Clapham Acid Attack
Discussion
turbobloke said:
swisstoni said:
Seems this Christian got an Islamic burial. Shurely shome mishtake.
Apparently, according to a radio news bulletin this evening, the Home Office didn't believe his Pray to Stay conversion and refused his Nth application whatever N was, but the folks deciding his appeal fell for it. Suckers.Edited by donkmeister on Wednesday 27th March 00:22
donkmeister said:
turbobloke said:
swisstoni said:
Seems this Christian got an Islamic burial. Shurely shome mishtake.
Apparently, according to a radio news bulletin this evening, the Home Office didn't believe his Pray to Stay conversion and refused his Nth application whatever N was, but the folks deciding his appeal fell for it. Suckers.Edited by donkmeister on Wednesday 27th March 00:22
Good luck on that view point.
Edited by Ridgemont on Wednesday 27th March 00:32
There's actually a much better write-up here: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/abdul-ezedi-documents-sh...
It's not ideal trying to make sense of this stuff mediated through journalists who know about as much about immigration as swisstoni, i.e. whatever you can google in 20 minutes, but that mostly seems to confirm what I suspected about the order and logic of the applications and decisions.
It does say that the final tribunal doesn't seem to have considered the criminal offences, but then it also says that they were considered too minor to exclude him from asylum, and that in 2017 the first appeal weren't convinced by his baptism, even though it doesn't seem to have happened until 2018, so hard to be completely confident.
Given he'd been going to church regularly from 2016 to 2020, was baptised in 2018, doing street ministry and was supported by the vicar, I'm not sure what else the immigration judge could do on the Christianity front, so once they'd decided to discount the criminal offences he was going nowhere. On the face of it, discounting sexual offences seems odd, but there must also be a reason the sentences were suspended.
Still not changed my view that he could and should have been removed after the guilty verdict in early 2018.
It's not ideal trying to make sense of this stuff mediated through journalists who know about as much about immigration as swisstoni, i.e. whatever you can google in 20 minutes, but that mostly seems to confirm what I suspected about the order and logic of the applications and decisions.
It does say that the final tribunal doesn't seem to have considered the criminal offences, but then it also says that they were considered too minor to exclude him from asylum, and that in 2017 the first appeal weren't convinced by his baptism, even though it doesn't seem to have happened until 2018, so hard to be completely confident.
Given he'd been going to church regularly from 2016 to 2020, was baptised in 2018, doing street ministry and was supported by the vicar, I'm not sure what else the immigration judge could do on the Christianity front, so once they'd decided to discount the criminal offences he was going nowhere. On the face of it, discounting sexual offences seems odd, but there must also be a reason the sentences were suspended.
Still not changed my view that he could and should have been removed after the guilty verdict in early 2018.
donkmeister said:
turbobloke said:
swisstoni said:
Seems this Christian got an Islamic burial. Shurely shome mishtake.
Apparently, according to a radio news bulletin this evening, the Home Office didn't believe his Pray to Stay conversion and refused his Nth application whatever N was, but the folks deciding his appeal fell for it. Suckers.Edited by donkmeister on Wednesday 27th March 00:22
E63eeeeee... said:
In simple terms, because an immigration judge believed that he was a Christian and (presumably) believed that the offences weren't serious enough to exclude him from asylum.
The other aspect is that we don't seem to have a single scrap of evidence that the conversion to Christianity actually wasn't genuine.
I get that the conversion part is very difficult to prove or disprove.The other aspect is that we don't seem to have a single scrap of evidence that the conversion to Christianity actually wasn't genuine.
Convicted of sexual assault and exposure?
We don't know the specifics but if those two offences aren't serious enough to disqualify you I wonder what is.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:E63eeeeee... said:
In simple terms, because an immigration judge believed that he was a Christian and (presumably) believed that the offences weren't serious enough to exclude him from asylum.
The other aspect is that we don't seem to have a single scrap of evidence that the conversion to Christianity actually wasn't genuine.
