schoolgirl who joined IS but wants to come home.

[Woodsey]

Why are people so pleased; if the Government thinks it is ok to render her stateless, they also think it is OK to render you stateless?  

Is nobody worried that our elected home secretary has so little regard for the law?  

She really seems a strange person to break the precedent on.   There are far worse people in our prisons.  Do we deprive them of UK citizenship too?  

And maybe, just maybe, there are still some people who believe the Conservatives have good intentions; what happens when this new power is in the hands of someone who we don't trust?  

Need to read more but may not be breaking the law and would guess that the decision makers in this case would think they are on pretty certain ground

"In January 2014, the Immigration Bill 2013–14 was introduced to extend the powers of the Home Secretary to declare certain terrorism suspects stateless. The bill was initially blocked by the House of Lords in April 2014.[105] However, the Lords reconsidered their decision in May 2014, and the bill returned to the House of Commons before being set into UK law"

Since then several have had their UK citizenship revoked.   But until today, they were all dual nationals.   I am not saying I agree with those either, just in case people read it that way.

Rendering someone stateless breaks international law.

Just add for those who think you have to be a terrorist for the home secretary to revoke your citizenship:

What happens if the next home secretary is Jeremy Corbyn; who does he see as enemies of the state?  

What happens if the next coalition includes Sinn Fein, and as part of the power sharing agreement, they get home secretary.  

These are not far fetched, "what could happen in 50 years time?" type scenarios.

Whataboutery lolaments  

Do you ever make any decisions in work or life or do you constantly stall it based on the gazillion things that could but probably won’t happen? 50 years? (Brexit aside) 

Fuck me paraysis by analysis........

[Jon MW]

Why are people so pleased; if the Government thinks it is ok to render her stateless, they also think it is OK to render you stateless?  

Is nobody worried that our elected home secretary has so little regard for the law?  

She really seems a strange person to break the precedent on.   There are far worse people in our prisons.  Do we deprive them of UK citizenship too?  

And maybe, just maybe, there are still some people who believe the Conservatives have good intentions; what happens when this new power is in the hands of someone who we don't trust?  

Need to read more but may not be breaking the law and would guess that the decision makers in this case would think they are on pretty certain ground

"In January 2014, the Immigration Bill 2013–14 was introduced to extend the powers of the Home Secretary to declare certain terrorism suspects stateless. The bill was initially blocked by the House of Lords in April 2014.[105] However, the Lords reconsidered their decision in May 2014, and the bill returned to the House of Commons before being set into UK law"

Since then several have had their UK citizenship revoked.   But until today, they were all dual nationals.   I am not saying I agree with those either, just in case people read it that way.

Rendering someone stateless breaks international law.

Just add for those who think you have to be a terrorist for the home secretary to revoke your citizenship:

What happens if the next home secretary is Jeremy Corbyn; who does he see as enemies of the state?  

What happens if the next coalition includes Sinn Fein, and as part of the power sharing agreement, they get home secretary.  

These are not far fetched, "what could happen in 50 years time?" type scenarios.

I think it's been clarified that they think she has dual nationality - although I have seen some legal twitterers say a lot of what has been done doesn't seem quite right, so there is a chance that some of it has been misrepresented and a chance this will all fail on appeal.

[nirvana]

Why are people so pleased; if the Government thinks it is ok to render her stateless, they also think it is OK to render you stateless?  

Is nobody worried that our elected home secretary has so little regard for the law?  

She really seems a strange person to break the precedent on.   There are far worse people in our prisons.  Do we deprive them of UK citizenship too?  

And maybe, just maybe, there are still some people who believe the Conservatives have good intentions; what happens when this new power is in the hands of someone who we don't trust?  

Need to read more but may not be breaking the law and would guess that the decision makers in this case would think they are on pretty certain ground

"In January 2014, the Immigration Bill 2013–14 was introduced to extend the powers of the Home Secretary to declare certain terrorism suspects stateless. The bill was initially blocked by the House of Lords in April 2014.[105] However, the Lords reconsidered their decision in May 2014, and the bill returned to the House of Commons before being set into UK law"

Since then several have had their UK citizenship revoked.   But until today, they were all dual nationals.   I am not saying I agree with those either, just in case people read it that way.

Rendering someone stateless breaks international law.

Just add for those who think you have to be a terrorist for the home secretary to revoke your citizenship:

What happens if the next home secretary is Jeremy Corbyn; who does he see as enemies of the state?  

What happens if the next coalition includes Sinn Fein, and as part of the power sharing agreement, they get home secretary.  

These are not far fetched, "what could happen in 50 years time?" type scenarios.

Yes, I noted that all the revokees so far were dual nationals but I couldn't figure out the tension (or not) between our law set down in the act mentioned and any international convention that we are signatories to. It's some good academic interest stuff for me though.

I don't think I'm naive but I trust our Government not to go mad and I don't envisage us becoming Stalinist in deeds even if we voted in a Tankie - just totally unsustainable here

[nirvana]

Glad she didn’t pretend to have regrets and get back in to the country

Was talking about this earlier with my wife - got to be the most poorly advised/helped person ever.

One minute of , I was 15, radicalised, and I'm terribly sorry about the choices I made and she would have been on the next plane

[MANTIS01]

She won't be able to return upon appeal because don't forget after Brexit EU flights won't be able to use our airspace and all the ports will be total gridlock.

Also medical supplies and baby formula will be unavailable.

So unless the child eats tinned peaches she prob have a better standard of life back in Syria.

