leave her there

[Commachio]

Helped that I grew up in an Off-licence that had a rather large confectionary section ... including candy and also chocolate cigarettes ffs ... the PC brigade would have had a field day ...

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

 

[brb]

Helped that I grew up in an Off-licence that had a rather large confectionary section ... including candy and also chocolate cigarettes ffs ... the PC brigade would have had a field day ...

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

 

[Dier Hard]

Can you imagine what it's gonna be like if she does come back to the UK? ... 1000 pager

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

 

[FosseFilberto]

Chocolate cigs wrapped in rice paper?

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

 

[FosseFilberto]

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

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

 

[brb]

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

 

[brb]

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

You must log in or register to see images

 

[FosseFilberto]

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

 

[Blueman]

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

So there Fosse.

 

[brb]

What a name Kamikaze

You must log in or register to see images

 

[The Ginger Marks]

Krakatoa?

 

[Spurlock]

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

 

[Deleted.......]

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. [HASHTAG]#forh[/HASHTAG]erowngood

 

[Rorschach]

Over 100 pages!

 

[Rorschach]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Rorschach]

Mike Dean is right...

 

[Tel (they/them)]

The Home office lost a number of court cases late last year in which they’d tried to use a supposed dual nationality to remove citizenship, and were proved to be wrong by the courts, thus making their original actions illegal.

So, you’re wrong. Until it’s proven in court you can’t say he’s done nothing illegal, as there’s more than a vague possibility that he has.

Reasonable grounds to believe*

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

Reasonable grounds does not require definitive proof bro.

 

[Tobes]

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..........

 

[Tel (they/them)]

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?

 

[Tobes]

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.