Primus84
Well-known member
I don't know, she's not the most stable of people! Best keep your head down!Yea I don't think I'm on her radar to be honest
I don't know, she's not the most stable of people! Best keep your head down!Yea I don't think I'm on her radar to be honest
Which is what we are all doing ultimately aren't we? The courts have made their decision.
But that’s not true she has Bangladeshi citizenship based upon her mother - it’s not something she needs to apply but her birth right. The fact that the Bangladeshis have said they don’t want her is a different matter altogether.This case was regarding her right to a fair trial and how she asserted that she needed to be present to allow her legal team to effectively conduct that case and receive instructions from her.
The case yet to come is regarding whether stripping citizenship was lawful.
I do think everyone cheering this verdict on needs to stop a moment and consider that if the UK Government can strip citizenship from her (when she had no other citizenship and it made her effectively stateless) then they could do it to anyone including you!
I was thinking more in terms of numbers.He's already told you the answer to this.
Interesting, I didn’t know that.You can vote in elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly if you're 16.
Read back what you wrote - if she needs to apply for it then she doesn't actually have it!But that’s not true she has Bangladeshi citizenship based upon her mother - it’s not something she needs to apply but her birth right. The fact that the Bangladeshis have said they don’t want her is a different matter altogether.
She doesn’t have to apply for it that’s the point.Read back what you wrote - if she needs to apply for it then she doesn't actually have it!
All that means is you agree with this particular decision. No one should have their citizenship removed without a due process. Dress it anyway you like, but if it went unchallenged, it means exactly what Primus said it does. The fact that you agree with it is neither here nor there.Not in the real world it doesn't. In theory, yes. Most of us aren't considered a domestic security threat
Read the standing orders Shemima read them and understand them!!!How is this case going to be heard? A Zoom meeting?
That's only true if one of her parents was born in Bangladesh I believe.She doesn’t have to apply for it that’s the point.
I'm torn on it as I have stated in the OPAll that means is you agree with this particular decision. No one should have their citizenship removed without a due process. Dress it anyway you like, but if it went unchallenged, it means exactly what Primus said it does. The fact that you agree with it is neither here nor there.
Regardless of what we might like to see happen to the woman, she is a british citizen and should be returned, arrested if she has broken any laws and have to go through the judicial system as is the case with every british citizen. Patel deciding to block access back to the UK is ridiculous and was done solely as a vote winner and had nothing to do with the legality of the decision.I'm torn on it as I have stated in the OP
That's only true if one of her parents was born in Bangladesh I believe.
Bangladesh generally prohibits dual citizenship, so by being a British citizen her Bangladeshi citizenship would have been automatically renounce
It's a tragic story and one I'm not 100% comfortable with. However, if she was to return to the UK and then kill a number of people, the government would get a lot of flack for allowing her back in. Damned if you do and damned if you don'tRegardless of what we might like to see happen to the woman, she is a british citizen and should be returned, arrested if she has broken any laws and have to go through the judicial system as is the case with every british citizen. Patel deciding to block access back to the UK is ridiculous and was done solely as a vote winner and had nothing to do with the legality of the decision.
It is a ploy aimed at our lowest common denominator.
Whether I'm right or not Bangladesh themselves have said she doesn't hold citizenship and they wouldn't allow her in.reading the Wikipedia I’m not sure your interpretation is correct. It actually assumes that you are born in another country.
Which is essentially the same as what the UK is saying, can they do that when it’s not what the law states - that’s the same criticism being levelled at out gvt right?Whether I'm right or not Bangladesh themselves have said she doesn't hold citizenship and they wouldn't allow her in.
Nope. She's never lived there and has no connection with the country other than potentially through her parents.Which is essentially the same as what the UK is saying, can they do that when it’s not what the law states - that’s the same criticism being levelled at out gvt right?