Shamima Begum

[Notch7]

Not true actually, the Joint Enterprise Laws in America (accomplice liability) are very draconian. Plenty of lifers are there because they were with someone who did the crime at the time. Also the system of plea bargaining can mean your mate does the deed, but dobs on you and gets a deal.

Yeah I’d forgotten about joint enterprise (although I said death row not lifers)

but then I shouldn’t have used America as an example…..the country that calls itself the land of the free whilst 2 million of its citizens are incarcerated.

 

[jeds]

If I was in a refugee camp with no passport, I would do whatever they told me to get out.
Drag queen? No problem
Mankini? Sure, why not.
Tina Turner wig? 100%.
Have a covid vaccination? Ahhh, back to the tent then.

Just get me out of here and give me a passport.

 

[danechip]

so you didnt read the bit where he implied that because vaccines are administered im they don’t end up in your blood stream.

Wrong post God...Have a beer

 

[johnny2007]

Yes, if i was a stateless terrorist held in a camp indefinitely I would definitely consider getting injected to obtain a British passport and get out of there.
You underestimate how much value a British passport holds.

 

[jeds]

Just a joke johnny. Couldn't resist.

 

[securespark]

https://www.healthline.com/health/intramuscular-injection#_noHeaderPrefixedContent
waw

I know that. Just wanted to point out it was not introduced directly into a vein.

 

[Deleted member 292770]

I know that. Just wanted to point out it was not introduced directly into a vein.

where did I say it was?

 

[securespark]

FFS....

Have I said you said it was?

 

[motorbiking]

Yeah I’d forgotten about joint enterprise (although I said death row not lifers)

but then I shouldn’t have used America as an example…..the country that calls itself the land of the free whilst 2 million of its citizens are incarcerated.

Lots of Executed people who didn't kill...

United States Supreme Court in Tison v. Arizona, the [US]Supreme Court held that an accomplice to a felony who neither kills nor intends to kill may be constitutionally executed for a killing committed by one of his co-felons so long as the accomplice is a major participant in the underlying felony and acts with a reckless disregard for human life.

And not just the US, lots of countries around the world. Also plenty of countries don't have innocent until proven guilty or even judicial independence.

There are 33 death penalty offences in Bangladesh, 25 of which are non-fatal offences. The fact that 14 of these 33 offences have been introduced in the past two decades (i.e., since 2000) clearly indicates that contemporary lawmakers are increasingly relying on the death penalty in penal policy.

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-a...ch-unit/blog/2021/07/death-penalty-bangladesh

 

[Deleted member 292770]

FFS....

Have I said you said it was?

Have I? no.
so your point about IM and IV was pointless. Like most of the stuff you put on here.

 

[securespark]

What a charming fellow you aren't.

Do you feel better having done that?

 

[IT Minion]

She may not have been aware of the risk to her British citizenship as a dual national,

Was she a dual national? As I understand it she didn't hold any other citizenship but was apparently eligible to have another.

 

[AngleEyes]

Was she a dual national? As I understand it she didn't hold any other citizenship but was apparently eligible to have another.

According to UK legal scholars, she was, as you said, entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, because at least one of her parents were Bangladeshi, even though she'd never visited Bangladesh. But Bangladesh have denied her entitlement, and have stated that they would refuse her application, if she applied.
Obviously UK has no jurisdiction over Bangladesh, and cannot force another country to accept an application for citizenship. And if UK have the authority to strip someone of their existing citizenship, who was born in UK, and lived her whole life in UK (on whatever grounds they think fit), then Bangladesh certainly has the authority to refuse an application on whatever grounds they think fit, especially to someone who has never visited the country, and has never demonstrated any desire to be there.
Therefore the whole premise of UK's decision is based on her being entitled to another citizenship elsewhere, over which UK has no control. The other country have denied her entitlement, and stated that any application would be denied.
Therefore she has been rendered stateless.

What next? UK refusing asylum seekers applications on the grounds that they would be entitled to asylum somewhere else?

 

[johnny2007]

What next? UK refusing asylum seekers applications on the grounds that they would be entitled to asylum somewhere else?

That's exactly what should happen.
An asylum seeker crossing the entire European Union and risking life by crossing the channel is not a real asylum seeker, otherwise they would apply in the first safe country they arrive at.

 

[AngleEyes]

That's exactly what should happen.
An asylum seeker crossing the entire European Union and risking life by crossing the channel is not a real asylum seeker, otherwise they would apply in the first safe country they arrive at.

They're free to choose whichever country they want to apply for asylum. That is written into international law.
It's been explained to you several times, yet you still refuse to accept it.
It's the typical RWR erroneous mantra.
I don't like that law, so I'll ignore it.

If UK deny their application on the grounds that another country would accept their application, what is to stop all countries doing that?