Lisa Smith home.

Should this thread be closed now? Don’t want her case thrown out on a technicality.

Beechwoodspark

Boggles wrote: »

No but you were offering incorrect "legal expertise". And you want people to eat humble pie over theirs, but you ain't hungry it would seem.

I was saying what I would like to see happen.

Not posing and blustering as a legal authority

Boggles

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I was saying what I would like to see happen.

Not posing and blustering as a legal authority

Dig up outta that large hypocrisy hole lad.

:pac:

Beechwoodspark

Boggles wrote: »

Dig up outta that large hypocrisy hole lad.

:pac:

Plenty of humble pie for various deluded folk on this thread to go round

Cream or ice cream with yours sir??

tuxy

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I was saying what I would like to see happen.

Not posing and blustering as a legal authority

But why were you saying her citizenship should be removed when you knew it was a legal impossibility?
That is deliberately propagating legal misinformation.

c.p.w.g.w

osarusan wrote: »

I guess this is where the 'she just wanted to live in an Islamic state' defence is coming from.


Hopefully there's enough to pin something on her.

I wonder when she was abroad, did her family sent her money?

Beechwoodspark

tuxy wrote: »

But why were you saying her citizenship should be removed when you knew it was a legal impossibility?
That is deliberately propagating legal misinformation.

It’s not legally impossible. Would ruffle a few feathers in the UN but worth it in this case

mcmoustache

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I see some of the self appointed experts are still giving their two cents on the case.

People are genuinely curious about what would be required to have her punished. In the real world, charges are brought if there is enough evidence the suspect has actually broken the law. In other words, there has to a statute that can be pointed to and it must be demonstrated that it applies to the case.

That's how the real world works. Nonsense about wanting her locked up or hung from a tree or whatever might make posters feel better but it doesn't explain anything. Thinking people like to understand the details of how this person can be locked up within our legal system. She's not going to get locked up for the sake of it and she's not going to get hung from a tree. The only way she gets punished is through our legal system so it's perfectly natural for people to want to know what she can be charged with.

tuxy

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

It’s not legally impossible. Would ruffle a few feathers in the UN but worth it in this case

isn't it only removal of naturalisation that there is legal framework for in this country?

ohnonotgmail

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

It’s not legally impossible. Would ruffle a few feathers in the UN but worth it in this case

It is legally impossible.

Beechwoodspark

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is legally impossible.

No it’s not. It would just require a constitutional change which I think would be passed easily.

Boggles

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Plenty of humble pie for various deluded folk on this thread to go round

Cream or ice cream with yours sir??

I don't require any, you can have a double helping though so you are hilariously trying to call out people multiple times all ready for something you have fully indulged in yourself..

Absolute parody. :pac:

Beechwoodspark

Boggles wrote: »

I don't require any, you can have a double helping though so you are hilariously trying to call out people multiple times all ready for something you have fully indulged in yourself..

Absolute parody. :pac:

I’m not pompously predicting court and legal outcomes

I’m advocating certain positions

Note the difference.

But you knew that.

Boggles

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’m not pompously predicting court and legal outcomes

I’m advocating certain positions

Note the difference.

But you knew that.

ohnonotgmail

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

No it’s not. It would just require a constitutional change which I think would be passed easily.

So it is legally impossible now. thank you for confirming that. Generally when we say something is impossible we are referring to the here and now not at some point in the future after making fundamental changes to the law. Also, it is not the constitution that stops us from doing it. it is a UN treaty that we are signatories to that prevents us from making somebody stateless. what was that about humble pie?

Beechwoodspark

Impossible means not possible

I’ve given answers as to how a change could be possible

I’m ok for humble pie.

I’ll have a slice of winning argument cake though

tuxy

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

No it’s not. It would just require a constitutional change which I think would be passed easily.

So what your saying that anything is possible legally all it takes is a simple constitutional change? If constitutional changes were simple then you would have a point. But we all know the reality is that major changes usually take decades.
Are you saying we start the process now and remove her citizenship in a few decades?

The point you are trying to make is that everyone is correct on their legal advice, it just requires completely changing the law.
Great point!

ohnonotgmail

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Impossible means not possible

I’ve given answers as to how a change could be possible

I’m ok for humble pie.

I’ll have a slice of winning argument cake though

You weren't asked how a change could be possible. You were asked if it is possible. as in now, at this moment. you were also wrong about a constitutional change being required. and if a constitutional change was required it would make no difference in this case as we do not backdate laws. I'm struggling to find anything in your posts that was actually correct.

Boggles

To be fair he is just a simple travelling sales man who gauges the public daily oddly enough on the sole topic of immigration.

He never claimed to be Matlock.

Beechwoodspark

Boggles wrote: »

To be fair he is just a simple travelling sales man who gauges the public daily oddly enough on the sole topic of immigration.

He never claimed to be Matlock.

Not on the sole topic of immigration. Mainly topical issues of the day. Often political sometimes sports sometimes entertainment.

emo72

She's safer in prison. There's a small section of our society who would see any person wearing a burka or niqab, as possibly being Lisa Smith. And therefore possibly attacking them. I'm sure our Muslim sisters are delighted she's incarcerated. Safer for everyone.

nthclare

So the posters who said she'll definitely get charged with something were right,and those who scoffed at that are wrong.

But yet the one's who said she'll not be charged are spinning left right and centre.

Why can't people just say, ok I was wrong.

Instead of bouncing around like kindergarten kid's unable to admit they are wrong.

Beechwoodspark

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You weren't asked how a change could be possible. You were asked if it is possible. as in now, at this moment. you were also wrong about a constitutional change being required. and if a constitutional change was required it would make no difference in this case as we do not backdate laws. I'm struggling to find anything in your posts that was actually correct.

So we can change the laws on citizenship without constitutional change? That’s even better news.

Beasty

I understand charges have been made so locking this thread