Chicken nuggets……..strugglin g to believe this!

Cats and dogs, sorry slip of the middle finger

What is it Trumps saying? Who’s eating carpets and dogs?

maddyone

For anyone who’s interested, there’s a programme on Channel 4 tonight called Go Back Where You Came From. It’s about Syrians in Lebanon, hoping to get to Europe.
I’m not watching tonight as I want to watch the second episode of Unforgotten, but I may watch on catch up later in the week.

It’s about six UK civilians.

Three go to Syria, three go to Somalia. They then travel the routes migrants take.

They are in armoured cars, with armed guards and fixers all the time.

Haven't seen anything about it but, from what's been discussed here, it seems like another of those "click-bait stories" which are thrown around in order to stir up conversation (and sell newspapers/Internet subscriptions). Much of the story will probably be reported out of context and a great part of it left out altogether. As a consequence, a lot of what people say about it will proceed from imagination and speculation rather than solid evidence. Probably best not to get outraged over things we don't know much about - or actually find out what we can and then get outraged if necessary.

For anyone who’s interested, there’s a programme on Channel 4 tonight called Go Back Where You Came From. It’s about Syrians in Lebanon, hoping to get to Europe.
I’m not watching tonight as I want to watch the second episode of Unforgotten, but I may watch on catch up later in the week.

My fault for quoting JJ, love the word 'baloney' but is not said by any of our judges, though am sure this could soon gain credence with some, this is how misinformation begins am afraid.

No problem Cossy, I suppose I was a bit dry.
Realistically I don’t really know what to make of this story. I expect it’s all been embroidered by the media.

maddyone

No, I was commenting on the joke.

Oooops 😂😂

MaizieD

I suspect, SilverBrook that separating the family might trigger the 'right to a family life' clause.

Yes. That was what the original judge considered.

12. In [39] to [50], the judge decided that both “stay” and “go” scenarios would be unduly harsh for C. Accordingly, she allowed the appeal on human rights grounds (right to respect for family life). It is on this part of her decision only that the appeal before us turns.

But ...

a. there is no formal diagnosis of C’s educational needs; and

b. there is no professional assessment of whether those additional needs could be met in Albania, beyond the appellant’s (and A’s) assertion that they cannot.

The judge had not explained why she accepted the expertise of the report writer, a trainee educational psychologist, nor why she placed weight on claimed educational difficulties without any formal diagnosis of learning difficulties. It was not open to the judge to conclude that C would face ‘very great problems’ in Albania in the absence of any evidence of what services were available to him there.

In summary, it seems she just took everyone at their word.

No, I was commenting on the joke.

maddyone

I don’t think our judges say ‘oh baloney.’

I don’t believe anyone said they did?

I don’t think our judges say ‘oh baloney.’

Babs03

As Judge Judy is famous for saying 'if it doesn't make sense it's not true.'
And she is a judge.
Would rather believe this than buy into this kind of baloney.

Oh and baloney is also one of her fav sayings too 😂😂😂

Esmay

Cossy -
I'll meet you every day for a cream tea -perhaps in one of the libraries .

Perhaps cocktails - later ?

I don't want to argue over the emerald tiaras -I prefer the Cambridge or the Greville ,but I'm willing to lend them to you .

That seems very fair and I adore both cream teas and cocktails, and indeed libraries.

🥂🍸🍸🍹🍹🧉🧉

How quick people are to jump to judgement without knowing all the details, including actually reading the judgment given.

So much easier to lean back into prejudices and stereotypes.

As Judge Judy is famous for saying 'if it doesn't make sense it's not true.'
And she is a judge.
Would rather believe this than buy into this kind of baloney.

Presumably the tribunal judge is paid handsomely from the public purse.

How do they sleep at night? Shameful.

I suspect, SilverBrook that separating the family might trigger the 'right to a family life' clause.

Cossy -
I'll meet you every day for a cream tea -perhaps in one of the libraries .

Perhaps cocktails - later ?

I don't want to argue over the emerald tiaras -I prefer the Cambridge or the Greville ,but I'm willing to lend them to you .

You can read it here including the rationale for stay or go decisions:

tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2024-004546

It appears that the original decision was based on evidence from a trainee educational psychologist.

There doesn't appear to be any reason why A, B, and C - Klevis Disha's partner and two children [C is the child at the centre of the controvery] could not go to live in Albania or any reason why, if Disha was expelled and A, B and C stayed, A could not cope without him.

Point 31. Were C to remain in the UK, we cannot see how any reasonable judge could find that A, who is found by the Judge at [37] to be “robust and capable” would be incapable of caring for C without the appellant or that it would be unduly harshness for her to do so.

Evidently, she coped when Disha was serving a two year jail sentence.

Not so, sandelf. The judge at the tribunal who heard the man’s case said it would be unduly harsh to deport the child to Albania along with his father. His dislike of foreign chicken nuggets featured. The government has appealed that decision, the upper tribunal agreed with the government’s view that sending the child to Albania would not be unduly harsh and he has referred the case back for a new hearing.

But this is MISLEADING reporting designed to anger and alarm. The chap appealed his deportation - citing that his son had various problems. The only one of these actually put before the court was his 'sensitivity' to chicken nuggets as made in his country. THE JUDGE FOUND THIS TRIVIAL AND THREW OUT THE APPEAL.

Sarnia

There have been many cases like this where deportation has been overturned for a ridiculous reason. In one instance, the failed asylum seeker was allowed to stay because he had a cat. Beggars belief.

Maybe “beggars belief” because it’s untrue?

Sarnia, it is completely untrue that someone was granted asylum because he had a cat.
He was given leave to remain because he had a partner, a child, and a job offer.
Perhaps unwisely, the judge joked that his cat would be happy to staying GB .
Reported by a newspaper as " stayed because of his cat " - a lie, of course, but now widely referred to as true. Shame on that journalism.

There have been many cases like this where deportation has been overturned for a ridiculous reason. In one instance, the failed asylum seeker was allowed to stay because he had a cat. Beggars belief.