Shopping & Style0 min ago
A Step In The Right Direction
https:/
And apparently Canada's not too pleased as he's half Canadian,
I bet they're not ! He's now their problem ,if they also strip him he's then stateless ,good!!! Although I do feel sorry for his Oxfordshire parents
And apparently Canada's not too pleased as he's half Canadian,
I bet they're not ! He's now their problem ,if they also strip him he's then stateless ,good!!! Although I do feel sorry for his Oxfordshire parents
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. 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.
Although I do feel sorry for his Oxfordshire parents
R v Letts went to the House of Lords sort of
on whether it could be a crime if you had no crim intent
and er - I think they said you had to have
it then went to trial on the facts and they were convicted
as the jury found they DID know - - - I think
They had had an email from Jack and sent his air ticket money to him - I think having been told not to .....[Hence the Supreme Ct case - IF they had no criminal intent, then could they be convicted ? their lordships rehearsed Sweet v Parsley 1970, the great bet nwarz of the law courses Jackdaw and I did, yes fifty years ago]
Not making people stateless is from treaty law of the late forties (and doesnt originate in the EU but is course part of EU law - and ours) - and the leading case is now in Re K
For Shahmeem B - they are relying on the 'fact' she 'could be pakistani rather than is
The real problem as shown by the carrot haired Beebster on Panorama - is that none of them are repentant
none of them say - o god, mein gott, ya allahu ! what a gool I have been!
it is much more like - what did I do wrong huh? and by the way I would do it again ..... up to and including travelling to Syria and getting into this mess
R v Letts went to the House of Lords sort of
on whether it could be a crime if you had no crim intent
and er - I think they said you had to have
it then went to trial on the facts and they were convicted
as the jury found they DID know - - - I think
They had had an email from Jack and sent his air ticket money to him - I think having been told not to .....[Hence the Supreme Ct case - IF they had no criminal intent, then could they be convicted ? their lordships rehearsed Sweet v Parsley 1970, the great bet nwarz of the law courses Jackdaw and I did, yes fifty years ago]
Not making people stateless is from treaty law of the late forties (and doesnt originate in the EU but is course part of EU law - and ours) - and the leading case is now in Re K
For Shahmeem B - they are relying on the 'fact' she 'could be pakistani rather than is
The real problem as shown by the carrot haired Beebster on Panorama - is that none of them are repentant
none of them say - o god, mein gott, ya allahu ! what a gool I have been!
it is much more like - what did I do wrong huh? and by the way I would do it again ..... up to and including travelling to Syria and getting into this mess
1 to 10 of 10
