Bye Shammina ...

Dangee · 27 Feb 2021

What, like Jury’s?

Scarlet Pimpernel · 27 Feb 2021

EFLImpudence said:
All these protestations of innocence until proven guilty, and the general supposed principle - sop, amuse me.

Did you hear the one about the horse that went into a bar.
The barman said, "why the long face?"

EFLImpudence said:
If she did come back (and with all other criminals) are you suggesting the police should arrest an innocent person?

Innocent persons are frequently arrested pending trial.

Notch7 · 27 Feb 2021

Maybe she only went cos she wanted a beach holiday

You know how it is.....the resort is nowhere as nice as the pics in the brochure.

Bodd · 27 Feb 2021

Bobby Dazzler said:
But it's not relevant in this thread.

It is relevant on how you view things. You think with a forked tongue.

Dangee · 27 Feb 2021

What, like Jury’s?

Bobby Dazzler said:
Justice is not properly served by popular opinion.

Scarlet Pimpernel · 27 Feb 2021

just pumps said:
Published 2020
There doesn`t have to be a trial https://brill.com/view/journals/emil/22/3/article-p338_2.xml?language=en

Found this when I replied earlier then life got in the way as it does before I could post.
Blows most if not all of Blobby`s arguements clean out of the water

Did you find that list of French citizens stripped of their citizenship yet?
You made a claim, then when asked for details, you disappeared.

And you should read the content of the papers that you present to see if it supports your position. This one doesn't.

In respect of the latter, an assumption often made in political rhetoric is that citizenship deprivation will keep the expatriated individual, who poses a security risk, out of the country’s territory and in that way benefits the national security of the individual state. However, whether this policy measure actually contributes to countering terrorism—on the longer term and also beyond the level of the individual state—is strongly disputed in the literature.
from your link.

In addition UK is already on the UN 'red' list for depriving citizens of their citizenship.
In this case UK has acted in flagrant breach of international law.

Scarlet Pimpernel · 27 Feb 2021

Bodd said:
It is relevant on how you view things. You think with a forked tongue.

I don't think with my tongue.

Dangee · 27 Feb 2021

Some people are just weak minded & easily confused about what’s good for the world & what’s bad........
Biden supporters & anti vaccine weirdos come to mind.

Scarlet Pimpernel · 27 Feb 2021

motorbiking said:
Imagine a person was an immigrant and they were denied the right to remain in the UK. They were therefore required to leave while they fought their case to return. Is this much different?

They would probably be allowed to stay while their appeal was heard.
They would probably be allowed to return for their appeal.
But this isn't about an appeal. It's about the right to present your case for the initial judgement.
She cannot present her case sufficiently from the circumstances in which she finds herself.

motorbiking said:
She has a legal team much more capable of arguing her case and I suspect they are also not funded by her, so there really isn't much "instructing" for her to do that she cannot do where she is.
There is a real argument that once here, if she is not granted the right to stay, she cannot be removed.

It's not about the individual, it's about the general denial of one person's Human Rights. It sets a precedent that Human Rights can be denied on the unilateral decision of the Home Secretary.

transam · 27 Feb 2021

The problem is as has been said
That bringing her back to the UK could than present the problem of deporting her back from where she came from if her court case proves unsuccessful

the french deport people to the UK on a regular basis a sort of un official policy

Scarlet Pimpernel · 27 Feb 2021

Bodd said:
She was on TV tonight... she looked good and healthy.

All the government has to do is to wait until something befalls her, and the case goes away, until the next time someone is denied their Human Rights.

Rather like the very recent case a family was awarded a preliminary financial settlement for a hospital's negligence.
The affected child died several years later, but before the final settlement was awarded.
The department that awarded the preliminary settlement want their money back, because the child has now died.

A typical case of drag something out long enough, and the cards will eventually fall in your favour.

I suspect if this goes to the ECHR, and then onto UN International Court, the UK will lose. But in the meantime, something might befall Shemima Begum.

Scarlet Pimpernel · 27 Feb 2021

Dangee said:
She was her own worst enemy. .

Many young people are.
They're not abandoned.
If a parent acted like the UK, and disowned their offspring, many would view it as acting out of pique.

Harry Bloomfield · 27 Feb 2021

Bobby Dazzler said:
Then she should be put on trial for those crimes. But the Home Secretary has bypassed that process.
He has, in as much, declared her to be a criminal and denied her access to justice.
He did this unilaterally and without due process of any judicial system.

OK, bring her back, put her on trial, find her guilty, put her in the tower as a traitor and then hang her - job done.

Scarlet Pimpernel · 27 Feb 2021

just pumps said:
AGAIN, there is no case for a trial! National security trumps all.

Tell Jamal Khashoggi's fiance. Or the Skripals, or Alexi Navalny, or Litvinenko's wife.

UK has lost the moral high ground.

Mottie · 27 Feb 2021

Bobby Dazzler said:
But in the meantime, something might befall Shemima Begum.

We can only hope.

Bye Shammina ...

Bodd

Similar threads