She has lost

[malvolio]

They have openly said they would look favourably at turning down.

They have said they wouldn't readmit her to the country. That has nothing to do with her legal citizenship.

[Paddy]

She ain't coming back.

She being Shamima Begum.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ip-court-rules

No, the case is not over, she has lost her right to return to the UK for her tribunal hearing. She could still win the hearing in her absence and the come back to the UK.

"That means the 21-year-old will not be able to re-enter the UK to fight her case in person and will not have her citizenship restored while she is being detained in Syria."

[AtW]

he could still win the hearing in her absence and the come back to the UK.

[vetran]

She was not convicted by a UK court of any crime, is this true or false?

I never suggested she was. Try again.

[vetran]

This is where you are wrong.

If people from the Commonwealth arrived here while their countries were still colonies of the UK - and the UK had colonies until the early 1980s - they arrived in the UK as British citizens (or British subjects if it was before 1948) so they and the government had no paperwork to complete.

Those who were children of those British citizens depending on when they arrived were entitled to stay either because they were British citizens in their own right - so again no paperwork to complete - or because their father was a British Citizen.

The issue was the government decided to destroy the records of those who arrived before the early 1980s around 2010 as they decided that people were either dead or had gotten British passports so the records weren't needed.

Some elderly people were warned by border staff in the 90s that they needed to get a British passport and shouldn't travel on the passport of the place of their born as they risked being denied entry into the UK.

Its a difficult point, because there was no paperwork, they can't prove they are here legally. Many may not be. They may be as in my analogy they had passed their driving test but had no license, we didn't require them to get one. If they have been here that long is it unreasonable to as them to prove that they have?

Do we accept any person who presents as African and suggests they are of Windrush descent at face value? To be Windrush generation you would need to arrive before 1971 and be here 5 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-437822...ish%20citizens.

Are they here legally?


The Home Office kept no record of those granted leave to remain and issued no paperwork - making it is difficult for Windrush arrivals to prove their legal status.

In 2010, it destroyed landing cards belonging to Windrush migrants.

Because they came from British colonies that were not independent, they believed they were British citizens.

[AtW]

I never suggested she was. Try again.

So she is innocent then!

[vetran]

So she is innocent then!

No she is probably guilty of treason however that is for the law to decide. In my opinion she was still committing treason when she was 18 and with ISIS, so saying she wouldn't be guilty of anything because she went there at 15 and was a minor is obviously foolish.

Blimey do you always need drawings to understand such simple concepts?

[AtW]

No she is probably guilty of treason

So since when this became the new standard with harsh punishment applied to kids making stupid decisions?

[SueEllen]

Its a difficult point, because there was no paperwork, they can't prove they are here legally. Many may not be. They may be as in my analogy they had passed their driving test but had no license, we didn't require them to get one. If they have been here that long is it unreasonable to as them to prove that they have?

No-one in Britain until the hostile environment policy in 2012 had to prove they were a British citizen if they just stayed in the UK and didn't go abroad to get a job, rent a home etc.

Do we accept any person who presents as African and suggests they are of Windrush descent at face value? To be Windrush generation you would need to arrive before 1971 and be here 5 years.

Africa isn't a country it is a continent.

Even if you look at ones that are part of the Commonwealth not all of them were British colonies e.g. Rwanda, Mozambique. They just decided to become members of the Commonwealth after 1995. I doubt there citizens will rock up with their French/Portuguese accents claiming to be from a former British colony.

Also you are ignoring there are places like st Kitts and Nevis which didn't gain independence from UK until the early 1980s. Anyone who came from there to the UK before the countries became independent are British Citizens by default. There are newspaper reports of a guy who arrived here as a child just before St Kitts became independent so as a British citizen, who has been continually hounded by immigration claiming he has no right to be in the UK. Judges have repeatedly told the Home Office they are being ridiculous.

[vetran]

So since when this became the new standard with harsh punishment applied to kids making stupid decisions?

Traitors have always been treated this way in the UK. We used to tear them limb from limb not just exile them.