WHO Poll
Q: 2020/2021 Where will we finish up this season?
a. Top Four, Champions League here we come
b. 5th-7th Europa League is well within our grasp
c. 8th to 14th anywhere in mid table is about right
d. We're in a dog fight before a ball has been kicked and we'll do well to finish 17th or just above
e. GSB have derailed our season before a ball has been kicked, the Championship beckons

goose 12:46 Thu Jul 16
Shamima Begum

Shamima Begum has won a legal battle to be allowed to return home to fight the government's decision to remove her UK citizenship.

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

Moncurs Putting Iron 5:25 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
Fo the Communist 5:00 Fri Feb 26

My thoughts exactly.

Our calendar is Christian (I may be an atheist but I will have good Friday and Christmas off thank you very much)

And the Church are still big land and property owners so they do shape the social landscape.

Christian in name, secular in practice.

Fo the Communist 5:00 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum

Apart from a few churchy appointees to the House of Lords how would you say the Christian faith determines matters of state - or individual affairs for that matter - these days?

The separation of church and state may not exist in archaic law but it does pretty much in reality.

riosleftsock 4:29 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
"benefits of living in a secular tolerant country "

Although a vocal minority may well wish this was true, the Act of Settlement of 1701 (never repealed in substance) clearly determines that we are a christian country, not secular.

Moncurs Putting Iron 4:14 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
, 3:29 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum

Do you think her facing trial as a UK citizen sends a more powerful message than her not being considered a UK citizen because she gave up that right to chase an ideal that was far from what she thought would happen?

I am sorry, but for me the latter is the one most likely to make people stop and think about the (personal) benefits of living in a secular tolerant country and the few but important personal responsibilities that carries.

only1billybonds 3:52 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
Comma wants her back here as knows it will piss off those who dont share his views. In much the same way that he fa ours the EU over the UK on most issues. Was probably wetting his knickers in ecstacy when the BLAIR government decided to open the floodgates to endless immigrants because it would 'rub the rights noses in it'.

Hermit Road 3:34 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
It seems that the court has weighed it up and balanced the national security threat against the probability that she has a legitimate claim to citizenship.

If the court had thought that her claim to citizenship was watertight then it wouldn’t be able to deny her entry on national security grounds.

Comma’s claim to want her to ‘face justice’ here is of course bullshit. He wants her back and then when found guilty he would want her back in her Tower Hamlets estate on ASAP with a gentle slap on the wrist.

Crassus 3:30 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum

You miss my point
Legally the Government lost the previous case, so has shifted tack to an issue of National Security preventing her return - definitely a deft political move within the law

The judge has upheld that law, her case was not at issue here, merely the legally obstruction to her being here in court

As I said, Top Trumps - your human rights law card is trumped by my National Security card, and all held back until there is no higher court to move to, deft move

, 3:29 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
I have just read a Lord Reed’s judgement and to my surprise he has upheld Priti Patel’s decision based on Begum being of sufficient national security risk to warrant banning her front entering the UK to fight her right to citizenship.

This looks like it could run and run without Begum actually ever being in a position to face charges in a UK Court. I’d like to see her face trial but it may never happen.

Mike Oxsaw 3:21 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
Fifth Column 3:11 Fri Feb 26

Whatever your take on this issue is, it is now undoubtedly 100% political in nature.

You will find that, whenever this case comes up for review, uncannily and unerringly, the level of UK terrorist security alert in the few days prior to the review date will have been raised to a level where the case cannot be considered, only to drop again when the case is rescheduled.

Classic can-kicking, and no one ever gets to see the criteria by which a change in terrorist alert is triggered, so an appeal is impossible.

Fifth Column 3:11 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
I don't see either the original court of appeal verdict (which everyone on here lost their shit about) or this new verdict as being "political". They're different and valid interpretations of the law.

It doesn't change the fact her case hasn't been decided - it's still up in the air and certainly does not create a precedent in terms of people having citizenship rescinded. You are likely to be correct that finding a neutral and safe third country to take her which could facilitate some form of trial out of country or via videolink seems unlikely right now.

Crassus 3:04 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum

It was a deft legal/political move around legal requirement

It has already been agreed, having been prompted her side, that she can't face a hearing without being present
So now she has been prevented from returning for that hearing upon National Security grounds
She has been shunted into a siding at her legal advisors behest and Judge Sensible has switched the points

Top Trumps!

Fifth Column 2:44 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
That's very true Mike, I don't disagree with what you said at all.

It doesn't change the fact the legal decision today was not about the merits of her principle case - it was about whether legally she should be allowed into the country to take part in her case in person if and when it's heard.

Rossal 1:59 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
Great news....suns out....we're 4th in the league

Life is getting better

Hope someone pummels her with a anti aircraft gun

Mike Oxsaw 1:51 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
Fifth Column 1:40 Fri Feb 26

The case is largely irrelevant, Fifth.

"Once here" is the fundamental issue. Once here, she's here for life.

Fifth Column 1:40 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
Hermit (and most others who haven't read the judgement)... this case was about whether she has the right to come back to hear her case against citizenship being revoked. It wasn't about the case itself. This judgement finds that the Home Secretary did have the legal power to bar her from coming back to have her appeal in person. It did not make any finding about the actual issue of her citizenship because it was not being asked to make a judgement on that.

ray winstone 1:40 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
So there’ll be a five bedroom house and a KFC voucher on eBay later then?

Coffee 1:30 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
The Bangladeshis don't seem quite as keen on the citizenship-as-birthright thing for the many thousands of Rohingya children conceived in the boredom of refugee camps in Bangladesh, and born there.

SurfaceAgentX2Zero 1:28 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
She can't go to the ECJ because we left the EU. However, she can, and most certainly will, take her case to the ECHR, of which we are still a member.

No doubt this EU puppet will examine her case impartially, stifle a laugh, and rule that the UK are a bunch of racist rotters and must let her into the country ASAP (is that OK, Ursula?).

Mike Oxsaw 1:22 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
If she were a lottery winner rather than a nutter & loser, The Bangladeshi's would be pushing here to "make more" of her Bangladeshi citizenship-by-birthright.

Stevethehammer 1:19 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
Come on you irons
Calling me a thick idiotic cunt is a bit strong
I have gcse's and A levels, so thick and idiotic isn't quite true
A cunt.. Well can't deny that really

Hermit Road 1:11 Fri Feb 26
Re: Shamima Begum
I agree.

Good luck revoking their citizenship and getting someone else to take them though.

That was the key part to not letting her return. We all know that, once she was back, no court would make her leave.

Page 1 - Next

Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: