From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 13 16:31:27 2024 Return-path: To: JNugent73 at ..il.com 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: [172356267229324] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:31:27 +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 Tue Aug 13 16:24:32 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:Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To :Sender: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=sfIdA3AbpnfpZPChNvXuPorD51AAbuZRm7g9BPf3f9M=; t=1723562670; x=1724167470; b=dFEY3Y8LNU6xX2B > From: JNugent > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Shamima Begum > Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:24:28 +0100 > Organization: Home User > Message-ID: > References: > > <9461435972.20da152c@uninhabited.net> > > > > > > Reply-To: JNugent73@mail.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net BRLcCrXImBkLUx9NnRqq9AqZUiA7SjpujHQjFvAd5eCtLfM17w > Cancel-Lock: sha1:vLZ5vlcqQdAhHfiXoENROXN7IOc= sha256:o0irWpqDkb1ZgQ1S4dWQtMocjSFViSzIwbbcxZVYw2M= > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 240813-4, 8/13/2024), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 31 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.2 > 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: User-Agent: > > On 13/08/2024 01:52 pm, The Todal wrote: > > > On 13/08/2024 13:30, GB wrote: > >> On 13/08/2024 11:42, The Todal wrote: > > > >>> I can see this is really bothering you, Norman. 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. > > > >> I asked "are you suggesting that she can be 'un-deprived'?", and you > >> said "Yes, of course".  If you were not sure whether new primary or > >> secondary legislation would be required, it would have been even > >> better if you had said so. > > > > That's called pettifogging. > > What? > > Questioning something believed to be simply untrue is "pettifogging"? > > Are you sure it isn't "nitpicking"? > > > It would have been better if you had > > contributed usefully to the discussion, or held your tongue. > > > > A Home Secretary can reverse previous decisions of her department or of > > a previous Home Secretary. > > That is what is at issue. Administrative decision-making is not done on > the personal whim of the (temporary) Secretary of State for the relevant > department. > > You already KNOW that! > > > It isn't up to me to find out whether she has > > executive powers or additional statutory instruments, or to satisfy you > > or Norman that she would be acting within her powers. > > Well, actually, yes it is. > > You asserted something which is believed on good grounds to be untrue. > > > > I suggest you go and do your own homework. Maybe write to the Home > > Office. Or, of course, you can believe Norman. After all, nobody cares > > whether you do or not. He reckons that the decision to deprive a person > > of citizenship is cast in stone. I'm sure he will be very disappointed > > if and when events prove him wrong. > > That reads like a response to a slam-dunk "Gotcha", doesn't it? > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAma7fE8ACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x4oHwf+L8KRwK8v2KUfLjUJNapUH3ayyOvn61rGJKKar1s5N+53UBLwGD9/4wVH LABOUHzgODfVGstuHWt5bscYIRcRc+28MdTrdpShuxkOwHRoFfgSQ9A/ltV4vKos 47FVwL95paUc/HZQEDdD/Bkr3n7X/fzzw/7HPNEEOPNZ3dwK/CusAwO+F+VOSusq 7nGN20lFHQrk5vXQsF+uYkqFC8kV70IsrUrgRLkBsYAadE8T2/excNXKXSCbfBLi kRGogisJy603LbrLn1GPYrc8aVi2eJgchiRfGTKHm1kItwmcXFeR8XN6vbP9xZt8 7aRSnGcih6XcMyx9mV2jHD0vATamoA== =04Ei -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----