Brexit, for once some facts.

[Danidl]

It can and the proof is in that it’s been done. She is no more a U.K. citizen than she is an Irish citizen.

Correct . The difference is between the the verbs Can and May. However the Courts have taken the view that it WAS illegal ,and MAY be appealed .They also effectively rescinded the Stateless state, by giving her permission to present her appeal.
Taking pride in a Government doing illegal activities, in the cases where you approve of their stance is extremely foolish and short sighted. A Government is responsible to the people for the maintenance of LAW and order

 

[oyster]

Correct . The difference is between the the verbs Can and May. However the Courts have taken the view that it WAS illegal ,and MAY be appealed .They also effectively rescinded the Stateless state, by giving her permission to present her appeal.
Taking pride in a Government doing illegal activities, in the cases where you approve of their stance is extremely foolish and short sighted. A Government is responsible to the people for the maintenance of LAW and order

Well we had a PM May, but certainly haven't got a Can.

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

Correct . The difference is between the the verbs Can and May. However the Courts have taken the view that it WAS illegal ,and MAY be appealed .They also effectively rescinded the Stateless state, by giving her permission to present her appeal.
Taking pride in a Government doing illegal activities, in the cases where you approve of their stance is extremely foolish and short sighted. A Government is responsible to the people for the maintenance of LAW and order

No laws have been broken. She won’t be coming to the U.K. because she no longer has a right to reside here.

You are acting in a ridiculous manner. Stop it

 

[flecc]

Taking pride in a Government doing illegal activities, in the cases where you approve of their stance is extremely foolish and short sighted. A Government is responsible to the people for the maintenance of LAW and order

Wrong. Failing to take extreme action to protect its citizens when necessary is extremely foolish and short sighted. Haven't we seen enough cases where we've kidded ourselves that we've successfully trained someone out of extremism, only for them to turn on us and kill?

In recent Jihadi circumstances your idealism is naive in the extreme.

I fully expect the government to fight this case to the limit and believe they'd be failing in their duty if they didn't.
.

 

[Woosh]

I fully expect the government to fight this case to the limit and believe they'd be failing in their duty if they didn't.

Javid's decision at the time was justified and still is, but I don't think the government is going to win in the Supreme Court.
We'll know in a week.

from the BBC:

In February, a specialist tribunal - the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) - said the decision to remove Ms Begum's citizenship on national security grounds was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent". She is understood to have a claim to Bangladeshi nationality through her mother.

The Court of Appeal later ruled that whatever the merits of Ms Begum's case to remain British, the only way she can take part in a "fair and effective" hearing is to be brought back to London because she cannot take part in any hearings from the camp. She would be subject to tight security controls.

Ms Begum's barrister Lord Pannick QC has argued that if the court decides "the solution" is not to allow Ms Begum to return to the UK, then "the deprivation order is unlawful and must be set aside".

 

[flecc]

Javid's decision at the time was justified and still is, but I don't think the government is going to win in the Supreme Court.

Possibly not, since the Supreme Court has shown a tendency to idealism, but see my answer below.

In February, a specialist tribunal - the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) - said the decision to remove Ms Begum's citizenship on national security grounds was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent".

The Court of Appeal later ruled that whatever the merits of Ms Begum's case to remain British, the only way she can take part in a "fair and effective" hearing is to be brought back to London because she cannot take part in any hearings from the camp.

I believe the Court of Appeal ruling is wrong since the only thing in question for the case in their ruling is the academic point of her entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship. She cannot conceivably give any new evidence in that connection. They are also wrong in ruling that she cannot take part in an effective hearing while not physically present since we routinely have remote evidence courts, visual and verbal, on a daily basis. These are either live transmission or recorded via DVD.
.

 

[Woosh]

They are also wrong in ruling that she cannot take part in an effective hearing while not physically present since we routinely have remote evidence courts, visual and verbal, on a daily basis. These are either live transmission or recorded via DVD.

I think her barrister argues that communication is impossible at the camp where she lives. If your lawyer cannot talk to you, then justice cannot function. It's a simple argument but effective nevertheless.
The decision will also be on a narrow point, they are not talking about the issue of her citizenship but a point before that, can she come back to attend Court?
On this, I think it's up to the Home Office to make the arrangement but she can't really be denied her day in Court forever.

 

[oyster]

Back into "no surprises there":

Brexit talks: Joe Biden says UK and Ireland must not have hard border
US president-elect’s renewed call for Good Friday peace deal to be honoured could complicate Britain’s negotiations with EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/25/brexit-talks-joe-biden-says-uk-ireland-border-must-remain-open

 

[Wicky]

Looks like Patel along with Dan O'Mahoney is coming down hard on illegal Channel crossings...

More than 40 people have been fined after attempting to cross the English Channel since the weekend despite the current lockdown, Kent Police said.

Officers have stopped people who admitted to going on holiday and, despite being advised to return home by police, went on to make second attempts to cross to France.

The force said that, among those who received fixed penalty notices, were two men and two women from Barnsley, two men and a woman from Ipswich, a man from Preston, a man from Welling and several people from London, Coventry and Essex.

Assistant Chief Constable Claire Nix said: "It is very worrying that despite the well-publicised national restrictions and advice, some people still aren’t getting the message."

Current guidelines state travel to foreign countries can only be for work, educational or other specific and essential reasons.

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

I think her barrister argues that communication is impossible at the camp where she lives. If your lawyer cannot talk to you, then justice cannot function. It's a simple argument but effective nevertheless.
The decision will also be on a narrow point, they are not talking about the issue of her citizenship but a point before that, can she come back to attend Court?
On this, I think it's up to the Home Office to make the arrangement but she can't really be denied her day in Court forever.

Skype is satisfactory. People appear via video link all the time.

 

[flecc]

I think her barrister argues that communication is impossible at the camp where she lives. If your lawyer cannot talk to you, then justice cannot function. It's a simple argument but effective nevertheless.
The decision will also be on a narrow point, they are not talking about the issue of her citizenship but a point before that, can she come back to attend Court?
On this, I think it's up to the Home Office to make the arrangement but she can't really be denied her day in Court forever.

A simple argument but a very weak one, her lawyer can talk with her anywhere, the world is not just that camp.

I repeat, she does not need to appear in court and doesn't necessarily have a right to in current law. Every day people are being convicted, sentenced and even locked up without physically being in the court room. That's long been the case and during Covid-19 it's become fashionable.
.

 

[vfr400]

Has anybody been following Dr Reiner Fuellmich. He and a bunch of others are maneuvering to bring "crimes against humanity" charges against those behind the Covid scare and lockdowns. He seems to be a very highly qualified, intelligent and knowledgeable person as a spokesman for a group of highly qualified medical practitioners. They are bringing their first law suit against the so-called fact checkers who have attempted to discredit and defame them.

WATCH: Int’l Lawyers Bringing Class Action Over “Covid Scandal”

Everything must be done to make sure that no one will ever again be in a position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity or to attempt to manipulate us with their corrupt agendas.

off-guardian.org

Incidentally Candace Owens also has a massive lawsuit against fact checkers.

 

[Woosh]

Skype is satisfactory. People appear via video link all the time.

Begum is currently locked inside a special refugee camp guarded by the militia. It's like a re-education/internment camp. No communication is freely allowed.
If Begum can be moved into a another peaceful country, that would be more tolerable. Skype is not available where she is.
Don't forget that we let more than 1,500 ISIS fighters or members come back here. They serve their time in prison but they keep their nationality.

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

Begum is currently locked inside a special refugee camp guarded by the militia. It's like a re-education/internment camp. No communication is freely allowed.
If Begum can be moved into a another peaceful country, that would be more tolerable. Skype is not available where she is.
Don't forget that we let more than 1,500 ISIS fighters or members come back here. They serve their time in prison but they keep their nationality.

A video link could easily be provided under these circumstances. There is absolutely no reason for her to return. This technology is routinely used and accepted within the justice system.

 

[Danidl]

Well we had a PM May, but certainly haven't got a Can.

Perhaps the time will come when BJ is succeeded by a Khan

 

[Woosh]

A video link could easily be provided under these circumstances. There is absolutely no reason for her to return. This technology is routinely used and accepted within the justice system.

you have to take her off the camp first. It's run by ex ISIS militia.
Whatever you think of her, her barrister will argue that her removal from the camp is our government's responsibility and I think the Court will go with that.

 

[wheeler]

Has anybody been following Dr Reiner Fuellmich.

Only you, I would suspect.

 

[flecc]

Don't forget that we let more than 1,500 ISIS fighters or members come back here. They serve their time in prison but they keep their nationality.

Not entirely so, we removed the nationality of circa 10% of them. We know of the 108 who lost it in 2016/2017, but since then the Home Office have become coy on this subject so the total could be far higher with the last three years added to those two.
.

 

[RossG]

Captain on the bridge...

 

[Woosh]

A simple argument but a very weak one, her lawyer can talk with her anywhere, the world is not just that camp.

you forget that most of the world does not want ex-ISIS members, not even Syria.

Begum is a British problem, other countries have enough of similar problems of their own citizens.
You either have to shoot them or sort them out, the cost of which falls to the nationality of the ex-ISIS members.