To worry that I might lose my British citizenship one day because of the new law going through parliament?

[flashbac]

I was born here and so was one parent.

There is a Bill that has just been passed, while we were all distracted with shenanigans with parties and what not, that will allow citizenship to be revoked without notice.

I know the power to remove citizenship already exists but the without notice bit is quite scary. I assume that means someone could happily go about their business until they need to show right to be in the UK e.g new job or new rental and then poof, they can't access things and possibly get detained and then deported when they enquire about it and it's probably too late to contest it through the courts.

I know the responses will indicate how so many don't care, "don't do anything naughty then and they won't put you in the naughty bin ready to be turfed off to another land" but remember the right to protest, to give an example of how easy it will be to get on the wrong side of the authorities, will also be outlawed soon so anyone could be arrested, if the circumstances meant a person was driven to it, e.g you do a sit down protest outside a hospital because they covered up malpractice or, it's decided that a huge Amazon warehouse is built in the field behind your garden and you wanted to protest with your neighbours.

Lots of people will think this only affects 'foriners' so probably won't care. I think it's awful.

This law will mean there will be lots of people fighting as Lauri Love did - different law same 'safety' offered.

My family and many others were imprisoned, tortured, beaten and harassed for years by the British government using anti-terrorism legistlation and a 2 tier system for citizens. It didn't make the people of Britain any safer.

Unfortunately I know how easy it is to deny you rights when the government label you a terrorist, or a sympathiser or claim you glorify terrorism because of your heritage or religion.

@Storminamu

People who have the right to live in the UK but don't have citizenship are having their right to live here removed over tiny little reasons. There was one person, she was something like an NHS doctor, whose accountant made a fairly small error in the tax return, and then applied to amend the mistake. Which is something that happens all the time. That was the reason given for her no longer being allowed to work or rent a house in the UK.

Oh yes I remember that one.

She was deeemed of 'not having a good character' for actually pointing the mistake she did and wanting to pay more taxes when she realised....

@Viviennemary

Blowing people up and plotting terrorist acts to murder and maim innocent people is not fair and just either. I for one am glad this stand is being taken.

Totally agree. But seems there is a lot of support for citizenship rights of Terrorists, organised crime members, murderers and rapists in MN today!

@Graphista

Re "it'll keep us safer"

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

Very apt, Graphista.👏👏👏

Nothing to dowith suporting terrorist there @Whammyyammy.

Everything to do with avoiding someone who is innocent to find themselves in an impossiboe situation where thye don't have the opportunity to prove they are indeed innocent.

Miscarriages of justice happen.

That's why it's so important for EVERYONE to ensure that the system is fair.

When has a Two Tier system ever made a country safer? It didn't work in NI, it didn't work for the USA or South Africa.

@boogiewithasuitcase the police and crime etc bill CHANGES what is classed as a serious crime in a similarly woolly and hard to define way. It also gives the Home Secretary huge powers of autonomy

Graphista yes I had clearly used the wrong tense in my previous post. It is all very scary - and sneaky.

Wonder if Australia should sending back their British linked criminals.

They do.

"But seems there is a lot of support for citizenship rights of Terrorists, organised crime members, murderers and rapists in MN today!"

So you don't worry that spouses and children of British citizens, as well as many people who have given their working lives to this country, are getting excluded and now may have citizenship stripped from them to boot?

Can't you just see it? Dolores B from Ghana has lived her for 40 years, worked as a nurse, raised a family and become a citizen. Now she reaches retirement age and the government don't particularly fancy paying her her pension. Bye bye Dolores, we have no further use for you, you can go back to Ghana.

Them murderersnterrorists, though.

@LostForIdeas

Nothing to dowith suporting terrorist there *@Whammyyammy*.

Everything to do with avoiding someone who is innocent to find themselves in an impossiboe situation where thye don't have the opportunity to prove they are indeed innocent.

Miscarriages of justice happen.

That's why it's so important for EVERYONE to ensure that the system is fair.

I can see that point, but a miscarriage of justice can happen to any person, of any nationally, any race, in any country and for any crime.

This bill isn't intended for petty crime, motoring offences or shoplifting, its intention is intended for serious crimes such as terrorism and organised crime that result in other persons being willfully killed, it also includes people thar fraudulently obtained uk citizenship.

I really don't see an issue, its not affecting rights of people with dual citizenship unless they carry out the aforementioned crimes.

@PlanktonsComputerWife

"But seems there is a lot of support for citizenship rights of Terrorists, organised crime members, murderers and rapists in MN today!"

So you don't worry that spouses and children of British citizens, as well as many people who have given their working lives to this country, are getting excluded and now may have citizenship stripped from them to boot?

