Deportation case halted due to dislike of chicken nuggets

[Countdown]

Apologies if I'm missing something but this seems to be an incredibly stupid decision by an Immigration Tribunal

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/al...

Fortunately it looks like it's being reviewed but how did it get allowed in the first place? is this really the threshold for not deporting criminals?

[E63eeeeee...]

Sounds pretty normal to me, despite the obviously exploitative headline. The kid didn't do anything wrong, so his rights and needs have to be considered. That's what the courts do in these cases, and given they have all the information rather than just the bits most likely to get people frothing and generate clicks, I'd generally defer to their judgement over that of rage-baiting journalists or rage-baitees online.

[768]

E63eeeeee... said:

Sounds pretty normal to me

Really?

[Countdown]

E63eeeeee... said:

Sounds pretty normal to me, despite the obviously exploitative headline. The kid didn't do anything wrong, so his rights and needs have to be considered. That's what the courts do in these cases, and given they have all the information rather than just the bits most likely to get people frothing and generate clicks, I'd generally defer to their judgement over that of rage-baiting journalists or rage-baitees online.

I assume the kid needs to go with his father. the fact that he doesn't like foreign chicken nuggets doesn't seem to be remotely anywhere near a sufficient reason for him not to go to Albania and thereby prevent his dad from being deported.

I don't disagree with you about frothing/rage baiting. However this article seems to be reporting fact rather than lots of hypotheticals. It's also quite possible for an Immigration Tribunal to make stupid decisions and (fortunately) there's a process for reviewing / appealing these.

[don'tbesilly]

E63eeeeee... said:

Sounds pretty normal to me, despite the obviously exploitative headline. The kid didn't do anything wrong, so his rights and needs have to be considered. That's what the courts do in these cases, and given they have all the information rather than just the bits most likely to get people frothing and generate clicks, I'd generally defer to their judgement over that of rage-baiting journalists or rage-baitees online.

From the article:

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper appealed the judgment in August last year, arguing there was not enough evidence to show Disha’s deportation would be “unduly harsh” on his son.

Upper tribunal judge David Merrigan, who delivered the latest ruling on the case agreed, referring the appeal back to a new judge for further review.

“We can only see in the decision a single example of why C could not go to Albania,” Judge Merrigan ruled.

Did you read the article?

If the courts did have all the information as you’ve stated, it would seem odd that a dislike of foreign chicken nuggets was the reason behind the deportation not going ahead as planned.

It seems you know something that Cooper and Judge Merrigan didn’t, is that the case?

[J4CKO]

Now humming "I dont like Nuggets (oh no !)"

[E63eeeeee...]

don'tbesilly said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Sounds pretty normal to me, despite the obviously exploitative headline. The kid didn't do anything wrong, so his rights and needs have to be considered. That's what the courts do in these cases, and given they have all the information rather than just the bits most likely to get people frothing and generate clicks, I'd generally defer to their judgement over that of rage-baiting journalists or rage-baitees online.

From the article:

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper appealed the judgment in August last year, arguing there was not enough evidence to show Disha’s deportation would be “unduly harsh” on his son.

Upper tribunal judge David Merrigan, who delivered the latest ruling on the case agreed, referring the appeal back to a new judge for further review.

“We can only see in the decision a single example of why C could not go to Albania,” Judge Merrigan ruled.

Did you read the article?

If the courts did have all the information as you’ve stated, it would seem odd that a dislike of foreign chicken nuggets was the reason behind the deportation not going ahead as planned.

Yes, and given that the court will have had all the information, the vastly more likely explanation is that there was a lot more to it than just a dislike of foreign chicken nuggets, regardless of what was actually included in the judgment - some of the other stuff is even mentioned in the reporting, which must have come from somewhere.

[E63eeeeee...]

Countdown said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Sounds pretty normal to me, despite the obviously exploitative headline. The kid didn't do anything wrong, so his rights and needs have to be considered. That's what the courts do in these cases, and given they have all the information rather than just the bits most likely to get people frothing and generate clicks, I'd generally defer to their judgement over that of rage-baiting journalists or rage-baitees online.

I assume the kid needs to go with his father. the fact that he doesn't like foreign chicken nuggets doesn't seem to be remotely anywhere near a sufficient reason for him not to go to Albania and thereby prevent his dad from being deported.

