Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

I don't think he needs it. You will likely be charged with something like purposes connected to the commission of preparation of terrorism under the new PTA and knowledge of this would be enough to block. This what british volunteers for the PKK have been charged with just for going to turkey.

Potentially, she could be looking at any one (or more) of the following, depending on what evidence there is:

Preparation of Terrorist Acts (Terrorism Act 2006): it is an offence for a person to engage in the preparation of acts of terrorism or assist others in the preparation of them. The maximum sentence is life in jail.

Collection of information (Terrorism Act 2000): it is unlawful to gather information likely to be useful to someone in committing or preparing an act of terrorism or to possess a document or record containing such information. Maximum sentence: ten years’ imprisonment.

Membership of a proscribed organisation (Terrorism Act 2000): Islamic State was banned by the government in 2014 and there are offences of belonging to, professing support for or inviting support for banned organisations. Maximum sentence: ten years in prison.

Encouragement of terrorism (Terrorism Act 2006): it is illegal to make statements likely to be understood as “a direct or indirect encouragement or inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism”. Maximum sentence: seven years in jail.

Terrorist training (Terrorism Act 2006): it is against the law to provide or receive terrorist training and the maximum sentence is life. Attending a location where training is given carries a maximum jail term of ten years.

Failing to disclose information (Terrorism Act 2000): it is an offence if someone does not inform the police if he/she believes that someone they know is in preparation of acts of terrorism. Maximum sentence: five years in prison.

Terrorism for the purposes both acts is defined in the 2000 act:

'1 Terrorism: interpretation.

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.'
 
That's if she get's here - i was using her likelihood to be charged with any/all of the above to be used to stop her coming back before any charging could happen.
 
That's if she get's here - i was using her likelihood to be charged with any/all of the above to be used to stop her coming back before any charging could happen.

In the sense that the threat of prosecution might deter her from wanting to come back, you mean?
 
In the sense that the threat of prosecution might deter her from wanting to come back, you mean?
In terms of the home sec putting exclusion order - or whatever is relevant of UK citizens - on her. Including stripping of citizenship. They banned ballotelli's pig from entering ffs.
 
In terms of the home sec putting exclusion order - or whatever is relevant of UK citizens - on her. Including stripping of citizenship. They banned ballotelli's pig from entering ffs.

I'm not sure he can do so lawfully. But, perhaps the possibility of prosecution in the UK might lead her to apply for citizenship of e.g. Bangladesh or the Netherlands (as her son is a Dutch citizen); if she were to be sucessful, then she could be stripped of her British citizenship.
 
They've been taking citizenship away quietly for some time. It literally is the same test as exclusion orders. Not conducive to the public good.

That's for dual citizens (which is what I was getting at if she applied to for citizenship of another country). Unless and until she does, she can't be lawfully be stripped of British citizenship (as it would make her stateless).
 
I'm not sure he can do so lawfully. But, perhaps the possibility of prosecution in the UK might lead her to apply for citizenship of e.g. Bangladesh or the Netherlands (as her son is a Dutch citizen); if she were to be sucessful, then she could be stripped of her British citizenship.
The baby is automatically a Dutch citizen through its father providing he was married to the mother at the time of birth assuming the Netherlands recognises a Daesh marriage as legal, If it doesn't then
the baby is a Dutch citizen providing the father acknowledges the child is his to the Dutch authorities before the child turns 7.
She would have to live in the Netherlands for 5 years as the wife of a Dutch citizen before she could apply for Dutch citizenship and it's a safe bet they probably don't want her.
Assuming that Dad is probably going to eventually end up spending the rest of his life in a Dutch pokey then it's not likely they will ever see each other again, but then we're not talking about breaking up Romeo and Juliet here. I'm pretty certain if I asked my own teenage daughter to draw up a list of desirable qualities in her future husband that the list would be longer than just "Speaks English"
 
