ChatterBank5 mins ago
Good Idea From Mrs May?
31 Answers
Theresa May has announced that she intends to have the law changed so that terrorist suspects can have their British passports removed even if that means they are stateless. She tried to do this in the case of an Iraqi who had been granted asylum here but then rewarded us by fighting for the enemy. The Supreme Court held that, while he could get the Iraqi government to issue a new Iraqi passport, he would be rendered stateless unless and until he did so. That was beyond her powers [The Times, today, Tuesday]
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FredPuli43. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.didn't they send people into exile in the Middle Ages without much caring where they went? If I remember correctly they had to take the first boat out; if there wasn't one, they had to wade out into the sea up to their waists every day to show they were trying.
But what does she actually envisage doing with them? She presumably couldn't pack them into a plane because no carrier would accept them without papers. So they'd be stuck here without a passport, which isn't necessarily the desired outcome.
Then again, plenty of people here don't have passports. Does she actually mean removing their citizenship somehow?
But what does she actually envisage doing with them? She presumably couldn't pack them into a plane because no carrier would accept them without papers. So they'd be stuck here without a passport, which isn't necessarily the desired outcome.
Then again, plenty of people here don't have passports. Does she actually mean removing their citizenship somehow?
why would we want them back, especially if they not only go and fight but are instrumental in harming other British nationals working overseas.
http:// www.ara btimeso nline.c om/News Details /tabid/ 96/smid /414/Ar ticleID /201131 /reftab /36/Def ault.as px
http://
don't understand why the key witnesses the two who were kidnapped cannot give evidence.
http:// www.dai lymail. co.uk/n ews/art icle-25 00915/C ase-NHS -doctor -accuse d-kidna pping-B ritish- photogr apher-S yria-dr opped.h tml?ITO =1490&a mp;ns_m channel =rss&am p;ns_ca mpaign= 1490
http://
it depends what the aim of it is.
If it is to remove British citizenship then simply lock them up as an illegal alien until they have a passport from somewhere eg Iraq in the case above.
If it is to stop them leaving the country to go to terrorist camps etc then it is pointless since it is not difficult to get a passport, nor is it difficult for a single person to come and go around our Island if you really want to.
If it is to remove British citizenship then simply lock them up as an illegal alien until they have a passport from somewhere eg Iraq in the case above.
If it is to stop them leaving the country to go to terrorist camps etc then it is pointless since it is not difficult to get a passport, nor is it difficult for a single person to come and go around our Island if you really want to.
Jake, there are several million Muslims in this country who get on with their lives without incident. The terror suspect who escaped hidden under a burqa must have done something to attract the attention of the authorities – otherwise he wouldn’t have been under surveillance - and would have had no reason to abscond. Frankly, if the security of this country is at risk, to my mind his ‘rights’ do not take precedence.
That's what I'm trying to get at YMB
There *must* be sufficient evidence - now maybe that can be heard by judges sitting in private
But people *must* be given the opportunity to defend themselves from charges
Otherwise we're just locking people up on the sayso of the home secretary - and that's not the sort of country we are or should be
There *must* be sufficient evidence - now maybe that can be heard by judges sitting in private
But people *must* be given the opportunity to defend themselves from charges
Otherwise we're just locking people up on the sayso of the home secretary - and that's not the sort of country we are or should be
God Naomi you're so scared of a few extremeists
Were you like this with the Irish in the 80's? or is it more to do with your hatred of muslims?
Have a bit of backbone - freedom is worth fighting for - it's worth taking some risks for - otherwise what's the point? you might as well go and live in some central American dictatorship
Were you like this with the Irish in the 80's? or is it more to do with your hatred of muslims?
Have a bit of backbone - freedom is worth fighting for - it's worth taking some risks for - otherwise what's the point? you might as well go and live in some central American dictatorship
Yes, I do agree with you Jake.
There should always be the opportunity to defend (within reason, ie no dragging through a myriad of courts or the ECHR)
And, as I said above, it should not be down to one person. Especially a political one (from any party or persuasion). but the Judges in question must put National security first in these (what should be) very rare cases.
There should always be the opportunity to defend (within reason, ie no dragging through a myriad of courts or the ECHR)
And, as I said above, it should not be down to one person. Especially a political one (from any party or persuasion). but the Judges in question must put National security first in these (what should be) very rare cases.