Can't you just see it? Dolores B from Ghana has lived her for 40 years, worked as a nurse, raised a family and become a citizen. Now she reaches retirement age and the government don't particularly fancy paying her her pension. Bye bye Dolores, we have no further use for you, you can go back to Ghana.

Them murderersnterrorists, though.

That wouldn’t happen though. There would be a national uproar if it did and quite right. That’s not what this is about.

It's almost touching, the naivety.

The Home Office do not obey their own rules when making citizenship and immigration decisions as it stands. Why do you imagine they are suddenly going to start to now?

That wouldn’t happen though. There would be a national uproar if it did and quite right. That’s not what this is about.

You believe that?

@LostForIdeas

Fwiw it's worth noting that the HO already is refusing to renew passprts.

There has been many children who had been given the british ctizenship, got a british passport all that to see their renewal been refused 'because we made a mistake at tha`t time and please could you prove again that the child is actually entitloed to be british' 18 years donw the line.... (aka at a time when you will be likely to NOT have all the documentation becauyse 1- the child has had his passport and 2- its a long time ago).

So what will be the consequence of that when both 'systems' are put into place?

And then you wonder why people are scred

OMG

That wouldn’t happen though. There would be a national uproar if it did and quite right. That’s not what this is about.

It has happened @Starcup, there was no national uproar, just increased suspicion against "other" British citizens. What part of recent British history are you struggling with?

@TooBigForMyBoots

That wouldn’t happen though. There would be a national uproar if it did and quite right. That’s not what this is about.

It has happened @Starcup, there was no national uproar, just increased suspicion against "other" British citizens. What part of recent British history are you struggling with?

Don’t start being arsey, it really does your argument no favours.

I was half considering what you were saying then until I ready your last sentence.

Can't you just see it? Dolores B from Ghana has lived here for 40 years, worked as a nurse, raised a family and become a citizen. Now she reaches retirement age and the government don't particularly fancy paying her her pension. Bye bye Dolores, we have no further use for you, you can go back to Ghana.

Yes, I can see it, unfortunately, as this has already happened to people who came over here on the Windrush as children.

And no, there wasn't enough of a 'national uproar' about it at the time.

It has also happened repeatedly to wives, husbands and children of British citizens since 2012. An estimated 100,000 families broken up or deported de facto. No uproar.

Don’t start being arsey, it really does your argument no favours... ...I was half considering what you were saying then until I ready your last sentence.

Oh apologies @Starcup, I get it, you cant take the truth if it's coming from the 2nd tier. I'll try to mind my Ps and Qs in future.

just don't get involved with terror or organised crime, which is pretty easy to avoid doing to be honest.

The police crime and sentencing bill will effectively redefine ALL people who protest in public as terrorist type criminals

So yes they are also making it easier for people to unwittingly become criminals and terrorists

Unwittingly as both bills are barely being mentioned in the msm and what is being reported is heavily biased

@Viviennemary these bills will redefine terrorists under uk law as basically anyone who publicly criticised this govt!

Literally doing so loudly in the street is going to be a crime under terrorism sector laws!

Nowhere near the threshold of conspiracy to commit violent acts or committing them

@Starcup not bollocks at all! A perfectly rational interpretation of what YOU said

How else can...

To enable the government to get rid of those commuting the most atrocious crimes

In the context of what we are discussing be interpreted?

This clause at the moment ONLY applies to immigrants and their descendants how is that NOT bigotry?

Not in a rage  just mostly bewildered that certain people can't and refuse to even to try seeing why this legal change is so very disturbing and unjust

@Whammyyammy oh come off it! Not supporting a very bigoted, totalitarian legal change in a democratic country is NOT the same as supporting ACTUAL terrorists!

Of course terrorism should be prevented and safety is important but it should NEVER be at the cost of a true democracy and civil liberties!

I was an army brat during the troubles, people I knew were killed by bombs. This is NOT something I take lightly AT ALL!

But what ultimately brought peace to Northern Ireland - was it continuing the demonisation and vilification of republicans and catholics?! No! It was TALKING in an open and honest and diplomatic way!

When has a Two Tier system ever made a country safer? It didn't work in NI, it didn't work for the USA or South Africa

Indeed!

Such laws and attitudes fuel division fear and hatred

I can see that point, but a miscarriage of justice can happen to any person, of any nationally, any race, in any country and for any crime

But they're MORE likely if a country's judicial system and laws are ALREADY biased and prejudicial

This bill isn't intended for petty crime, motoring offences or shoplifting, its intention is intended for serious crimes such as terrorism and organised crime that result in other persons being willfully killed,

have you actually read it?

I have taken the time to read this and the police crime sentencing and courts bill. Went through that one with a fine toothed comb before emailing my Mp who not only agreed but pointed out other worrying elements

I've boldened the more concerning elements

Clause 9 borders act

Notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship

In this section, “the 1981 Act” means the British Nationality Act 1981.

