“Chill zippy, its not like I am calling your information or knowledge into question.:
ROFLMAO. That is exactly what you did.
You can do the research or not. You can believe it or not.
But the people who refuse to acknowledge this issue look suspect.
“Are you saying that you are a specialist in British law of 1961? Please give me some links, I would love to read up on it.”
Sorry miss defensive, but this reads to me like I am asking for more information.
Check your ego at the door please it’s getting in the way of your reasoning.
“There is no definition of “legitimate” in the Act. However, legal advice
suggests that English law, in considering questions of legitimacy, will look to
the law of the domicile of the father at birth. If that law treats a child as
legitimate, then English law will likewise recognise that status (Hashmi -v-
Hashmi [1972] Fam 36).”
The father was arguably domiciled in Kenya. Kenya allowed muslims multiple wives. Kenya would therefore regard the child as a Kenyan subject to the Crown.
I wrote a longtimer off as a troll last night, called her a bitch, in fact, which I shouldn’t have done.
Passions are high right now. Let’s wait until later to be enemies.