Shamima Begum

[AngleEyes]

Thats not really what the hearing was about. The supreme court deferred the appeals until she was able to make representation. It went back to the SIAC appeal. The home office argued an all or nothing appeal and must be stayed until all was possible which was denied. The appellant was invited to appeal on any grounds they could, but not those of the national security considerations, which are closed. They have basically said - tell us what you want to do next?

I know you have a view that the UK judiciary have acted politically, but if you read through the mountains of transcript on this, SB has had excellent representation and consideration. It's fair to say that the SIAC appeal judge was pretty frustrated (as commented in the transcript) by the appellant's approach and still granted her an audience.

There are plenty of injustices in our system (e.g. magistrates courts), but here I can't see it.

I don't think you have understood the document.

(1) I accede to the SSHD’s (SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT) submission that the Appellants should not be permitted to pursue certain grounds but not others.
(2) I reject the SSHD’s submission that all grounds must be stayed until the Appellants can give confidential instructions.
(3) I accede to the SSHD’s alternative submission that the Appellants must be put to their election: they must decide as soon as possible whether to proceed on all grounds or on none of them.
From your link.​

1) Shamima wanted to appeal certain grounds and not others, which the judge rejected. He agreed with the government that all grounds must be appealed.
2) He also decided that any delay until Shamima is able to represent herself in court in UK, is not acceptable. Therefore the appeals must proceed when he says so, or not at all. Shamima cannot physically meet by those conditions. She is not allowed back into UK, and the conditions under which she is kept do not allow solicitors to visit her.
3) He also agreed with the government that Shamima must proceed, on all grounds, as soon as possible or not at all. If she does not know what the grounds for her exclusion was, how can she possibly be expected to appeal them?

It's a total stitch up.

 

[motorbiking]

I understood it fine, thanks : Tell us what you want to do next, but we aren't waiting indefinitely
She seemed to manage communicating with ISIS terrorist securely when she was 15. I suspect her case wont be impacted by her doing so from her current location.

I'm sure you understand that her goal was to find any reason to return to the UK in the knowledge that she could never be deported once here.

 

[johnny2007]

I love observing a goat trying to climb a gigantic mirror...

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Could we turn now to the interesting subject of the wealthy muslim countries, such as the UAE, Qatar, Saudi and Dubai, and ask why are they not accepting all these so-called refugees? The so-called refugees, being muslim, surely belong in muslim countries. Why won't these countries accept their co-religionists? Are they all racists like us British? Surely not, only the British are racists.

 

[fillyboy]

Could we turn now to the interesting subject of the wealthy muslim countries, such as the UAE, Qatar, Saudi and Dubai, and ask why are they not accepting all these so-called refugees? The so-called refugees, being muslim, surely belong in muslim countries. Why won't these countries accept their co-religionists? Are they all racists like us British? Surely not, only the British are racists.

Pakistan and Iran have taken quite a few million, I think Pakistan refused Afghan refugees this time as having taken 3 million (according to some estimates) they can't take any more, but also it was them who helped the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Let's just say it's complicated, they're Arabs.

 

[transam]

Evidently you don't know what 'redacted' means.


Something like this perhaps:
View attachment 252772
UK government makes a decision, then refuses to allow even judges, who are judging appeals, to see the grounds for the UK's decision.
What kind of judgment is that?

er no redacted does not mean what you said that’s censorship

fact is some info is so sensitive it cannot be disclosed or cannot be disclosed in full due to all sorts of reasons

evidentially you don’t really understand this caper so I would suggest you wind yer neck in
Mind you that may prove a problem with your big ead on the end of it

 

[AngleEyes]

I understood it fine, thanks : Tell us what you want to do next, but we aren't waiting indefinitely

She can't appeal on some grounds, and not others. But she does not know the grounds for her citizenship being stripped. So how can she appeal on grounds which are being kept secret from her, her solicitors and the judge?

She seemed to manage communicating with ISIS terrorist securely when she was 15.

You mean when she had access to phones and the internet?

I suspect her case wont be impacted by her doing so from her current location.

If she cannot communicate with her solicitors, in private and confidentiality, any and all conversations are being monitored and probably influenced.

I'm sure you understand that her goal was to find any reason to return to the UK in the knowledge that she could never be deported once here.

