You know, given that the current ruling class in Britain is so keen on it all and that:
A court in Bangladesh has sentenced the British MP Tulip Siddiq to two years in jail after a judge ruled she was complicit in corrupt land deals with her aunt, the country’s deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina.
We sending her off to serve her sentence then? If not, why not?
No, of course not. This will be a bit of ‘international law’ that former human rights patsy Starmer will inexplicably choose to ignore.
As the Prime Minister and his chum Hermer repeatedly prove, being an expert lawyer means you just know when “international law” is relevant and when it’s not. Strangely, this always seem to coincide with whatever they want to do…
While not as blatantly obvious as ‘two tier’ justice for non- Whites, (Indeed expect if you are found guilty of something, even an overdue library book, the Nathan Gill Treatment) special consideration for women is baked into the justice system, and even more so for women of colour – so she’ll be ok.
If they did, they could deport other Bangladeshi’s. And they don’t want to set that precident ;-(
Team Tulip say they were never served with the case and evidence details so it isn’t fair. Bangladesh authorities say they served them on her registered address in Dhaka which she could have changed to her London address but that would involve admitting she has a Bangladesh passport and ID which Team Tulip denies having had since being an adult despite her appearing to travel from Moscow to Dhaka in 2013 without obtaining a visa. I’m confused.
Just learned that Tulip Siddiq, a UK national she says, born in the UK, and who had no formal political power in Bangladesh, confessing on tv to having 1/10th the power of the actual leader of Bangladesh at the time of the allegations. That’s a massive amount of power for someone so remote, how did it come about. Still so confused.
This is not a matter of international law but of the Bangladeshi legal system which fails the standard demanded by the UK legal system to justify an extradition treaty.
The claim that Tulip Siddiq *coerced* Sheikh Hasina is implausible, to say the least
Extradition can’t work. Every time Bangladesh would send a party to arrest her, they’d just stay in UK.
Who would go back? She won’t go back by herself.
No idea whether it’s true or not, but I’d hardly say it’s utterly implausible.
It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with plausible scenarios. For example, if Tulip had had information about criminal activity by her aunt, that would stand up in an international court, particularly connected to illegal funds held in Europe, it would have been relatively easy for her to threaten to use her UK position to investigate and confiscate those assets. No idea what happened, but that’s got to be a ‘plausible’ scenario.
Would it be libellous, Tim, to suggest she is a spivvy shit, sighted?
And don’t worry, I am not going to prejudice any potential legal proceedings at all or bring possibly litigious people knocking on your door. (And it is after all me lives near to certain MMA specialists)