• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

scaramanga said:
It would make sense that it's Bangladesh who have made her stateless as they refused citizenship after we removed hers.
Click to expand...

Sorry how does that work? You're saying we removed her citizenship first, and Bangladesh didn't offer her citizenship after this. So how have Bangladesh made her stateless in this scenario?

If she already had citizenship then fine, we acted within the guidelines. Given no one has provided evidence (passport, official docs etc) of her being a citizen of Bangladesh, it seems we have acted outside of international law.

She can rot in jail or Syria, but again as the High Court has suggested,there isn't evidence we acted within UK or International law. Be interesting if this goes to Supreme Court.
 
Diamond Lights said:
Sorry how does that work? You're saying we removed her citizenship first, and Bangladesh didn't offer her citizenship after this. So how have Bangladesh made her stateless in this scenario?

If she already had citizenship then fine, we acted within the guidelines. Given no one has provided evidence (passport, official docs etc) of her being a citizen of Bangladesh, it seems we have acted outside of international law.

She can rot in jail or Syria, but again as the High Court has suggested,there isn't evidence we acted within UK or International law. Be interesting if this goes to Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
She should, I believe, automatically have a right to Bnagladeshi citizenship through her mother.

That means that at the point we removed her right to live in the UK, she was not stateless.

At the point Bangladesh decided she wasn't welcome, she became stateless. Sounds very much like not our problem.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Or it's an employer taking advantage of a situation to change contact terms they they have long wanted to change anyway. (I don't have any insight into British Gas btw, but it's possible).
Click to expand...

Some may be but some might be doing it to weather a storm. Our company are taking a change to 4 day weeks and 80% salary to survive.

It’s not like you can’t see the landscapes changed, it’s in front of us.

I want a normal pre March life, that doesn’t exist.

There has to be some reality checks on the public’s side in my opinion
 
scaramanga said:
She should, I believe, automatically have a right to Bnagladeshi citizenship through her mother.

That means that at the point we removed her right to live in the UK, she was not stateless.

At the point Bangladesh decided she wasn't welcome, she became stateless. Sounds very much like not our problem.
Click to expand...

Is having a right to citizenship the same as actually having the citizenship? I really don't know, but thought it had to be claimed. If it is the same, then the gov might be on steady ground.
But it doesn't sit well palming off the cr*p of our society onto another country without good precedent (i.e. they have lived there before, or used that nationality before) - unless we are OK with other countries doing the same to us.
 
scaramanga said:
She should, I believe, automatically have a right to Bnagladeshi citizenship through her mother.

That means that at the point we removed her right to live in the UK, she was not stateless.

At the point Bangladesh decided she wasn't welcome, she became stateless. Sounds very much like not our problem.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. She doesn't have citizenship, that's the point. I can claim citizenship to India, i don't have citzenship of India. If the UK were to remove citizenship i don't automatically become an Indian national.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Is having a right to citizenship the same as actually having the citizenship? I really don't know, but thought it had to be claimed. If it is the same, then the gov might be on steady ground.
But it doesn't sit well palming off the cr*p of our society onto another country without good precedent (i.e. they have lived there before, or used that nationality before) - unless we are OK with other countries doing the same to us.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, but I believe in order to be stateless one needs to be unable to gain citizenship rather than not have it. Otherwise it's a fairly pointless rule as people could simply choose not to apply for citizenship to force another country into keeping them.
 
Diamond Lights said:
That's not how it works. She doesn't have citizenship, that's the point. I can claim citizenship to India, i don't have citzenship of India. If the UK were to remove citizenship i don't automatically become an Indian national.
Click to expand...
You would then be stateless of your own volition. The UK cannot be responsible for ex-citizens not taking up the available methods to gain citizenship elsewhere.

If India then refused your application, you would then become stateless.
 
scaramanga said:
You would then be stateless of your own volition. The UK cannot be responsible for ex-citizens not taking up the available methods to gain citizenship elsewhere.

If India then refused your application, you would then become stateless.
Click to expand...

Or don’t got to Afghanistan and marry a suicide bomber
 
Diamond Lights said:
Not sure anyone suggested that as an option...
Click to expand...

