OMG Human Rights Lawyers Again

[carmanmemoranda]

More vague waffle. I have never seen you once in any legal discussion actually explain why you are linking to a case or an Act of Parliament. You just point at things and hope you can manage to grift your way through.

He thinks it looks impressive.

Not everybody will dig deeper.

 

[motorbiking]

More vague waffle. I have never seen you once in any legal discussion actually explain why you are linking to a case or an Act of Parliament. You just point at things and hope you can manage to grift your way through.

more cockwombling.

In this thread I have provided the legislation that applies. You had no clue
I've provided the case law that is applicable to a claim of human trafficking vs deportation. You claim its irrelevant.

You appear to be arguing that there is no link between article 4 of the ECHR and Article 14 ECAT. If you read the case law provided, you will see its settled law.

He thinks it looks impressive.

Not everybody will dig deeper.

or you can use google AI and look like a dummy

 

[MNW67]

Anyway, just in case anyone is still interested in what actually happened in court, after all the deflections and misinformation.

The asylum seeker applied to get his deportation stopped on two main grounds.

The first ground was that he would face destitution in France. The judge dismissed this.

The second ground was that the government hadn't properly followed the procedures under the Human Trafficking Convention. The judge agreed that this was the case and the deportation has been paused whilst the government follows the proper procedures. The judge wants this doing as a matter of urgency so that he can make a final ruling.

 

[MNW67]

I've provided the case law that is applicable to a claim of human trafficking vs deportation. You claim its irrelevant.

You appear to be arguing that there is no link between article 4 of the ECHR and Article 14 ECAT. If you read the case law provided, you will see its settled law.

You Googled a recent case about Vietnam which is utterly irrelevant and you have been unable to explain at all how it applies to this case with France. You are just trying to grift your way through as usual. At least make some effort to explain, rather than just Googling and pointing.

Of course there is a link between ECHR and ECAT. The Human Traffikcing Convention takes the minimal and basic protections under ECHR and greatly expands them. It is these greatly expanded rules which have prevented the deportation in this case. Not the minimal and basic protections under ECHR.

 

[motorbiking]

Anyway, just in case anyone is still interested in what actually happened in court, after all the deflections and misinformation.

The asylum seeker applied to get his deportation stopped on two main grounds.

The first ground was that he would face destitution in France. The judge dismissed this.

The second ground was that the government hadn't properly followed the procedures under the Human Trafficking Convention. The judge agreed that this was the case and the deportation has been paused whilst the government follows the proper procedures. The judge wants this doing as a matter of urgency so that he can make a final ruling.

All presented on page 1.

Of course there is a link between ECHR and ECAT. The Human Traffikcing Convention takes the minimal and basic protections under ECHR and greatly expands them. It is these greatly expanded rules which have prevented the deportation in this case. Not the minimal and basic protections under ECHR.

So this is nonsense then:

But the claims under ECHR failed.

It was only the human trafficking claim that has caused the deportation to be paused.

This is all very interesting!

It looks like the Tories have misunderstood the ruling in the same way that motorbiking did.

The judge decides to pause the deportation using the Human Trafficking Convention.

So, the Tories say we have to leave the ECHR

You are doing your usual trick of pointing vaguely at things you don't understand. Explain for us how the "case law" prevents somebody being deported to France in this situation.

The only reason the judge stopped the deportation was because of the specific obligations under the Human Trafficking Convention. That has been reported in black and white in the newspapers. Nothing to do with your "case law" or the ECHR.

glad I could educate you.

 

[MNW67]

So this is nonsense then:

Another of your logical fallacies

That makes absolutely no sense.

I get a bit bored of having to spoon feed and baby walk you through every discussion.

The deportation was paused because the government had not properly followed the rules under the Human Trafficking Convention. The rules the government failed to follow were additional rules on top of the protections under ECHR. If it wasn't for these additional rules, then the deportation would have gone ahead. The ECHR itself would not have stopped the deportation.

 

[Doist]

How about we just let the professionals do their job? It's obvious that everything has to happen within the legal framework while giving all the immigrants a chance to defend themselves in the court. Yes, they will use loopholes. Yes, they will want to stay in the country. And yes, the pressure is there to not allow any illegals remain.

So why all the fuss? Of course, as any legal battle, it won't be a smooth sailing.

 

[noseall]

It's like he reads your answer, googles it and then pastes it claiming knowledge.

At least he reads his own links.

 

[MNW67]

So why all the fuss? Of course, as any legal battle, it won't be a smooth sailing.

I just enjoy getting to the bottom of any new legal situation. It's an old professional habit.

Others drag in politics, though, which often spoils the discussion by making it partisan.

 

[motorbiking]

At least he reads his own links.

or joins a thread with absolutely nothing to add.

 

[motorbiking]

Another of your logical fallacies

That makes absolutely no sense.

I get a bit bored of having to spoon feed and baby walk you through every discussion.

The deportation was paused because the government had not properly followed the rules under the Human Trafficking Convention. The rules the government failed to follow were additional rules on top of the protections under ECHR. If it wasn't for these additional rules, then the deportation would have gone ahead. The ECHR itself would not have stopped the deportation.

righto

 

[Doist]

Others drag in politics, though, which often spoils the discussion by making it partisan.

I think it's the politics that 99% of people are interested in, so no wonder

Speaking of which, I still can't see how Mr Farage is going to abolish the basic immigrant right of defending themselves in the court without looking like a neo-Nazi.

Now waiting for the ****storm in the comments hehe ))

 

[MNW67]

I think it's the politics that 99% of people are interested in, so no wonder

Speaking of which, I still can't see how Mr Farage is going to abolish the basic immigrant right of defending themselves in the court without looking like a neo-Nazi.

Now waiting for the ****storm in the comments hehe ))

I am not sure which proposal that is!

 

[Knave of Hearts]

Another alter ego comedian. Just what we need

Leave it to SPLINE.

I have tried poetry in the past
Though my gift didn't seem to last
To save me being red-faced
I've always been straight-laced
And I never nail my colours to the mast.

 

[Highway Man]

Here we go, 100’s of pages. That’s what we need another ****ing contest.

The GD is clogged up with petty posts and arguments.

Maybe Diynot should have a politics section and I’d happily have no access to it.

I am not in the least political, I don't give a dam who is in power or who isnt. Politics do not make any difference to my life. I feel the same way with political threads