leave her there

brb thought you actually meant the aztecs, and not some chocolate bar.

 

Yeah fooking pc brigade took over, now we are left with people getting too old and pensions the state can't afford. Great idea all that, let's make people live longer and turn senile. That brilliant idea has cost the NHS and Care Homes more money than when we just allowed people to smoke and drink themselves to death...oh hang on, make them all go private...i get the plan now, great idea

 

Yeah this thread will blow up... Wait, probably wrong choice of wording.

 

Don't think the paper was edible .... if you didn't manage to peel it all off you were left chewing bits of paper

 

... I'll give him the benefit ... he's old enough to have seen them (the chocolate bars) ...

 

I think there was two different sorts, one where the paper wasn't edible and the other being rice paper.

 

Just looked online...bet Fosse remember these....

please log in to view this image

 

This has been a chocolate deflection broadcast on behalf of the major confectioners.

 

So there Fosse.

 

What a name Kamikaze

please log in to view this image

 

Krakatoa?

 

Are we deciding on which after rape cigarette we are having?

 

Yep - only half of it gets smoked though because then it gets doused in petrol and shoved up her flange. #forherowngood

 

Over 100 pages!

 

Mike Dean is right...

 

Reasonable grounds to believe*

You should read section 66 of the Immigration Act 2014 amendment.

Reasonable grounds does not require definitive proof bro.

 

You’re confusing the grounds on which he can issue the letter with its legal standing if challenged.

As when challenged and shown that the ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ were in fact false, then the order is not actionable and therefore doesn’t comply with the law by definition.

Section 66 also says in section 4a that in order to deprive a person of their citizenship, that their citizenship status has to be a result of naturalisation. So if she was born here, then..........

 

I’m not confusing anything Tobes, I’m aware of what reasonable grounds means.

He’s already said we won’t make her stateless after the event, but while there’s reasonable grounds to believe she could obtain citizenship elsewhere, there’s absolutely nothing illegal about the step they’ve taken.

If she proves she can’t, then they’ll have to reverse the decision.

As for that last bit, it’s either or, and makes no difference in this instance.

What my question is, is why a few lads on a forum believe they are more qualified to make this call than the Home Office?

 

You think this knee jerk decision was anything to do with the actual law?

Sure thing bruv.

They’re not ‘either, or’s’ btw.