Are they all 'serious criminals'?

[Mottie]

The guy with PTSD was taken off the flight, so obviously there is a reason to allow him to stay in the UK.

Surely you mean there’s a reason to allow him to appeal for the right to stay in the U.K.? Doesn’t mean his appeal will be successful.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Surely you mean there’s a reason to allow him to appeal for the right to stay in the U.K.? Doesn’t mean his appeal will be successful.

It just said in the article that he was taken off the flight. Other than that I don't know the reason or the next steps for him.

 

[Mottie]

Right. So not actually a reason to allow him to stay then?

 

[sodthisforfun]

Right. So not actually a reason to allow him to stay then?

Here we go! Reading things that I haven't actually written and nitpicking. Did I say anything other than stay in the UK? I didn't mention the amount of time allowed to stay, an appeal, whatever. I just said a reason for him to stay - meaning a reason he was taken off the flight. By default, being taken off the flight means he remains on British soil.
Anything else?
F* me.

 

[Mottie]

Not nit picking but you clearly said "a reason to stay". It’s not a reason to stay but it was something you had "actually written". Perhaps just a poor choice of words on your behalf that I took literally.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Would you not agree that if the guy had been granted the right to appeal, the thing you presumed, is a 'reason to stay'?
You ARE nitpicking.

Don't worry Mottie, he may be kicked out yet then you'll be happy.

 

[festive]

Don't worry they'll be on the next plane back into the UK with fake passports or a uk passport borrowed from brother/cousin.

 

[Notch7]

It just said in the article that he was taken off the flight. Other than that I don't know the reason or the next steps for him.

ASAIK he was only taken off the flight as he was part of the group staying at the detention centre where there wasnt any mobile reception and he wasnt able to get representation.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Don't worry they'll be on the next plane back into the UK with fake passports or a uk passport borrowed from brother/cousin.

Know him do you?

 

[Mottie]

Would you not agree that if the guy had been granted the right to appeal, the thing you presumed, is a 'reason to stay'?.

Now who's nit picking? Yes, I agree, so why not just mention it? ‘Reason to stay' implies the authorities were wrong and he has been given his freedom to remain. He could have, for instance, had a heart attack and have been taken off the plane to go to hospital. That’s also 'a reason to stay' which would be technically correct but it would be mentioned. Just admit you used the wrong choice of words and move on, you’re being really petty over a slip of the tongue.

 

[Mottie]

ASAIK he was only taken off the flight as he was part of the group staying at the detention centre where there wasnt any mobile reception and he wasnt able to get representation.

Also a ‘reason to stay' but with the correct information being given.

 

[Notch7]

So, are you saying the jury that reached a guilty verdict and the judge that passed sentence got it wrong and that the alleged PTSD did play a part of the knife attack on his ex-partners father? Any idea on what happened to the ex-partners father? I see no mention of him being jailed for the alleged hammer attack. Also, any idea as to whether his five kids are all by the same mother and whether he is in a stable relationship with that woman? No, conveniently that is not mentioned anywhere. May just be a case of dragging everything up he can to stay in the country with a smattering of playing the race card. Presumably you know the answer to those questions as you seem to be springing to his defence. If so, please share.

you are clutching at straws as usual.

you keep avoiding the fact he spent months in hospital and was diagnosed as bipolar -or are you saying that is just made up.

in any case he does not fit the description of a violent career criminal or rapist.

It was a domestic with provocation.
He served his time and unless it is known he is violent now, he should be allowed to stay.

An English person doesnt suffer further after being released from prison why should he?

 

[Notch7]

Why?

How many years?

If they may be, why are they not?



Edit - Did you mean "should automatically be" or "should already be"?

if they lived here since a young age, they should already have been given citizenship
I can accept an argument for them being refused for violent crimes but not because the home office have made it difficult for them to obtain citizenship.
seems like a loophole created by a hostile environment

 

[Mottie]

you keep avoiding the fact he spent months in hospital and was diagnosed as bipolar -or are you saying that is just made up.

No, I’m not avoiding it, just questioning it. So, can you tell me why did the jury not take that into consideration when they found him guilty or the judge when he passed sentence? Did they avoid it or did they examine the diagnosis as part of the trial?

 

[sodthisforfun]

Now who's nit picking? Yes, I agree, so why not just mention it? ‘Reason to stay' implies the authorities were wrong and he has been given his freedom to remain. He could have, for instance, had a heart attack and have been taken off the plane to go to hospital. That’s also 'a reason to stay' which would be technically correct but it would be mentioned. Just admit you used the wrong choice of words and move on, you’re being really petty over a slip of the tongue.

I implied nothing about the autorities in my original post other than there was a reason he was to stay - that he'd been taken off the plane. Yes, I may have used the wrong words because of your difficulty in understanding (I forgot to take that into account) and reading whatever you want into the post.

Seriously, post after post of nitpicking. What is the point, do you not have a life?