SIGN UP

More Money For The Tax Payer To Shell Out

Avatar Image
Bobbisox1 | 18:47 Fri 31st Jul 2020 | News
17 Answers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53607595

Hope the Supreme Court also rules against this

Answers

1 to 17 of 17rss feed

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.
Don't get your hopes up!
Question Author
I'm not NJ
What's the taxpayer paying for?
Question Author
A Supreme Court hearing ?
If not, where is the money coming from?
As I understand it, the Government appealed against a decision to allow Ms Begum back into the UK to pursue her appeal and it is that aspect the Supreme Court will consider.

If you're unhappy about the costs, blame the Government.
"Sir James Eadie, representing the Home Office, said earlier there was a "big issue at stake" in the case, to decide what should happen when someone cannot have a fair appeal over being stripped of their citizenship as a "result of going abroad and aligning with terrorist groups"."

What is stopping someone having a fair appeal, but from the country they chose to join and there align themselves to a terrorist group ? There's nothing stopping them getting a fair appeal from there. If the law works correctly the dismissal ought not take longer than the initial speech and period of uncontrollable laughter before the fair rejection. And then, there's not the bother of returning them back to their adopted nation.

If it comes to that, given that there's no dispute that they joined an enemy terrorist group, why is there a right to appeal the inevitable consequence anyway ?

Some law makers clearly need further training. Either that, or the law interpreters do.
OG, I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about the ins and outs of this case and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe she became a citizen of Syria or that she was there at the behest of that country's government - she joined the jihadi group ISIL and was living in a refugee camp as far as I'm aware. Why then should Syria bear the legal costs [if that's what you are suggesting]?
Because that's where she is. Why shouldn't they ? Or she could pay for her own legal eagles. Whose behest she was or wasn't at is irrelevant. She went there to join those there who were intending to be in power; someone else is though, so dealing with the resultant situation is on their 'to do' list. If they aren't going to deal with it then they should step down for those that will.
Say a refugee currently in the UK was in a legal dispute with their country of birth, the UK taxpayer should pay for the legal proceedings? Because that's the equivalent of what you're suggesting.
//Ms Begum claims she married Dutch convert Yago Riedijk 10 days after arriving in IS territory, with all three of her school friends also reportedly marrying foreign IS fighters.

She told The Times last February that she left Raqqa in January 2017 with her husband but her children, a one-year-old girl and a three-month-old boy, had both since died.//

As she claims to have married a Dutch citizen then best the Netherlands deal with her misfortunes of her own making.
International law dictates that no country can make someone stateless. It is with deep regret that I have to say that Shamima Begum is a UK citizen. Ergo, the UK government cannot withdraw her citizenship.

I think that the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, knew full well that he could not legally remove her legal right to be a UK citizen but did so anyway and was hoping to put her in legal purgatory for the foreseeable future in the hope that she might have some kind of unfortunate accident in her Syrian refugee camp. Problem solved, so to speak.

However, if she didn't succumb to said happy accident, his revocation of her passport was always going to be legally challenged and likely succeed. At this point I think it's inevitable that she'll return to the UK.

To be brutally honest, I really don't care any more. Shamima Begum is – in the grand scheme of things – not a big deal. There are already thousands of fundamentalist Islamic lunatics running around the UK who are a clear and present danger to the men, women and children of this country. These are individuals who may carry out another Manchester bombing at any time. There are reputedly 3,000 of these insane Islamists who are deemed to be the most dangerous Jihadis but there are another 40,000 who the police and MI5 suspect are involved in the promotion of Islamic terrorism.

Shamima Begum is a nobody. The physical risk she poses to the UK is minimal but her PR value to the existing Jihadis and their supporters is significant.
//International law dictates that no country can make someone stateless//

I imagine the government will argue that stripping her of British citizenship hasn’t left her stateless. With Bangladeshi heritage she has Bangladeshi citizenship.

//according to international law, it is only possible to strip someone of their citizenship if they are eligible for citizenship elsewhere. In the case of UK citizens of Bangladeshi heritage like Shamima Begum, Bangladeshi national law states that citizenship is given automatically at birth through bloodline (jus sanguinis), giving them dual nationality.//

https://www.360lawservices.com/immigration-law-the-case-of-shamima-begum-and-the-new-precedent-it-sets/

I hope the government succeeds in overturning the previous decision.
She has become a hate figure in the UK. If she ever returns here she will need anonymity and a new identity, with all the cost that that entails. Otherwise she may soon find her own severed head staring out of a bucket.
her return would set a precedent for other jihadi islamists
it is more taxpayers money, but i'm sure in this case, most taxpayers would agree. I used to work for an NHS trust and we once went to court over a sex-change case. It would have cost about 100k for the person to get the treatment they were requesting, and the appeal cost more than that in peoples time, legal representation etcbut it was felt it was worth defending, as the local public would want the trust to
Not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that anyone stripped of citizenship because they gone to join elsewhere is not the country of birth's problem. They're the problem of the country they left to join. And the responsibility of the country or countries she is still a citizen of. Let them sort it out, or they can let the person who is no longer a citizen of their country of birth fund their own attempt to force the country to reinstate them.

Shamima wasn't made stateless by the UK. She had citizenship rights elsewhere. If elsewhere didn't want her they should have been quicker off the mark revoking those rights.

1 to 17 of 17rss feed

Do you know the answer?

More Money For The Tax Payer To Shell Out

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.