Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Whether she is guilty or not she should still be allowed access to proper medical care.

She is a project manager with Thomson Reuters Foundation - not everyone who is connected with Reuter’s will be a journalist but hey let’s believe Iran because their record on press freedom is to die for (sometimes literally). As for the poster who didn’t know the mother had gone with her little girl to see her parents (and the child’s grandparents) I despair - not knowing a basic fact like that gives you absolutely no right to any opinion quite frankly

If you look at the website of the Thomson Reuters Foundation it is possible to see, I think, what the Iranian authorities might be objecting to. The Foundation does appear to be an activist foundation and, while it looks like one whose objectives most westerners would probably support, I'm not sure Iran would see it in the same light.

Which doesn't justify denying a prisoner medical treatment but perhaps support for "socio-economic progress" and efforts to "empower people" in a country that doesn't want foreign interference could be seen, from their point of view, as decidedly unwelcome.

Harsh words maryeliza54. Feel better now for your self righteous indignation?

Maybe harsh but accurate - unlike the basis of some posters opinions.

I think it's worth emphasising that everyone is entitled to an opinion and to express it, even if others think it has no value.

You must be fun at a dinner party.

Foolish to have gone in the first place, grandparents or not, they could have used the internet to keep in touch. this is what makes it suspicious. She should not be denied medial treatment though.

She knew her country better than any of us and should have known the risk.

She is still a British citizen and has not been served well by our diplomats, especially the ex-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson who was too lazy to bother to understand the facts and uttered rubbish which made her plight worse. The new Foreign Secretary may have tried to repair the situation but to no effect.

A poster criticised NZR for going to Iran without knowing the very basic fact that she was visiting her parents there. Any opinion given about her going on the visit without knowing that basic fact is so uninformed as to be utterly useless and therefore open to criticism. Having said all that, given our history with Iran, it’s understandable that they view us and anyone with links to the BBC with deepest suspicion ( and she was a training assistant with the BBC for about 18 months in 2009/10) Tgats why fuckwit BJ should have trodden carefully and accurately but he’s totally incapable of that type of behaviour. JH is behaving like a grown up over this but so much damage has been done

They said they were on a family holiday but who on earth takes their little ones to that sort of place for a family holiday
Yes, they were visiting her parents and taking the little girl to see her grandparents. I wonder if the grandparents were not allowed out of the country for some reason, to visit the family in the UK? It is possible for Iranians to visit the UK.

I think Nazanin must have been aware of the dangers of going home on a visit, so surely would have been careful not to do anything to endanger herself or her child.
However, even something she had done years before might have been enough to make the Iranian officials suspicious, or even just connections she had to people about whom the Iranians had objections.

This, from the DM at the time of the furore over BJ’s comments:

In what looked like the beginning of a climbdown, after letting Boris Johnson be viciously dumped on for a week, “Richard Ratcliffe revealed Iran had been looking at extending her {Nazanin’s) sentence before Mr. Johnson’s gaffe, telling ITV news: “In fairness, there were hints of new charges before he made the comments. Richard Ratcliffe knows better than anyone that as confirmed in the Daily Telegraph report of 9th October, the fresh charges had been detailed in full by then. - in other words, Boris Johnson’s comment affected absolutely nothing.’

This is why, as per my very first post on this topic, I think there’s more than meets the eye here.

Nails and coffins come to mind

varian. NZR is not a British Citizen in Iran, but a Iranian born National.
And as such she is not entitled to diplomatic assistance from the British Embassy, or any other Embassy she may have dual nationality with, exactly the same as any other dual national around the world, whether they be British/French, German/ British or Iranian/British.

I thought she was a British/Iranian ? Or is that by marriage or what ? Dual ?

A British citizen with dual nationality status enjoys the same rights and privileges as all citizens of UK This includes the right to reside in UK permanently, including the right to leave and re-enter the country at any time.

www.inbrief.co.uk/immigration-law/dual-nationality/

Do those applying for British citizenship have to swear on oath as they do in Australia when applying to become an Aussie ?

Is she a British citizen or a British subject?
That would mean a difference in what help the FO can offer.

EllanV including 'to defend Australia in time of war'!
Although I think that may have been removed fairly recently.

She couldn’t be a British Subject - totally impossible. She has dual Iranian / British nationality

Is there a legal difference between British subject, British national and British citizen?

Yes - it’s all tied up with the Commonwealth and part of our arcane immigration legislation over the years. I would say google it but it’s not a fun read ( unless you are really really bored). As Iran is not and never was in the Commomwealth, NZR could never have been a British subject.

She has British nationality, a British passport, the right to live in the UK and to be represented by British diplomats. She is one of HM the Queen's subjects. As a UK citizen, she is also a Commonwealth citizen. What is the difference?

It’s an incredibly important difference
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

The crucial bit

“British citizens are not British subjects under the 1981 Act. The only circumstance where a person may be both a British subject and British citizen simultaneously is a case where a British subject connected with Ireland (s. 31 of the 1981 Act) acquires British citizenship by naturalisation or registration. In this case only, British subject status is not lost upon acquiring British citizenship. The status of British subject cannot now be transmitted by descent, and will become extinct with the death of all existing British subjects.”

So no British citizen born after 1981 is a British subject?