Eva Vlaadingerbroek has been banned from travelling to the UK

[happydappy2]

https://x.com/EvaVlaar/status/2011480716165484637?s=20

I am seriously worried for the future of this country.

And also an entire match was cancelled in Tel Aviv because of Maccabi and rival fans fighting. Israël frequently sanctions their own football clubs, including Maccabi Tel Aviv who are known for causing trouble. Up to and including banning fans from watching or cancelling matches. Israël gets stick for a lot of things. But even their most vehement and unfair critics don't accuse them of anti-Semitism. So I don't think it's fair to extend that criticism to Birmingham police.

"He is a UK citizen so it is different."

Tangentially/peripherally. His mother is a British citizen because her mother gave birth to her here in Britain, ie birthright citizenship. Although with respect, she sounds like a nutcase as well, having gone on a food and fluids strike while her son was in prison. How does "I'll die if you don't release my criminal son, do you want that on your conscience?" sound sane? She really sounds like a mentally unstable mother to me. He broke the law (unless the Egyptian authorities are as corrupt as our own).

Edited for brevity.

Seriously baffled by the constant “but they’re violent” comments. We know that. And that’s not how WMP reached their decision.

Do people use umlauts on Israel, I’ve not seen it before

Yeah, the use of AI was a serious fuck up and deserved criticism. It's also concerning because it suggests it may well be being used in appropriately by police forces in other situations and never picked up on. There needs to be a reckoning about it. But that doesn't have much bearing on Eva Vlaadingerbroek's visa.

My phone did just for that post. I have no idea why it what it means. Maybe it thinks it's a name or a place name?
Israël straat. Israël straatbeeld. Israelstraat

Hmm. Too late to edit. Sorry.

Just to add; to me, going on a hunger strike is no different to a child threatening to hold their breath if something isn't done. What's that going to achieve? They'll pass out and then wake up again. Scared the daylights out of the parents and got nowhere near to them giving in anyway. It's just stupid and fickle.

I just checked. Its the Dutch spelling thats why. My phone had both languages on it. Too much talk of the Netherlands!

None of which makes the treatment of a citizen any more relevant to the treatment of a putative visitor. There's no such thing as a peripheral British citizen in any case, you either are or aren't, but even if there were ranked categories of citizenship the lowest would still be totally different to someone who doesn't hold any of them.

El Fattah's case simply doesn't have anything to do with Eva.

I don't like Eva but if she was imprisoned in the Netherlands merely for the things she has posted about Keir Starmer. Or if the Dutch were trying to remove her citizenship, or allow her to be imprisoned in another country for protesting the military dictatorship I would say that was unequivocally wrong. I don't have to like someone or agree with them to support their human rights. But that isnt what happened.

Some women and children were being undressed and put in pornographic poses without their consent. When this was criticised Eva wrote an angry rant about the critics on Twitter in which she called Keir Starmer evil and did some whataboutery re grooming gangs. She then posted a sad faced picture of her in a car saying she had been banned from the UK because of the tweet. I have no idea of whether the tweet had anything to do with it but it's an amazing example of someone dragging the status of victimhood onto themselves and away from the, you know, actual victims of non consensual porn who were the topic of discussion in the first place. Despicable.

Of course they may make flawed decisions. They are human. But they have to make the decisions that they make on the basis of the information that they have. We all do.

The people who are arguing in favour of this woman being allowed into the UK will also make flawed decisions. None of us are immune.

The fact remains that we have a system of immigration control, and the standard checks and balances have resulted in this woman being blocked from entering the country. Just because the OP might not find her particular brand of threat to be concerning doesn't mean that the wrong decision was reached.

What happens when they make decisions based on information they don’t have? Or have made up? You might want to read up on the details of the WMP decision.

No one in their right mind is defending the way the decision was made and writing it off as ‘human error’.

I don't need to read up on that, I'm well aware of the details. But I'm not sure what the relevance of that story is to this particular case. Are you claiming that the decision to block this woman from entering the country was based on AI hallucinated information that wasn't actually correct? If so, can you link to a reliable source of evidence for this?

No, I posted up thread responding to someone (can’t remember who, apologies if it was you) who suggested that those in receipt of the intelligence are in the best position to make decisions be it visas or banning football fans.

My question to that is, really? Maybe they are the only people we have in control of intelligence, doesn’t mean the decisions are always the right ones. As WMP have proven.

She doesn’t have a right to visit the UK, as an EU national she requires permission and the first part of that is an ETA, permission to travel here, this has been revoked. As she is not British (or Irish) and has no ETA she needs a visa. As far as I can see from this thread she does not have a deportation or exclusion order against her so is not “banned”. As for the question regarding how long being conducive to the public good been a requirement to enter the UK- since before she was born- it appears in the Immigration Act 1971 which is the primary legislation regarding this countries rules on immigration. Those entering without leave or permission down on the south apply under different legislation as they are claiming asylum.

So what would you suggest is the alternative?

The most basic, fundamental right of citizenship is that you are always allowed to be on that country's soil. The only way to remove citizenship, once granted, is if it was obtained fraudulently.

(Unless you are from New Zealand and then they may make you effectivly stateless if there happens to be a pandemic and they are scared to let you in.)

This is (one reason) why many countries don't have that kind of birthright citizenship, but that's really another issue. It's nothing to do with Starmer.

Another nut job.

I think we scrapped that as an automatic right in the 80s didn't we? I could be wrong, I only know about it tangentially because we were in the opposite position with my son (born overseas to British parents) so I was reading about the rules.

Either way, I agree with you about the rights of citizenship etc. It shouldn't be dependent on political views alone. And also, I don't like the idea of retrospectively changing the rules. If you get citizenship or permanent residency following the rules as they were at the time it seems very bad form to change them retrospectively.

They let you in during the pandemic if you were a billionaire though (Jeff Bezos). Crazy times!