From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Mon Aug 12 10:45:12 2024 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Shamima Begum References: <9461435972.20da152c@uninhabited.net> 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: [172345530130059] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 10:45:10 +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 Mon Aug 12 10:35:01 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=W/kn6B8wLps+4VbEOdGu7rnRgCpfCd9HXhMkuJvnws4=; t=1723455297; x=1724060097; b=CiyNAmNIJnh3yaa > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Shamima Begum > Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 10:34:53 +0100 > Message-ID: > References: > > <9461435972.20da152c@uninhabited.net> > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net fzGQjPz8/8qcax0JFPE+TwZTAll11GkbMxaUcKH6X/DI/TF6wh > Cancel-Lock: sha1:fPsApe/sGAAQirZZivZiKK9RcZA= sha256:CvuueUf3mK4BCB1jEGndOR7z6tV6+29c9T3+b+a6sGY= > 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 12/08/2024 09:22, The Todal wrote: > > On 12/08/2024 00:20, JNugent wrote: > >> On 11/08/2024 05:43 pm, Roger Hayter wrote: > > >> There are rules about the revision of decisions by government > >> departments (which are made by or on behalf of a Secretary of State). > >> > >> Essentially, it can only happen if the prior decision was wrong as to > >> law or as to facts. > > > > Your error is to conflate judicial review of a government decision (the > > right of the ordinary citizen to challenge a government in a court of > > law) with the right of a Minister of the Crown to make decisions even > > when it involves changing the policy or the decision of a predecessor. > > Any government can change previous *policy*. After all, that's what > general elections are all about. What we're talking about here though > is not a change of policy, but whether, and if so how, a specific > legitimate Order made by a duly-appointed Minister of the Crown can be > revoked or reversed. > > You see, the British Nationality Act specifically gives the Home > Secretary the power to deprive a dual national of his or her British > citizenship by Order, but nowhere gives him the power to revoke any such > Order once made, or to grant British citizenship to anyone whether or > not they previously had it. > > I'm not sure what procedure would have to be followed by a new Home > Secretary with different views, but it will certainly be a lot more > complicated than just sending a memo round saying it no longer has any > effect. Even if it is possible, which I personally doubt, I suspect it > would have to be by way of a Statutory Instrument or something similar. > And since that would have to be in respect of just the specific Order > she doesn't like, that would seem to be a bit minor and partial to be > justified. > > >> Taking a less / more sympathetic view of an applicant doesn't count. > >> > >> You yourself said: "...their prerogative to make now *if* it had not > >> already been made...". > >> > >> [my emphasis] > >> > >> But it HAS been made. And it was not found to be wrong in law or as to > >> fact by the courts. > > > > And the courts have firmly upheld the right of the Home Secretary to > > make such decisions, without interference by the courts. End of. > > That's as regards removal of citizenship. There is no reciprocal > provision as regards granting it or restoring it. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAma52aYACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x5tOwf/YGIaCPvlh5rlAekV00t7Fc7OwDMc97Tk+GP70ES5GSnC0jxhCL7ndj+5 xC33wJJq4Le3/MhFLysm3rfQBs4BYtgoapH/ih7d9gYvBZyW3PPI9W6C0c5Bm5Wg pVsw9NXMsMiWnvjgzams7pr6d9xF700ULH+USK+CNxUOx5+wjxS0M7oOiZq7lmVI WOB8TRS7pxUYj4EMPZIQKu4gtkTcC+mJ2/+T0muCwWqd55R54Oh6WdtFy4idOn5q zXgMJnVJCvlSa+qUqGPc//uJedD53YHNhpEvULY1KDOs6l/+v23R3lspLBEJmwrR GwNET3NSumScZ17GXk/WDsFi4vRyOg== =xoq6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----