Skip to main content
Topic: Here is the news (Read 159119 times) previous topic - next topic
Mangetout and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2880
You are absolutely correct. Shame the Tories can't support good old British values like the rule of law and access to justice for all.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2881
If anyone has some bullsh!t take on why Shamima Begum should be made stateless, and should not be entitled to challenge the decision to remove her citizenship (and be denied legal aid to do so) please pipe up, so I can  politely explain why you are absolutely, incontrovertibly wrong.

Apologies in advance if no one thinks that, and so sorry for troubling you.

I'm still confused by the whole thing. Why is she having to challenge it at all? She's British born and Bangladesh says that she doesn't hold citizenship there; given international law makes it illegal to render someone stateless, and given only one nation acknowledges that she currently holds their citizenship, I don't understand why this process hasn't stopped dead.
They don't think it be like it is, but it do

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2882
I'm pretty despairing of where we have come to, that it's even a debate.

There appears to be a move afoot to turn us into an isolationist rogue fascist state, and I don't like it at all.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2883
I'm still confused by the whole thing. Why is she having to challenge it at all? She's British born and Bangladesh says that she doesn't hold citizenship there; given international law makes it illegal to render someone stateless, and given only one nation acknowledges that she currently holds their citizenship, I don't understand why this process hasn't stopped dead.

The answer is simple. She is an easy target for a wider agenda. If the govt makes a decision it takes a court to reverse it. Who is going to pay for that? If no one does anything, she is stateless, in breach of international law (not binding) and our own law (binding).

 If no legal aid, then lawyers like me doing it free (and I suspect there would be many volunteers).

If the govt does it to her, they will do it to you sooner rather than later. If they don't like yoir views. 

At best Savid Javid is grandstanding, at worst, he is a real totalitarian. I care nothing for Shamima Begum; I care that a UK subject should be stripped of their state in this arbitrary fashion.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2884
I don't know how to post phone photos on here: I wish I could because the UKIP candidate for my local elections is the most sexoffendersregistercandidate you will ever see.

Honestly - like they meant it  to be that way.

He got 1.5% (WTF?!) of the vote in the most EU friendly ward you could imagine.

I did some digging around and I 'think' he stood in a Newcastle ward, last time around, under a slightly different name.


Anyone - he's a total sex case. It's obvioius.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2885
The answer is simple. She is an easy target for a wider agenda. If the govt makes a decision it takes a court to reverse it. Who is going to pay for that? If no one does anything, she is stateless, in breach of international law (not binding) and our own law (binding).

OK, but how can a senior member of a legislative body order an action that is in direct contravention of its own law? And how does that body and its servants not turn around and say "no, that's not how this works, you literally can not do that"? It makes an absolute mockery of itself.
They don't think it be like it is, but it do

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2886
OK, but how can a senior member of a legislative body order an action that is in direct contravention of its own law? And how does that body and its servants not turn around and say "no, that's not how this works, you literally can not do that"? It makes an absolute mockery of itself.

The executive has loads of executive powers. (See Trump). If exercised, it takes a court to reverse them.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2887
The executive has loads of executive powers. (See Trump). If exercised, it takes a court to reverse them.

I'm not trying to be patronising, but just in case you aren't aware, the state has 3 branches: executive, legislature, and judiciary. The latter 2 are supposed to provide a check on the first. The Leg is sovereign of course.

The actions of the Home Sec are the actions of the Exec, not the Leg.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2888
I'm not trying to be patronising, but just in case you aren't aware, the state has 3 branches: executive, legislature, and judiciary. The latter 2 are supposed to provide a check on the first. The Leg is sovereign of course.

The actions of the Home Sec are the actions of the Exec, not the Leg.

Except that as an elected Member of Parliament, Javid is also a member of the legislative branch. He is part of the body that proposes and approves legislation. The Home Office executes that legislation under his governance, but again - how does the head of a branch of government issue an order that is clearly in direct contravention of the law that he is entrusted to keep? Why is no one saying to him "no, that's actually not allowed". This isn't a "hey, this is a grey area of law so let's move forward and let the courts sort out which side of the line they think it lies", this is "f*ck the law, it's inconvenient to my political optics and if you don't like it f*ck you".
They don't think it be like it is, but it do

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2889
Because they're Tory c*nts.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2890
Except that as an elected Member of Parliament, Javid is also a member of the legislative branch. He is part of the body that proposes and approves legislation. The Home Office executes that legislation under his governance, but again - how does the head of a branch of government issue an order that is clearly in direct contravention of the law that he is entrusted to keep? Why is no one saying to him "no, that's actually not allowed". This isn't a "hey, this is a grey area of law so let's move forward and let the courts sort out which side of the line they think it lies", this is "f*ck the law, it's inconvenient to my political optics and if you don't like it f*ck you".

