantime our taxes are being eaten up by lawyers making a fortune fighting the inevitable Just bring her back and be done with it Always count on lawyers to make thousands out of anything having gone through the “to you, to me, to you, to me” processes. It seems a first judgement is rarely final these days, there’s always an appeal and there’s always more money to be made….it stinks.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 12, 2024 11:54:04 GMT
It wont be a "day" in court though will it ?.... it will be months, probably years, of cases and subsequent appeals. I imagine this woman has already eaten up more of our taxes than everyone on here combined will do in their whole lifetime. She is an enemy of this country and an affront to our values, we've had forty years of weak, hang wringing governments, and look where it's got us. Dumping your problems on someone else in order to pander to the public mood is a pretty good definition of weak. I don't have time for Begum but she's our problem and we should at least have the balls to own it. It's the same as the Rwanda policy - it's fly tipping people because we can't be arsed to deal with our own mess.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Mar 12, 2024 13:11:06 GMT
im sure there is intelligence on her that we do not have access too, this is other than her daytime of activities of sewing men into suicide vests and making dead mans triggers for them etc
if they let her back she becomes the ultimate recruitment tool for young disassociated muslims, they would flock to her banner whether she wished to be carrying it or not, martyrdom is a powerful tool
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 12, 2024 13:18:24 GMT
It wont be a "day" in court though will it ?.... it will be months, probably years, of cases and subsequent appeals. I imagine this woman has already eaten up more of our taxes than everyone on here combined will do in their whole lifetime. She is an enemy of this country and an affront to our values, we've had forty years of weak, hang wringing governments, and look where it's got us. Dumping your problems on someone else in order to pander to the public mood is a pretty good definition of weak. I don't have time for Begum but she's our problem and we should at least have the balls to own it. It's the same as the Rwanda policy - it's fly tipping people because we can't be arsed to deal with our own mess. It's is weak if she were Russian she would have fallen from a 29th floor window already.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 12, 2024 13:24:48 GMT
im sure there is intelligence on her that we do not have access too, this is other than her daytime of activities of sewing men into suicide vests and making dead mans triggers for them etc if they let her back she becomes the ultimate recruitment tool for young disassociated muslims, they would flock to her banner whether she wished to be carrying it or not, martyrdom is a powerful tool Surely she's more of a martyr where she is - easier to create a myth when not having to face the flawed reality. If she is used as a rallying point it would be relatively easy for the security services to pick it up and nip in the bud. The other possiblity is she does actually relent and tell disaffected Muslims about the reality of Jihad - her experiences are pretty grim. I suspect we share similar views on her as an individual - for me the issue is about us as a nation taking responsibility and not dumping the problem on someone else.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Mar 12, 2024 18:49:04 GMT
It wont be a "day" in court though will it ?.... it will be months, probably years, of cases and subsequent appeals. I imagine this woman has already eaten up more of our taxes than everyone on here combined will do in their whole lifetime. She is an enemy of this country and an affront to our values, we've had forty years of weak, hang wringing governments, and look where it's got us. Dumping your problems on someone else in order to pander to the public mood is a pretty good definition of weak. I don't have time for Begum but she's our problem and we should at least have the balls to own it. It's the same as the Rwanda policy - it's fly tipping people because we can't be arsed to deal with our own mess. Rwanda is a good call, she isn't a british citizen (anymore) so if she comes back she can apply for asylum, be rejected on account of being a terrorist sympathizer, and be deported there. Winner.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 12, 2024 20:11:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 12, 2024 20:24:46 GMT
I was thinking more along the lines of how a Russian traitor suddenly falls from a great height rather than Isis.
|
|