So, as I was saying about passports

The prime minister unveiled a package of anti-terror measures in the Commons on Monday but was not able to include a widely trailed proposal to prevent British-born citizens returning to the country from Syria or Iraq if they were suspected of being involved in acts of terror.

Acknowledging the legal difficulties in preventing British citizens returning to the UK, admitting that it might render them stateless, the prime minister said new measures were still needed to prevent British jihadis returning.

….

 

The difficulties facing Cameron were underlined by the former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve, who warned that removing passports from UK-born citizens returning home would breach international law and UK common law.

Grieve said “even taking such powers on a temporary basis is likely to be a non starter”.

 

The twat announced as public policy something he knew was illegal.

57 comments on “So, as I was saying about passports

  1. You’re not getting it. We don’t live in a state that has the rule of law any more, or one where the law applies to government in a practical sense. We live in a state that makes the rules up as it goes along, and uses its bully boys in various departments to enforce whatever they want, whether or not its illegal. It will get the Home Office to remove their passports (or flag them up as not valid so they can’t leave the country) then refuse to give them a new one, and make the citizen try and use the law to enforce their rights, at every point opposed by the State. The individual has no chance. See the current case of the parents and the sick kid in Spain. All that action was entirely illegal by the State, but they don’t care, and don’t even pretend to obey their own laws any more. They just do as they please and fuck you to every one else.

  2. Jim, and don’t forget, if they lose lawsuits brought by the aggrieved and victimised (as seems likely in the case of Ashya King), we the taxpayer pick up the tab!

  3. As for the Eton Mess, Camoron–he seems increasingly desperate. He should go home, put his pinnie on and send his wife in to do the job. From what I hear she wears the pants.

  4. On a more narrow, political point: behold what manner of stupidities result after sacking your best law officer in order to replace him with someone supposedly more amenable.

  5. I’m conflicted. I hate and suspect the government and the bureaucracy as much as most on here, though not as much as some. However, all of our common law and custom and tradition originated, I think, in a time when:

    1) most ‘Britons’ essentially pulled together

    and

    2) those who would do others harm had a pretty limited reach.

    We have always had nutters; it was just that we could contain them reasonably easily, and we knew that we could.

    It’s all very well having laws to deal with one or two renegades armed with knives or guns who are swimming in a population that is 99.99% against them.

    I am just not sure that those same laws are adequate to deal with a much larger group of people:

    1) who are fanatically dedicated to the overthrow of our whole way of life

    2) who have access, or may soon have access, to far more efficient means of killing large numbers of people

    3) who are supported enthusiastically by an unknown percentage of our population

    4) who are supported tacitly by an unknown percentage of our population

    5) to whom an unknown percentage of our population are prepared at least to turn a blind eye

    6) who are at least to an extent protected in a group sense from the attentions of the organs of the State

    7) who have all the tools of the modern information age at their disposal.

    None of which means I support Cameron, who is just another liar of a politician, but who is also, I think, hoist on the legalistic, leftist petard that we have spent the last forty or fifty years, collectively, assembling.

    I don’t, I’m afraid, like the idea of lads from Blackburn going out to Syria to learn the arts of decapitation and IED construction and then coming back here to employ them, and I do think – for once – that ‘something must be done’ about it.

    What that something is I confess I am not sure.

    One way or another, I think that eventually it will come to Enoch’s rivers of blood, sadly (and I mean sadly).

    (I listened to Five Live this morning – God, I didn’t miss that in France – and for the first time I heard lots of [self-described] Muslim callers with trembling voices ringing in to denigrate ISIS. I think they may fear Enoch’s prophecy, too.)

  6. Just quoting “House” 😉

    My actual point should have been that politicians lie and think they can get away with it. Of course they have always lied. But now they lie purposefully and regularly. Blair made it an art. Cameron is just continuing the process.

  7. As I posted in the previous thread, the “keep them out” option is rendered impotent by the ECHR. So we are stuck with the bastards.

    Re – Interested

    You’ve hit the nail on the head there son. We have 80000 prison places against a total population of what 70 million?

    What happens when the criminality occurrence goes up by an order of magnitude? Are we going to build another 720000 places so we can bang them all up?