Because he has Executive power to do so, and his civil servants can't stop him. Once the power is exercised, only the judiciary can right the wrong, or the legislature if it passes a corrective law. This is how government works in the U.K., the USA, and the former Commonwealth. 

Taking on an executive action requires money, and/or goodwill, and really good lawyers.

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2891
The answer is simple. She is an easy target for a wider agenda. If the govt makes a decision it takes a court to reverse it. Who is going to pay for that? If no one does anything, she is stateless, in breach of international law (not binding) and our own law (binding).

 If no legal aid, then lawyers like me doing it free (and I suspect there would be many volunteers).

If the govt does it to her, they will do it to you sooner rather than later. If they don't like yoir views. 

At best Savid Javid is grandstanding, at worst, he is a real totalitarian. I care nothing for Shamima Begum; I care that a UK subject should be stripped of their state in this arbitrary fashion.

Pure political grandstanding. The legalities are obviously your court, but politically Javid is being incredibly transparent. He wants to be PM. He knows his main weakness is his Muslim background which does not play well with the Tory members who will ultimately determine the leader. As far as I can tell (and I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong), it seems likely that Begum would win an appeal against Javid's decision. But, that does not matter; for Javid it's about proving he is tough on terrorism and particularly on Muslims.

 Begum is perfectly entitled to legal aid to defend herself and the actions of Javid are cynically political and have nothing to do with security. Begum should be tried in court as a British citizen and if allegations are proven in court then she will serve time.

On Javid himself, my wife's cousin knows him from his MBA days and he is apparently a bit of a c*nt. I'm sure we could have worked that out for ourselves given that he claims to read Fountainhead on a regular basis to remind himself of what a c*nt he truly is. But, it's always nice to have some external corroboration.

 

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2892
The French cathedral. It's a beautiful historic building, and I'm full of sadness for it's loss. I'm somewhat perplexed though. Where are the normally shrill religious nut jobs proclaiming it as gods judgement on the Catholic wronguns?

Surely it's definitive proof that god is for women priests, and is pro-gay, while being against child sexual abuse?

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2893
If anyone has some bullsh!t take on why Shamima Begum should be made stateless, and should not be entitled to challenge the decision to remove her citizenship (and be denied legal aid to do so) please pipe up, so I can  politely explain why you are absolutely, incontrovertibly wrong.

Apologies in advance if no one thinks that, and so sorry for troubling you.
Yes I know I am risking all kinds of hellfire and abuse to come winging my way but...... she voluntarily joined a terrorist organisation fighting against our own people. Some may say that is treason.....

Now Isis have been “eliminated” she wants to return home and play happy families with state money. f*ck her and everyone else in the same boat, they chose their path the moment they left the UK. And before the usual suspects pipe up, it’s irrelevant that she is Muslim.

By all accounts she was in the morality police and acted a recruiter for Isis. Will the U.K. be any poorer for her being excluded from it? She chose her own path, now too late to return.




Anyone requiring chinning form an orderly queue

Re: Here is the news

Reply #2894
Yes I know I am risking all kinds of hellfire and abuse to come winging my way but...... she voluntarily joined a terrorist organisation fighting against our own people. Some may say that is treason.....

Now Isis have been “eliminated” she wants to return home and play happy families with state money. f*ck her and everyone else in the same boat, they chose their path the moment they left the UK. And before the usual suspects pipe up, it’s irrelevant that she is Muslim.

By all accounts she was in the morality police and acted a recruiter for Isis. Will the U.K. be any poorer for her being excluded from it? She chose her own path, now too late to return.


You broke the rules. So f*ck off, we don’t want you and we don’t care what happens to you. We owe you nothing.

Fair?

I get that people think that way. And think the same about peados, murderers, Corbyn supporters and Scousers (but I repeat myself etc).. not just muslims.

What I don’t get is their unnerving confidence that they, and people who think like them, will always be the ones making and enforcing the rules. I’m more inclined to think that rules which protect citizens who join Isis must exist and be defended so that the rules that protect the rest of us stand a chance of the same. Because I’m not a f*cking fascist.
this is an excellent rectangle