We must be back in the EU!

[Barry Lineker]

1 minute ago, Barryd999 said:

Evidence?

🤣

[Brian Kirby]

23 hours ago, Barry Lineker said:

Psst more people are laughing at you and Brian, But to be fair Brian is no longer defending the Bullet🤣

There is no need to defend, the case is already made.  It merely requires understanding, which you are finding difficult - not I suspect because you are incapable, but because it is causing you acute cognitive dissonance.  The remedy is to step outside your political biases and see the simple facts for what they are, no matter how much you dislike them.  It matters not one jot how many other people agree with you, it is not an election: the facts speak for themselves.

The flight was originally intended to carry 130 deportees.  Following case appeals, this had reduced to just 7 on the eve of the flight.  The seven included an Iraqi man who had lodged an appeal to the ECHR because he had a judicial review of his deportation order due to be heard.  Unsurprisingly, the ECHR ruled that his deportation should be deferred until after his review had reached its conclusion.  That is normal legal practice.

On hearing the ECHR judgement, Lawyers representing the other six prospective deportees promptly lodged similar claims for judicial review in the UK courts.  This meant that all six would have been liable to the same decision as the Iraqi man, were similar referrals to be made in respect of each, presumably potentially putting the UK government in contempt of the ECHR.  Result, all seven prospective deportees were pulled.  Now, just ask yourself this.  What to with the airliner?  Fly it empty to Rwanda, or save a bit of cost and scotch the flight?  So, having already wasted a shed load of UK taxpayers' money on the charter, they did the first sensible thing in the whole fiasco and conceded that they had lost the legal arguments, and pulled the flight.  This was the product of Home Office incompetence: no more, no less.  All the ECHR did was to confirm that what the HO was proposing would have been, should they have gone ahead, illegal under the UNHCR - which is what it was set up to do.

As I already said, this fiasco was created by HO incompetence in the face of what seems to me entirely reasonable judgements by the UK courts.  And don't give me all that lefty lawyer tosh.  A defence lawyer is employed to act in the best interests of his client.  The only thing that prevents him from doing so is if he knows, or believes, his client is guilty.  It is for the prosecution lawyer to argue his client's (usually the state's) case that a crime has been committed.  The judgement, as I understand it, is delivered by a judge (no jury) in an immigration tribunal before whom the conflicting prosecution and defence cases are argued.  All the rules are all made by government.  In a nutshell, cases are lost where the government fails to observe its own rules.  Go figure!

The flight in question was not banned or cancelled by the ECHR.  Simply, one judgement, on one prospective deportee, opened a floodgate that resulted in the collapse of the deportation orders against the other six prospective deportees.  So, running the flight became a pointless and expensive exercise.  The cancellation was an indirect consequence of the judgement, not its subject.  This is not pedantry, it is (so far as I can understand) merely legal accuracy.  Do you really think the HO lost all 130 cases, and has been unable to prove its case to this day, because it is a beacon of competence?

In law, accuracy is important, and is something you may come to be very grateful for should you ever find yourself the defendant in a court case - so be very careful indeed what you wish for!

[Barry Lineker]

2 minutes ago, Brian Kirby said:

There is no need to defend, the case is already made.  It merely requires understanding, which you are finding difficult - not I suspect because you are incapable, but because it is causing you acute cognitive dissonance.  The remedy is to step outside your political biases and see the simple facts for what they are, no matter how much you dislike them.  It matters not one jot how many other people agree with you, it is not an election: the facts speak for themselves.

The flight was originally intended to carry 130 deportees.  Following case appeals, this had reduced to just 7 on the eve of the flight.  The seven included an Iraqi man who had lodged an appeal to the ECHR because he had a judicial review of his deportation order due to be heard.  Unsurprisingly, the ECHR ruled that his deportation should be deferred until after his review had reached its conclusion.  That is normal legal practice.

On hearing the ECHR judgement, Lawyers representing the other six prospective deportees promptly lodged similar claims for judicial review in the UK courts.  This meant that all six would have been liable to the same decision as the Iraqi man, were similar referrals to be made in respect of each, presumably potentially putting the UK government in contempt of the ECHR.  Result, all seven prospective deportees were pulled.  Now, just ask yourself this.  What to with the airliner?  Fly it empty to Rwanda, or save a bit of cost and scotch the flight?  So, having already wasted a shed load of UK taxpayers' money on the charter, they did the first sensible thing in the whole fiasco and conceded that they had lost the legal arguments, and pulled the flight.  This was the product of Home Office incompetence: no more, no less.  All the ECHR did was to confirm that what the HO was proposing would have been, should they have gone ahead, illegal under the UNHCR - which is what it was set up to do.

