Quote Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone View Post
You seem to miss the point entirely here Swale

I believe the government believes that it has dealt with it by perfectly legally stripping citizenship from a dual national and not leaving her stateless (albeit there is some uncertainty about the Bangladeshi nationality - lets face it everyone wants to distance themselves from this woman). It has thus "fulfilled its obligation under international law" and has no further responsibility. She is appealing that stripping, and wanted to enter this country to manage her appeal. This is what she has lost this case on.

So she will then have to win the appeal and regain British citizenship.

If she does that, then the points you raise has validity because she becomes our responsibility again. But until then, she doesn't. There is no "innocent until proved otherwise" about it, its simply a civil court matter based on fact and law. I dont know enough about the detail to comment on how said appeal might go and a lot of the evidence given to the recent case has been redacted so we will not know for many years to come
I'm not missing the point at all, I realise what this case was about, the government stopping her entering the country to participate in her appeal regarding UK Citizenship - the Government doesn't believe it has acted perfectly legally, its completely aware that it is trying to pull a fast one, claiming she has dual citizenship to get around the International Law on this. Despite the fact that there is considerable doubt that she is entitled to dual citizenship, this from a government that is happy to accuse lawyers of using the law!!

As I made plain in my previous post, it isn't acceptable for a government to try and shirk its international responsibility on this, nor does it assist national security. The original decision was legally and morally flawed, but of course it suits the government to deny her the opportunity to challenge this.

The government is trying to shirk all responsibility, its an atrocious way for a civilised country to behave, especially one that prides itself as being a leader in law and morality amongst nations. It regrettably means that when the circumstances are reversed, we might well be in a position where we are forced to accept responsibility for someone where another country has done the same - I'll wait for the howls of protest from hypocrites when this happens.

Quite simply its an opportunistic political move designed to appeal to a certain voter base.

Everyone wants to distance themselves from this woman? Really on what basis do you offer that summing up? Quite a few people actually believe she has not been treated in accordance with international conventions which the Uk signed up to and this will get tested in time.

The decision of the government is neither legal or sensible.