Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
"A person who is a national (like or more comprehensive than being a citizen)"
Nick, I do not think that makes sense. What does national mean (because in the context of the UK it is to put it mildly confusing (See for example English people, Welsh people, etc). AFAICT what you man is the nation/state under which a person is domiciled which is not the same as the nation to which they belong. Many people are a citizen of more than one country (they can hold dual citizenship and they may consider themselves members of several nations. But under law they can only hold one domicileity.
See "[http:www.offutt.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-081001-054.pdf Changing you state of Domicile]" which is a US military document and seems aimed at Americans moving within the US.
A search of the UK government domain name returns lots of stuff on domicile and treaties.
There is a more comprehensive description here: Annex FM 1.5 - Domicile (74KB opens in a new window. It describes were a child is domiciled under UK law.
It states "Generally a person can only have a domicile within a territory subject to a single system of law. This means that normally a person cannot, for example, be domiciled in the United Kingdom, but would be domiciled within England and Wales or in Scotland."
Which is why I used the term federal in the edit I made (because I did not want to go into the details of the odd UK system which in this respect is more like a federal system) and given the above, if the jurisdiction is the same, I do not see how "Within a single nation, similar differences can govern a person who has a permanent residence at one address but is temporarily at another". -- PBS ( talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the correct phrasing "below the age of majority"?-- Khajidha ( talk) 20:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Fixed.-- Khajidha ( talk) 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Privacy is important, but also we must be realistic. Cases such as celebrities discussing their kids to mainstream outlets are de facto public knowledge, and while some jurisdictions might not consider it as such, most don't have an expectation of privacy on information that has been widely publicized by the subjects themselves. If "John Smith" drops in an interview with E! about how much he loves going to fish with his son "James", not including "James"' name would be silly.
A greyer case would include if "John" consistently mentions James on his currently active, public YouTube vlogs. Granted, ideally this should be backed by secondary sources, but this. If, by contrast, he once mentioned, two years before fame, how his daughter "Sara" was battling cancer on a long neglected Blogspot, that information would likely be haram. 2803:4600:1116:807:218C:946:F00E:5FE3 ( talk) 07:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
"A person who is a national (like or more comprehensive than being a citizen)"
Nick, I do not think that makes sense. What does national mean (because in the context of the UK it is to put it mildly confusing (See for example English people, Welsh people, etc). AFAICT what you man is the nation/state under which a person is domiciled which is not the same as the nation to which they belong. Many people are a citizen of more than one country (they can hold dual citizenship and they may consider themselves members of several nations. But under law they can only hold one domicileity.
See "[http:www.offutt.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-081001-054.pdf Changing you state of Domicile]" which is a US military document and seems aimed at Americans moving within the US.
A search of the UK government domain name returns lots of stuff on domicile and treaties.
There is a more comprehensive description here: Annex FM 1.5 - Domicile (74KB opens in a new window. It describes were a child is domiciled under UK law.
It states "Generally a person can only have a domicile within a territory subject to a single system of law. This means that normally a person cannot, for example, be domiciled in the United Kingdom, but would be domiciled within England and Wales or in Scotland."
Which is why I used the term federal in the edit I made (because I did not want to go into the details of the odd UK system which in this respect is more like a federal system) and given the above, if the jurisdiction is the same, I do not see how "Within a single nation, similar differences can govern a person who has a permanent residence at one address but is temporarily at another". -- PBS ( talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the correct phrasing "below the age of majority"?-- Khajidha ( talk) 20:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Fixed.-- Khajidha ( talk) 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Privacy is important, but also we must be realistic. Cases such as celebrities discussing their kids to mainstream outlets are de facto public knowledge, and while some jurisdictions might not consider it as such, most don't have an expectation of privacy on information that has been widely publicized by the subjects themselves. If "John Smith" drops in an interview with E! about how much he loves going to fish with his son "James", not including "James"' name would be silly.
A greyer case would include if "John" consistently mentions James on his currently active, public YouTube vlogs. Granted, ideally this should be backed by secondary sources, but this. If, by contrast, he once mentioned, two years before fame, how his daughter "Sara" was battling cancer on a long neglected Blogspot, that information would likely be haram. 2803:4600:1116:807:218C:946:F00E:5FE3 ( talk) 07:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)