I'm sure her goal is to have justice served.
But as UK have denied her her citizenship, and she can't leave the prison, and she can't communicate effectively with her solicitors, and she (nor her solicitors, nor the judge) doesn't know the grounds for UK's decision, it's a stitch up.

 

[fillyboy]

I'm sure her goal is to have justice served.

 

[AngleEyes]

Criminals are equally entitled to justice, whatever their misdeeds.
Otherwise the government picks and chooses who is entitled to justice and who isn't.

In addition, when countries agree to, and sign international conventions, they are expected to honour their commitments. If they don't they're setting bad examples for others to follow, and they've lost the moral high ground.

 

[AngleEyes]

Pakistan and Iran have taken quite a few million, I think Pakistan refused Afghan refugees this time as having taken 3 million (according to some estimates) they can't take any more, but also it was them who helped the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Let's just say it's complicated, they're Arabs.

Fillyboy ignores the countries with the most refugees, Turkey, and Columbia.
In EU, the country with the most refugees is Germany.
So is fillyboy thick, and unaware of the real statistics, or is he quoting the 'facts' that he wants to exploit to promote his own ideology?

Turkey is the country that hosts the most refugees in the world, ..... Falling in second place is Colombia,

The country with the highest numbers of refugees in the European Union is Germany.
https://www.drc.ngo/our-work/resour...71HYM8TUZgGL1AnJexrbYWFshy-3ikVAaAt1YEALw_wcB​

 

[AngleEyes]

er no redacted does not mean what you said that’s censorship

I didn't provide a definition, I provided an example. No wonder you're so confused and misguided, you're incapable of understanding simple comments.

A typical day in transam's life:

Customer: Hello, is that transam the plumber?
Transam: Hello, this is the panda.
Customer: Are you a plumber?
Transam: No, not anymore, I've transitioned to a different ethnicity.
Customer: Can you unblock my toilet?
Transam: Wind yer nek in, you racist! I'm an ethnic minority panda.

fact is some info is so sensitive it cannot be disclosed or cannot be disclosed in full due to all sorts of reasons

Fact is, if you are subject to a judgment, but you don't know the grounds for that judgement, you cannot appeal that judgement because you don't know the grounds on which to appeal.
As I said before, it's like this:

UK Government: You're guilty. You're expelled.
SB: On what grounds?
UK Government: That's secret. We can't tell you, but you can appeal.
SB: OK, I appeal.
UK Court: On what grounds are you appealing?
SB: I don't know because they won't tell me the grounds for the judgement.
UK Court: Well when you do know, you can appeal, but we won't wait for long. P.s we don't know the grounds either, and we are aware of your predicament, but we won't wait for long.

evidentially you don’t really understand this caper so I would suggest you wind yer neck in
Mind you that may prove a problem with your big ead on the end of it

If those were the criteria to not comment, you'd better revise your comments since you joined the forum.

 

[mattylad]

Perhaps we ought to send her dad out to stay with her and keep her company - forever..

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Meanwhile, some racism...

Note who the racists are.

 

[transam]

I didn't provide a definition, I provided an example. No wonder you're so confused and misguided, you're incapable of understanding simple comments.

A typical day in transam's life:

Customer: Hello, is that transam the plumber?
Transam: Hello, this is the panda.
Customer: Are you a plumber?
Transam: No, not anymore, I've transitioned to a different ethnicity.
Customer: Can you unblock my toilet?
Transam: Wind yer nek in, you racist! I'm an ethnic minority panda.


Fact is, if you are subject to a judgment, but you don't know the grounds for that judgement, you cannot appeal that judgement because you don't know the grounds on which to appeal.
As I said before, it's like this:

UK Government: You're guilty. You're expelled.
SB: On what grounds?
UK Government: That's secret. We can't tell you, but you can appeal.
SB: OK, I appeal.
UK Court: On what grounds are you appealing?
SB: I don't know because they won't tell me the grounds for the judgement.
UK Court: Well when you do know, you can appeal, but we won't wait for long. P.s we don't know the grounds either, and we are aware of your predicament, but we won't wait for long.


If those were the criteria to not comment, you'd better revise your comments since you joined the forum.

Your post is to long so never read it
Why can’t you just keep it brief

jeez us wept

fact is you don’t understand any of this secret squirrel caper

not your fault tis a lack of education IMO you need to wind yer neck in

 

[noseall]

Note who the racists are.

Are you being deliberately ironic?