Shamima Begum

  • Thread starter Thread starter chippie244
  • Start date Start date
chippie244 said:
So what I'm getting from this is Jimmynonails doesn't care for human rights, fillydoo thinks that if you mention race then you're a racist and is quite happy to misread what was said to back his nonexistent point up, btiw and golden balls do care about human rights and Muzungu thinks fillydoo is an idiot.
Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

Jimmy doesnt care for actually bothering reading the evidence he eventually produces.

Example:

Jimmy: "Oz can make people stateless and The Guardian is spoonfed rubbish".

Me: "Show your evidence that Oz can make people stateless"

Jimmy "Produces article from The Grauniad clearly stating Oz can only remove citizenship from those with dual citizenship"

Me "Er thanks"
 
goldenboy said:
Jimmy doesnt care for actually bothering reading the evidence he eventually produces.

Example:

Jimmy: "Oz can make people stateless and The Guardian is spoonfed rubbish".

Me: "Show your evidence that Oz can make people stateless"

Jimmy "Produces article from The Grauniad clearly stating Oz can only remove citizenship from those with dual citizenship"

Me "Er thanks"
Click to expand...

I held my hands up to that as the rules changed with the UK in 2008 when the new human rights legislation changed but before this we were exempt from the rules

Golden balls and chipolata were adamant that no country had the power to make a person stateless, I’m still waiting for them to admit defeat
 
Jimmycloutnail said:
I held my hands up to that as the rules changed with the UK in 2008 when the new human rights legislation changed but before this we were exempt from the rules

Golden balls and chipolata were adamant that no country had the power to make a person stateless, I’m still waiting for them to admit defeat
Click to expand...

I fact I’m waiting for any sort of coherent response barring the usual virtue signalling and mud slinging
 
Jimmycloutnail said:
I held my hands up to that as the rules changed with the UK in 2008 when the new human rights legislation changed but before this we were exempt from the rules

Golden balls and chipolata were adamant that no country had the power to make a person stateless, I’m still waiting for them to admit defeat
Click to expand...
The UN declaration on human rights states that no person can be made stateless and I'm happy with that.
If you prefer that people can be deprived of their human rights then that's up to you.
 
btiw2 said:
Tony Hancock's famous joke "Does nobody remember Magna Carta[1]? Did she die in vain?" was funny because, back then, everybody was expected to know what Magna Carta was and why it was an important English honourable tradition.

Let lesser countries write down their constitutions; we English won't - as we instinctively know right from wrong. That was the idea.

We understood the principle that a citizen can't be exiled (deprived of their country) by the divine right of kings (or even Home Secretaries) without the judgement of a jury of their peers.
We understood that eight hundred years ago. That was pretty advanced ethics for a country that still hadn't worked out that owning people was somewhat dodgy.

I'm sure King John's paperwork was in order too before he was humbled in accepting the principles of natural rights.

I was never a good student of history at school. I dropped it before O-level. Too dull, too many essays and not enough numbers for my taste. But even a dullard like me understood why Magna Carta represented something fundamentally English (even if its practical value was limited).

Now we have plastic patriots where Englishness is clicking "like" on our football team's Facebook page.
Heaven forbid that we actually have to remember our heritage and grant impartial justice to unpleasant people.
Heaven forbid that we remember that our legal heritage is about denying those in power absolute rights of justice.

I think the slide started when the Blair government instituted "detention without trial", and so my point isn't to attack any one political party. Political parties come and go, but (I hope) Englishness[2] remains.
We here, we happy few, are brothers because of this shared tradition. It's a tradition built on beer, Agincourt, distrust of authority, ridiculing affectation and, yes, Magna Carta.