Ok i get what you are saying now. Does that mean that all the cases since then - i. e these beatles pricks - are under the dual nationality thing? Is Deprivation of British nationality a diff thing? This is not an area i should have waded into but this seems to suggest not:

Part 1: Deprivation
Deprivation of citizenship under section 40 of the British Nationality Act
1981 on grounds of fraud, false representation or concealment of
material fact or on grounds of conduciveness to the public good

A. General Information
55.2 Introduction
55.2.1 These Instructions explain the application by the United
Kingdom Border Agency of the legal power to deprive a
person of British citizenship under section 40 of the British
Nationality Act 1981 (‘The 1981 Act’).
55.3 The Power to Deprive Citizenship
55.3.1 General Power
55.3.1.1 Under s.40 of the 1981 Act, as amended by the
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
from 1 April 2003 and by the Immigration, Asylum
and Nationality Act 2006 from 16 June 2006, any
British citizen, British overseas territories citizen,
British Overseas citizen, British National
(Overseas), British protected person or British
subject may, by Order, be deprived of his or her
citizenship or status if the Home Secretary is
satisfied that:

a. it would be conducive to the public good
to deprive the person of his or her British
nationality, and that s/he would not become
stateless as a result of the deprivation
(ss.40(2) and (4)); or

edit: ah become stateless...
 
Ok i get what you are saying now. Does that mean that all the cases since then - i. e these beatles pricks - are under the dual nationality thing? Is Deprivation of British nationality a diff thing? This is not an area i should have waded into but this seems to suggest not:

Part 1: Deprivation
Deprivation of citizenship under section 40 of the British Nationality Act
1981 on grounds of fraud, false representation or concealment of
material fact or on grounds of conduciveness to the public good

A. General Information
55.2 Introduction
55.2.1 These Instructions explain the application by the United
Kingdom Border Agency of the legal power to deprive a
person of British citizenship under section 40 of the British
Nationality Act 1981 (‘The 1981 Act’).
55.3 The Power to Deprive Citizenship
55.3.1 General Power
55.3.1.1 Under s.40 of the 1981 Act, as amended by the
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
from 1 April 2003 and by the Immigration, Asylum
and Nationality Act 2006 from 16 June 2006, any
British citizen, British overseas territories citizen,
British Overseas citizen, British National
(Overseas), British protected person or British
subject may, by Order, be deprived of his or her
citizenship or status if the Home Secretary is
satisfied that:

a. it would be conducive to the public good
to deprive the person of his or her British
nationality, and that s/he would not become
stateless as a result of the deprivation
(ss.40(2) and (4)); or

You need to look at subsection 4, which says: 'The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.'

The exception being that set out in subsection 4A:

'(4A)But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a)the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,
(b)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and
(c)the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.'

That doesn't apply in this case as her British citizenship wasn't gained by naturalisation - she was born here.
 
It will be interesting to know about the technicalities of Bangladeshi citizenship, how it's gained/transmitted, whether it's automatic or has to be applied for - it will also be interesting to know whether Javid can annul her UK citizenship if she actually has Bangladeshi citizenship, or if she's just entitled to it.

The Dutch angle via her hubby - the legality of the marriage - will be another potential option that Javid will be looking at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LDC
... it will also be interesting to know whether Javid can annul her UK citizenship if she actually has Bangladeshi citizenship, or if she's just entitled to it.
Withdrawing her British citizenship if she were entitled to (but didn't hold) another citizenship, would make her stateless, which he can't do.
 
It will be interesting to know about the technicalities of Bangladeshi citizenship, how it's gained/transmitted, whether it's automatic or has to be applied for - it will also be interesting to know whether Javid can annul her UK citizenship if she actually has Bangladeshi citizenship, or if she's just entitled to it.

The Dutch angle via her hubby - the legality of the marriage - will be another potential option that Javid will be looking at.

