Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

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.
 
Lol I'm not 'seeking out those' merely commenting on your individual post.

If you think its someone posting their opinion that needs to “grow the fuck up” rather than someone posting spoofs then it says as much about you as the others posting abuse says about them.
 
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.
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.
 
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:


AAA.JPG


"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:


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.

:hmm: She was 19 when they stripped it.

You've quoted something and then reached the completely opposite conclusion!
 
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:


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.

Nah - easy to argue that the UK has contributed to a situation where she could become stateless, but given that she has had 3 years to ensure that she doesn't, but has chosen to not do so (if she can repeatedly appeal her case in UK court from some shit hole in Syria, she can write a letter to the Bangladeshi embassy...) - she has become, or potentially become, stateless both through her own inaction, and the laws of Bangladesh.

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.
 
:hmm: She was 19 when they stripped it.

You've quoted something and then reached the completely opposite conclusion!

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.

The UK stripping her of citizenship does not automatically activate the Bangladeshi citizenship, she has to make efforts to activate and retain it.

If that article is correct.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Which is why they are going to ask a judge to decide a) if the article is correct and b) what it means.
Personally (usual caveats apply) I would think that the Bangladeshi Govt is the definitive authority on the subject of Bangladeshi citizenship not the UK one.
 
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.

Or to Holland, her husband is Dutch, after all.

tbf I had assumed (from reading this thread) that until the age of 21 she was a full citizen of Bangladesh, much like Spy was a full on Irish citizen. However the Irish thing doesn't set a time limit to claim it, you can't claim it, you just are Irish if you meet the criteria for being Irish. If you have to take action to activate your Bangladeshi citizenship before you reach 21 or it lapses, the fact that the UK has stripped you of citizenship wouldn't automatically cause the Bangladeshi one to be activated.
 
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.

Regardless, today's fun and games aren't about that, but whether she was trafficked.
 
According to this previous story

Shamima Begum: How can you lose your citizenship?


The government has the power to remove someone's UK citizenship in certain circumstances:
  • It is "for the public good" and would not make them stateless
  • The person obtained citizenship through fraud
  • Their actions could harm UK interests and they could claim citizenship elsewhere
That suggests to me that the person doesn't have to hold citizenship elsewhere at the point their British citizenship is removed, but merely have the option of claiming it elsewhere.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
It wasn't a question of her having an option to claim it.

Under Bangladeshi law she HAD it.

Her lawyers seem to be raising a doubt as to whether she actually had it, or merely had the potential to claim it.

What I'm suggesting is that, according to the BBC article I've quoted, the law about removing British citizenship appears not to require anyone to actually hold alternate citizenship, merely to have the option of claiming it, thus rendering her lawyers' argument irrelevant.

But I guess we'll have to wait and see what the court decides
 
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.
 
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.

Nonsense! What you have quoted doesn't say what you are posting.

Anyway, the appeal has been dismissed, as some of us said it would be.
 
Back
Top Bottom