Just to put you right on a few points.
MBK knows more about sailing and martime law than anyone on this forum.
MBK is very astute with his financial knowledge.
MBK Uderstands the deterent that Rwanda would have given.
I think you will find that all of the above gives him more credability to voice his opinions than most on the subject.
Strawman. I didn't post anything to do with the legality of the Rwanda scheme. (And anyway - its legality lay in the sphere of human rights law, not maritime).
But be that as it may, none of that expertise, no matter how relevant has any bearing on the issue I posted about. Even if the Rwanda scheme would have proved a huge deterrent, that would be irrelevant. It would be relevant to arguing that what the Migration Observatory said was wrong.
It would not be relevant to arguing that the Migration Observatory did not say what they demonstrably did.
The only thing relevant to my post was that MNW67's quote, "
If there was a deterrent effect, it was too small to see in the data" really was 100% accurate, a fact unequivocally confirmed by the document on Oxford University's Migration Observatory website.
And motorbiking really did say that was a misquote.
And he really was wrong to say that
That was the
ONLY issue I posted about.
I expect now you'll fall back on your traditional behaviour of repeatedly arguing about a different issue, refusing to address the real one, and go on and on and on hoping I'll get fed up or you can get me barred from the topic, and present that as a vindication.
