Isn’t the fear that if she goes to Bangladesh she could receive a death sentence? That doesn’t sound to me like she faces charges for the lesser crimes.
The British government has a policy of not sending people anywhere they might face the death penalty. I don't think that's a cowardly policy. Now withdrawing citizenship from someone based on a loophole and dumping responsibility for them on others who didn't even know she existed. That's a cowardly policy.
It’s probably a popular policy as I think the public are fed up of people being let into the country who then go on to commit atrocities. It may be that she isn’t a danger at all but unfortunately for her it feeds into that narrative.
Certainly. It's populism at its worst. And this government at times makes a virtue out of flouting or in some way subverting international treaties.
I don't believe that you actually believe that.
there've been very few people let into the country who then go on to commit atrocities. most of our atrocities have been home grown - the murder of jo cox, for example. the 7/7 bombers. the doctors plots of 2007. maybe you could remind me of all these people who've been allowed in and then gone on to bomb, i think you'll find it's a rather shorter list than you believe.
So trusting...
I'm not sure how they choose who's who
Well the Manchester Arena bomber for starters. That exists in recent memory.
nah he's just bored and pretending to be this naive.
It's not the first time they've tried to withdraw citizenship from British people on the basis of their Bangladeshi heritage. In previous cases, it was deemed illegal because they were over 21 ( the age at which this putative right to citizenship expires). With Begum, it was deemed legal because she was under 21 at the time. I'm still staggered that people cannot see what is wrong with this.
Of course I do and so do you because you’re not thick.
Maybe on a parallel forum he's arguing with DM readers about how she should be given her citizenship back and a fair trial in the UK.
The way Derren Brown won a bunch of simultaneous chess matches by pitting the players' moves against each other?
The London Bridge attackers also. That said, I doubt the public differentiate much between those allowed in who commit atrocities and those allowed in whose kids commit atrocities.
Naivety doesn’t come into it. I’ve argued what the law is, and the penny seems to have finally dropped even for LBJ. Now you can say that you don’t like the law and disagree with it, but to say it’s something else is just idiocy.
born and raised in manchester i think you'll find
Fair enough. But like I said, I doubt the public differentiate much between immigrants committing atrocities or their kids doing it.
not quite as dark as eg the execution of michael barrett, who was on the testimony of numerous witnesses in glasgow at the time of the explosion in london for which he was convicted and executed. but very dark nonetheless
maybe not. but i thought that you might.
I do. I was talking about the policy being ‘popular’ and not my own views.
or indeed the facts
no it doesn't
This is what a lot of people think. It also hands easy goals to the far right. So not to be ignored imo.
