Interesting Links for 27-01-2023

[andrewducker]

1. I love living in a time where, when Sophia asks what a mooncup is, we can watch a short video like this to explain to her what a period is.

(tags:menstruation video )

2. High Court casts doubt on British citizenship of children of EU citizens -

(tags:law UK Europe citizenship OhForFucksSake )

3. Trans women athletes have no unfair advantage under current rules, report finds

(tags:transgender sports research LGBT )

4. New AI generates music from text

(tags:google ai music )

5. Ukrainian officers have been given tactical tank training in UK

(tags:ukraine uk military war russia )

Comments

[cmcmck]

3. Maybe they've finally realised what the changes in hormones do to a body!

[qilora]

my gf became addicted to chocolate, cmcmck, i am on your side on this one <3

[qilora]

2. – i hope that no matter what they decide, they will at least "grandfather" the children who were born before Brexit.

[hairyears]

The Home Office is very o - brand with this decision concerning children of EU citizens 'settled status'...

And FreeMovement.org are being far too polite about it:

The idea that the Home Office could from one day to the next, as a matter of simple policy, change the basis on which British citizenship was acquired as a matter of law, was always highly suspect.

The point, here, is that the Home Office have arrogated a power to retrospectively declare a class of people non-citizens, who currently enjoy the full legal rights of citizenship, together with right of residence and settled lives in the UK: non-citizens who can be denied passports, denied re-entry if they travel on the UK passports they've been issued, and even be detained and deported.

All this, without an Act of Parliament enacting this change of status into statute law.

And it's applied retrospectively, by ministerial fiat or as an administrative decision and this is now considered to be a power that these officials have and can use unless someone stumps-up tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds to contest this on the Appeal...

And in the Supreme Court, because the Home Office have a well-established policy of pursuing bad cases to exhaustion...

...And subsequently ignoring the courts and doing as they please, unlawfully, unless and until the courts attempt to impede them by injunctions and prosecution.


So the outlook is pretty bleak here, and our starting point is that a court has ruled in their favour already, that Home Office officials' retrospective revocation of citizenship is a permissible administrative decision, not a matter of law to be decided by a court at which the targeted citizens might argue their case.

For the avoidance of doubt: the current state of the law is that all this is 'legal': and it's a legal precedent permitting similar policy decisions to be made accordingly.

The Home Office have wanted this ability to set aside statutory rights, by fiat, for a long, long time.