The laws an ass !

[AngleEyes]

You've never been a gracious loser. Biker blocking your IP address?, FFS.

Do you want proof?
Blocked yesterday evening:

Changed my IP address, then so far so good until about half an hour ago then:

So changed my IP address again, so far so good, the fact that I can post is obvious evidence that what I'm saying is true.
When someone is proven to be deceitful, and they resort to blocking me, then what does it say about the poster who has been proven to be deceitful?

 

[motorbiking]

Are you actually joking? I don’t run this site.

 

[Notch7]

Do you want proof?
Blocked yesterday evening:
View attachment 255180

Changed my IP address, then so far so good until about half an hour ago then:
View attachment 255181
So changed my IP address again, so far so good, the fact that I can post is obvious evidence that what I'm saying is true.
When someone is proven to be deceitful, and they resort to blocking me, then what does it say about the poster who has been proven to be deceitful?

Surely you can get that message by unplugging your router?

it’s not really proof, is it?

 

[fillyboy]

Pssssssst, Biker, just block his ip address permanently.

 

[empip]

Oh, so obviously the case, the evidence is absolutely, clearly there for all to see.

'Cancel culture' is spreading among the 'Notters' along with 'ad hominem(ism)' joined by paranoia, self aggrandisement - Lad's culture to a 'T'.

Happy Christmas and a wonderful, nagging, argumentative, disruptive, violent plus the above and a Covid filled new year !

See you there.
-o-

 

[motorbiking]

Pssssssst, Biker, just block his ip address permanently.

On it pssst. Remind me again how to do it

 

[Lower]

Enjoy reading the appeals and how they relied on K's case - I count more than 20 references.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/FOUR-S25-CASES-Judgment-.pdf

Also read the references to Greece, France, Switzerland and Germany.. Clearly these were desperate refugees who had always sought the protection of the UK even after having lived or claimed in in Germany for several years.

Do you see a link to the cases?

Arguing with Angel Eyes/Bobby Dazzler/or any of his other previous incarnations is a waste of time. Irrespective of how valid your points are, he'll just keep denying it until you get bored and stop posting and then he'll think he's won/proved you wrong.

 

[AngleEyes]

Surely you can get that message by unplugging your router?

it’s not really proof, is it?

The block has now been lifted.
The next time I'll show you a screen shot of the block to DIYnot, along with access to any other website. That'll resolve your doubt.

 

[AngleEyes]

Are you actually joking? I don’t run this site.

I didn't imply that you did 'run' the site. I linked the proof of you behaving deceitfully in a discussion, (namely by linking an unrelated transcript, which you specifically claimed to be the relevant one to the article presented by the OP), with my IP being blocked on two very recent occasions, which implied that you might have some influence.
Of course, it could be someone else who was also feeling disgruntled.
It could even be a group of disgruntled posters leveraging influence to prevent their protagonists from participating.
If some posters persistently post blatant untruths, and others intentionally deceive the forum, and yet others persistently promote violence and social chaos, a little influence to prevent another poster participating would be typical skulduggery.

 

[AngleEyes]

Arguing with Angel Eyes/Bobby Dazzler/or any of his other previous incarnations is a waste of time. Irrespective of how valid your points are, he'll just keep denying it until you get bored and stop posting and then he'll think he's won/proved you wrong.

When I have proven that some posters persistently ignore reality and post blatant untruths, then it is not me that has a problem.
When I have demonstrated that some posters intentionally deceive the forum, then it is not me that has a problem.
When I have illustrated that some posters persistently post xenophobic comments and promote hatred and division, then it is not me that has a problem.
When I have shown that my IP address is blocked on two occasions then it is not me that has a problem.
When some moan about my proving, demonstrating and illustrating those things, then it is not me that has a problem.

But let all the ad hominem attacks let rip, eh?
And that is exactly what your comment is, pure unadulterated ad hominem attack, with no attempt to address any issue.
Perhaps Notch7's advice would be useful for you:

It is you that throwing out ad hominem attacks - a clear indication of someone who has not got a clearly defined or valid counter argument.
...
..., please try and debate politely then your posts carry more weight.

Are you suggesting that anyone who can achieve any of the above is routinely banned or blocked?
It certainly looks like that is what you are suggesting.

 

[fillyboy]

 

[AngleEyes]

Are you so enthralled?

 

[transam]

imo this angle bloke is a sociopath

 

[motorbiking]

I did not deceive anyone. I did a bit of research first. I read all the transcripts and recognised the basis of the appeal and focused my arguments on the deciding case (that of K). The above appeals were because of Ks case (a convicted people smuggler - Facilitator), i.e. and for the avoidance of any doubt - they were linked and the same. If they were not, they would not have won the appeal.

The cases are a good read, I might have concluded these were innocent refugees who'd been tricked in to a guilty plea/found guilty when they were genuine. The problem is, they weren't. They were mostly failed asylum claimants who were working their way through Europe using the Asylum claim as a defence whenever they were picked up. One of the acquitted actually tried to do a runner from BF, another had an undetermined claim in another country and went awol. Is this the behaviour of refugees seeking safety?

The CPS never had its day in court, because they pleaded guilty, something they objected to in their arguments presented. The CPS would probably consider retrial or review, but there is no point the law is being changed to close these loopholes (partly created by the loss of the Dublin agreement). Something the judges acknowledged in the transcript.

 

[AngleEyes]

Would it surprise you to know that at least one of the people in the case had been done twice for piloting a vessel with the intention of illegally entering the UK? I'd urge you to read the transcript of the original case. He's a better skipper than me if he can pilot a dingy across the channel several times while only holding the outboard for a few seconds.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/503.html

I did not deceive anyone. I did a bit of research first. I read all the transcripts and recognised the basis of the appeal and focused my arguments on the deciding case (that of K). The above appeals were because of Ks case (a convicted people smuggler - Facilitator), i.e. and for the avoidance of any doubt - they were linked and the same. If they were not, they would not have won the appeal.

You presented the transcript of the one case as being the transcript of the case presented by the OP.
That was evidently not genuine, i.e. disingenuous, and as you claimed to have done all the research, one can only assume it was an intentional deception by you.
There may well be similarities, but the cases are different.