Demitri_C Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 1 hour ago, bickster said: @Demitri_C I really hope you aren't confused by my Nazi comment because what you said is exactly the same idea as the Nazi Party put across about Jews. They don't matter, they aren't human Thanks for explaining as I did misinterprete that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said: No you're right, she didn't. Not sure we should take all of her words at face value though considering the circumstances she still currently finds herself in. Such a nice family that allowed to be radicalised and leave the country at 15 to join ISIS. How can they be trusted that the newborn baby won't do the same? Sadly, yes they do. So why should one person be allowed whether to say somebody is British or not, even though they were born here? Does that not worry you? Let's change the example. We all agree terrorism is bad right? Post one attack (can't remember which) it was discovered that the group used Whatsapp to coordinate the attacks. Well, I think we should ban Whatsapp, or we should allow the government access into what people are saying on Whatsapp privately. Agree or disagree? In both cases, Begum and Whatsapp, both decisions could lower terrorism, but do the ends justify the means? We don’t actually know what role her family players in that though. If as being stated by then family she left on her own accord without their knowledge then realLy could they have done@? I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t have flown out to Syria! it only bothers me if the person the question hasn’t gone t9 support terrorism. They should have no rights whatsoever in my view. With WhatsApp that is something that zuckerberg would be held accountable to. I would personally ban it in that situation, but I am not in charge. As we all know phone hacking goes on here with all this bullshit dad pbreac( but that’s a separate convo) only way for me begum come s back is if she is trialled And thrown in prison. We have no idea what her motives are and if she is here for peace or war. I for one wouldn’t risk put our people at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 I can't get my head around people being content to let a politician decide who's british and who isn't depending on what stories are playing in the press. drip drip drip 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: I can't get my head around people being content to let a politician decide who's british and who isn't depending on what stories are playing in the press. they've been able to do so since sometime after Sept 11 2001 (might actually be 2003 before it came into law ?) I don't recall it being raised as a concern until 18th Feb 2019 maybe it just happened previously without any announcement and the public weren't aware ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 39 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: they've been able to do so since sometime after Sept 11 2001 (might actually be 2003 before it came into law ?) I don't recall it being raised as a concern until 18th Feb 2019 maybe it just happened previously without any announcement and the public weren't aware ? maybe, it's getting publicity now, so it's being discussed now that it's been the case already doesn't really change anything does it? still wrong perhaps Javid grandstanding for his Mail and Telegraph audience has been a good thing in some ways then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: maybe, it's getting publicity now, so it's being discussed now that it's been the case already doesn't really change anything does it? still wrong perhaps Javid grandstanding for his Mail and Telegraph audience has been a good thing in some ways then think 3 or 4 of you have trotted out the Javid grandstanding line in this thread now , guess you all follow the same person on twitter , either that or the Guardian must be ecstatic with 4 new readers but , isn't it something like 78% are in favour of the action ..so I don't think the Mail / Telegraph line is really gonna fly in this instance no it doesn't change the law , I'm just surprised such a political active hotbed as VT never thought to mention it in the past 15 years , unless it was in the old Tory thread <<insert obligatory blandy delete joke here >> I'm not really sure about the rights or wrong of it tbh ,the Home sec presumably is acting within the law that has already been passed by parliament and not just making shit up on a whim ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 Just now, tonyh29 said: think 3 or 4 of you have trotted out the Javid grandstanding line in this thread now , guess you all follow the same person on twitter , either that or the Guardian must be ecstatic with 4 new readers but , isn't it something like 78% are in favour of the action ..so I don't think the Mail / Telegraph line is really gonna fly in this instance no it doesn't change the law , I'm just surprised such a political active hotbed as VT never thought to mention it in the past 15 years , unless it was in the old Tory thread <<insert obligatory blandy delete joke here >> I'm not really sure about the rights or wrong of it tbh ,the Home sec presumably is acting within the law that has already been passed by parliament and not just making shit up on a whim ? 