We are following the system though, like I said I think she may well end up here. But you can't have it both ways and say we must follow the legalities until you disagree with someone in that process.
BTW every country play fast and loose with international obligations and my main disagreement is those that bleat she was some dopey kid and was somehow conned into being an evil little shit.
We can argue forever and a day but if she were never to return I wouldn't lose a wink.
There are far more deserving people we should be concerned about rather than this turd that we can't flush.
"She's never wanted to go there" irrelevant argument.
"they’ve said all along she wasn’t a citizen" They're own law states otherwise
Like I said go and research the law before making incorrect statements
"She's never wanted to go there" irrelevant argument.
"they’ve said all along she wasn’t a citizen" They're own law states otherwise
Like I said go and research the law before making incorrect statements
The issue is the decision by the then Home Secretary, not the law so far.
It’s going through the process to see how much they can be held accountable as we’ve not had such people in office that flounce international law, so our legal system is having to learn how to deal with that.
The fact that people are happy to leave a citizen as de facto stateless to satisfy their want doesn’t sit right with me.
Saying that we can only say what we want to happen is false. We have a legal system that is there to try people who have broken the law, not leave them untried.
Due process doesn’t seem to be needed on social media these days. It’s just “bring back the noose” etc. Nuance is dead.
She isn’t a victim, she’s a criminal that needs bringing to justice.
Liz Truss caused far more harm to this country and its standing in the world than Shamima Begum.
It can be both. As an underage teen she was a victim. This does not absolve her from any crimes she may have committed. We have washed our hands of her for expediency and because she was high profile. It has nothing to do with our safety because we have allowed others in similar circumstances to stay.
We took the easy route and the cowards route and created a precedent that will be misused in the future.
Opinion.
Having let others stay is not a valid enough reason. I would have been happy for them not to come back either.
Two wrongs don't make a right we just dont agree on what the wrong is.
The home secretary has made a decision, that is part of the process, as law lovers just let the process take its course.
I'm just happy some posters will forever argue for the law even in morally dubious cases. Thank god we don't have hypocrites on here:-)
Opinion.
Having let others stay is not a valid enough reason. I would have been happy for them not to come back either.
Two wrongs don't make a right we just dont agree on what the wrong is.
The home secretary has made a decision, that is part of the process, as law lovers just let the process take its course.
I'm just happy some posters will forever argue for the law even in morally dubious cases. Thank god we don't have hypocrites on here:-)
Umm, the court *has* made that decision hence this thread coming back to life.The courts will determine whether the HS had the legal right to make that decision;
If the UK can strip her of citizenship then Bangladesh can also deny her citizenship.
If Bangladesh is legally bound to honour her citizenship and abide by that then what does that say about us? What value is your or my citizenship if it can be removed or denied by the whim of one individual?