[Becs]

Originally Posted by Jonnii

She's had her citizenship stripped.

ITV News confirmed.

Best news. Now they need to look at the family in depth and consider doing the same for them.

[Oliver_W]

If nothing else it's an interesting precedent - can it please automatically happen when people run off to ISIS?

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If nothing else it's an interesting precedent - can it please automatically happen when people run off to ISIS?

Absolutely...about time this country grew a backbone.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Absolutely...about time this country grew a backbone.

Here here,but bet some twat will find a loophole.

[bots]

great decision, lets see if it holds up legally

[LaLaLand]

Link

IS bride Shamima Begum 'having British citzenship removed'

Shamima Begum, who fled to Syria aged 15 to wed an Islamic State fighter, has told how she wants to come back to Britain.

IS bride Shamima Begum is having her British citizenship removed by the Home Office, her family's lawyer says.

In a statement, Tasnime Akunjee said: "Family are very disappointed with the Home Office's intention to have an order made depriving Shamima of her citizenship.

"We are considering all legal avenues to challenge this decision."

In a letter seen by ITV News, the Home Office said an order "removing her British citizenship" has been made.

The letter, addressed to Shamima Begum's mother, says: "If you are in contact with your daughter, or are able to establish contact with her shortly, I would be very grateful if you could ensure the home secretary's decision is brought to her attention, along with her right to appeal to the special immigration appeals commission, that arises as a result of the service and notice of intention to deprive her."

[user104658]

Not surprising given this government's tendency to pander to the masses... but this sets a precedent that should be very worrying to anyone in this country with dual nationalities.

[Becs]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not surprising given this government's tendency to pander to the masses... but this sets a precedent that should be very worrying to anyone in this country with dual nationalities.

Good.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not surprising given this government's tendency to pander to the masses... but this sets a precedent that should be very worrying to anyone in this country with dual nationalities.

It’s a great precedent to set...anyone with a dual nationality should have nothing to worry about unless you turn against our country..

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not surprising given this government's tendency to pander to the masses... but this sets a precedent that should be very worrying to anyone in this country with dual nationalities.

I don't think most people with dual nationality would have much to worry about

Under the 1981 British Nationality Act, a person can be deprived of their citizenship if the home secretary is satisfied that it would be "conducive to the public good" and they would not become stateless as a result.

[bots]

it's been available to use since 1981 and I havent heard a case of it being misused yet, so no dangerous precedent is being set

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not surprising given this government's tendency to pander to the masses... but this sets a precedent that should be very worrying to anyone in this country with dual nationalities.

That's what democracy is.

If the government was pandering to the minority, that'd be something else.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

anyone with a dual nationality should have nothing to worry about unless you turn against our country..

"Should have"

Originally Posted by Cherie

I don't think most people with dual nationality would have much to worry about

"You don't think"

Originally Posted by Livia

That's what democracy is.

Democracy is the government conforming to every whim of majority rule? I don't think it is. I mean, I know that it isn't and I sincerely hope that doesn't change any time soon.

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Democracy is the government conforming to every whim of majority rule? I don't think it is. I mean, I know that it isn't and I sincerely hope that doesn't change any time soon.

This was always going to be the outcome, TS. The whole story was used as a ploy to assure the British public that they're 'doing something about ISIS.'

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

This was always going to be the outcome, TS. The whole story was used as a ploy to assure the British public that they're 'doing something about ISIS.'

And not because a member of a proscribed terrorist group intended to return to the UK?

The only people doing anything about IS right now is the Kurds.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

This was always going to be the outcome, TS. The whole story was used as a ploy to assure the British public that they're 'doing something about ISIS.'

"We're doing something about ISIS!"

"What are you doing about ISIS?"

"Leaving them to their own devices in the Middle East far away from your children and granny!"

"Yaaaay! What else?"

"Oh. Nothing. B... but they're really far away yaaaay!"


But I can't really fault their logic because it seems to be working, the GBP are like "Yas problem solved".

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Should have"



"You don't think"




Democracy is the government conforming to every whim of majority rule? I don't think it is. I mean, I know that it isn't and I sincerely hope that doesn't change any time soon.

No, and don't pretend you don't understand what I said.

The government is there to represent the views of the majority.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Should have"



"You don't think"




Democracy is the government conforming to every whim of majority rule? I don't think it is. I mean, I know that it isn't and I sincerely hope that doesn't change any time soon.

When have you ever encountered this before?

[bots]

Why did she do the interview? It seemed to me it was to get back to the UK. I would have thought even entertaining that possibility would be against ISIS thinking. I don't think she would be under any greater threat where she was. She may have then become a target by other ISIS supporters if she got back to the UK .... may be even her family .... far more likely in my opinion.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not surprising given this government's tendency to pander to the masses... but this sets a precedent that should be very worrying to anyone in this country with dual nationalities.

Can you please tell me why we should allow Terrorists to come and live a normal life in the country? they have attempted to kill us and this women has said the Manchester bombing was right just a few days back

[Vanessa]

Thank god. I think she's dangerous and should not be allowed back.

[bots]

She is apparently exploring the option of Dutch citizenship through her husband, so Nicky can welcome her

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Can you please tell me why we should allow Terrorists to come and live a normal life in the country? they have attempted to kill us and this women has said the Manchester bombing was right just a few days back

As I have never said that they should, and have in fact explicitly said otherwise, no. I have said that Britain's criminals are Britain's responsibility. I have literally never said anything about what sort of life or what the circumstances should be for them in the country. And frankly, I think I've pointed this out enough times now for me to declare it "no longer my problem" if people are too thick or blinkered to understand that I'm talking about taking responsibility for and dealing with our own citizens rather than making them someone else's problem, and not providing a cushy home for a terrorist sympathiser.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

have said that Britain's criminals are Britain's responsibility.

As much as my gut reaction is to say **** her...I agree with this. A lot of the people (not on here necessarily but its being talked about everywhere..) who cry 'send them back' when, for example a immigrant rapes someone here...yet its not our problem when its a british criminal?

I am of the opinion that she should be let back, her child has done no wrong and is likely to be killed out there and that doesn't sit right with me. However, I don't mean let her back to live her life, I mean let her back, and she can live her life in prison, in solitary..so she cannot radicalise anyone else.

Though I guess thats wishful thinking, as the sentence would likely be like 10 years anyway, and she wouldn't be in solitary because 'human rights'. My ideal outcome..anyway.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Though I guess thats wishful thinking, as the sentence would likely be like 10 years anyway, and she wouldn't be in solitary because 'human rights'. My ideal outcome..anyway.

I do think the issue of a soft sentence would come up and I do understand why people have an issue with that and are worried about it, but really I think that's an entirely separate discussion in itself as it applies in all sorts of scenarios (rape cases being a prime example, where some of the sentencing is absolutely abysmal even when there's a guilty verdict).

If it's a worry it's a broad-scale worry, not one that should be focussed on one specific case.