78% are wrong 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: think 3 or 4 of you have trotted out the Javid grandstanding line in this thread now , guess you all follow the same person on twitter , either that or the Guardian must be ecstatic with 4 new readers but , isn't it something like 78% are in favour of the action ..so I don't think the Mail / Telegraph line is really gonna fly in this instance no it doesn't change the law , I'm just surprised such a political active hotbed as VT never thought to mention it in the past 15 years , unless it was in the old Tory thread <<insert obligatory blandy delete joke here >> I'm not really sure about the rights or wrong of it tbh ,the Home sec presumably is acting within the law that has already been passed by parliament and not just making shit up on a whim ? That's exactly it. He's making a populist move and grandstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 22, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 22, 2019 I think she's an idiot, and not just an idiot, a particularly nasty idiot with some particularly unpleasant beliefs.The UK would be a better place without her. Of course, what makes the UK a better place is that here, we're allowed to have pretty much any opinion we like. I say pretty much, because unlike the US, we don't quite have complete freedom of speech and there are things you can say that are classed as hate speech and will quite rightly get you locked up. I really like that in the UK, I can pretty much think what I like, believe what I like and behave how I like within the framework of the law. I like the framework of the law, I like that I know what's acceptable and what's not and that I know that I'll be reasonably processed by a structured and (reasonably) fair system and given a suitable punishment if I cross that line. I like that it protects me from others and others from me. It's this that has enabled the UK to encourage all religions, and no religion, to encourage people to love who they love and not worry about gender, to be able to hold very differing political views and not be punished for those beliefs, to dress however they want to, to listen to whatever they want to, read what they want to and express themselves in whichever way best suits them. She believes that the UK would be better under Islamic control and under Islamic law in the very traditional authoritarian sense - I don't believe that, I believe the opposite. I believe the UK would be better as a completely secular society. We fundamentally disagree. One of the reason I disagree is that I think that people should be allowed to think and believe whatever they like, within a legal framework and that if they cross that line they should be punished. It's why I think that as a British citizen, she should be allowed back into the country - if she's then broken the law then she should be punished in line with the law and should suffer that punishment here. If not, then she should be able to carry on with her life and retain her views, even though I fundamentally disagree with them. I fundamentally disagree with lots of things, but the country would be pretty empty if I removed the people that support those views - and the principle that people should be able to hold whatever belief they think to be right is much more important to me than whether I disagree with those views. Logically, as a British citizen, she should be dealt with within that very British framework. Here. To do so is the very essence of what make Britain Great. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 (edited) 22 hours ago, tonyh29 said: I don't recall it being raised as a concern until 18th Feb 2019 There was plenty of discussion a few years ago when Cameron was testing his 'stop 'em coming back' line. Quote no it doesn't change the law , I'm just surprised such a political active hotbed as VT never thought to mention it in the past 15 years As above, VT has. It was also discussed at large by those interested in the subject. You say 'past 15 years' - why? As per a previous post of yours, the numbers of deprivation orders has hugely increased in the last couple of years (figures for 2017 were quoted earlier and the Yeo article I linked had a reference to it not happening at all between 1973 and 2002, very rarely between 2003 and 2010, more but still rareish from 2010 to 2016 and then 2017 over a hundred). Who is going to talk about it when it is rarely happening and it is a thing which is not publicised unless they're pprofessionals involved in immigration law? Edit: Here is a link to a post of mine that appears to be part of a discussion about the stripping of citizenship in Dec 2014. On 21/12/2014 at 12:53, snowychap said: I don't think that's necessarily correct. According to Brokenshire in parliament: Quote The current position under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended by the previous Labour Government in 2002 and 2006, is that the Home Secretary can deprive a British citizen of their citizenship in two scenarios. The first is when the person acquired it using fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. That essentially means that they used deception to obtain citizenship for which they were not eligible or, had we known the full and true facts, we would not have granted the application. In such cases, the person involved may be left stateless. The second scenario is when the Home Secretary is satisfied that deprivation is “conducive to the public good” and the person would not be left stateless as a result. If, therefore, someone were deprived of their citizenship for the second reason, it may well be that they are satisfied that someone is not rendered stateless as long as they have (or are eligibile for) citizenship of another