In section 40 of the 1981 Act (deprivation of citizenship), after subsection (5) (which requires notice to be given to a person to be deprived of citizenship) insert— 30

“(5A) Subsection (5) does not apply if it appears to the Secretary of State that [this means the home sec currently priti patel of course) —

(a) the Secretary of State does not have the information needed to be able to give notice under that subsection,

(b) it would for any other reason not be reasonably practicable to 35 give notice under that subsection, or

(c) notice under that subsection should not be given—

(i) in the interests of national security [ which is undefined and broad reaching)

(ii) in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country,
or
40 (iii) otherwise in the public interest. [could also be used as a "catch all"]
(5B) In subsection (5A), references to giving notice under subsection (5) are to giving that notice in accordance with such regulations under section 41(1)(e) as for the time being apply.”

In section 40A of the 1981 Act (appeals against deprivation of citizenship), for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) A person—
(a) who is given notice under section 40(5) of a decision to make an
order in respect of the person under section 40, or 5
(b) in respect of whom an order under section 40 is made without the person having been given notice under section 40(5) of the
decision to make the order,
may appeal against the decision to the First-tier Tribunal.” [How?! If they're stripped of their nationality they can't use uk courts and if they're given no notice how are they supposed to start this while they still have citizenship?]

In the British Nationality (General) Regulations 2003 (S.I.2003/548), in 10 regulation 10 (notice of proposed deprivation of citizenship), omit paragraph
(4).
A failure to comply with the duty under section 40(5) of the 1981 Act in respect
of a pre-commencement deprivation order does not affect, and is to be treated
as never having affected, the validity of the order. 15
In subsection (5), “pre-commencement deprivation order” means an order made or purportedly made under section 40 of the 1981 Act before the coming into force of subsections (2) to (4) (whether before or after the coming into force of subsection (5)).
A person may appeal against a decision to make an order to which subsection 20 (5) applies as if notice of the decision had been given to the person [ seriously this quote could be in "1984"] under section 40(5) of the 1981 Act on the day on which the order was made or purportedly made.

its not affecting rights of people with dual citizenship unless they carry out the aforementioned crimes.

I think more accurately unless they are ACCUSED of the aforementioned crimes

Orwell and Philip K dick would have a FIELD DAY with this crap!

Doublethink galore!

Links to both bills here

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/43970/documents/1042

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/44307/documents/1132

That wouldn’t happen though

Already did/is!! - windrush! Among other examples

@Starcup but all of your posts DO indicate you have a poor understanding of recent history on such matters

@TooBigForMyBoots

Don’t start being arsey, it really does your argument no favours... ...I was half considering what you were saying then until I ready your last sentence.

Oh apologies @Starcup, I get it, you cant take the truth if it's coming from the 2nd tier. I'll try to mind my Ps and Qs in future.

What you ok about, it’s not the truth, it’s the attitude! I’m ‘second tier’ or are you conveniently forgetting that?!….

Anti terrorism measures. Famous for actually working and not being abused

A family who were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for two IRA bombings have said they still suffer with the anguish and pain of the experience.

The Maguire family were blamed for being behind the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings in 1974.

Anne Maguire told BBC NI documentary A Great British Injustice that she still cries when she is on her own.

All seven had their convictions quashed in 1991.

nnie Maguire, her sons Vincent and Patrick and daughter Anne Marie spoke to BBC presenter Stephen Nolan
Anne Marie, who was was only eight-years-old when her parents went to prison, says that she "suffers with paranoia".

Meanwhile Patrick Maguire, who was 13-years-old when was arrested, says he has never been able to shake the memories of being put in solitary confinement for a month.

In December 1974, Annie, her late husband Patrick and son's Vincent and Patrick, then aged 16 and 13, were arrested, along with four other adults, on suspicion of involvement in the Guildford IRA bombings.

The four were all convicted on the basis of false confessions extracted after physical abuse and threats by Surrey police while detained under anti-terrorism laws.

Among the coerced confessions was the assertion that the Maguire household was a bomb factory.

Patrick Maguire was only 13 when he was arrested

Despite rigorous searches by the police of the Maguire's home and the surrounding areas, no bomb-making paraphernalia was ever found.

But the Maguire Seven, as they became known, were charged based on the discovery of what was claimed to be the explosive substance nitro-glycerine on their hands.

All seven were convicted, with Annie and her husband jailed for 14 years each.

Their sons Patrick and Vincent were given sentences of four and five years respectively.

Anne Maguire's brother Sean Smyth; her brother in law Guiseppe Conlon and family friend, Patrick O'Neill all received 12-year-sentences.

The Maguire Seven all served their sentences apart from Guiseppe Conlon, who died in prison in 1980, before the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction.