No Shamima Begum Thread?

[spen666]

Your position on the legal outcome is clear. What do you feel about the deprivation order being applied, instead of bringing her back to the UK to stand trial for the terrorism crimes she is accused of?

After all, you started this thread as a potential ‘hot topic of debate’.

I am not aware of any "deprivation order" being applied.

Can you clarify what this deprivation order is and under what legislation it has been made and who by?

 

[spen666]

I think spen666 gave us an idea of what he thinks about that in his opening post.

Hardly?

I was quoting the verdict of the court and asking why no one was debating it.
It is completely false to assume my views on the matter from quoting the verdict of the High Court

I was amazed that the hottest topic of the day was not the subject of a thread from anyone

 

[spen666]

The quality of your posting gives everyone the right, the absolute right, the inalienable right in perpetuity, to beseech you not to post.

Yet still you want to engage me on this topic?

Strange isn't it

 

[fozy tornip]

I don't want to engage you on anything.
There is no engagement with you.
Your solipsism has a density that shames black holes.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Hardly?

I was quoting the verdict of the court and asking why no one was debating it.
It is completely false to assume my views on the matter from quoting the verdict of the High Court

I was amazed that the hottest topic of the day was not the subject of a thread from anyone

Disingenuous. You started off with a leading question, mentioning only one possible reason, rather than an open one to elicit open replies, and in the absence of anything to the contrary I am free to take that as a reflection of your opinion. This is not a court of law so I have that right without evidential proof, as you have the right not to give one.

Your last point was answered in the second post and countered by the 11 pages so far.

It is also true that glasgowcyclist was not correct in referring to a Deprivation Order when he should have said she was deprived of her British citizenship under s40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Naughty step for him, but nice deflection on your part.

 

[multitool]

The quality of your posting gives everyone the right, the absolute right, the inalienable right in perpetuity, to beseech you not to post.

Thank God your posting is always not only on topic, never ad hom, and definitely adds to the discussion in hand.

I've learned a lot about the Begum issue thanks to your posts.

 

[fozy tornip]

Shucks.
Your usual Mr 'Tool, or might you be minded to try the Paul Calf?

 

[multitool]

Ah fooken ate stewdents

 

[spen666]

Disingenuous. You started off with a leading question, mentioning only one possible reason, rather than an open one to elicit open replies, and in the absence of anything to the contrary I am free to take that as a reflection of your opinion. This is not a court of law so I have that right without evidential proof, as you have the right not to give one.

Your last point was answered in the second post and countered by the 11 pages so far.

It is also true that glasgowcyclist was not correct in referring to a Deprivation Order when he should have said she was deprived of her British citizenship under s40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Naughty step for him, but nice deflection on your part.

Disingenuous?

This was a post a year ago about a High Court decision.



Sorry I don't have a crystal ball to know what would happen in the 12 months after the High Court ruling.

 

[C R]

Ah fooken ate stewdents

How do you dent a stew?

 

[Deleted member 121]

How do you dent a stew?

You have to go to take a course. Takes years. Only then can you become a true Dentist...

 

[BoldonLad]

More moderators on here than in the cycling forum. 😊

 

[Deleted member 121]

More moderators on here than in the cycling forum. 😊

Dare i ask you to explain that?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I am not aware of any "deprivation order" being applied.

Can you clarify what this deprivation order is and under what legislation it has been made and who by?

The order depriving Ms Begum of her UK citizenship.

If you’ve read the judgement you’d already kno…. Hang on, you haven’t read the judgement, have you? Hilarious!

If you like, I can post the link to the judgements so you can catch up.

 

[winjim]

I just skimmed the judgement to look at the issue of statelessness, as that's what I was discussing upthread. To clarify, she had Bangladeshi citizenship by descent up to her 21st birthday. So at the time the original order was made removing her UK citizenship she was not technically made stateless. However her argument is that she was made de facto stateless as she couldn't realistically exercise her Bangladeshi citizenship and it has in any case now expired.

Interesting wording of the legislation with its emphasis on the satisfaction of the Home Secretary and I can see how it could be argued either way. Did the order make her stateless, did the expiration of her Bangladeshi citizenship make her stateless, was it both, and does the legislation apply only in the present, or to future consequences if those consequences are predictable or perhaps even inevitable? We could discuss these points but in terms of the appeal it seems that the Home Secretary did take statelessness into account at the time which is all he needed to do.

Note that they wouldn't be able to make the same decision now. Funny that they could only remove her citizenship because she was a minor. Couldn't do it now she's an adult.

Legislation​

3. Section 40 of the BNA 1981 (“s 40”) provides, so far as relevant, as follows:​

“(2) The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a​

citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that​

deprivation is conducive to the public good.​

…​

(4) The Secretary of State may not make an order under (2) if he​

is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.​