leave her there

[brb]

I dont think countries have precedence
the British situation will be relevant in the British courts
and the Bangladesh situation will be relevant in the Bangladesh courts

Exactly. So why do we think we can apply Bangladeshi law to make the girl not our problem?

 

[petersaxton]

The government are saying under Bangladeshi law it comes under the bloodline. The government have found a loophole, i think with decent lawyers she has a good chance of overturning this.

Points of law would be, do we apply citizenship via bloodline or place of birth, if dual citizenship has not been applied for and what is the over-riding factor where two countries have two different points of law.
Also to remove her citizenship, what crime other than joining a terrorist organisation has she committed.
If Bangladesh also lay claim to criminal convictions then surely both countries are jointly making her stateless.

the reason for renouncing her citizenship is not because of a crime
it's because it would be "conducive to the public good"

 

[Stan]

So if she had been born in Bangladesh to a British mother and had gone from their to Syria, you would think it right if Bangladesh stripped her of citizenship on the grounds that she was entitled to UK citizenship?

 

[petersaxton]

Exactly. So why do we think we can apply Bangladeshi law to make the girl not our problem?

we are not applying Bangladesh law
we are applying UK law - 1981 British Nationality Act

 

[petersaxton]

So if she had been born in Bangladesh to a British mother and had gone from their to Syria, you would think it right if Bangladesh stripped her of citizenship on the grounds that she was entitled to UK citizenship?

Bangladesh would follow their laws

 

[Spurlock]

So if she had been born in Bangladesh to a British mother and had gone from their to Syria, you would think it right if Bangladesh stripped her of citizenship on the grounds that she was entitled to UK citizenship?

His fat arse would be crying/complaining then too

 

[brb]

the reason for renouncing her citizenship is not because of a crime
it's because it would be "conducive to the public good"

'public good' is subjective and has not yet been proven in a court of law.

 

[FosseFilberto]

I dont see how they will lose given it is in line with the legislation

The legislation that would take her nationality way has a caveat that it can't be effected if that would make her 'stateless' - if she is not on a Bangladeshi citizenship list then our taking away her nationality would indeed make her stateless ... therefore our action would be illegal and we would lose ... simples ...

I think we are currently at home to Mr Cock-up ... or Sajid Javid to give him his birth name

 

[petersaxton]

'public good' is subjective and has not yet been proven in a court of law.

not in this case
but it has been used before

 

[Spurlock]

I think Fatty should **** off off this thread considering he's got half the board on ignore.

I'm not sure I want to see his posts whilst he won't see others the fat ****ing pussy hole

 

[PowerSpurs]

Bangladesh would follow their laws

And by your logic we wouldn't be able to refuse her entry as that would make her stateless. It would be nonsensical if the law had that effect. She is a British Citizen and our responsibility.

 

[Tobes]

The government are saying under Bangladeshi law it comes under the bloodline. The government have found a loophole, i think with decent lawyers she has a good chance of overturning this.

Points of law would be, do we apply citizenship via bloodline or place of birth, if dual citizenship has not been applied for and what is the over-riding factor where two countries have two different points of law.
Also to remove her citizenship, what crime other than joining a terrorist organisation has she committed.
If Bangladesh also lay claim to criminal convictions then surely both countries are jointly making her stateless.

It’s an interesting topic this if you roll out the logic being used.

So, if you’re one of the many hundreds of thousands of U.K. citizens born here, but with one Irish parent and you are therefore able, should you wish, to apply for an Irish passport, but you haven’t. Does this current policy mean that if you’re convicted of a crime here, and serve time for it, then upon release you can be deported to Ireland? Or does this only apply to brown people

 

[brb]

we are not applying Bangladesh law
we are applying UK law - 1981 British Nationality Act

So what part of UK law are we applying, the government have made a decision based on what aspect of the 1981 act, please define accurately and not subjectively the line that relates to her case?

 

[brb]

It’s an interesting topic this is you roll out the logic being used.

So, if you’re one of the many hundreds of thousands of U.K. citizens born here, but with one Irish parent and you are therefore able, should you wish, to apply for an Irish passport, but you haven’t. Does this current policy mean that if you’re convicted of a crime here, and serve time for it, then upon release you can be deported to Ireland? Or does this only apply to brown people

You know and i know, this only applies to brown people, and if you are muslim you are pretty much fooked. Pisses me off mate.

 

[petersaxton]

So what part of UK law are we applying, the government have made a decision based on what aspect of the 1981 act, please define accurately and not subjectively the line that relates to her case?

Section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended, says that “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”.

 

[brb]

not in this case
but it has been used before

So you agree 'public good' has not been proven but used. Lawyers are going to have a field day with this.

 

[Tel (they/them)]

Right, you politics lot can **** right off with your twitter posts, you’ve got your own ****ing hole for that ****e.... GTFO.

 

[brb]

Section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended, says that “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”.

Not proven. They have then gone on to use Bangladeshi law, not UK law to make her stateless imho.

 

[petersaxton]

So you agree 'public good' has not been proven but used. Lawyers are going to have a field day with this.

the Secretary of State just has to be satisfied

 

[Saf]

Well well well, I'm watching the press preview on sky news and they are discussing the whole "you are no longer British" headlines

The political consultant Nina schlick (wid by the way) has said that as it stands becoming an isis bride is not currently prosecutable under British law.

So she is technically "innocent" as it stands, as in no laws broken. No argument against that from the newspaper bloke whose stand is same as those on here saying they are happy if she simply isn't allowed back, or the news reader dude


Only going by what's being discussed here on sky news. not sure if any legal eagles can clarify??

It looks like you're trying to get her here on a technicality.

She's joined a terrorist organisation and an enemy of the state. A decision has been made that she's not coming back. I couldn't give a **** what the reasons are for that happening. We should all be rejoicing that the little slag isn't coming back.

She's won **** all, neither. She wanted to come back here to be with her family and she's been told to **** off. That's a win for us, in my book.