If her British citizenship was the result of natralisation, an entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship would be enough (assuming the other criteria are met), but, for a UK born British citizen, she'd have to actually be a (dual) Bangladeshi citizen (not merely entitled to become one) before she could be stripped of British citizenship.
 
It will be interesting to know about the technicalities of Bangladeshi citizenship, how it's gained/transmitted, whether it's automatic or has to be applied for - it will also be interesting to know whether Javid can annul her UK citizenship if she actually has Bangladeshi citizenship, or if she's just entitled to it.

The Dutch angle via her hubby - the legality of the marriage - will be another potential option that Javid will be looking at.

Javid has admitted he can't make her stateless, so can't stop her returning.
 
If Javid is expending any significant effort into finding a way to strip this girl of her citizenship so he can score points with the press then the man is even more of a twat than I thought. Accept that she is, bring home her and all the other UK born ne'er do wells that are still kicking and sort them out when they get here. Stick in her prison for a few years by all means but this sort of nitpickery is embarrassing for what is supposed to be a civilized country.
 
If Javid is expending any significant effort into finding a way to strip this girl of her citizenship so he can score points with the press then the man is even more of a twat than I thought. Accept that she is, bring home her and all the other UK born ne'er do wells that are still kicking and sort them out when they get here. Stick in her prison for a few years by all means but this sort of nitpickery is embarrassing for what is supposed to be a civilized country.
I don't think Javid or anyone else has spent any significant effort on trying to take away her citizenship. Unless she has another nationality, he can't, and as Athos says that's not rocket science. Fuck bringing her back though. If she gets to a consulate then the government is obliged to deal with her but otherwise <shrug>. There are also a few dozen male fighters who've surrendered to the Kurds. The most expedient action would be to hand the fucking lot of them over to the Syrians.
 
I don't think Javid or anyone else has spent any significant effort on trying to take away her citizenship. Unless she has another nationality, he can't, and as Athos says that's not rocket science. Fuck bringing her back though. If she gets to a consulate then the government is obliged to deal with her but otherwise <shrug>. There are also a few dozen male fighters who've surrendered to the Kurds. The most expedient action would be to hand the fucking lot of them over to the Syrians.

Some sense there, though the last sentence makes me shudder a little.
 
Javid has admitted he can't make her stateless, so can't stop her returning.

You are conflating different issues.

He may not be able to strip her of her UK citizenship, the answer to which is a technical, legal question that is dependent on the technicalities of Bangladeshi citizenship.

He may well be able to stop her traveling to the UK - she doesn't have any valid travel documents, and the UK seems in no hurry to provide her with one.

Even if she manages to get to the UK embassy in Baghdad or Ankara, and Javid isiunable to strip her of her UK citizenship, does anyone know if they are legally required to provide her with a passport?
 
You are conflating different issues.

He may not be able to strip her of her UK citizenship, the answer to which is a technical, legal question that is dependent on the technicalities of Bangladeshi citizenship.

He may well be able to stop her traveling to the UK - she doesn't have any valid travel documents, and the UK seems in no hurry to provide her with one.

Even if she manages to get to the UK embassy in Baghdad or Ankara, and Javid isiunable to strip her of her UK citizenship, does anyone know if they are legally required to provide her with a passport?

What spy posted above - If she gets to a consulate then the government is obliged to deal with her.

They can't legally refuse to issue papers to a UK citizen.
 
Not sure, but it's not a definite entitlement.

Having British nationality does not guarantee you a passport. For example, you may not get a new passport (or your existing passport may be taken from you) if:

  • you’re suspected of a serious crime and an arrest warrant has been issued
  • a court order stops you having a UK passport or restricts your travel
  • you’re on bail and bail conditions mean you cannot leave the UK
  • you’ve been brought back to the UK before at the government’s expense and have not repaid what you owe
  • you’ve received a European Union or United Nations order which restricts your travel

The first comes close but it looks like that's to stop someone fleeing the UK rather than entering.
 
Back
Top Bottom