ukclique > legal.* > legal.moderated

Paul Cummins (01.01.1970, 02:00)
In article <gd3pu3Fi4l8U1>, the_todal (The
Todal) wrote:

> Apparently he justifies this by
> saying she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. But there's no
> guarantee that Bangladesh would grant citizenship to someone with
> her history.


It ay be that he already has Bangladeshi citizenship. In the same way
that I already have other citizenships through birth. The fact that I may
not have exercised them does not deprive me of them.

If she is a Bangaldeshi citizen by birth or descent, then HMG is entitled
to deprive her of her British Citizenship.
Paul Cummins (01.01.1970, 02:00)
In article <MPG.36e10b92bca5baab989aed>,
Janet (Janet) wrote:

> Back then, people born in British colonies were classified as
> British citizens.


I think you misspelled "Subjects"
Paul Cummins (01.01.1970, 02:00)
In article <zNKdnYmV8cq0N-vBnZ2dnUU78bPNnZ2d>,
mjadams25 (michael adams) wrote:

> Supermarkets
> are now introducing ring pull cans for things like tomatoes; whereas
> before, with traditional cans frail people could use an automatic
> opener if necessary, with ring pulls you can't.


You can get a tool to help open ring-pull cans.
Paul Cummins (01.01.1970, 02:00)
In article <rx6uJAKHlTfcFAVv>, roland (Roland Perry)
wrote:

> I'm going to call foul on the whole subthread, having just opened a
> ringpull can[1] with a conventional can-opener, as easily as if it
> was a conventional can.
> [1] Of Heinz Chicken and Sweetcorn sup.


Which has a ridged, not rounded, bottom. I know this empirically, as I
have some in my kitchen cupboard.
Paul Cummins (01.01.1970, 02:00)
In article <0TFJxX56PtfcFA1i>, roland (Roland Perry)
wrote:

> >Which has a ridged, not rounded, bottom. I know this empirically,

> as I have some in my kitchen cupboard.
> It does, but why do you think that affects the openability of the
> top?


Because I have been unable to repeat your experimental results using
various types of manual or automaic can opener on the top of a similar
ring-pull can.

The can always fails at the ringpull cut point, not at the point of the
can-opener pierce point. This makes the lid just as hard to remove.
Paul Cummins (01.01.1970, 02:00)
In article <MPG.36ec5916ebe14a70989b26>,
Janet (Janet) wrote:

> If you wanted to get married, enter the armed forces in UK, apply
> for a British passport, or register the birth of a child in UK,
> you'd need your birth certificate.


I've registered three births and never been asked for my birth
certificate to do so.
Wm (15.02.2019, 21:05)
for reference
===
Shamima Begum: IS teen's return to UK 'could be prevented'
===

To be clear I think anyone that went off to join a caliphate that didn't
exist and wasn't even wanted by other people of the same faith was at
the very least foolish.

But let's progress, it appears one of the foolish young women wants to
come back home pregnant with her third child hoping s/he will live.

These 3 young women were, by any standards, behaving stupidly.

One of them is dead and another has decided to remain in servitude if
reports are correct.

===

Here is the legal point, what might she be prosecuted for?

If you don't know, I'm making a list of things I don't think she can be
prosecuted for:

Having sex with a bad person (happens every day)

Getting pregnant without asking your parents (happens every day)

Disobeying your parents (happens every day)

Not being squeamish when it comes to dead heads (happens every day,
think abattoir workers)

Being young and stupid (happens every day).

===

If she held a weapon or fired a shot, that is different.
The Todal (15.02.2019, 21:28)
On 15/02/2019 19:05, Wm wrote:
[..]
> reports are correct.
> ===
> Here is the legal point, what might she be prosecuted for?


A very good question. We've heard politicians say "if she has committed
an offence she must be prosecuted" but these politicians would do us all
a favour if they could draw attention to the sort of offences that might
have been committed as this would help to discourage further behaviour
of that type.

I'm only guessing here.

Terrorism Act 2000


According to the CPS code for prosecutors, "7. The actions of
individuals who travel from the UK to Iraq, Syria or Libya to
participate in the fighting there may be caught by the provisions of
section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000."


