Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
The person who, for the sake of argument, murders their spouse is worse than the person who plans to usurp the state, introduce civil war?
The person who, for the sake of argument, murders their spouse is worse than the person who plans to usurp the state, introduce civil war?
Not particularly as you seemed to be using it as an opportunity for cheap shots
Lol I'm not 'seeking out those' merely commenting on your individual post.Maybe you should read the thread and comments above when seeking out those taking cheap shots.
If you mean me, I didn't take a cheap shot. I aimed a direct insult at you. I called you an idiot and asked what you were dribbling on about. Paraphrasing Paul Merton, I didn't stab you in the back; I stabbed you in the front.Maybe you should read the thread and comments above when seeking out those taking cheap shots.
Lol I'm not 'seeking out those' merely commenting on your individual post.
There you go, Spy. This is the intellectual company you are keeping.
(This was a cheap shot. )
There have been plenty of revolutionary socialists and similar on here over the years.Lots of people here in favour of civil war vastly overrating how much fun that is...
There you go, Spy. This is the intellectual company you are keeping.
(This was a cheap shot. )
Yup. Every now and then this thread throws up something worth the time you can spend watching the twit for twat ping pong reading it.This thread is absolutely spectactular!
I thought it had reached the highest level (deepest depths...?) a few pages back, but throwing in the death pentalty for treason just takes it to a new level! Good work all.
"What's worse, Bad Thing A or Bad Thing B?"Lots of people here in favour of civil war vastly overrating how much fun that is...
Back to the court of Appeal today.
Thing on BBC's coverage, if correct may show that the UK has in fact left her stateless:
Loading…
www.bbc.co.uk
View attachment 413275
"Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapse when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make efforts to activate and retain it." - she hasn't done that and is now over 21.
Back to the court of Appeal today.
Thing on BBC's coverage, if correct may show that the UK has in fact left her stateless:
Loading…
www.bbc.co.uk
View attachment 413275
"Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapse when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make efforts to activate and retain it." - she hasn't done that and is now over 21.
She was 19 when they stripped it.
You've quoted something and then reached the completely opposite conclusion!
If her own lawyers are saying she must declare her intention to retain her Bangladeshi citizenship before her 21st birthday to avoid becoming stateless, and she hasn't done so, that's not the result of any action or decision by the UK - hence, her problem, Bangladeshs' problem, not UK problem.
That execution threat makes me wonder if her best course of action would have been to activate the Bangladeshi citizenship then cite likely execution as the basis for an asylum appeal to the UK.According to that article declaring an intention would not be enough, she would have to "make efforts to activate and retain it" - that she either could not due to being in a Kurdish detention camp, or chose not to because she either did not know about the potential citizenship at all, or that efforts were needed to enact it, or if she simply chose not to cos she didn't want to take the citizenship of a country which has vowed to execute her appear to be neither here nor there.
If that article is correct.
That execution threat makes me wonder if her best course of action would have been to activate the Bangladeshi citizenship then cite likely execution as the basis for an asylum appeal to the UK.
According to the article, the citizenship is dormant and will lapse "unless they make efforts to activate and retain it" - which she has not done.
It lapses when they reach the age of 21, unless they retain it.
She was 19, so it hadn't lapsed.
Yeah, we have heard that, BUT that article states differently.
If Begum's British citizenship was removed when she was 19, then she apparently did still have the option to claim Bangladeshi citizenship; whether she choose to is up to her.
whether she choose to is up to her.
It wasn't a question of her having an option to claim it.
Under Bangladeshi law she HAD it.
According to today's article it was dormant and had to be activated.
It wasn't a question of her having an option to claim it.
Under Bangladeshi law she HAD it.
You're misunderstanding the article mate.
It's dormant because she isn't using it whilst in the UK. She still has it.
The article actually supports the government's position that they didn't make her stateless, hence the last two lines.
No, I do understand that, and govt. lawyers giving a Home Sec assurance they are not breaking the law has been shown repeatedly to mean jack-shit recently. According to that article stripping her of her UK citizenship did not activate the dormant Bangladeshi one, it didn't have to for her to be stripped of the UK one, as long as she could take steps to activate the dormant one, which she couldn't and therefore the stripping was illegal.