Army Veterans Facing murder charges over Bloody Sunday within two weeks

I meant an official link not a newspaper saying something.
Otherwise there is no real proof of her doing anything.
I did see some photos of a white person prone, face down with her standing over them pulling their head back, it looked like a prelude to their throat being cut. Damned if I can find them now.
 
She's had Bangladeshi citizenship from birth, given that her parents are Bangladeshi. That's how it works. If she wants to go home, that's her home.
That isn't quite right though, Tam. She has never held a Bangladeshi passport. Under the law of that country, to obtain a Bangladeshi passport a foreign-born child of Bangladeshi parents first has to apply for and be granted something called a Dual Nationality Certificate (DNC). If the UK has any right to withdraw British citizenship in her circumstances, Bangladesh has at least as much right to withhold a DNC were it ever to be applied for.

I have no sympathy whatever for this person, who is not only apparently complicit in a uniquely evil regime, but is also annoying.

Personally I was surprised at the Home Secretary's decision to withdraw British citizenship in this appalling woman's case, and I would have been very interested to see the legal advice which he was given. Certainly, his action sends a very clear message for anyone else tempted to join such groups overseas, at a time when no other high profile action was available to him (no we don't bomb refugee camps). But I can't help feeling that she may ultimately win a judicial review against that decision. Also, withdrawing British nationality could conceivably limit the scope for prosecution of such persons:
 
That isn't quite right though, Tam. She has never held a Bangladeshi passport.
Neither has she held a British passport. She travelled using her sister's passport.
Personally I was surprised at the Home Secretary's decision to withdraw British citizenship in this appalling woman's case, and I would have been very interested to see the legal advice which he was given. Certainly, his action sends a very clear message for anyone else tempted to join such groups overseas, at a time when no other high profile action was available to him (no we don't bomb refugee camps). But I can't help feeling that she may ultimately win a judicial review against that decision. Also, withdrawing British nationality could conceivably limit the scope for prosecution of such persons:
It might be a bluff. If she proves in court that she is British, she can be tried as such, otherwise a sharp lawyer might have claimed that she's actually just a Bangladeshi girl who happened to have spent some time in the UK.
 
As long as you are something new or untested some lawyer will go to bat for you, why wouldnt they they get paid a huge amount of money to come up with ideas and the other side bill a similar amount of money to come up with counter arguments. The system will never be fair when either side don't have to account for the money. Lawyers and Politicians are joint top of my Purge list
 
Last edited:
Neither has she held a British passport. She travelled using her sister's passport.

It might be a bluff. If she proves in court that she is British, she can be tried as such, otherwise a sharp lawyer might have claimed that she's actually just a Bangladeshi girl who happened to have spent some time in the UK.
(Off thread topic but...) Interesting points but I'm still of the view that the Home Secretary's decision might, ultimately, be successfully challenged.

There isn't any possible dispute that this appalling woman held British nationality, irrespective of passport. Apart from anything else, the fact of her British nationality was confirmed by the formal actions of the Home Office in informing her of her deprivation of nationality.

It's true that the Nationality Act 2014 (which by the way isn't the only source of law and practice about this) says that the Secretary of State can deprive someone of British nationality if various conditions apply including that he "has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.”

In other words, for the Home Secretary to use that provision it isn't essential that the person already possesses that other nationality, merely that they are "able" to obtain it.

The problem with that is that the Bangladesh Government has already made it quite clear that they have no intention of granting this woman their citizenship in the event of her applying for it. She obviously had - yes, until her decision to go off to Syria - a much stronger practical connection with the UK than with Bangladesh. And if the UK has the right to deprive her of citizenship on the grounds of her behaviour, by the same token Bangladesh has an even stronger right to refuse nationality in the event of her applying for it.

Bangladeshi nationality law and their "application for DNC" arrangements could be debated at length, but if their law doesn't provide what their Government says it does, they can always change it.

And for various reasons it isn't clever to render people stateless.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
And for various reasons it isn't clever to render people stateless.
Agreed. She's beneath contempt but that doesn't mean we should ignore the law. Robert Bolt put it better than I ever could:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
 
I think the problem was the Home Secretary threatening, well more than threatening actually ordering, something that any decent QC would have advised him would be thrown out in the first legal challenge.

In principle there is nothing wrong with depriving a ne'rdowell of citizenship if their UK citizenship has been granted after the subject already had citizenship of somewhere else (and it boggles the mind just how many scrags in the UK that applies to), it is actually a pretty good deterrent to hang over people's heads.

But in Begum's case it was obvious that it could never stand, and by issuing the threat and later having it overturned in court simply devalues the deterrent effect and means the next time the Home Secretary will think twice about using that power in a situation where it would actually be justified.
 
I meant an official link not a newspaper saying something.
Otherwise there is no real proof of her doing anything.
I beleave that the black bin bag’s PR officer was nutted (for non-op banner bods, the vast majority of this site i’d Say, Slotted) shortly after the word got out that SB, was just another nutter rather than a misguided ‘child’. Other than that, at this point in time the luvers of de’ath have scattered to the 4 winds, Shiite scared that the Septics have got a MOAB’ with their names (all of them) on it.
Actually and my heart goes out to them at this point in time as the grand piss up for the successful establishment of a luver of de’ath state has been put on hold. It was rumored to be the mother and father of all piss-ups, with lashings of Schmirnov and pig roasts on order.
 
It would have been cheaper just to leave her where she was, as is.

Just tell her she'd have to make her own way back.

Eventually she'd arrive and then we could hail her for leaving the country illegally, joining isis etc and ship her to some newly created prison just off rockall.

maybe these offshore wind turbines could have a couple of cells installed.

not powered, natch.
Actually I was thinking more like underneath Rockall, below the water line.
 
How about an amnesty in return for MOD approval and encouragement for Vets to testify and provide the truth. Everyone wins, though the MOD might have to take a bit on the chin. Go on MOD, take one for the lads........another squadron of flying pigs.
Why the **** would veterans care about MOD approval?

If they have murdered someone why should they get amnesty?
 

Latest Threads

Top