The laws an ass !

[AngleEyes]

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?

You are intentionally conflating the case presented in the article by the OP with entirely different cases again.
There is absolutely no reference to the men in the OP's article claiming asylum anywhere else but UK. Nor is there any reference to them refusing to claim asylum, that was an intentional misdirection by you.
You are persistently introducing claims which simply do not apply to the case in question. They may apply in other cases, but we are not discussing other cases.

 

[AngleEyes]

.. 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.

The Bill which is controversial has not been passed yet.
It's on its second reading in the House of Lords. It has some way to go yet.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3023​

 

[motorbiking]

You are intentionally conflating the case presented in the article by the OP with entirely different cases again.
There is absolutely no reference to the men in the OP's article claiming asylum anywhere else but UK. Nor is there any reference to them refusing to claim asylum, that was an intentional misdirection by you.
You are persistently introducing claims which simply do not apply to the case in question. They may apply in other cases, but we are not discussing other cases.

The references are in the court transcript which I posted and you haven’t read.

 

[AngleEyes]

The references are in the court transcript which I posted and you haven’t read.

Like I've said several times before, it is not the responsibility of the reader to go find evidence to support your proposition.
Copy and paste the relevant parts of the (correct) document (with the link to the document), together with the paragraph numbers, so we can check your references are accurate. It's not difficult if you've already found the relevant parts of the document to which you are referring.
Because you do have form for a) surreptitiously swapping one document for another unrelated document, and b) expecting the reader to find your evidence for you with your persistent comments as "read the transcripts" or "it's in the transcripts", etc.

You did this with the records of RNLI and French vessels. There was absolutely no indication of the dates nor times of the records, yet you claimed they'd met at an arranged rendezvous.
Steve Laws would be proud of your sleight of hand. It's nearly as good as Nigel Farage's with his pictures of lines of refugees and then claiming there's 7,000,000 Turks waiting to migrate.

 

[motorbiking]

No, you need to reed the whole ruling, otherwise you wont understand it. Here it is again. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/FOUR-S25-CASES-Judgment-.pdf

In the RNLI thread, I asked you what specific information you needed. You could have asked for the dates, times etc. I would have supplied you with all of the info. I also told you it was public record and gave you the MMSI numbers so that you could verify the data yourself. You decided not to do so, for one or both of 2 reasons. You knew you were wrong or you were too lazy to bother? Instead you make false allegations and slump in to pit of paranoia. The information is out there. It's up to you to educate yourself. I'm done trying.

 

[AngleEyes]

No, you need to reed the whole ruling, otherwise you wont understand it. Here it is again. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/FOUR-S25-CASES-Judgment-.pdf

You keep relying on the reader to go find the evidence to support your arguments.
It's a side-stepping tactic and you know it.
It's like a structural engineer saying that wall is not safe. So you ask him why, and he replies with "it's all in the manual/documents/regulations. Go find it for yourself."
If you don't have the intellectual capability to make an argument and support it with quotes (including accurate references) then you probably don't have the intellectual capability to understand the supposed source of your opinions in the first place.

For the umpteenth time, it isn't the responsibility of the reader to find the evidence to support your theories. They are your theories, and you need to provide the accurate references to support those theories.

In the RNLI thread, I asked you what specific information you needed.

And I said at the time, I wanted verifiable reports from creditable sources, or something in the public domain, as evidence to support your suspicions.
You were unable to provide anything other than your own pictures which a) were not verifiable, b) were not from a creditable source, and c) could have been constructed from any time period, and d) omitted the specific information requested.
Those pictures were very similar to Steve Laws supposed evidence of his suspicions, bearing in mind that he's the immigration spokesperson for UKIP.

You could have asked for the dates, times etc. I would have supplied you with all of the info.

I did and you didn't.

I also told you it was public record and gave you the MMSI numbers so that you could verify the data yourself.

Yes, you did suggest I could construct my own pictures by tracking vessels for about a week.
Rather like you expect me to read through thirty odd pages of trial transcripts full of legal jargon because you can't find the evidence to support your claims.

You decided not to do so, for one or both of 2 reasons. You knew you were wrong or you were too lazy to bother?

You made the allegation of the RNLI operating a taxi service. It is not my role to disprove that which you have alleged without providing an iota of credible evidence.
Similarly, you have made an allegation of the people in the OP's article but it has since been proven that you substituted another transcript to support your claim. That was pure dishonesty.

Instead you make false allegations

There was nothing false about proving you had substituted one transcript for another to support your allegations.

The information is out there. It's up to you to educate yourself. I'm done trying.

If the information is out there, go find it to support your allegations, not continuously expect your protagonists to find the evidence for you.

You've been proven to be dishonestly substituting one court transcript for another. Your credibility is low and your persistent refusal to provide supporting evidence for your claims is damaging that credibility even further.

 

[Notch7]

Well I for one wish all the refugees a very Merry Christmas and I hope they manage to find somewhere safe to settle in the next year.

 

[fillyboy]

Well I for one wish all the refugees a very Merry Christmas and I hope they manage to find somewhere safe to settle in the next year.