I don't disagree with you about frothing/rage baiting. However this article seems to be reporting fact rather than lots of hypotheticals. It's also quite possible for an Immigration Tribunal to make stupid decisions and (fortunately) there's a process for reviewing / appealing these.

Yes, all this is predicated on assuming the kid has to go with his dad - not unreasonably depriving children of their parents is taken into account in these judgements, especially if they are unusually vulnerable. Beyond that I suppose it comes down to where you draw the line on acceptable collateral damage to enforcing immigration law on top of criminal law. Essentially, whether you think it's reasonable to send a 10-year old who seems likely autistic/ aspergers to a country he's possibly never even visited, never mind lived in. The dad seems to have been here for at least 20 years and has already been punished through the criminal system and had his citizenship revoked. Hence the judge making a decision that balances these factors in favour of the kid.

[don'tbesilly]

E63eeeeee... said:

don'tbesilly said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Sounds pretty normal to me, despite the obviously exploitative headline. The kid didn't do anything wrong, so his rights and needs have to be considered. That's what the courts do in these cases, and given they have all the information rather than just the bits most likely to get people frothing and generate clicks, I'd generally defer to their judgement over that of rage-baiting journalists or rage-baitees online.

From the article:

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper appealed the judgment in August last year, arguing there was not enough evidence to show Disha’s deportation would be “unduly harsh” on his son.

Upper tribunal judge David Merrigan, who delivered the latest ruling on the case agreed, referring the appeal back to a new judge for further review.

“We can only see in the decision a single example of why C could not go to Albania,” Judge Merrigan ruled.

Did you read the article?

If the courts did have all the information as you’ve stated, it would seem odd that a dislike of foreign chicken nuggets was the reason behind the deportation not going ahead as planned.

Yes, and given that the court will have had all the information, the vastly more likely explanation is that there was a lot more to it than just a dislike of foreign chicken nuggets, regardless of what was actually included in the judgment - some of the other stuff is even mentioned in the reporting, which must have come from somewhere.

Do you disagree with both Yvette Cooper (Home Secretary) & David Merrigan (Tribunal judge)?

Both are in agreement with each other in regards to the evidence, and the lack of such.

[Murph7355]

Countdown said:

Apologies if I'm missing something but this seems to be an incredibly stupid decision by an Immigration Tribunal

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/al...

Fortunately it looks like it's being reviewed but how did it get allowed in the first place? is this really the threshold for not deporting criminals?

Wouldn't you have called this "red meat" before last summer?



The Civil Service and our legal system need a boot up their arse. But more so all the White Knights who've encouraged this sort of wasteful, pointless st.

[E63eeeeee...]

don'tbesilly said:

E63eeeeee... said:

don'tbesilly said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Sounds pretty normal to me, despite the obviously exploitative headline. The kid didn't do anything wrong, so his rights and needs have to be considered. That's what the courts do in these cases, and given they have all the information rather than just the bits most likely to get people frothing and generate clicks, I'd generally defer to their judgement over that of rage-baiting journalists or rage-baitees online.

From the article:

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper appealed the judgment in August last year, arguing there was not enough evidence to show Disha’s deportation would be “unduly harsh” on his son.

Upper tribunal judge David Merrigan, who delivered the latest ruling on the case agreed, referring the appeal back to a new judge for further review.

“We can only see in the decision a single example of why C could not go to Albania,” Judge Merrigan ruled.

Did you read the article?

If the courts did have all the information as you’ve stated, it would seem odd that a dislike of foreign chicken nuggets was the reason behind the deportation not going ahead as planned.

Yes, and given that the court will have had all the information, the vastly more likely explanation is that there was a lot more to it than just a dislike of foreign chicken nuggets, regardless of what was actually included in the judgment - some of the other stuff is even mentioned in the reporting, which must have come from somewhere.

Do you disagree with both Yvette Cooper (Home Secretary) & David Merrigan (Tribunal judge)?

Both are in agreement with each other in regards to the evidence, and the lack of such.

I can certainly believe that the original judgment was less thorough than it might have been, and that's consistent with it being sent back for a review (doesn't look like the Upper Tribunal looked at the evidence). I wouldn't see some line from the Home Office's Press Office as being particularly illuminating on the merits of the case. It's not like the Home Secretary personally scrutinises individual cases. Everyone working for the HO legally makes decisions on behalf of the Home Sec.

