From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 13 12:52:05 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: [172354835126742] reject abuse Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 12:52:03 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to another contributor. 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 Tue Aug 13 12:25:51 2024 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-hex-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=ymv61edgTF9Tr4U6HGKPK8KzNolcoQ7RlN3ICRtWIu4=; t=1723548349; x=1724153149; b=oNSNQVEOy8M/8jY > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Shamima Begum > Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 12:25:46 +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 0rChDyxyRMQE9ewvYlr8MglOub1puZQcVOjGb9pJy6JLF7H8PF > Cancel-Lock: sha1:X6hHwTGVhn8/C6xUBiMsqZyVZLE= sha256:mFMzzfeS7cmbS4Qshfrfw/alnpX0XyNa5FiaMkI+tbo= > 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 13/08/2024 11:42, The Todal wrote: > > On 13/08/2024 08:12, Norman Wells wrote: > >> On 12/08/2024 23:06, The Todal wrote: > >>> On 12/08/2024 22:03, Norman Wells wrote: > >>>> On 12/08/2024 21:00, The Todal wrote: > >>>>> On 12/08/2024 19:02, GB wrote: > >>>>>> On 12/08/2024 09:22, The Todal wrote: > >> > >>>>>> Norman has already made the point that Begum has been deprived of > >>>>>> her British nationality. Assuming that was not illegal, then it > >>>>>> has happened, and she is not a British national. > >>>>> > >>>>> As he has repeatedly said, though it is stating the obvious. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Even if a new government disagrees with that decision, are you > >>>>>> suggesting that she can be 'un-deprived'? > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, of course, as I have previously said. > >>>> > >>>> Can you please give the legal basis for that? > >>> > >>> The Home Secretary has the right to make such decisions and the > >>> courts will not overrule such decisions, as has been amply proved for > >>> decades. > >> > >> That's not a legal basis (which I think doesn't exist) but just a bald > >> statement of what you think. > >> > >> Where is the evidence that the Secretary of State has any right to > >> make such decisions, ie the reinstatement of citizenship rather than > >> just its removal? > >> > >>> Sorry that this does not accord with Norman Law. You can of course > >>> make up your own version of the law, but don't expect it to catch on. > >> > >> So, where is the law you say applies? > >> > >>>>>> Would a more practical course be for her to apply for British > >>>>>> nationality? But, it might take a rather brave politician to grant > >>>>>> it. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think it would take a brave politician - there have > >>>>> actually been plenty of newspaper articles in recent years saying > >>>>> that she should be allowed to come home (and be prosecuted). She is > >>>>> obviously the victim of injustice and of a Tory Home Secretary's > >>>>> crowd-pleasing gesture politics. > >>>> > >>>> So you say. > >>>> > >>>> I and many others disagree. > >>> > >>> However, your views are wholly unimportant to the Home Secretary. > >> > >> As are yours of course. > >> > >> But where we differ is over whether any mere politician has the power > >> to grant or reinstate citizenship, or even has the last word over it. > >> > >> Where is the law that says he does? > > > > I can see this is really bothering you, Norman. > > It's a legal point I think is worthy of proper discussion in a legal forum. > > But I've seen no-one of any repute argue the same way as you have, so I > wondered if you might have found an interesting angle that no-one else > had thought of. > > > I think you can rest > > assured that if and when necessary the Home Secretary will take advice > > from the law officers of the Crown who will decide whether she has > > executive powers to cover the situation or whether some sort of > > statutory instrument might be required. > Of course. But we have access to all the same materials I'd have > thought, and should be able to come to a conclusion ourselves. > > Like proper lawyers would. > > > But above all, you can be quite sure that nobody will ask Norman to > > present a paper on the topic. So you can leave it to the experts. > > Well, so far I have. And they've all been in agreement that Ms Begum's > citizenship was properly revoked in accordance with the law, with little > or no prospect of that being reversed. > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAma7SOMACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x7vEgf8DLUv9TdqCS4RIUctDj2XLbZeGlJReA0PnNVy3mFdchtBvdmriH8V4QiI lUrub8tzcDobpaeIL37LrK0zetxJ/5tLkPJWF7EBFyKIX3sMdmhtFnS41DB9kYzU nKsrj/wey749YNXap4T+aN9/PlWteRm916/QvhRIOjxMxgd468aNe7wDbITgzS8b f5wrhroWWv5aVQDz7lahh7uHpQE15DWKte3pfHoWPYDtxr7D1/t3089ivfALBOii YP4NI4gUsyd+soFMCXtLEkokxcN57Xc1ZTn5hwkqVjCF0vJeqUm/DWXS6/mRT7X2 L0YWNDYFeHOIUbur7Od+d5hAI641yg== =c5mZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----