From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 08 23:04:23 2024 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Shamima Begum References: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [172315377819380] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 23:04:23 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 08 22:49:38 2024 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=K8JpJgbqwlgdvUEnbC5m5dHmjdNKM6SYu6lXRX7l9s4=; t=1723153775; x=1723758575; b=Np4O7mWprWv4/JL > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Shamima Begum > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 22:49:34 +0100 > Message-ID: > References: > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net LDBwF//NFlgCzJP1dCK6lA/NIYPI2wdVnYNR9M/4JzUw0ETMHB > Cancel-Lock: sha1:zsJ+Xy8n1zWCfYpqDCCaQEHV1WE= sha256:imjnm416V+MON8b9cQCJMN73BCfah+sAIP0dUSgO84c= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 17 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 08/08/2024 22:04, The Todal wrote: > > On 08/08/2024 21:51, JNugent wrote: > >> On 08/08/2024 07:32 pm, The Todal wrote: > >>> On 08/08/2024 14:38, JNugent wrote: > >>>> On 08/08/2024 10:04 am, The Todal wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 07/08/2024 23:16, Norman Wells wrote: > >>>>>> On 07/08/2024 22:30, The Todal wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>>  From 21st February 2019. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Labour MP David Lammy wrote on Twitter: “Stripping individuals of > >>>>>>> citizenship sets a very dangerous precedent. We should take > >>>>>>> responsibility for our own citizens and try them for crimes in > >>>>>>> British courts, not leave them stateless. This is the rule of law.” > >>>>>>> unquote > >>>>> > >>>>>> That's political nonsense.  She was not left stateless, which we > >>>>>> couldn't do under international law.  Along with her British > >>>>>> nationality, she also had Bangladeshi nationality through descent. > >>>>>> We only deprived her of her British one, as allowed by law. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> However Yvette Cooper said in 2023 that the fate of Shamima Begum > >>>>>>> was a matter for the courts. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled > >>>>>>> that Begum has exhausted every appeal other than to the ECHR, > >>>>>>> presumably Yvette Cooper has a decision to make. No rush. > >>>>> > >>>>>> What decision?  The courts have decided. > >>>>> > >>>>> A decent, intelligent Home Secretary is entitled to reverse a > >>>>> decision made in 2019 by a talentless, ambitious Tory Home Secretary. > >>>> > >>>> Is he entitled to reverse the decision of a court which has had the > >>>> case for decsion since then and decided that it was a lawful decision? > >>> > >>> You mean "she". > >> > >> Do I? :-) > >> > >>> Yes, that is exactly my point. The court has decided that Javid's > >>> decision was lawful and the courts cannot interfere. > >> > >> That is, that there was no reason for overturning it. > >> > >>> If and when Yvette Cooper reverses the decision, again the court > >>> cannot interfere. > >> > >> But it is lawful to overturn a legal decision only when it (was) made > >> in ignorance of a material fact, under a misapprehension as to a > >> material fact or was otherwise wrong in law. So... > > > > > > I think you're now casting the Government or the Home Secretary in the > > role of an appellate court when as you know that's not correct. > > > > The Home Secretary is not bound by the decisions of a previous Home > > Secretary nor is the Government bound by the decisions of previous > > governments. > > > > If it were otherwise, our current Labour government would have been > > unable to settle the doctors' strike, and would have had to bleed the > > NHS to death in accordance with decisions made by the Tories. > > > > It would be trivially easy for the Home Secretary to announce that > > having taken further advice from the security services she no longer > > sees Shamima Begum as a threat to national security and is willing to > > restore her British citizenship. > > I don't think that's within her power or her gift. She cannot just > decide that anyone she likes who does not have British citizenship can > henceforth have it. > > > I'd like the Home Secretary to go > > further, to make a grovelling apology to Shamima and her loving family, > > to reassure people with dual nationality that they will not be > > victimised in the same way in future, > > Parliament decided on the provisions in the British Nationality Act, and > gave the Home Secretary powers to deprive someone whose presence is not > conducive to the public good of their UK citizenship if they have some > other. If you accept the concept of dual nationality, such powers are > necessary to prevent abuse. > > > and to arrange for Shamima to be > > put on trial for whatever UK laws she may have broken. > > No need. > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAma1QOcACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x5Q3Qf/VBV2CYNzxvv7GuUARJv090SllhLOVDelTHd9Cte2xee4cpCg5HukH3NZ 9CPylrWjVctpqBRhoOANPo1DVf0fWhYVnsCWk+s0H0oSX81mPTV5k04WNvSiyhQt L/wYV9a0pDaF0QsiQoX56/NMwWf66ntvPEiTRTLefUrCaPs0iA2dflNmWPCQodf+ GeqznZ6TbjZGbkK7GUTJxFF15QEXcaBtfAcxoUiNXnaXHxEpoJ8fWJ0P2VBOv8ig N/ujRPnL2753ddIRxMF2wgmR+AdSSSQ5cpYuyZZDHRH67z3OF6rvy2mDewxjvWdu DrZ5rT3+FoenXBEThBh2d4QQn5K6fg== =ZLS8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----