As I already said, this fiasco was created by HO incompetence in the face of what seems to me entirely reasonable judgements by the UK courts.  And don't give me all that lefty lawyer tosh.  A defence lawyer is employed to act in the best interests of his client.  The only thing that prevents him from doing so is if he knows, or believes, his client is guilty.  It is for the prosecution lawyer to argue his client's (usually the state's) case that a crime has been committed.  The judgement, as I understand it, is delivered by a judge (no jury) in an immigration tribunal before whom the conflicting prosecution and defence cases are argued.  All the rules are all made by government.  In a nutshell, cases are lost where the government fails to observe its own rules.  Go figure!

The flight in question was not banned or cancelled by the ECHR.  Simply, one judgement, on one prospective deportee, opened a floodgate that resulted in the collapse of the deportation orders against the other six prospective deportees.  So, running the flight became a pointless and expensive exercise.  The cancellation was an indirect consequence of the judgement, not its subject.  This is not pedantry, it is (so far as I can understand) merely legal accuracy.  Do you really think the HO lost all 130 cases, and has been unable to prove its case to this day, because it is a beacon of competence?

In law, accuracy is important, and is something you may come to be very grateful for should you ever find yourself the defendant in a court case - so be very careful indeed what you wish for!

Best you tell the Guardian/BBC/Polictico etc etc that they are wrong in saying the ECHR stopped the flights then Brian🤣

[B Dobson]

3 minutes ago, Barry Lineker said:

Best you tell the Guardian/BBC/Polictico etc etc that they are wrong in saying the ECHR stopped the flights then Brian🤣

You gotta laugh . I bet the pilot of that flight wears a Rolex . Prolly votes Tory n'all 

[Bulletguy]

23 minutes ago, Brian Kirby said:

There is no need to defend, the case is already made.  It merely requires understanding, which you are finding difficult - not I suspect because you are incapable, but because it is causing you acute cognitive dissonance.  The remedy is to step outside your political biases and see the simple facts for what they are, no matter how much you dislike them.  It matters not one jot how many other people agree with you, it is not an election: the facts speak for themselves.

The flight was originally intended to carry 130 deportees.  Following case appeals, this had reduced to just 7 on the eve of the flight.  The seven included an Iraqi man who had lodged an appeal to the ECHR because he had a judicial review of his deportation order due to be heard.  Unsurprisingly, the ECHR ruled that his deportation should be deferred until after his review had reached its conclusion.  That is normal legal practice.

On hearing the ECHR judgement, Lawyers representing the other six prospective deportees promptly lodged similar claims for judicial review in the UK courts.  This meant that all six would have been liable to the same decision as the Iraqi man, were similar referrals to be made in respect of each, presumably potentially putting the UK government in contempt of the ECHR.  Result, all seven prospective deportees were pulled.  Now, just ask yourself this.  What to with the airliner?  Fly it empty to Rwanda, or save a bit of cost and scotch the flight?  So, having already wasted a shed load of UK taxpayers' money on the charter, they did the first sensible thing in the whole fiasco and conceded that they had lost the legal arguments, and pulled the flight.  This was the product of Home Office incompetence: no more, no less.  All the ECHR did was to confirm that what the HO was proposing would have been, should they have gone ahead, illegal under the UNHCR - which is what it was set up to do.

As I already said, this fiasco was created by HO incompetence in the face of what seems to me entirely reasonable judgements by the UK courts.  And don't give me all that lefty lawyer tosh.  A defence lawyer is employed to act in the best interests of his client.  The only thing that prevents him from doing so is if he knows, or believes, his client is guilty.  It is for the prosecution lawyer to argue his client's (usually the state's) case that a crime has been committed.  The judgement, as I understand it, is delivered by a judge (no jury) in an immigration tribunal before whom the conflicting prosecution and defence cases are argued.  All the rules are all made by government.  In a nutshell, cases are lost where the government fails to observe its own rules.  Go figure!

The flight in question was not banned or cancelled by the ECHR.  Simply, one judgement, on one prospective deportee, opened a floodgate that resulted in the collapse of the deportation orders against the other six prospective deportees.  So, running the flight became a pointless and expensive exercise.  The cancellation was an indirect consequence of the judgement, not its subject.  This is not pedantry, it is (so far as I can understand) merely legal accuracy.  Do you really think the HO lost all 130 cases, and has been unable to prove its case to this day, because it is a beacon of competence?

In law, accuracy is important, and is something you may come to be very grateful for should you ever find yourself the defendant in a court case - so be very careful indeed what you wish for!

I'm afraid you're knocking on wood with the twins.

[Barry Lineker]

4 minutes ago, Bulletguy said:

I'm afraid you're knocking on wood with the twins.