    Or is the rule of law going to fade away into history and we have anarchy on the streets? Rhetorical question that….

  8. It’s a mistake to think that when the government announces a policy that means it wants and intends to implement it. All the announcement means is that the government wants to make the anouncement.

  9. Julia, Jim>

    Are you insane? If the Kings insist on harming their child for the sake of their lunatic religion, then he ought to be taken into care. They knew that, which is why they removed him from hospital with no warning, and then went and hid.

    There is not, and never has been, a right for parents to abuse their children for religious reasons. It’s notable how quiet the usual suspects have been about this because this family aren’t brown.

  10. @Dave

    ‘If the Kings insist on harming their child for the sake of their lunatic religion, then he ought to be taken into care.’

    Was it anything to do with their lunatic religion? I heard the older brother on the radio saying it was not.

  11. PS The brother is called Naveed and he looks pretty brown to me.

    Not that I have the faintest idea what you’re on about there.

    Don’t you normally blame the Jews for everything?

  12. @Dave

    I see no indication that the Kings insist on harming their child, or any indication that their motivation is for the sake of what you seem to have assumed is their lunatic religion.

    On the contrary their desire seems to be to seek the best medicinal treatment.

    Their account is that they removed him without warning, as is their absolute right, was because they had been refused reasonable discussion with the refusal backed up by a threat of a Court Order.

    Checking a few facts always helps keep blind kneejerks in check…

  13. Interested>

    “Don’t you normally blame the Jews for everything?”

    No, that’s Ritchie you’re thinking of. I’m the one who keeps pointing out that his spiel is just thinly disguised anti-semitic propaganda from a century or more ago.

    “Was it anything to do with their lunatic religion? I heard the older brother on the radio saying it was not.”

    Except it was entirely down to it, so he was simply lying. They wanted to refuse treatment, the refusal of which will unquestionably harm their child, simply because their religion tells them to (in their minority, extremist interpretation).

    Matt>

    “I see no indication that the Kings insist on harming their child, or any indication that their motivation is for the sake of what you seem to have assumed is their lunatic religion.”

    Is that wilful or accidental ignorance on your part? That’s what this whole case is about.

    The parents fled the country just ahead of having their child taken into care because they wanted to refuse a blood transfusion – thanks, obviously, to being raving fundamentalist Jehovah’s Witnesses. They knew full well – having been explicitly told – that their options were to consent, to have the child taken into care, or to turn (as they in fact did) to crime.

  14. The parents fled the country just ahead of having their child taken into care because they wanted to refuse a blood transfusion – thanks, obviously, to being raving fundamentalist Jehovah’s Witnesses. They knew full well – having been explicitly told – that their options were to consent, to have the child taken into care, or to turn (as they in fact did) to crime.

    Every report I’ve seen makes that total bollocks: they took the kid abroad to get a form of treatment denied on the NHS; have lined up the Czech centre to get the treatment done; and are in Spain to flog an apartment to raise the cash to pay for it.

  15. Dave:

    If their religion insists they refuse treatment for their child, why take him to Spain to get treatment?

    The whole Jehovas Witness canard was a classic distraction. Whoever threw that out did it to kill the story, knowing 90% of people would think ‘ah, loony religion’ and forget all about it. Right out of the New Labour play book, a classic.

  16. If someone takes up another nationality – yes, even someone who was born in Britain and has been a British citizen from birth – then the UK does have the right to take away their British citizenship for doing so.

    Quite a few countries have rules where dual citizens – including native-born dual citizens – lose their nationality by demonstrating a greater loyalty to their other country.

    Now, if the Islamic State had a nationality recognised by the UK, then any UK citizen taking up IS nationality and serving in the IS military could have their UK nationality removed for doing so. But we’d have to recognise the IS as the government of their region and accredit diplomats…

  17. @Dave

    ‘The parents fled the country just ahead of having their child taken into care because they wanted to refuse a blood transfusion’

    What blood transfusions were required for his treatment?

  18. BiW>

    “Every report I’ve seen makes that total bollocks: they took the kid abroad to get a form of treatment denied on the NHS; have lined up the Czech centre to get the treatment done; and are in Spain to flog an apartment to raise the cash to pay for it.”

    Well, they’ve said different things at different times. They’re allegedly in Spain for treatment, or to sell an apartment, or because god told them to, or who knows what they’ve come up with now.

    Rob>

    “If their religion insists they refuse treatment for their child, why take him to Spain to get treatment?”

    And QED…

    “What crime did they commit?”

    The EAW was issued because of prima facie evidence of neglect.

    Inty>

    “What blood transfusions were required for his treatment?”

    Blood transfusions are necessary for the appropriate treatment proposed by the UK doctors. The alternative treatment is less appropriate, but doesn’t involve blood transfusions.

  19. We are not allowed to make people stateless (UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness). Citizenship can and has been already be stripped from dual nationalities: 27 since 2006 on national security grounds, 24 of those under the present government.

    The Royal Prerogative to withdraw passports has been exercised 14 times since April 2013. It can be challenged by judicial review. So far no such challenge has been brought. According to the Home Office, “There is no [legal] entitlement to a passport and no statutory right to have access to a passport. The decision to issue, withdraw, or refuse a British passport is at the discretion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the Home Secretary) under the Royal Prerogative. … A decision to refuse or withdraw a passport must be necessary and proportionate.”

    A TPIM may be issued to an individual, among other things ordering him to surrender his travel documents and/or restrict him from travelling to particular places. So far a total of ten people have been subjected to TPIMs, nine are British citizens. Three of those and the non-citizen were tried for terrorism-related offences and acquitted by a jury.

  20. On the basis of what I have seen so far I am on the parents’ side in this, don’t recall seeing the JW bollocks.

    I refuse to believe the presence of 300 “British” towel heads in Syria and Iraq represents an existential threat to this nation.

    A large number of the most enthusiastic ones will be killed, others will likely be so disgusted by what they have seen and done that they will slink back and keep their heads down. Others will move on elsewhere.

    If 10 or 20 come back 3-kings style then the amount of terror they can commit is pretty limited.

    I am far more concerned by the response of the Government which seems to be that this is the most dangerous thing since before Julius Fucking Caesar and so let’s abandon most of the littel that remains of what made Britain Fucking Great.

    Well Fuck off Cameron, you Cunt.

  21. The “JW and blood transfusions” stuff is a load of bollocks, as anyone with an open mind and ten minutes to spare for research would know.

    Taking your child out of a hospital which cannot or will not provide further treatment, and taking him somewhere where you can raise money to pay for better treatment is child neglect ? Fuck me. Child neglect is now not doing exactly what your ‘betters’ say, even if you know what the consequences will be. What a country.

    Note the police and the CPS have started to frantically backtrack today. Someone has told a really big porkie pie and the police have dived in two footed, and now realised what they’ve done.

    Still, push the loony religion angle 24/7 and they MIGHT just get away with it. There are always sheep around to bleat it for them.

  22. What’s really scary is how inured the public is to the attitude of politicians.

    Most of my friends have no interest in politics at all. When I breached pub etiquette and ranted about Cameron telling people what he was going to do, even though he couldn’t legally do it, the general attitude was, meh, they lie all the time.

    The bit that got everyone’s attention was when I pointed out that if you went down to your local nick and said, “I’m going to burgle the old Muslim lady next door”, would the Old Bill respond “meh”?

    PM declares illegal national racist policy and we all shrug our shoulders, but a citizen does it and he’s in deep shit.

    Funny old world…

  23. @Dave

    You should get some treatment for that hyperactive imagination of yours ! You are projecting your own general prejudice.

    Aysha King had already been operated on for removal of a brain tumour which suggests that they had no issue with blood transfusions in this case.

    As the Groan puts it (only one to hand):

    “Sometimes it will occur when doctors want to treat a child, as in Ashya’s case, and that includes blood transfusions, which, since Ashya underwent surgery, are not an issue here even though the family are Jehovah’s Witnesses, who generally are not allowed to accept blood tranfusions.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/01/ashya-kings-tale-hard-understand-hospital-silence

    The Blood Transfusion thing is a total red herring cum straw man here.

  24. Details of the Ashya King case are unclear, not least because the hospital in Southampton is respecting his medical confidentiality. But it is clear that despite his parents’ religion he has had major surgery, and that it’s wrong to accuse them of neglect.

    My guess is that doctors in Southampton have advised the parents that proton beam therapy won’t help him, because the cancer has spread. And that they’ve recommended chemotherapy and conventional radiotherapy instead, warning the parents that some degree of brain impairment would be caused by the treatment. And that the parents have refused to accept the recommendation.

    Suppose for the moment that the doctors in Southampton are right. Should we allow parents to make inferior medical choices for their children?

  25. “Suppose for the moment that the doctors in Southampton are right”

    Given the medical profession is finally coming round to the idea that saturated fat is not the cause of heart disease, and excess carbohydrate may very well possibly be, and that its advice to cut saturated fat and increase carbohydrate intake has very possibly caused millions of excess deaths over the last 30-40 years, I’d say that isn’t something one should suppose at all.

    But even if you do suppose that, its pointless, because in real life we don’t know who is right, so the decision has to be made beforehand who is better placed to decide, the parents or the doctors. And given the person(s) with the best interest of a child at heart are undoubtedly its parents I’d say they are best placed to decide. So in the absence of VERY good evidence to the contrary, the parents should always have the final say over the doctors.

  26. @Dave

    ‘Blood transfusions are necessary for the appropriate treatment proposed by the UK doctors.’

    No, they are not.

    (If they were he’d already have been a ward of court.)

  27. The EAW was issued because of prima facie evidence of neglect.

    Actually it wasn’t:

    Shead said the European arrest warrant was based around “neglect”, but added: “That does not necessarily mean they would be charged with that offence. It purely gives us the power to arrest, and then we’ll be able to speak to them.”

    So we obtain a warrant on a trumped-up charge, and then when we get hold of them we’ll decide what they’ve really done wrong? These fuckers aren’t even pretending any more, are they?

  28. PaulB: Suppose for the moment that the doctors in Southampton are right. Should we allow parents to make inferior medical choices for their children?

    It is extraordinary that you should even pose the question and frame it in such a way (“allow” for goodness’ sake!) that you clearly think that the medics should prevail.

    No! No! No! Responsibility for the child lies with the parents and only where the parents are incapable of acting in what they perceive are the child’s best interests, perhaps through some mental or physical incapacity, should a third party be invited to intervene.

    The consent form requiring the signature of a parent or guardian for a procedure on a child otherwise becomes a ‘consent-or-else’ form.

  29. Cameron is a fucking dickhead!

    And now I am expecting a SWAT team to break down my front door because I have divulged British top secret military intelligence!.

  30. When faced with one of those “what if” questions designed to imply that we should sacrifice some of our liberty to the state unequivocal brevity can be powerful. No negotiation, no apology, no explanation, just a simple “yes” or “no” depending on the question. The principle shouldn’t even be up for debate.

  31. So in your view parents have the right to kill their children? For example, by refusing a life-saving blood transfusion.

    I’m not saying that’s what’s happened in the case we were discussing, but that seems to be the logic of your position.

  32. It’s an incredibly large leap from

    Suppose for the moment that the doctors in Southampton are right. Should we allow parents to make inferior medical choices for their children?

    to

    So in your view parents have the right to kill their children? For example, by refusing a life-saving blood transfusion.

    I guess it takes a socialist to not see it.

  33. PaulB: So in your view parents have the right to kill their children? For example, by refusing a life-saving blood transfusion.

    Forgive me but you do have a tiresome habit of loading your questions which makes an exchange of views arduous to the point that it’s hardly worth the candle.

    In your view a hospital, underpinned by all the force of the state, should compel parents to accept one highly destructive form of treatment for their child which is the only treatment that hospital can offer when safer alternatives are available elsewhere.

  34. Paul B–never mind parents–in the statist/socialist shithole you favour–why should anyone–including YOU be allowed to make “inferior” medical choices. When those govt-backed medicos know so much better than you what is really good for you. Even if it isn’t.

  35. The dichotomy is genuine: either we sacrifice some parental authority to the state, or we give parents the power to kill their children through stupid treatment choices.