Also: Terrorism Act 2006


It seems that Sandeep Samra pleaded guilty to a section 5 offence on the
basis that it was her intention to travel to Syria as a nurse and that
she accepted that as a nurse in the Islamic State, she would have been
committing a terrorist act. Miss Samra accepted that she attempted to
travel to Syria by applying for a passport and that she sought advice on
travel to Syria and obtaining false identity documents. The basis was
rejected and the case proceeded to a trial of issue, namely whether she
intended only to support ISIS as a nurse or whether she intended to
engage in violence herself. The Hon. Mr Justice Inman QC found in the
Crown’s favour. Sandeep Samra was sentenced on 26 January 2018 to
three-and-a-half years in a young offenders’ institute, 12 months’
licence period and a 10-year Terrorism Notification order.
GB (15.02.2019, 21:29)
On 15/02/2019 19:05, Wm wrote:

> Here is the legal point, what might she be prosecuted for?


Without wishing to imply she is guilty, it's possible that she was
aiding a proscribed (terrorist) organisation. She could have done this
by providing money, for example, or in this case by providing services
in kind. :)

She's in a bit of a pickle, but I can't say that I am very sympathetic.
Bryan Morris (15.02.2019, 22:46)
In message <q472hl$69n$1>, Wm <wm_o_o_o>
writes
>Being young and stupid (happens every day).


So a female aged 15 is "young and stupid" the but Scottish Independence
Referendum Act 2013 allowed 16 year olds to vote for the first time and
16 year olds can vote in Scottish Parliament and local elections.

In fact Jeremy Corbyn supports all 16 year olds should be allowed to
vote in the UK

e-to-be-lowered-to-16

So what happens on a 16th birthday which turns "only a child" into
"mature enough to vote"
lordgnome (15.02.2019, 23:48)
On 15/02/2019 19:05, Wm wrote:

> If she held a weapon or fired a shot, that is different.


Hmm, I seem to recall a certain Irishman who was executed after WW2 just
for broadcasting what most people in Britain regarded as comedy
material, even though it was intended to demoralise.
newshound (16.02.2019, 11:44)
On 15/02/2019 19:05, Wm wrote:
[..]
> reports are correct.
> ===
> Here is the legal point, what might she be prosecuted for?


She's admitted being unfazed by the sight of baskets of severed heads.
That kind of suggests supporting terrorism to me (at least at the time).
But obviously, it is important to investigate before charging, let alone
before punishing. This is what differentiates us from them.
Tim Watts (16.02.2019, 13:54)
On 15/02/2019 20:46, Bryan Morris wrote:

> So what happens on a 16th birthday which turns "only a child" into
> "mature enough to vote"


A well known actor of left persuasion recently claimed they'd be in
favour of 14 year olds having the vote...

Left: "She was young and easily led"

Also the left: "The young should be able to vote".

(Not original to me - but I like pointing out contradictions).
Tim Watts (16.02.2019, 14:08)
On 16/02/2019 09:44, newshound wrote:
> She's admitted being unfazed by the sight of baskets of severed heads.
> That kind of suggests supporting terrorism to me (at least at the time).
> But obviously, it is important to investigate before charging, let alone
> before punishing. This is what differentiates us from them.


One of the problems we face is the fact that we have spent some decades
pushing for a liberal way of life and seeking to accommodate different
views and ways of life.

Which is good.

However, it has also brought with it, two problems:

1) Sometimes there are contradictions:

(Off topic for this thread)

When Group A, who have struggled for their rights as they see them and
largely succeeded;

Then Group A meet conflict due to the demands of a slightly newer Group
B who are also seeking their rights as they see them, which involves
Group A losing some of their rights.

(On topic)

2) Some people in the world are truly evil and our liberal approach to
justice is struggling to come to terms with the arguable need that in
some cases, harsh punishments are necessary to protect society.

Look at the times we've effectively exiled terrorists because we cannot
deal with them or we've allowed the US to extradite them because they
have a more robust judicial system.

We need to accept our own problem citizens back, but equally we need to
be able to deal with them such that society is protected - true life
imprisonment if necessary.

Currently the populace sees our judicial system as soft - cf: this:



We're effectively applying justice by proxy because we seem not to have
the means to apply it effectively at home.
GB (16.02.2019, 14:09)
On 16/02/2019 11:54, Tim Watts wrote:
> On 15/02/2019 20:46, Bryan Morris wrote:
> A well known actor of left persuasion recently claimed they'd be in
> favour of 14 year olds having the vote...
> Left: "She was young and easily led"
> Also the left: "The young should be able to vote".
> (Not original to me - but I like pointing out contradictions).


I understand the contradiction, but what's particularly "left" about
that? Do righties all think you need to be a much higher age to vote?

Similar Threads