What type of law do you practise... I suspect not International law. Not defending her but I suspect Braverman is far more qualified than you goodself in that field... Calling her "stupid" does reflect very badly on you. Read law at Queens' College, Cambridge. During her undergraduate studies, she was president of the Cambridge University Conservative Association.[12] Braverman lived in France for two years, as an Erasmus Programme student and then as an Entente Cordiale Scholar, where she studied a master's degree in European and French law at Panthéon-Sorbonne University.[13] Career Braverman was called to the bar at Middle Temple in 2005.[14][15] She completed pupillage at 2–3 Gray's Inn Square (now Cornerstone Barristers)[16] but did not start tenancy there, beginning practice at the London branch of a large Birmingham set, No5 Chambers. She worked in litigation including the judicial review "basics" for a government practitioner of immigration and planning law.[14][17] She passed the New York bar exam in 2006 and was thereafter licensed to practice law in the state. That licence was suspended in 2021 after she did not re-register as an attorney. She was appointed to the Attorney General's C panel of counsel, the entry level, undertaking basic government cases, in 2010.[19]
Well her statements on the Internal Market Bill were such that she was either too stupid to understand the legal arguments, or wilfully and intentionally lying in breach of her professional obligations. You can pick which one you prefer, but either way she's not fit to practice and a disgrace to the profession.
Nobody has said that Braverman isn’t educated. Boris Johnson is highly educated. Being highly decorated academically has repeatedly proven to not be an indicator of actual intelligence in terms of making the right decisions, saying and doing the right things, in the role they find themselves. And it is certainly not an indicator of general competence or moral compass.
I am very anti Tory at the current time (and hugely disappointed in our country that more people aren’t, given what is happening in front of our eyes) but that is totally and completely irrelevant to this argument. My views on this are not motivated by my ‘anti-govt views’. I’m not so blinkered as to disagree with everything they do just because. Furlough, and the support given to businesses etc, by this Tory government is possibly the most socialist act by any U.K. government in a long time. It probably hurt them deeply to do it, but they of course had to. They are making up for it by eroding pretty much every other thing we have as a general public, but that is an argument for another thread and another day. I would love to see a Labour majority after the next election but that doesn’t mean I think Blair was right to take us to war for the sake of America’s oil prices. Nor does it make me think Gordon Brown was correct to sell off the bullion reserves for ten bob and a toffee crisp. The judge might have been a raving lefty who said no today. I mean I sincerely doubt it, but I don’t know otherwise. Whilst the decision to remove her citizenship and the argument to keep it away from her is no doubt politically motivated, my opinion that this action is completely wrong morally, at least questionable legally and also not consistent with decisions taken on other people, who are clearly guilty of worse atrocities than her, has nothing to do with which political wing I lean towards. This whole situation reeks of populism and hypocrisy.
We don’t know that she won’t either. On that basis then we should scrap parole boards as no- one is likely to ever to rehabilitate, which of course is nonsense as I’ve seen TV programmes and read articles where offenders have served their time and gone back into the community and joined/ led programmes to try and prevent people from going down criminal route. Toughness doesn’t come into it, it’s more likely about closing your mind about turning something negative into something that can benefit all, being pro-active really. In this particular case, I believe it’s a missed opportunity to show ‘potential’ others that it is a big mistake.
There's folk risking their lives (and sometimes losing them) and spending huge amounts to come to the UK to seek asylum. I'll take them all day long compared to a waste of space like Beheadi Begum. She's pi55ed on her chips and she can do one so far as I am concerned. Former terrorist. Yeh right.
And none of the folk risking their lives and spending huge amounts to come to the UK to seek asylum have any history akin to ‘beheadi’? The numbers have shifted more to European migrants in the last year or two but a large proportion still come from the Middle East; some will no doubt have been involved directly or indirectly with Islamic extremism. That doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to flee the regime and seek solace. I am not having a go at those seeking asylum by the way, they need our support. I’m just point out the failing in your argument. It might be unintentional but your sentiments are very hypocritical.
She is, as far as I can tell, not able to claim irish citizenship. There are rules and I dont think she qualifies. Agree with the case you put forward though. (Despicable person she is)But she would end up stateless.
Ok, I may be mistaken then. I thought that anyone born anywhere on the island of Ireland had the right to Irish citizenship, be that Irish or British territory. I know she moved to England quite young though so maybe it’s to do with that? Either way it doesn’t dilute the argument too much.
Anyone born in Northern Ireland - or living there for iirc 5 years - can claim British citizenship, Irish or both.