Well it is and it isn't insofar as people complaining that a difference in outcomes is unfair because it's arbitrary when based on dual citizenship that's not been actively sought are overlooking the fact lots of laws are equally arbitrary, but accepted as fair. But that's getting a bit off the point. I broadly agree with the point you're making.
Many laws might be rubbish but some laws are worse than others and this one is definitely a crap one.
Yes. Though, as discussed, the alternatives aren't unproblematic.
if she’s a giant threat, lock her up until she’s dead. If we can’t do that even if it’s what’s deemed necessary then we need to sort it out. Not outsource it to Bangladesh.
As discussed, it's not as simple as just sorting it out, sadly. Not for future cases, and certainly not to apply to her case retroactively.
I have no idea but I kinda doubt that it worked. I don't believe in just dismissing all alternatives to retributive justice though and I'm aware that the Spanish anarchists tried to rehabilitate fascists and nationalists during the civil war/revolution - Augustin Souchy wrote about it in With the Peasants of Aragon - a great read.
Deeyah Khan, who I mentioned further back in this thread, does seem to have had some success with individual white supremacists/nazis who she spent time with. And maybe with jihadis too for all I know.
Where?
If she succeeds in her appeal, she'll be pushing to come back to the UK ASAP.
I don't think that's right. They're not automatically Irish citizens; they're entitled to become Irish citizens (if they were born before January 2005 - the Irish constitution has been chamged). Unless and until they exercise that right, they're not dual citizens; as such, their British citizenship can't be removed (because that'd make them stateless).
I don't know. Do you?
The most famous example of the UK doing that is when it stitched up 'five eyes' ally Canada over Jack Letts. But that's unusual. Though it's not clear if that's because the UK is trying to keep those countries happy, or because these individuals don't typically have dual citizenship with such countries.
You think? The governments here have had a tendency to deport first, ask questions later. As I recall, the Windrush scandal saw people who had lived here for decades removed for such unacceptable behaviour as traffic offenses.
I can just see an earlier version of you passing out the white feathers then volunteering to be first over the top, just to keep in step with good old general public.
When spending so long inside lefty bubbles I find it helps to sometimes touch base, else completely lose perspective.
Seems flippant
Bangladesh
He did. It was permanent residence that was denied rather than citizenship but apart from the right to vote it amounts to the same thing.