I was only joking TBH

It will be interesting how this is dealt with and the outcome. I get the whole brainwash thing as a valid POV but it’s hard to prove, she might have and may still have extreme views, it’s hard to prove either way but it’s a good out for her. Takes away any personal responsibility due to age, which I get TBH.
 
Grays_1890 said:
I was only joking TBH

It will be interesting how this is dealt with and the outcome. I get the whole brainwash thing as a valid POV but it’s hard to prove, she might have and may still have extreme views, it’s hard to prove either way but it’s a good out for her. Takes away any personal responsibility due to age, which I get TBH.
Click to expand...

There's certainly a valid argument around grooming and brainwashing at the point she (and her friends) ran off from England. Beyond that it's harder to know if there's a point where she was no longer acting due to the grooming and it was of her own volition. But would it ever have been of her own volition if she hadn't been groomed in the first place? Being a 15-16 year old, married off to an older man, giving birth to 3 children by the age of 19 (?), all of whom died, must have a mental impact. (And I am not oblivious to the irony of commenting on the impact of the loss of her children when she has lauded the killing of young people herself. I can't be sympathetic for her but losing 3 babies would send most women into some level of depression).
I've just read that back and it sounds like a wishy-washy defence of her actions, which it really isn't meant to be. But I think what led her to such awful beliefs and actions needs to be acknowledged.

Where I struggle with the whole thing is how is this the first instance we are hearing of? She's not the first British person to go abroad to fight with ISIS and return back again. Has the government not stripped other ISIS fighters of their citizenship before this? How were those cases possible but not this one?
Going back to what I said earlier, it feels like the government took their action based on winning the popularity stakes rather than through any (obvious) consistent policy.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
There's certainly a valid argument around grooming and brainwashing at the point she (and her friends) ran off from England. Beyond that it's harder to know if there's a point where she was no longer acting due to the grooming and it was of her own volition. But would it ever have been of her own volition if she hadn't been groomed in the first place? Being a 15-16 year old, married off to an older man, giving birth to 3 children by the age of 19 (?), all of whom died, must have a mental impact. (And I am not oblivious to the irony of commenting on the impact of the loss of her children when she has lauded the killing of young people herself. I can't be sympathetic for her but losing 3 babies would send most women into some level of depression).
I've just read that back and it sounds like a wishy-washy defence of her actions, which it really isn't meant to be. But I think what led her to such awful beliefs and actions needs to be acknowledged.

Where I struggle with the whole thing is how is this the first instance we are hearing of? She's not the first British person to go abroad to fight with ISIS and return back again. Has the government not stripped other ISIS fighters of their citizenship before this? How were those cases possible but not this one?
Going back to what I said earlier, it feels like the government took their action based on winning the popularity stakes rather than through any (obvious) consistent policy.
Click to expand...

The problem with the atrocities defence is she went through that after she defected, so I do have sympathy for the issues she had but she went out there before all that stuff.

I agree with the last part hugely as there are apparently 400+ rehabilitations of ex Isis fighters or something, so this looks like trial by media.

Im not comfortable with idea of those ex ISIS fighters being on the streets of U.K. based on the recent cases of attacks. So although her punishment might be inconsistent it would be the level I would like for all
 
Last edited:
From the news it looks like she's only allowed back because she can't contest the case properly from wherever she is, not that she's won the case. She's just allowed to contest it from UK soil. I don't think there's any obligation on the government bringing her back either so I'm guessing she'll have to fund her own way back and apply for the relevant travel documents.

I guess as soon as she arrives she'll be arrested and charged with terror offences anyway, to be fair a UK prison sounds more appealing than one of those prisoner camps she's in.
 
P.D. said:
From the news it looks like she's only allowed back because she can't contest the case properly from wherever she is, not that she's won the case. She's just allowed to contest it from UK soil. I don't think there's any obligation on the government bringing her back either so I'm guessing she'll have to fund her own way back and apply for the relevant travel documents.

I guess as soon as she arrives she'll be arrested and charged with terror offences anyway, to be fair a UK prison sounds more appealing than one of those prisoner camps she's in.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that once she comes back that she is ever leaving again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back