[Woodsey]

She won't be able to return upon appeal because don't forget after Brexit EU flights won't be able to use our airspace and all the ports will be total gridlock.

Also medical supplies and baby formula will be unavailable.

So unless the child eats tinned peaches she prob have a better standard of life back in Syria.

 

[Doobs]

Why are people so pleased; if the Government thinks it is ok to render her stateless, they also think it is OK to render you stateless?  

Is nobody worried that our elected home secretary has so little regard for the law?  

She really seems a strange person to break the precedent on.   There are far worse people in our prisons.  Do we deprive them of UK citizenship too?  

And maybe, just maybe, there are still some people who believe the Conservatives have good intentions; what happens when this new power is in the hands of someone who we don't trust?  

Need to read more but may not be breaking the law and would guess that the decision makers in this case would think they are on pretty certain ground

"In January 2014, the Immigration Bill 2013–14 was introduced to extend the powers of the Home Secretary to declare certain terrorism suspects stateless. The bill was initially blocked by the House of Lords in April 2014.[105] However, the Lords reconsidered their decision in May 2014, and the bill returned to the House of Commons before being set into UK law"

Since then several have had their UK citizenship revoked.   But until today, they were all dual nationals.   I am not saying I agree with those either, just in case people read it that way.

Rendering someone stateless breaks international law.

Just add for those who think you have to be a terrorist for the home secretary to revoke your citizenship:

What happens if the next home secretary is Jeremy Corbyn; who does he see as enemies of the state?  

What happens if the next coalition includes Sinn Fein, and as part of the power sharing agreement, they get home secretary.  

These are not far fetched, "what could happen in 50 years time?" type scenarios.

Whataboutery lolaments  

Do you ever make any decisions in work or life or do you constantly stall it based on the gazillion things that could but probably won’t happen?

Fuck me paraysis by analysis........

I try not to make any decusions at work that break the fucking law.   I think that is a pretty low bar for showing I am competent at what I do.

Home secretaries must not need to show competence to keep their jobs?  Won't be surprised if Grayling gets it in the reshuffle.

[tikay]

Glad she didn’t pretend to have regrets and get back in to the country

Was talking about this earlier with my wife - got to be the most poorly advised/helped person ever.

One minute of , I was 15, radicalised, and I'm terribly sorry about the choices I made and she would have been on the next plane

Well yes, but an experienced journalist working an angle/agenda versus what is clearly a not terribly bright and (arguably) naive 19 year old is no contest, and was always going to end badly for her.

[DungBeetle]

Funny that not wanting traitor terrorists milling around our society is far right politics now, lolz

Indeed.  When I see Doobs, Cuckoo and Mint squealing it just affirms I am comfortable with the Government decision as a rationale decent middle of the road citizen.

[Woodsey]

Funny that not wanting traitor terrorists milling around our society is far right politics now, lolz

Indeed.  When I see Doobs, Cuckoo and Mint squealing it just affirms I am comfortable with the Government decision as a rationale decent middle of the road citizen.

Yup fair shout 

[nirvana]

Glad she didn’t pretend to have regrets and get back in to the country

Was talking about this earlier with my wife - got to be the most poorly advised/helped person ever.

One minute of , I was 15, radicalised, and I'm terribly sorry about the choices I made and she would have been on the next plane

Well yes, but an experienced journalist working an angle/agenda versus what is clearly a not terribly bright and (arguably) naive 19 year old is no contest, and was always going to end badly for her.

Yep, without thinking it would get to this point i was pondering the pretty sick nature of the journalism in this case a couple of days ago.

[kukushkin88]

Funny that not wanting traitor terrorists milling around our society is far right politics now, lolz

Indeed.  When I see Doobs, Cuckoo and Mint squealing it just affirms I am comfortable with the Government decision as a rationale decent middle of the road citizen.

If you are right and you might be, the middle of the road is much further right than it used to, we should all be ashamed that we let that happen.

[MANTIS01]

Nope, middle of the road is where it's always been, just JCorbs with his terror sympathiser racialist ways has dragged the left way left

[nirvana]

Funny that not wanting traitor terrorists milling around our society is far right politics now, lolz

Indeed.  When I see Doobs, Cuckoo and Mint squealing it just affirms I am comfortable with the Government decision as a rationale decent middle of the road citizen.

If you are right and you might be, the middle of the road is much further right than it used to, we should all be ashamed that we let that happen.

I'm a bit older than you and in the 60s/70s/80s even - the middle of the road was much, much (and one more much) further right than it is now. One of the huge mistakes of the left (imho) is to brand fairly mainstream views as right wing. It's become pretty meaningless and is much more to do with left wing dogma than where the right is.

[kukushkin88]

Funny that not wanting traitor terrorists milling around our society is far right politics now, lolz

Indeed.  When I see Doobs, Cuckoo and Mint squealing it just affirms I am comfortable with the Government decision as a rationale decent middle of the road citizen.

If you are right and you might be, the middle of the road is much further right than it used to, we should all be ashamed that we let that happen.

I'm a bit older than you and in the 60s/70s/80s even - the middle of the road was much, much (and one more much) further right than it is now. One of the huge mistakes of the left (imho) is to brand fairly mainstream views as right wing. It's become pretty meaningless and is much more to do with left wing dogma than where the right is.

I definitely think you have a point but it gets a little bit lost in the fact that Britain was very racist and intolerant through that period. We had to move on from that, often, it seems some people want to go back.