Shamima was smuggled in by WESTERN inteligence!

[carmanmemoranda]

I’d call it adding to the thread.

ok explain this? Why are your posts adding to the threads, but other people are not allowed to ?

 

[Andydevon]

Are Pat Ex and carmanmemoranda - tag buddies? or equally sad and yes that it's adding to the thread as its descended into the usual troll goading and tha'st not Mottie and his measured contributions.

 

[motorbiking]

Any decision on her right to appeal is stayed until such time as she can attend such an appeal, and make her case.
Even the Supreme court, in its ruling had no 'secret' evidence available to it, for the court to decide on the grounds of 'national security', but it allowed the government's appeal, on the grounds of national security.
Shamima Begum's appeal would have succeeded if she had appealed under the Human Rights Act, she did not, and the Supreme Court did not fairly consider it.

Wrong again. Her appeal is on the decision to remove her citizenship, not that it made her stateless. The Supreme Court has ruled it did not. Did you read the Supreme Court judgement? Its not very long and not particularly complex. Which particularly section of the Human rights act do you think applies?

 

[Mottie]

ok explain this? Why are your posts adding to the threads, but other people are not allowed to ?

Where did I say that?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Are Pat Ex and carmanmemoranda - tag buddies? or equally sad and yes that it's adding to the thread as its descended into the usual troll goading and tha'st not Mottie and his measured contributions.

just trying to understand the rules.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Where did I say that?

can't put it any simpler for you, sorry. It's self explanatory

 

[Mottie]

 

[gant]

Are Pat Ex and carmanmemoranda - tag buddies? or equally sad and yes that it's adding to the thread as its descended into the usual troll goading and tha'st not Mottie and his measured contributions.

I had a passing interest in the topic but the life's been sucked out of the topic by this habitual patronising I know best.

 

[denso13]

It's not allowed, by law

It is, as a matter of fact.

You have to apply for it.

No, you don't, as a matter of fact.

This has been gone over in detail in the case and the defence case was dismissed. I don't know why you think you know better.

You have to apply for it

Where does Bangladeshi law say this?

 

[Dork Lard]

She was made stateless illegally by the UK Gov'n'mn't.

Who cares???

 

[gant]

She was made stateless illegally by the UK Gov'n'mn't.

Who cares???

Looked to be a shot across the boughs. How many lives and livelihoods has it saved in others not following the same path to be raped and their offspring dying prematurely.

 

[denso13]

She was made stateless illegally by the UK Gov'n'mn't.

No she wasn't.

 

[Pat ex]

Wrong again. Her appeal is on the decision to remove her citizenship, not that it made her stateless. The Supreme Court has ruled it did not.

Of course removing her citizenship rendered her stateless, the two are intertwined.
When her citizenship was revoked she had no other citizenship. The decision was based on a flawed understanding that she was entitled to another citizenship in another country. But that citizenship was denied to her. She did not, and could not have had citizenship of that country at the time of her UK citizenship being revoked.
The Supreme Court's ruling was based on a UK court's incorrect interpretation of another country's laws.

Which particularly section of the Human rights act do you think applies?

Section 6 , It says so in the Supreme Court's ruling.

Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 places a duty on public authorities not
to act incompatibly with certain rights and freedoms drawn from the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

 

[Pat ex]

It is, as a matter of fact.
No, you don't, as a matter of fact.

Dear God!

How much clearer can it be. Dual citizenship is normally not allowed by law. Any exceptions are at the discretion of the Bangladeshi government.

This has been gone over in detail in the case and the defence case was dismissed. I don't know why you think you know better.

The case was dismissed based on a UK court's incorrect interpretation of another country's laws.
It isn't just me that thinks the Supreme Court came to the wrong conclusion. The public and the legal fraternity are equally split in agreeing or disagreeing with the judgement. The Human Rights fraternity are 100% convinced that the judgement was flawed.

Where does Bangladeshi law say this?

Dear God!
It's implicit and totally transparent in the explanation: Dual citizenship is not allowed by law. But there may be exceptions granted by the Bangladeshi government.
They cannot grant something if you don't apply for it.

 

[Pat ex]

Are Pat Ex and carmanmemoranda - tag buddies? or equally sad and yes that it's adding to the thread as its descended into the usual troll goading and tha'st not Mottie and his measured contributions.

Obviously your prejudice is getting in your way of seeing and understanding the evidence. None of your posts, nor Mottie's remotely added to the discussion.

What rotten luck she didn’t have you representing her. Still, I suppose you were too busy posting on the internet to represent her in court ………….

Unlike you who appears to be an expert in international law. It’s a wonder you have time to post on here, your case load must be enormous!

Oh heck Pat Ex or previous incarnations what don't you understand about post 136?

Oh dear you need to look in a mirror. Your instance that you know better than the courts and persist in arguing points that have no merit makes you the troll. But that's your whole excuse for being here. Rather sad really.