LT wrote:

JordsDisco wrote:

That’s one way of putting it.

Please do refute my opinion or anything that I have posted JordsDisco, that's how a sensible discussion or debate works.

Just posting inane one- liners adds nothing to the discussion and to be frank doesn't reflect particularly well on yourself.

So a simple statement, “that’s one way of putting it” wound you up?

I’ve noticed you’re pretty free and easy dismissing other peoples opinions on various issues throughout the forum.

You can’t do that and then expect a different attitude when it comes to your comments. Basically, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it and in anycase, on this topic, you defiantly stand alone. Maybe that’s why your so sensitive.

As for your one liner about it reflecting badly on myself, I’ll gladly put up with. Oh, the shame! - although that statement could be equally aimed back at yourself.

RRSTDV8 wrote:

Removing her citizenship is only legal if she has citizenship of another country (or can obtain same). As she doesn't and can't, surely the removal of her British citizenship is therefore unlawful.

Quote:

"that although there was credible suspicion that Begum “was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation”, that was insufficient for the commission to deem the home secretary’s decision unlawful. He said it was for those advising the home secretary to consider and assess whether Begum’s travel was voluntary.

While “many right-thinking” people would take issue with the assessment of the home secretary’s advisers that Begum’s travel in 2015 was voluntary, it was not for the commission to decide it was involuntary and then accord more weight to that finding than to the threat she posed to national security."

Tellingly though Justice Jay noted that “the idea that Ms Begum could have conceived and organised all of this herself is not plausible”

Which I think has significant implications as to the commissions real beliefs on this case.

I don't know where this will go next, but when even senior Conservatives ministers are appalled, Siac notes - “the idea that Ms Begum could have conceived and organised all of this herself is not plausible” Lord Sumption said- "Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction", you can bet that it won't be the end of the story.

Nor should it be, it doesn't portray Britain in a good light internationally (IMO of course ).

Amnesty International:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/202...ppointing/

It may well take a change of government and a new Home Secretary before this case is concluded.

JordsDisco wrote:

LT wrote:

JordsDisco wrote:

That’s one way of putting it.

Please do refute my opinion or anything that I have posted JordsDisco, that's how a sensible discussion or debate works.

Just posting inane one- liners adds nothing to the discussion and to be frank doesn't reflect particularly well on yourself.

So a simple statement, “that’s one way of putting it” wound you up?

I’ve noticed you’re pretty free and easy dismissing other peoples opinions on various issues throughout the forum.

You can’t do that and then expect a different attitude when it comes to your comments. Basically, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it and in anycase, on this topic, you defiantly stand alone. Maybe that’s why your so sensitive.

As for your one liner about it reflecting badly on myself, I’ll gladly put up with. Oh, the shame! - although that statement could be equally aimed back at yourself.

What makes you think that I am "wound up" ?

As I said- "Please do refute my opinion or anything that I have posted JordsDisco, that's how a sensible discussion or debate works. Just posting inane one-liners adds nothing to the discussion"

Assuming that you do NOT agree with my opinion?

RRSTDV8 wrote:

Removing her citizenship is only legal if she has citizenship of another country (or can obtain same). As she doesn't and can't, surely the removal of her British citizenship is therefore unlawful.

But such details have never worried politicians previously so I don't suppose it'll worry them now.

In a nutshell yes.

The argument being that up to the age of 21, Begum had the technical right to apply for dual nationality with Bangladesh.

The fact is that she has never applied and even if she had, Bangladesh had the right to refuse her application, which they almost certainly would have done once she had left the UK for Syria.

As Lord Sumption said- "Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction".

pjm-84 wrote:

RRSTDV8 wrote:

Removing her citizenship is only legal if she has citizenship of another country (or can obtain same). As she doesn't and can't, surely the removal of her British citizenship is therefore unlawful.

Upheld so not. I refer you to my previous response. Section 5

http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-242.html

Quote:

17. GROUND 2: the decision to deprive Ms Begum of her British citizenship was in breach
of the United Kingdom’s obligations under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
(“the HRA”) with reference to Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(“the ECHR”), because there was at the very least a credible suspicion that she had been
trafficked


247.For all these reasons, Ground 2 fails.

261.For all these reasons, Ground 2 fails.

Quote:

18. GROUND 3: the deprivation decision rendered Ms Begum de facto stateless because
Bangladesh was unlikely to be able or willing to provide her with any practical
protection. This was a relevant consideration and/or one in respect of which the
Secretary of State failed to undertake proper inquiry.

306.For these reasons, and those briefly elaborated in the CLOSED judgment, Ground 3
fails.

Quote:

2. It is an appeal about fundamental principles, rights and obligations. These are matters of
the highest importance. British citizenship is a fundamental entitlement and carries with
it rights and privileges of huge importance to the individual, in particular the right of
abode in this country. The rule of law is equally important, placing at the heart of our
constitutional settlement ever since Magna Carta, the right of the subject not to be
outlawed or exiled “except by the lawful judgment of [her] peers and the law of the land”
(clause 39). Last but not least in this catalogue comes the duty of Government, acting
for these purposes through the Secretary of State, to uphold and safeguard the national
security of the United Kingdom.

3. The rule of law is non-negotiable. What it requires in any given case is for the
Commission to determine, loyally applying principles enunciated by higher courts.

4. British citizenship is not an absolute entitlement for everyone. It can be removed by the
Secretary of State, but not if to do so would render the subject stateless. Many citizens
of the United Kingdom are immune from deprivation action for that reason, but not Ms
Begum.

5. National security is not an absolute imperative. It does not trump everything else. It must
be weighed against fundamental rights and entitlements.

6. Expressing the issues in this stark way demonstrates the importance of this appeal to the
parties and the public at large as well as the importance of the work undertaken by this
Commission.

Quote:

I should add that I am only really interested in what is the correct UK law as even if Begum was eventually granted UK citizenship then the whole interest would shift to security, identity, location etc which is a whole new ball game that, as yet, I have no interest or opinion on.