I get that the conversion part is very difficult to prove or disprove.The other aspect is that we don't seem to have a single scrap of evidence that the conversion to Christianity actually wasn't genuine.
Convicted of sexual assault and exposure?
We don't know the specifics but if those two offences aren't serious enough to disqualify you I wonder what is.
Agreed about the last bit.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:pocketspring said:
Because if you don't, the racist card gets pulled out and you'll be labelled a bigot, xenophobe, and anything else to oppress you.
I don't think too many people are going to go to bat for someone convicted of sexual assault and exposure.donkmeister said:
turbobloke said:
swisstoni said:
Seems this Christian got an Islamic burial. Shurely shome mishtake.
Apparently, according to a radio news bulletin this evening, the Home Office didn't believe his Pray to Stay conversion and refused his Nth application whatever N was, but the folks deciding his appeal fell for it. Suckers.Edited by donkmeister on Wednesday 27th March 00:22
Why do Morris dancers wear bells
So the blind can hate them as well...
andyA700 said:
Plenty of people did for the grooming gangs in a dozen or more towns in the North of England. Plenty of people tried to cover it up or call people racist for pointing out who the perpetrators were. Rotherham Labour MP Sarah Champion was removed from the shadow cabinet for talking about it.
I think if we're being pedantic I think some people were called racist for the tone of how they pointed out who the perpetrators were.And anyway it's not quite the same thing as "Can I claim asylum here?" "Hmm let's see you've been convicted of sexual assault and exposure and you're on the sex offenders register, yes of course you can come on in" is it.
donkmeister said:
Can we please, please PLEASE just relegate religion to "part of our rich cultural tapestry" status along with Morris Dancers and the thing where people chase cheese down a hill? We were pretty much there a few years back. I mean all religion. No special status for people who think their one is especially good. And no using it to bolster an asylum claim. Just stop regarding religion as anything more than a club with dues, silly rituals and daft hats.
I'm all in favour of this too. And while we're at it, let's have those bishops out of the House of LordsEdited by donkmeister on Wednesday 27th March 00:22
E63eeeeee... said:
There's actually a much better write-up here: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/abdul-ezedi-documents-sh...
It's not ideal trying to make sense of this stuff mediated through journalists who know about as much about immigration as swisstoni, i.e. whatever you can google in 20 minutes, but that mostly seems to confirm what I suspected about the order and logic of the applications and decisions.
It does say that the final tribunal doesn't seem to have considered the criminal offences, but then it also says that they were considered too minor to exclude him from asylum, and that in 2017 the first appeal weren't convinced by his baptism, even though it doesn't seem to have happened until 2018, so hard to be completely confident.
Given he'd been going to church regularly from 2016 to 2020, was baptised in 2018, doing street ministry and was supported by the vicar, I'm not sure what else the immigration judge could do on the Christianity front, so once they'd decided to discount the criminal offences he was going nowhere. On the face of it, discounting sexual offences seems odd, but there must also be a reason the sentences were suspended.
Still not changed my view that he could and should have been removed after the guilty verdict in early 2018.
It's not ideal trying to make sense of this stuff mediated through journalists who know about as much about immigration as swisstoni, i.e. whatever you can google in 20 minutes, but that mostly seems to confirm what I suspected about the order and logic of the applications and decisions.
It does say that the final tribunal doesn't seem to have considered the criminal offences, but then it also says that they were considered too minor to exclude him from asylum, and that in 2017 the first appeal weren't convinced by his baptism, even though it doesn't seem to have happened until 2018, so hard to be completely confident.
Given he'd been going to church regularly from 2016 to 2020, was baptised in 2018, doing street ministry and was supported by the vicar, I'm not sure what else the immigration judge could do on the Christianity front, so once they'd decided to discount the criminal offences he was going nowhere. On the face of it, discounting sexual offences seems odd, but there must also be a reason the sentences were suspended.
Still not changed my view that he could and should have been removed after the guilty verdict in early 2018.
Classy. Is that the vicar doing it or the guy who fixes the Wi-Fi?