[fly by wire]

A marketing opportunity for KFC to send chicken nuggets to Albania for the poor deprived brat.

No losers in that scenario.

[Murph7355]

E63eeeeee... said:

... , so his rights and needs have to be considered. That's what the courts do in these cases, and given they have all the information rather than just the bits most likely to get people frothing and generate clicks, I'd generally defer to their judgement over that of rage-baiting journalists or rage-baitees online.

I admire your optimism.

And despair of your approach.

[Mr Penguin]

He sounds like an upstanding (former) citizen.

To summarise:
He came here illegally, gave a fake name and lied about being from Yugoslavia, then served two years in prison for having £300k from proceeds of crime and his citizenship was removed because he had lied to get it.
This is outweighed by his son being the finest chicken nugget critic in the country. If Oz Clarke did KFC.

And we wonder why so many people think Britain is a soft touch on immigration.

[E63eeeeee...]

Murph7355 said:

E63eeeeee... said:

... , so his rights and needs have to be considered. That's what the courts do in these cases, and given they have all the information rather than just the bits most likely to get people frothing and generate clicks, I'd generally defer to their judgement over that of rage-baiting journalists or rage-baitees online.

I admire your optimism.

And despair of your approach.

It's not really my approach, it's human rights law you seem to be despairing of. Would you really be OK with sending an autistic 10 year old to live in a country he's never been to just so that his father can be punished twice for a crime?

[wiggy001]

Where was this child whilst his father was in prison?

Can they return/stay there in the short term whilst their father is sent to Albania, and then follow later if that is deemed the right thing to do?

Kids suffer due to the actions of their parents all the time so I don't see why this is any different if the child does not have another suitable place to stay other than with their father.

[don'tbesilly]

Mr Penguin said:

He sounds like an upstanding (former) citizen.

To summarise:
He came here illegally, gave a fake name and lied about being from Yugoslavia, then served two years in prison for having £300k from proceeds of crime and his citizenship was removed because he had lied to get it.
This is outweighed by his son being the finest chicken nugget critic in the country. If Oz Clarke did KFC.

And we wonder why so many people think Britain is a soft touch on immigration.

Klevis Disha should have been deported back in 2019 (if he served the full 2 yrs,unlikely), so this case has been going on for the last 4 yrs.

Apparently the son’s ‘additional needs’ don’t just extend to his sensitivities around foreign chicken nuggets, but also clothes, in particular socks!

The more one finds out about this case, the more it beggars belief.

If everyone working for the HO can legally make decisions on behalf of the Home Sec, one can conclude we know where the problem lies.

[Murph7355]

E63eeeeee... said:

It's not really my approach, it's human rights law you seem to be despairing of. Would you really be OK with sending an autistic 10 year old to live in a country he's never been to just so that his father can be punished twice for a crime?

There are those who believe a child is better off with their parents no matter what (there are plenty of cases where I'm not convinced, but there you go).

Anyway, yes, I would be OK with it if the option is his father staying here (which should not happen).

I'm not sure human rights law currently covers a child's predeliction for a certain type of chicken nugget (unless steered that way by a lawyer no doubt). Nor should it.

This sort of case does serious damage to the overall plight of people desperately in need of help through asylum etc. It's clearly a bullst case and I guarantee "chicken nuggets" will be referred to for years by those who are anti all immigration, not just the illegal type.

And if you want to bring Human Rights into this, you are doing nothing but hasten those who would want us to bin off the ECHR.

[mwstewart]

There's a whole cottage industry in immigration related legal assistance that seem to get by on all kinds of wheezes. The enforcement doesn't seem to be there to prevent it either.

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

There are those who believe a child is better off with their parents no matter what (there are plenty of cases where I'm not convinced, but there you go).

Anyway, yes, I would be OK with it if the option is his father staying here (which should not happen).

I'm not sure human rights law currently covers a child's predeliction for a certain type of chicken nugget (unless steered that way by a lawyer no doubt). Nor should it.

This sort of case does serious damage to the overall plight of people desperately in need of help through asylum etc. It's clearly a bullst case and I guarantee "chicken nuggets" will be referred to for years by those who are anti all immigration, not just the illegal type.

And if you want to bring Human Rights into this, you are doing nothing but hasten those who would want us to bin off the ECHR.

I think this is a pretty fair take on it tbh.

It's another one of those tales where you assume there simply must be more to it than the article lets on as it sounds so batst.