Shamima Begum allowed back to the UK

I don’t see the problem, really. If the Home Secretary’s ruling stands, it goes away and never returns; not a problem. If the ruling is eventually overturned, it comes back. Should that happen, then there would be a case to answer under this little bit of legislation:


ITEM, Whereas divers Opinions have been before this Time [X1in what Case Treason shall be said, and in what not;] the King, at the Request of the Lords and of the Commons, hath made a Declaration in the Manner as hereafter followeth, that is to say; When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his [X2Queen] or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s [X2Companion,] or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife (X3) the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be [X4probably] attainted of open Deed by [X5the People] of their Condition: . . . F1, and if a Man slea the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, [X6that] ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty: . . . F2

It’s been like that since 1351, so hardly a new thing. So if it comes back, stick it on in the Old Bailey to answer the above. Life imprisonment, pour encourager les autres.
 

Wija72

Old-Salt
Oh dear, never mind, carry on.
9bf8b638a3f1d99c70c29588e9fdbbd2.jpg


Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
 
That is interesting, but I'm not sure how to feel on it.

Whilst it's good to tell Begum to 'uck of to somewhere else, and when yo get there keep 'ucking off!, there is a precedent there that makes me concerned.

Imagine if you will May lost the election in 2017. Then that places Comrade Abbott in the HS role. Having her suddenly declare people a security threat, means they could theoretically be placed in front of a Star Chamber like court consisting of McDonnell and all the nasty little sods.
'Oh no, sorry, you don't get a fair trial, you're a threat to security my dear boy.'
'How'd you come to that idea?'
'Well you oppose us.'

It seems to be one of those powers that's great when you have sensible people in charge, but less so when you have the likes of Corbyn running the show.

They're not denying her the right to appeal, just that she doesn't need to do it in person.

They've also raised the bar a bit to over-turn the existing decision.

I get your point, but she's not been declared a threat simply on a whim, but on the existing evidence.
 
I seem to remember that she's eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship but doesn't hold dual nationality so, the argument goes, stripping her UK citizenship would render her stateless.

Here's a thought, given she burned all her docs can she actually legally prove she is who she claims to be?

Shades of the Tichborne claimant. Tichborne case - Wikipedia
AIUI that is the crux of the case, with the UK Home sec saying she is & the Bangladesh Gov saying she isn't
 
Is there a Legal Aid issue here to?

If she was in country she'd be eligible, outside she's not?
 
My reference was to the WW2 Holocaust where over six million were murdered by the Nazis.

I thought it was clear. Perhaps I need to reword it a little to make it more clear.


My bold. 6,000,000 civilian Jewish non combatants, and a further 7,000,000. including Russian and allied POW,s, gypsies, radicals, Jehovah witnesses, Partisans,, intellectuals, resistance fighters, priests, non conformists, including 50,000 mental and disabled German children Total 13,000,000. If you are going to quote numbers the GERMANS murdered, get it right! :salut:
 
Last edited:

Chef

LE
I knew my lefty socialist mate would be rabid with rage over this decision when I saw the headline, I wasn't wrong

View attachment 552735
Would that be the same left wing types who're happy to take action against people for saying things or raising points they don't agree with or that conflict with their orthodoxy?

Laurence Fox and JK Rowling will be pleased
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
But - also - law is about intent. She was fully on-board with what she was doing. Also, whether she rendered herself stateless in preference of an unrecognised state or merely rendered herself stateless should also be moot.

She rejected this country and would continue to do so if things were still going well for ISIS.

She's a turd.
All of this talk about rendering herself stateless and ditching her passport, you need to remember that she didn't actually have a passport, she stole her sister's.
 
My bold. 6,000,000 Jewish non combatants, and a further 7,000,000. including Russian POW,s, gypsies, radicals, Jehovah witnesses, Partisans,, intellectuals, resistance fighters, priests, non conformists, including 50,000 mental and disabled German children Total 13,000,000. If you are going to quote numbers the GERMANS murdered, get it right! :salut:
Plus all of those chip shops
 
I wonder if Phil Shiner has offered to represent her yet?
He is too busy in Syria trying to find ISIS killed unlawfully by the RAF
 

Arte_et_Marte

ADC
Moderator
She can intend what she likes. If there was no legal basis for her becoming a part of a 'state' that did not exist and she was therefore unable to fulfill the legal formalities required to renounce her existing citizenship and to adopt the citizenship of another state, she is still a British citizen, no matter how much we may wish otherwise.

Unless I am hopelessly wrong, she will get back. There may be a considerable delay, but I think she will probably get back. In that event, the best that we can hope for is that she will receive an impossibly lengthy prison sentence for her treasonous activities. And yes, we will have to stump up for it.
I think you are wrong.

If she was born into a Bangladeshi family in Bangladesh, that automatically gave her Bangladesh citizenship.

If she was born to Bangladesh parents but residing in the UK, she is a holder of both UK and Bangladesh citizenship, the Bangladeshi part of it laying dormant unless specifically asked for.

It lays dormant (but still in effect) until she is 21 years old. She is 19, so she has Bangladesh citizenship and is therefore not stateless.
 
I don’t see the problem, really. If the Home Secretary’s ruling stands, it goes away and never returns; not a problem. If the ruling is eventually overturned, it comes back. Should that happen, then there would be a case to answer under this little bit of legislation:


ITEM, Whereas divers Opinions have been before this Time [X1in what Case Treason shall be said, and in what not;] the King, at the Request of the Lords and of the Commons, hath made a Declaration in the Manner as hereafter followeth, that is to say; When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his [X2Queen] or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s [X2Companion,] or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife (X3) the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be [X4probably] attainted of open Deed by [X5the People] of their Condition: . . . F1, and if a Man slea the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, [X6that] ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty: . . . F2

It’s been like that since 1351, so hardly a new thing. So if it comes back, stick it on in the Old Bailey to answer the above. Life imprisonment, pour encourager les autres.
That's the point you have to be in a state of war, and no nation state has been in a formal state of war sine August 1945 when the USSR declared war on the Empire of Japan. Given the Jap Ambassidor in Moscow was given one hour notice that the Soviet Army would attack in Manchuria, with maximum force.
 

Choux Bun

Clanker
Hopefully, following today's ruling, this self declared enemy of the UK and the problem she undoubtedly is has now gone away. One less thing for UK tax payers to worry about.
 
I knew my lefty socialist mate would be rabid with rage over this decision when I saw the headline, I wasn't wrong

View attachment 552735

1614349666357.png


My irony meter just exploded.

The left's love for all things Iranian and Communist are doing exactly the above, and have been for years.

If Corbyn had been elected Dear Leader PM, anyone Journo with a whiff of center-right or more about them would be in prison, and any teacher with a less-than-woke attitude would be rendered unemployed for life

His head needs a big wobble
 

Latest Threads

Top