But, dunno, maybe Magna Carta, that poor Hungarian peasant girl, did die in vain.
I'll finish by posting her epitaph (copied from Wikipedia):


[1] My spell checker doesn't remember Magna Carta. There are red squiggly lines all over this page.
[2] I'm sure some Scots have virtues too ("and some, I assume, are good people"). Engineering? Economics? Irn-Bru? Endemic heart disease? Whining about oil rights?
Click to expand...
At least you agree with what I said, I'm suspicious as to why it pains you so to openly admit it though.
Nar, only kidding. I'm not suspicious at all, this is but only the SFF and why not have a bit of fun, eh?
Is it the 'under the radar' side of it that tickles you the most?
I can see the appeal.
 
longboat said:
At least you agree with what I said, I'm suspicious as to why it pains you so to openly admit it though.
Nar, only kidding. I'm not suspicious at all, this is but only the SFF and why not have a bit of fun, eh?
Is it the 'under the radar' side of it that tickles you the most?
I can see the appeal.
Click to expand...
Are you ever going to make a serious point Trevor or are you resigned to being the forums laughing boy?
 
chippie244 said:
The UN declaration on human rights states that no person can be made stateless and I'm happy with that.
If you prefer that people can be deprived of their human rights then that's up to you.
Click to expand...

It’s not about my preference, it’s about you saying something is “rubbish” when it’s not
 
chippie244 said:
You can revoke citizenship if the person has citizenship in another country.
Javid has decided she can have Bangladeshi citizenship despite the fact that she's never been there and in two years time she cant she can't take up Bangladeshi citizenship.
What has it got to do with Bangladesh?
She was brought up in Britain and should be dealt with by Britain.
Click to expand...
I did mention to you (someone like you anyway) in another thread, that she has an automatic right to Bangladeshi citizenship under their own law.
The decision made by the Home Secretary has in no way made the silly woman stateless, but if the Bangladeshi authorities also revoked her 'right' - provided by their law - to deny her of theirs, then they would be the ones to make her stateless as it's now the only nationality she holds.

We can both screenshot this and see whose right in six months time.
Deal?
 
Jimmycloutnail said:
I held my hands up to that as the rules changed with the UK in 2008 when the new human rights legislation changed but before this we were exempt from the rules

Golden balls and chipolata were adamant that no country had the power to make a person stateless, I’m still waiting for them to admit defeat
Click to expand...

No you simply didnt understand either what statelessness means or the concept of dual citizenship.

But still continued to claim some kindnof victory.

Having your own ignorance pointed out to you seems to be an addiction for you.
 
longboat said:
I did mention to you (someone like you anyway) in another thread, that she has an automatic right to Bangladeshi citizenship under their own law.
The decision made by the Home Secretary has in no way made the silly woman stateless, but if the Bangladeshi authorities also revoked her 'right' - provided by their law - to deny her of theirs, then they would be the ones to make her stateless as it's now the only nationality she holds.

We can both screenshot this and see whose right in six months time.
Deal?
Click to expand...
She has never been to Bangladesh and doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship so why should she be their problem?
Why do you think that Britain can dump their problems on other countries?
 
The hard of thinking keep marching on and keep thinking that they are what make Britain great o_Oo_O
 
Jimmycloutnail said:
I held my hands up to that as the rules changed with the UK in 2008 when the new human rights legislation changed but before this we were exempt from the rules

Golden balls and chipolata were adamant that no country had the power to make a person stateless, I’m still waiting for them to admit defeat
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to back up your claim that countries can make citizens stateless?

So far you have tried a Guardian article that clearly stated Oz actually couldnt.

And a caveat on a UN Charter that you didnt understand. Which again stated the UK couldnt.
 
chippie244 said:
She has never been to Bangladesh and doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship so why should she be their problem?
Why do you think that Britain can dump their problems on other countries?
Click to expand...

I have a 2 French vans. Does that mean The Saj could make me stateless.
 
goldenboy said:
No you simply didnt understand either what statelessness means or the concept of dual citizenship.

But still continued to claim some kindnof victory.

Having your own ignorance pointed out to you seems to be an addiction for you.
Click to expand...

Are you saying it’s all country’s are bound to the UN 1961 Reduction of Statelessness resolution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top