The laws an ass !

[JohnD]

That was a different thread. This is about a likely facilitator (as per 25A) getting off on a possible technicality "The laws an ass". Do you think he was genuine or do you think he got caught ferrying asylum seekers for money and took legal advice?

On the subject of the other thread, what is your considered legal opinion of a commercial skipper (paid person) assisting people he suspect are asylum seekers entering the UK, with reference to S25A routinely?

If a charity paid me to take my boat across to pickup dingy people, knowing they had no leave or right and bring them ashore (UK) - do you think I'd be safe, legally?

I'm commercially endorsed, so am allowed to take payment for passage.

You're making the point that there is not a "safe and legal" option for refugees to come to the UK.

 

[Notch7]

No we haven't solved the problem.

But you can't use the argument that its not the neighbouring countries fault to justify why we should take asylum seekers who've travelled through a multitude of safe countries to get to ours because its not our fault either.

I wasn’t using that argument.

The argument Im making is this:
If it’s not our problem, it’s nobody’s problem and therefore the status quo remains
or if we collaborate, we would have to agree and so would every country to take a fair share.





We currently have a steady stream of boats arriving from France.

They will continue to arrive unless we reach an agreement with France
And we won’t reach an agreement unless we agree to accept a fair share

 

[motorbiking]

You're making the point that there is not a "safe and legal" option for refugees to come to the UK.

I'm not - I'm making the point that it is illegal to assist a person for payment.

 

[JohnD]

I'm not

Oh, but you are.

 

[AngleEyes]

I'm not - I'm making the point that it is illegal to assist a person for payment.

You are swivelling from "the RNLI are operating a taxi service", and as JohnD says, "there is a safe and legal route which should be used", to your current argument that "one out of the 26 on board that particular vessel was deported and had already claimed asylum in Denmark".

If you're going to continually move your goalposts it makes it difficult to follow your arguments. But to deny your original argument is disingenuous.

 

[AngleEyes]

You're making the point that there is not a "safe and legal" option for refugees to come to the UK.

I think you mean "that there is a safe and legal option for refugees to come to the UK." When in reality there is not.

 

[AngleEyes]

I'm not - I'm making the point that it is illegal to assist a person for payment.

That is not being contradicted.
If a person is found to be assisting a refugee into UK, for payment, it probably is illegal.
Which kind of blows out of the water (pun intended) your rumour about RNLI operating a taxi service.

 

[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

Perhaps you could clear up one mystery that is puzzling me.
The BBC article that the OP presented was dated: 21 December 2021:

Are we to believe that the BBC is dragging up 9 month old news.
But the transcript that you have referred us to was dated 8 April 2021

In addition, the name of the appellant in the transcript that you have referred us to was FOUAD KAKAEI. I'm having great difficulty in aligning that name with the people mentioned in the OP's article, who are Samyar Bani. Mohamoud Al Anzi, Fariboz Rakei and Ghodratallah Zadeh.
Have you been conflating two entirely different cases all this time?
Or was it an intentional attempt to conflate the two incidents?

 

[motorbiking]

Kakaei's case is what we call the legal precedent. CoA ruled his conviction as unsafe, there was a retrial, these appeals were triggered on the back of his case. They were all convicted of facilitation (sec 25a), buying, getting paid etc to help others cross (illegal). Its in the transcript . would you like it? I'm assuming you didn't read it as the number of references to K are.. well hard to miss

So no - they are not entirely different cases. K's has enabled the others to appeal. Bani seemed more bang to rights than K (he got 6 years), Anzi, initially admitted getting payment (consideration), all changed their position once they knew a way to appeal. Rakei had already claimed asylum in Germany, so I invite you to comment on the possibility he could do it again in the UK.

 

[AngleEyes]

Kakaei's case is what we call the legal precedent.

So Kakaei was not one of the four in the case referred to in the OP's article, despite your deceitful assertion that he was:

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

So how was it relevant? When the circumstances were entirely different. And the very direction of the recent discussion is entirely irrelevant.

CoA ruled his conviction as unsafe, there was a retrial, these appeals were triggered on the back of his case. They were all convicted of facilitation (sec 25a), buying, getting paid etc to help others cross (illegal). Its in the transcript . would you like it?

You're expecting me (or any other reader} to do your research for you, to prove your argument, again?

But then again why not, please provide the link to the transcript of the case referred to in the OP's article. It is obviously of far more relevance than the transcript that you slipped in, that had no relevance.

So no - they are not entirely different cases.

You'd make a terrible lawyer if you can't differentiate between one case and another. This is the very first time that you have accepted that the transcript provided by you is not the same transcript as the one of the case in question. Only now are you claiming it is a different case but it is relevant.
You cannot be trusted to be honest in this discussion.

K's has enabled the others to appeal.

Why didn't you present that argument from the beginning instead of pretending this transcripty referred to the case in question?

Bani seemed more bang to rights than K (he got 6 years), having read the transcript.

But he won his appeal. How do you square that circle?

You really are swivelling and swinging from pillar to post, and back again.

 

[motorbiking]

Wow, here we go - straight in with the accusations without any research or knowledge to back it up.

Do you promise to read the whole transcript carefully? and once you've done so, do you also promise to apologise if there is a link between all of the cases as claimed by me?

 

[AngleEyes]

Wow, here we go - straight in with the accusations without any research or knowledge to back it up.

Do you promise to read the whole transcript carefully? and once you've done so, do you also promise to apologise if there is a link between all of the case as claimed by me?

Not at all. Would you like to apologise to the forum for deceiving them?
You presented a transcript as being the one associated with the OP's article, when it was nothing of the sort, and only now, having been found out, are you resorting to a claim that it is relevant.

The word 'charlatan' comes to mind.

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

 

[motorbiking]

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?

 

[AngleEyes]

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?

I see a link to my IP address being blocked (twice in the last 24 hours) and you being found out as a charlatan.
If you have that much influence, no wonder this forum has displayed such right wing bias.

As for your invitation for the reader to go and research to find the proof to support your argument, I thought we'd already put that firmly to bed.

 

[fillyboy]

I see a link to my IP address being blocked (twice in the last 24 hours) and you being found out as a charlatan.
If you have that much influence, no wonder this forum has displayed such right wing bias.

As for your invitation for the reader to go and research to find the proof to support your argument, I thought we'd already put that firmly to bed.

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