NationStates

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:

You know... convict her in a court of law and deprive the passport that way as part of a punishment package. Doing it because lol why not is shit PRC pulls.

British law already goes above and beyond what is demanded by the treaty is the point. The British government could have yanked her citizenship without her having an alternative to pursue under either Article 5 or Article 8.

It didn't do that because British law doesn't allow it.

Ifreann wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:

I should have anticipated an "Unless They're A Bad'Un" clause.

Of course. Britain wrote the bloody thing.

Check out Article 5 as well.

Agarntrop wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:

I wish we could get past this tribalistic notion of national loyalty.

CoraSpia wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:

I wish we could get past this tribalistic notion of national loyalty.

This is NSG, not r/im14andthisisdeep

Agarntrop wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:I wish we could get past this tribalistic notion of national loyalty.

This is NSG, not r/im14andthisisdeep

So you believe we should be bound to loyalty to a country? You get no choice where you're born, so national price or loyalty is a silly concept. Especially in this case, where Shamima was so easily groomed because she felt the country had failed her it's somewhat unreasonable to expect her to have shown it.

CoraSpia wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:This is NSG, not r/im14andthisisdeep

So you believe we should be bound to loyalty to a country? You get no choice where you're born, so national price or loyalty is a silly concept. Especially in this case, where Shamima was so easily groomed because she felt the country had failed her it's somewhat unreasonable to expect her to have shown it.

I see the liberal quest to pretend the world is a video game continues unabated

Thanatttynia wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:So you believe we should be bound to loyalty to a country? You get no choice where you're born, so national price or loyalty is a silly concept. Especially in this case, where Shamima was so easily groomed because she felt the country had failed her it's somewhat unreasonable to expect her to have shown it.

I see the liberal quest to pretend the world is a video game continues unabated

It's more than 180 sections of land ruled by competing extortion rackets.

CoraSpia wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:I see the liberal quest to pretend the world is a video game continues unabated

It's more than 180 sections of land ruled by competing extortion rackets.

That's what 'nation' means to you? Land and extortion?

Thanatttynia wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:It's more than 180 sections of land ruled by competing extortion rackets.

That's what 'nation' means to you? Land and extortion?

Nation means nothing to me honestly, the only thing that would stop me just moving are my family and friends all being here. I don't love Britain or feel proud of it.

CoraSpia wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:That's what 'nation' means to you? Land and extortion?

Nation means nothing to me honestly, the only thing that would stop me just moving are my family and friends all being here. I don't love Britain or feel proud of it.

Damn that's kinda depressing imo... you feel an allegiance to your family and friends, so do you feel an allegiance to your community? i.e. your hometown or neighbourhood you grew up in? At what point does community become meaningless?

Thanatttynia wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:Nation means nothing to me honestly, the only thing that would stop me just moving are my family and friends all being here. I don't love Britain or feel proud of it.

Damn that's kinda depressing imo... you feel an allegiance to your family and friends, so do you feel an allegiance to your community? i.e. your hometown or neighbourhood you grew up in? At what point does community become meaningless?

Honestly...I'm 23 and I've lived in 4 places for periods of time. I feel at home in all four of them and they're all places I enjoy, but I couldn't really pick one over the others. There's one I don't want to live in permanently just because of the lack of opportunities, but that's not because it's a worse place...idk, I feel a connection to all 4 and I feel at home in all 4 but I wouldn't really say I love one in the sense that hometown seems to be the centre of some peoples identity.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:You know... convict her in a court of law and deprive the passport that way as part of a punishment package. Doing it because lol why not is shit PRC pulls.

British law already goes above and beyond what is demanded by the treaty is the point. The British government could have yanked her citizenship without her having an alternative to pursue under either Article 5 or Article 8.

It didn't do that because British law doesn't allow it.

Given the existence of this clause, I have less issue with her return to stand trial for her crimes. If she is released in the future from prison, given that she will be a non-citizen and has no right to be here, she can be immediately transfered to an immigration detention centre.

Time for an experiment, from The Guardian:

Civil servant in charge of bullying inquiry into Priti Patel to leave post

CoraSpia wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:

I wish we could get past this tribalistic notion of national loyalty.

Do you not think it's been simply replaced by other tribes?

Hirota wrote:Time for an experiment, from The Guardian:

Civil servant in charge of bullying inquiry into Priti Patel to leave post

Somebody's clearly up to some skulduggery in this situation but I can't really tell who it is.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:The way I see it governments being able to strip any of their own people of their citizenship is an extremely dangerous tool in the wrong hands. The only way to keep it out of the wrong hands is not let any government do it.

This is basically my opinion, too. It's dangerous to allow any government the power to arbitrarily strip any person of their citizenship.

That said, I do think that Shamima Begum should be tried under the UK's own legislation, in a jury trial, and held accountable.

The Free Joy State wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:The way I see it governments being able to strip any of their own people of their citizenship is an extremely dangerous tool in the wrong hands. The only way to keep it out of the wrong hands is not let any government do it.

This is basically my opinion, too. It's dangerous to allow any government the power to arbitrarily strip any person of their citizenship.

That said, I do think that Shamima Begum should be tried under the UK's own legislation, in a jury trial, and held accountable.

Which is perfectly fair. Like I mentioned before, there's British Islamist terrorists who didn't get their citizenship stripped for clearly more violent crimes because they stayed put in the UK when they did all that and so far she has not been proven to do anything more than run off to be a jihadi bride. If they're not going to be rendered stateless then stripping her citizenship is just arbitrary and malicious.

So the honeymoon has worn off for starmer huh

Philjia wrote:

Hirota wrote:Time for an experiment, from The Guardian:

Civil servant in charge of bullying inquiry into Priti Patel to leave post

Somebody's clearly up to some skulduggery in this situation but I can't really tell who it is.

You are right to be cautious. What the Guardian doesn't mention until the 17th paragraph is that it is a promotion.

But "person get promotion" isn't exactly a catchy headline right?

And now you know who is up to some skulduggery.

Hirota wrote:

Philjia wrote:Somebody's clearly up to some skulduggery in this situation but I can't really tell who it is.

You are right to be cautious. What the Guardian doesn't mention until the 17th paragraph is that it is a promotion.

But "person get promotion" isn't exactly a catchy headline right?

And now you know who is up to some skulduggery.

So are you hinting the Guardian was misleading over the story, or that the promotion was a reward for services rendered to Priti Patel?

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

Hirota wrote:You are right to be cautious. What the Guardian doesn't mention until the 17th paragraph is that it is a promotion.

But "person get promotion" isn't exactly a catchy headline right?

And now you know who is up to some skulduggery.

So are you hinting the Guardian was misleading over the story, or that the promotion was a reward for services rendered to Priti Patel?

The first one. I don't think there is any hint MacNamara is being rewarded for services to Patel.

South Odreria 2 wrote:So the honeymoon has worn off for starmer huh

Not really: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... ur-leaders

South Odreria 2 wrote:So the honeymoon has worn off for starmer huh

He's doing a very good job at PMQs.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:So the honeymoon has worn off for starmer huh

He's doing a very good job at PMQs.

I think the worst thing I've personally seen is Labour under his leadership has often been accused of being muddled on policy (and not just from his opponents in the Tories). I see that as a problem of communication rather than outright weakness.

Agree he's done well in PMQ's most of the time, far more clinical than Corbs.

Some good news:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... r-bailouts