state whether or not they have the documentation that goes with it. Quote He attends a wedding in 2009 yet is still in country to be allegedly stripped of citizenship in 2011? Stripping of citizenship happens whether someone is in the country or not - it is purely at the Home Sec's discretion (the law permitting) as to if and when it is done. According to this article: Quote ...research by the bureau [of Investigative Journalism] has further found that of the 18 individuals it has identified who have had their UK nationality removed since 2006 at least 15 were known to be abroad when the orders were issued. I agree that the details within the letter might raise some suspicions as to the story being 100% correct but it's a difficult thing to cross-examine and verify when the details aren't really on record (if the above 'bureau' has only been able to identify 18 of the apparent 40 who have been subject to these orders). Edited February 23, 2019 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 23, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2019 23 hours ago, tonyh29 said: think 3 or 4 of you have trotted out the Javid grandstanding line in this thread now , guess you all follow the same person on twitter , either that or the Guardian must be ecstatic with 4 new readers but , isn't it something like 78% are in favour of the action ..so I don't think the Mail / Telegraph line is really gonna fly in this instance no it doesn't change the law , I'm just surprised such a political active hotbed as VT never thought to mention it in the past 15 years , unless it was in the old Tory thread <<insert obligatory blandy delete joke here >> Javid is grandstanding - I posted the twitter of his own words detailing the formal policy from last year and then, as you say, contrasting that with his words recently saying the opposite, in part (if not completely) because as you say it's popular right now to be all Mr Harsh. And as snowy said, we were discussing this subject over 4 years ago and saying the same things then. It's properly worrying when "the authorities/ministers" start freelancing and taking actions on the hoof without due regard to fair process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 On 22/02/2019 at 13:29, NurembergVillan said: Were your parents born here, Dem? If not that'd leave you at risk of losing your citizenship at the behest of Sajid Javid. Regardless of what she's supposedly done, there's been no legal process, just the decision of a man who - whilst an elected representative - was not elected to the role he currently holds. It's **** bonkers. She's been called unpatriotic and a traitor. So have I for campaigning to remain in the EU. Judges have been called enemies of the people. At what point do the government start deporting anyone they disagree with? I'm sorry Rob, but a bigger load of right on old bollocks I have seldom read. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 4 hours ago, snowychap said: You say 'past 15 years' - why ? Thought that was when the law changes came into effect , sometime in 2003 ( could arguably be 16 years now ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 4 hours ago, snowychap said: Edit: Here is a link to a post of mine that appears to be part of a discussion about the stripping of citizenship in Dec 2014. Ah it’s in the Arab thread so I might not have seen it as I’m not always in that thread , guess it has been discussed before in some part at least though .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted February 23, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Risso said: I'm sorry Rob, but a bigger load of right on old bollocks I have seldom read. Let's see if Jihadi Jack gets stripped of his citizenship too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 35 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Thought that was when the law changes came into effect , sometime in 2003 ( could arguably be 16 years now ) What law changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 32 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Ah it’s in the Arab thread so I might not have seen it as I’m not always in that thread , guess it has been discussed before in some part at least though .... To be fair, it's where the discussion of Begum first began (looking back, @chrisp65 posted about it on Friday 15th) and where the rest of it from this thread probably ought to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 33 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Let's see if Jihadi Jack gets stripped of his citizenship too. How do you know that he hasn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted February 23, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2019 55 minutes ago, Risso said: How do you know that he hasn't? The most recent reports, 5 or 6 hours ago, didn't mention it. He's been conducting interviews about how he's desperate to get back into the UK because he misses his Mum, and pies. The reporting has been very sympathetic compared to the other high-profile case. The media often recount how he's a Dr Who fan, for instance. He apparently married out there, and fathered a child. He seems to show some level of remorse, but has also said the Bataclan attacks in Paris were "a good thing". We've got high-ranking ministers grandstanding for the public and toadying for the media, and a section of the media (and ergo sections of the public) who are as nice to brown people as they are to white people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts