Alleged alternative citizenship route ...big difference.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
It wasn’t a personal attack, just an observation. Usually people with your outlook are talkers and actually do very little that is of any use. No intent to offend.
the US had a part in the Good Friday Agreement and are co-signatory.
Bill Clinton sent Sen. Gorge Mitchell to chair the talks.
So the USA has still a role of guarantor.
I haven't, you have. As far as I'm concerned all of them are permanently persona non grata.
Hers has been thanks to the "bleeding hearts" like yourself and Danid pleading for her from the outset. Entirely your doing.
The answer to which is keep them out and match their denial of any civilised treatment and benefit of law.
.
Flecc.. please read my posts, They are far from bleeding heart territory. I have consistently argued for the rule of law and in this case am insisting that your Home Secretary acted outside of the law. He told the court an untruth .. that she was a citizen of another country.
Basically Begum is your country's problem deal with it internally, just as Lisa Smith is my countries problem ,and we are dealing with it. Seeking to foist it onto Bangladesh is abrogation of responsibility. Is that concept to difficult?.
No Danidl, I've read your posts, please read mine.
Begum left our State to join the fledgling State of Isis which had been established by warfare in formerly Iraqi territory. Becoming the Jihadi bride of a citizen of that State and conceiving a child who was a citizen of that State she then ceased to be our problem, effectively having Isis citizenship by marriage. Since then the Isis State has failed and she lives in it's remnants.
She additionally has a claim by established custom for Bangladeshi citizenship which is a matter between Bangladesh and her.
The beliefs and practices of the Jihadis and her in joining them are totally unacceptable to us and in no way deserving of reciprocation with civilised practice and law and she and they remain a permanent threat which must not be admitted or readmitted to this country.
You and your ilk are in every way "bleeding hearts", singling her out from the beginning years ago simply on the basis of departure age and gender. The vast majority of similar cases were male and older and we've heard nothing like the pleading on their behalf, indeed it has always been conspicuous by its absence. So please spare me the fictional excuse that you are solely motivated by law, your motive is very obviously emotionally based.
.
Last edited:
The UK Home Secretary did not tell the courts that Begum WAS a citizen of another country. You are wrong again. The UK government contended that Begum held, OR is eligible to hold, citizenship of Bangladesh. That is very different to saying she IS a citizen of another country. Immigration lawyers have confirmed that the UK's position was correct on this point.
I don't know what your agenda is, but you are starting to become a half-informed meddling nuisance. Keep your nose out.
Last edited:
Very encouraging signs of falling number of new Covid cases in many European countries. Let's hope this leads to a drop in deaths in the next couple of weeks; and that it doesn't get spoiled by over-early and over-liberal removal of restrictions.
The case of Begum is an interesting one.
The legal basis for Javid's decision was that Begum automatically gets the Bangladeshi citizenship by descent by Bangladeshi law so he did not make her stateless. That was correct at the time.
However, the same Bangladeshi law also says that that right is lapsed when the person reaches 21 and has not started any action to exercise that right.
So she is now stateless.
There are other cases:
Last edited:
That’s her fault, she has made herself stateless. She chose to leave the U.K., she chose to join ISIS and she chose not to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship.
There is only so much you can and should do for people before it becomes a case of them abusing the systems. That’s precisely what she is doing.
There will be some corner of the globe where she can live in isolation and self sufficiency without harming anyone around her.
you could say the same about most if not all who went to join ISIS.
The point is, is she treated same as about 1,500 others who have come back or want to come back?
I know we talk about this because we are interested in laws and it does not affect any of us whatever the outcome but I think we should really wait for the Supreme Court's decision on this.
Slight change of subject. I dropped on a TV program called Vintage Voltage the other day. It’s based at a Welsh engineering company which specialises in converting old classic cars to electric vehicles.
On the program I saw, they converted a 1960s VW Karmann Ghia to electric. Beautiful. Might interest a few on here.
On the program I saw, they converted a 1960s VW Karmann Ghia to electric. Beautiful. Might interest a few on here.
Absolutely. None of them must ever be allowed to come back. If they do, it will be an impossible task to de-radicalise and monitor them all. The manpower involved would be impossible to fulfil. Several bombings, mass shootings / knife attacks would be guaranteed.
I’m very opposed to capital punishment, but I’d be happy to see these people shot rather than allowed to return to the U.K. They are an enemy still engaged in active service and offensive actions and they have not surrendered. The ideal solution would be to set up big cage in Syria, keep them out of harms way in there, and pay for the maintenance of the iron bars. These people are too far gone.
Last edited:
Being a nuisance is something I can do..
Now parse your answer ...
Even bringing the case when she was not a citizen of Bangladesh was deliberately misleading the court. I have eligibility to achieve a Nobel Prize , but for some reason, perhaps by being a nuisance , I don't have one. And you saying I am eligible don't change anything. The court was deliberately misled. There are lies of omission,and that was one. The Law was clear. The UK domestic law as well as UN charters ,to which the UK signed up stated that depriving a person of their only statehood is unlawful.
Now about keeping my nose out ..well unfortunately , it is my business. The UK starts 12KM away, and I am uncomfortable with a rogue state that close. Worse, I have family members in Ascot, in Swansea, in Wirrel, and their offspring scattered all over.
Rogue state?... Well yes. You have a Government which has agreed to flaunt International Law in " a limited and specific way" ..and when brought to account in your House of Lords brings them to heel, they intend ignoring them. The Begum saga is part of this ignoring the laws as they exist.
So what protection do you and others have against dictatorship? . A 94 year old woman? Law Courts?. A Constitution?.
no, it wasn't.
The immigration law in the UK has been toughened up by TM because of ISIS returnees.
UKSIAC denied Begum and supported E3 & N3 because of their age.
Begum (DOB 25-08-1999) won on appeal last September because she is now 21, if she takes her case back to UKSIAC again, she may get their support now that she is older.
Yup. My missus set that to record the other day said she thought it might be interesting.
Thanks for the reminder.
The only prize you are eligible for is the Knob-Head Prize. That’s probably what you wrote but spellchecker intervened and altered it to Nobel Prize.
You are far too misinformed and wrong far too frequently to possibly be eligible for any sort of worthwhile honour. The fact you don’t have one backs that up
I’ve told you what the Home Secretary said and I’ve told you that immigration lawyers have supported the UK’s position. If you are too stupid to understand that then it’s your problem.
The Home Secretary is DOING. I know doing is an alien concept for you, but the Home Secretary is attempting to keep the residents of the U.K. safe by doing something. You are just talking nonsensical garbage that will result in someone getting killed. Thankfully, nobody listens to you.