So say's a fine example of Quebracho 🤣

[Brian Kirby]

12 hours ago, Barry Lineker said:

Best you tell the Guardian/BBC/Polictico etc etc that they are wrong in saying the ECHR stopped the flights then Brian🤣

You are relying on journalistic shorthand.  If you prefer that to the truth, that is your loss.  The ECHR deferred (not banned) the deportation of one individual for three weeks, while his appeal was heard.  Ultimately, that left the flight with no passengers, so the flight was cancelled.  Since then, the UK courts have consistently ruled against the HO deportation orders, so no deportations have taken place.  None.  Not one.  The ruling didn't restrain flying, it didn't restrain deportation, it just restrained the deportation of one man, at that one point in time.  

Re the Guardian etc. there is a good reason why it is widely known as the Grauniad!  😉 It frequently gets things wrong!  It (and others) conflated the delay to the deportation of its one remaining passenger, leading the HO to cancel the flight, into "ECHR ruling cancels deportation flight", or similar.  So to that extent yes, they, and you, are wrong, and you are unwise (especially having linked to several sources, including fact check, which say exactly what I have previously said) to rely on the journalistic shorthand while ignoring the acknowledged facts behind the headlines.

Ignorance is not accidental; it is the sad but deliberate choice of the ignorant.  As I said before, go figure.

[Barry Lineker]

8 hours ago, Brian Kirby said:

You are relying on journalistic shorthand.  If you prefer that to the truth, that is your loss.  The ECHR deferred (not banned) the deportation of one individual for three weeks, while his appeal was heard.  Ultimately, that left the flight with no passengers, so the flight was cancelled.  Since then, the UK courts have consistently ruled against the HO deportation orders, so no deportations have taken place.  None.  Not one.  The ruling didn't restrain flying, it didn't restrain deportation, it just restrained the deportation of one man, at that one point in time.  

Re the Guardian etc. there is a good reason why it is widely known as the Grauniad!  😉 It frequently gets things wrong!  It (and others) conflated the delay to the deportation of its one remaining passenger, leading the HO to cancel the flight, into "ECHR ruling cancels deportation flight", or similar.  So to that extent yes, they, and you, are wrong, and you are unwise (especially having linked to several sources, including fact check, which say exactly what I have previously said) to rely on the journalistic shorthand while ignoring the acknowledged facts behind the headlines.

Ignorance is not accidental; it is the sad but deliberate choice of the ignorant.  As I said before, go figure.

Nope I'm relying on cause and effect, you can be as pedantic as you like Brian, meanwhile in the real world everyone and his dog knows the Rwanda flight was Stopped/Cancelled/Prevented by the ECHR!

 

[Barryd999]

1 hour ago, Barry Lineker said:

Nope I'm relying on cause and effect, you can be as pedantic as you like Brian, meanwhile in the real world everyone and his dog knows the Rwanda flight was Stopped/Cancelled/Prevented by the ECHR!

 

It was prevented by those idiots you idolise.  The Tory party.  You are so gullible its unbelievable.  I said right at the start of all this it was set up to fail so people like you would froth at the mouth and start blaming everyone from the EU to Jeremy Corbyn and I was spot on (again).

The ECHR and our UK courts are there for a reason, to stop people and governments breaking laws.  There is no way on earth the Tories didn't know how this would end and once again you fell for their clap trap.

[Brian Kirby]

38 minutes ago, Barry Lineker said:

Nope I'm relying on cause and effect, you can be as pedantic as you like Brian, meanwhile in the real world everyone and his dog knows the Rwanda flight was Stopped/Cancelled/Prevented by the ECHR!

 

For that to be true, the ECHR would have had to know the future consequences of their ruling.  I can't see any way in which that could have been the case.  Had any of the six other deportees not appealed their deportations, the flight could still have left carrying them.

To stop, cancel, or prevent something is a deliberate act.  If a policeman stops you, his intention is clear - he wants you to stop.  If your train is cancelled, it will be clear who ordered it cancelled.  If an aircraft is prevented from taking off, it will be clear who issued the prevention.

Here, a court issued a judgement that a single individual should not be deported until his appeal against deportation had been heard and lost in the UK courts.  No more, no less.

There isn't a shred of evidence that the court's intention was to ground the flight, only that one deportee among several should not be deported until has appeal had been lost.  The events which led to the flight not taking off were not the inevitable consequence of the court's judgement, but of the later actions of the other deportees.

It is clear that you really want to blame ECHR for the cancellation, either because you still (wrongly) think it is part of the EU, or because you don't like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the ECHR was set up to uphold.  The problem with that is that the ECHR judgement addressed only the premature deportation of one person, not how he might be deported.  Case dismissed!  😏

[Keithl]

This thread has now run its course and is going round in circles so will be frozen.