    Me, I think that if an adult wants to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion, that’s their right, but they should not be able to refuse it on behalf of a child.

    I’ve not expressed an opinion on the Ashya King case, other than to say that the parents have been badly treated. The information an oncologist would need to express a view on the treatment options is rightly not in the public domain.

  36. The dichotomy is genuine: either we sacrifice some parental authority to the state, or we give parents the power to kill their children through stupid treatment choices.

    So refusing treatment is the same as actively killing people, is it?

    Where does that leave your Liverpool Pathway defences, then?

  37. PaulB: an adult […] should not be able to refuse [a life-saving blood transfusion] on behalf of a child.

    But you need to explain what might be their rationale for so doing? Sheer caprice? Dislike of the child? An atavistic attachment to previous generations?

    Your straw man needs stuffing.

  38. TMB: “But you need to explain what might be their rationale for so doing?”

    They might be Jehovah’s Witnesses, who think that the Bible forbids blood transfusions. Or they might have seduced by quackery.

    TN: Nothing I’ve said about the LCP supports the denial of life-saving treatments.

  39. We do not need to sacrifice parental authority to the state. Parents have a duty of care towards their charges. Dereliction of that duty of care where it causes harm is adequately covered in law. Refusing treatment, having listened to medical advice, is not the same thing as killing someone. As for stupid treatment choices – well, that’s merely a sweeping generalisation.

    Your straw man needs stuffing.

    Whenever someone says “so in your view…” or words to that effect, I hear the sound of a strawman being constructed and this one is a classic.

  40. As anyone who’s had serious surgery knows, doctors don’t tell you what you’re getting, like it or lump it. They explain the treatment, its pros and cons, its risks, and then you decide. In cases like this, where the treatment itself is painful and harrowing and nasty and risky and doesn’t even have brilliant success rates, it is entirely normal for grown adults to say “No, thanks.” That’s not even opting for a different treatment in a different hospital or country; it’s simply choosing to die instead. And, when they do, no-one classes that as suicide, because it isn’t suicide.

    So why the completely different moral and legal standards for a child, PaulB?

    The whole point of parenthood is that you have to make these decisions for your children. Sometimes those decisions are awful to contemplate, and I have profound sympathy for any parent who wishes to shrug the responsibility off onto a doctor. But they don’t have to.

  41. Richard Gadsden,

    > If someone takes up another nationality … then the UK does have the right to take away their British citizenship for doing so.
    > Now, if the Islamic State had a nationality recognised by the UK, then any UK citizen taking up IS nationality and serving in the IS military could have their UK nationality removed for doing so. But we’d have to recognise the IS as the government of their region and accredit diplomats…

    No, we wouldn’t. We don’t have to insist that this can only apply to geographical nation-states with internationally recognised governments. Why shouldn’t we simply specify that certain ideologies are, for the purposes of allegiance to them, equivalent to nationality?

    I’m sure IRA members would find the idea that revoking their British citizenship makes them stateless hilarious. ISIS members would presumably find it merely incorrect, rather than hilarious, as they have no sense of humour.

  42. +++++“in choosing to quit the UK to fight abroad, [UK National Islamic State Fighters] have rendered themselves effectively stateless by conforming to an ideology of wanting to create a terrifying caliphate. If they choose to leave the UK they simply should not be allowed to return. Where intelligence identifies UK nationals fighting for IS their repatriation absolutely should be blocked.”+++++

    OMG, that fashisht bastard twat Camero-

    Oh.

    Ah.

    No. Well actually that was glorious party leader Nigel Farage, who also called for the confiscation of passports.

    http://ukipnews.co.uk/?tag=news

    So, as you were saying, Tim…

  43. S2: I agree, adult patients should choose from the sensible treatment options the one that best suits their preferences, not least when there’s a trade-off between quality and quantity of life. And when the patient is a young child, the parents should make the decision for them.

    The difference is that adult patients should also be free to choose a non-sensible treatment option for themselves, but not for their children.

  44. Here’s a analogy – current law states that an insult/assault is racist if the person at whom it was directed, decides it’s racist. Sauce for the goose then, if little Mo from Bradford decides he’s a citizen of IS, he is. Not stateless at all.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.