My view is one appeal only and then that’s it. Saves time, saves money, saves holy water. There’s a queue to get into the UK because we’re so lovely and nice not like those nasty Europeans so the faster we get through it the better.
E63eeeeee... said:
donkmeister said:
turbobloke said:
swisstoni said:
Seems this Christian got an Islamic burial. Shurely shome mishtake.
Apparently, according to a radio news bulletin this evening, the Home Office didn't believe his Pray to Stay conversion and refused his Nth application whatever N was, but the folks deciding his appeal fell for it. Suckers.Edited by donkmeister on Wednesday 27th March 00:22
t-s we spent years, billions of dollars/pounds and many lives fighting!" Bah.No, unfortunately the religionists spoiled it for other religionists. I'd have them all singing Hasa Diga Eebowai as part of the asylum process.
Bluevanman said:
Stop the right to appeal and he could have been deported years ago.....but of course once they're in the country that rarely happens.Where do you deport them to ?
In this case he could have been removed to Afghanistan, certainly in 2018 and I suspect in 2020 we were doing enforced removals there. As with a lot of these cases, the underlying issue is the time it takes to process the cases and appeals and enforce a removal, which means there's time for all this sort of stuff to play out. If the system is slick and you can wrap up decision and appeal in weeks rather than years, and they're back on a plane in a few months a lot of the pull factor goes away too.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:E63eeeeee... said:
In simple terms, because an immigration judge believed that he was a Christian and (presumably) believed that the offences weren't serious enough to exclude him from asylum.
The other aspect is that we don't seem to have a single scrap of evidence that the conversion to Christianity actually wasn't genuine.
I get that the conversion part is very difficult to prove or disprove.The other aspect is that we don't seem to have a single scrap of evidence that the conversion to Christianity actually wasn't genuine.
Convicted of sexual assault and exposure?
We don't know the specifics but if those two offences aren't serious enough to disqualify you I wonder what is.
turbobloke said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:E63eeeeee... said:
In simple terms, because an immigration judge believed that he was a Christian and (presumably) believed that the offences weren't serious enough to exclude him from asylum.
The other aspect is that we don't seem to have a single scrap of evidence that the conversion to Christianity actually wasn't genuine.
I get that the conversion part is very difficult to prove or disprove.The other aspect is that we don't seem to have a single scrap of evidence that the conversion to Christianity actually wasn't genuine.
Convicted of sexual assault and exposure?
We don't know the specifics but if those two offences aren't serious enough to disqualify you I wonder what is.
Agreed about the last bit.
It would be more useful to know what he did after the asylum grant, the funeral thing could easily be a red herring, we have no idea of his relationship with the family who supposedly made the decision. But either way, you only have the evidence available up to 2020 at the point of the appeal, you don't have a crystal ball.
E63eeeeee... said:
You're over-simplifying this quite a bit here. Imagine you're representing the Home Office at the appeal, the subject has been a regular at church for four years, was baptised, has worked with the church, and has been literally evangelising, and has brought along a cleric who's known him for years. What do you say to the judge? "This is a bit convenient"? You'd look like a clown.
It would be more useful to know what he did after the asylum grant, the funeral thing could easily be a red herring, we have no idea of his relationship with the family who supposedly made the decision. But either way, you only have the evidence available up to 2020 at the point of the appeal, you don't have a crystal ball.
I don't have to imagine, it would definitely be tricky in those circumstances. We still have no evidence that it wasn't a genuine conversion, being a It would be more useful to know what he did after the asylum grant, the funeral thing could easily be a red herring, we have no idea of his relationship with the family who supposedly made the decision. But either way, you only have the evidence available up to 2020 at the point of the appeal, you don't have a crystal ball.
isn't necessarily related to your choice of sky fairy. The Muslim burial may be down to his family & friends, he wasn't in a position to object, unless it was in his will it doesn't mean much.As mentioned above, the crime doesn't make the deport criteria. IIRC it was him exposing himself while taking a pee, and patting a woman's bum. (I may have misremembered that though) Blame the criminal Judge for not giving a long custodial sentence, although at that level it may not be warranted
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff