Theresa May claims illegal immigrant used cat to stay
Discussion
B Huey said:
Puggit said:
B Huey said:
chris watton said:
Puggit said:
To balance out May's fibs, let's not forget the Labour party wheeled out a 16 year old who claims he can't afford pencils, yet posts on Twitter from his iPad.
Something the BBC failed to point out...of course..Do you not see the difference?
Puggit said:
Both speeches are prepared by a central inner-core of the respective party
Rory's wasn't. Couldn't you tell by the passion?'I got up there and spoke what I felt passionately about.'
He had to do it from memory too, as CMD snapped all his pencils.
Puggit said:
B Huey said:
Puggit said:
B Huey said:
chris watton said:
Puggit said:
To balance out May's fibs, let's not forget the Labour party wheeled out a 16 year old who claims he can't afford pencils, yet posts on Twitter from his iPad.
Something the BBC failed to point out...of course..Do you not see the difference?
I also disagree with your point about Labour boy having his speech being written for him.
B Huey said:
Puggit said:
B Huey said:
Puggit said:
B Huey said:
chris watton said:
Puggit said:
To balance out May's fibs, let's not forget the Labour party wheeled out a 16 year old who claims he can't afford pencils, yet posts on Twitter from his iPad.
Something the BBC failed to point out...of course..Do you not see the difference?
I also disagree with your point about Labour boy having his speech
dandarez said:
B Huey said:
Puggit said:
B Huey said:
Puggit said:
B Huey said:
chris watton said:
Puggit said:
To balance out May's fibs, let's not forget the Labour party wheeled out a 16 year old who claims he can't afford pencils, yet posts on Twitter from his iPad.
Something the BBC failed to point out...of course..Do you not see the difference?
I also disagree with your point about Labour boy having his speech
The latest from the Wail, and it appears the judge did take the cats presence into consideration.
Wail said:
A judge allowed an illegal immigrant to dodge deportation because he feared separating him from his cat risked ‘serious emotional consequences’, it emerged yesterday.
The human rights ruling, obtained by the Daily Mail, vindicates Home Secretary Theresa May over the ‘cat-gate’ row with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke at the Tory Conference.
She claimed that the cat, Maya, was a key reason behind the decision to let the man, a Bolivian national, stay in Britain, citing it as an example of how the Human Rights Act has been badly applied by judges.
But Mr Clarke accused her of ‘misrepresenting’ the judgment.
Yesterday it was revealed that the Bolivian not only argued that he would suffer from being separated from his cat, but also that his pet’s quality of life would be affected.
It emerged that officials discovered he had arrived in Britain as a student in 2002 and overstayed his two-year visa only when he was arrested for shoplifting in 2007. He was never charged over the shoplifting allegations.
The case had been thought to have involved a man and his girlfriend, but in fact the judgment reveals that the couple are two gay men.
The judge heard evidence from the man’s boyfriend’s siblings, who confirmed the pair had lived together for three years and said the Bolivian was regarded as their ‘brother’s partner’.
In his six-page ruling, the judge said: ‘In 2005 the appellant and his partner acquired a cat, whom they called Maya and who has lived with them since that date.’
He revealed that the Home Office had rejected arguments from the man that removing him would have ‘consequences’ for Maya.
The Home Office’s initial ruling stated: ‘Although you have a cat called Maya she is considered to be able to adapt to life abroad with her owners.
‘While your cat’s material quality of life in Bolivia may not be at the same standard as in the United Kingdom, this does not give rise to a right to remain in the United Kingdom.’
But Judge Devitte stated unequivocally: ‘The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that [the] appellant and his partner enjoy.’
Bizarrely, he added: ‘In Canada and to a much lesser extent in the United States there is an increasing recognition of the significance that pets occupy in family life and of the potentially serious emotional consequences pet owners may suffer when some unhappy event terminates the bond they have with a pet.
‘The Canadian courts have moved away from the legal view that animals are merely chattels, to a recognition that they play an important role in the lives of their owners and that the loss of a pet has a significant emotional impact on its owner.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045794/Th...
The human rights ruling, obtained by the Daily Mail, vindicates Home Secretary Theresa May over the ‘cat-gate’ row with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke at the Tory Conference.
She claimed that the cat, Maya, was a key reason behind the decision to let the man, a Bolivian national, stay in Britain, citing it as an example of how the Human Rights Act has been badly applied by judges.
But Mr Clarke accused her of ‘misrepresenting’ the judgment.
Yesterday it was revealed that the Bolivian not only argued that he would suffer from being separated from his cat, but also that his pet’s quality of life would be affected.
It emerged that officials discovered he had arrived in Britain as a student in 2002 and overstayed his two-year visa only when he was arrested for shoplifting in 2007. He was never charged over the shoplifting allegations.
The case had been thought to have involved a man and his girlfriend, but in fact the judgment reveals that the couple are two gay men.
The judge heard evidence from the man’s boyfriend’s siblings, who confirmed the pair had lived together for three years and said the Bolivian was regarded as their ‘brother’s partner’.
In his six-page ruling, the judge said: ‘In 2005 the appellant and his partner acquired a cat, whom they called Maya and who has lived with them since that date.’
He revealed that the Home Office had rejected arguments from the man that removing him would have ‘consequences’ for Maya.
The Home Office’s initial ruling stated: ‘Although you have a cat called Maya she is considered to be able to adapt to life abroad with her owners.
‘While your cat’s material quality of life in Bolivia may not be at the same standard as in the United Kingdom, this does not give rise to a right to remain in the United Kingdom.’
But Judge Devitte stated unequivocally: ‘The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that [the] appellant and his partner enjoy.’
Bizarrely, he added: ‘In Canada and to a much lesser extent in the United States there is an increasing recognition of the significance that pets occupy in family life and of the potentially serious emotional consequences pet owners may suffer when some unhappy event terminates the bond they have with a pet.
‘The Canadian courts have moved away from the legal view that animals are merely chattels, to a recognition that they play an important role in the lives of their owners and that the loss of a pet has a significant emotional impact on its owner.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045794/Th...
Willie Dee said:
Why would anyone trust the Wail though?
Do you honestly think that they are going to misquote a court ruling? While May has, to an extent, been exonerated, it's still a tabloidesque example to use at conference. The HRA needs examining for far better reasons than this.
Wail said:
He revealed that the Home Office had rejected arguments from the man that removing him would have ‘consequences’ for Maya.
The Home Office’s initial ruling stated: ‘Although you have a cat called Maya she is considered to be able to adapt to life abroad with her owners.
‘While your cat’s material quality of life in Bolivia may not be at the same standard as in the United Kingdom, this does not give rise to a right to remain in the United Kingdom.’
But Judge Devitte stated unequivocally: ‘The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that [the] appellant and his partner enjoy.’
Funny, I read it to mean that the fact that the couple had got a pet together was a indication of the strength of their relationship, which is not the same as saying he simply used his cat to stay.The Home Office’s initial ruling stated: ‘Although you have a cat called Maya she is considered to be able to adapt to life abroad with her owners.
‘While your cat’s material quality of life in Bolivia may not be at the same standard as in the United Kingdom, this does not give rise to a right to remain in the United Kingdom.’
But Judge Devitte stated unequivocally: ‘The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that [the] appellant and his partner enjoy.’
I still think May was wrong in the way she staed the case and Clarke was right, which is good because May is a cretin and Ken Clarke is a bloke I have a lot of time for
Judge Devitte stated unequivocally:
‘The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that [the] appellant and his partner enjoy.’
Bizarrely, he added:
‘In Canada and to a much lesser extent in the United States there is an increasing recognition of the significance that pets occupy in family life and of the potentially serious emotional consequences pet owners may suffer when some unhappy event terminates the bond they have with a pet.
‘The Canadian courts have moved away from the legal view that animals are merely chattels, to a recognition that they play an important role in the lives of their owners and that the loss of a pet has a significant emotional impact on its owner.’
In other words, had they not had the pussy to bond them he (the Judge) might, just might, not have been so forgiving in his conclusion.
So imo the pussy played a role, possibly a significant one.
May was OTT but the substance of her anger against the hooman rites act fits more with the public mood than Clarke's dozy idea of getting prisoners to work... what, work from home - prison IS home to most of them!
‘The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that [the] appellant and his partner enjoy.’
Bizarrely, he added:
‘In Canada and to a much lesser extent in the United States there is an increasing recognition of the significance that pets occupy in family life and of the potentially serious emotional consequences pet owners may suffer when some unhappy event terminates the bond they have with a pet.
‘The Canadian courts have moved away from the legal view that animals are merely chattels, to a recognition that they play an important role in the lives of their owners and that the loss of a pet has a significant emotional impact on its owner.’
In other words, had they not had the pussy to bond them
he (the Judge) might, just might, not have been so forgiving in his conclusion. So imo the pussy played a role, possibly a significant one.
May was OTT but the substance of her anger against the hooman rites act fits more with the public mood than Clarke's dozy idea of getting prisoners to work... what, work from home - prison IS home to most of them!
an interesting take on the cat story in this immigration barristers blog
http://freemovement.wordpress.com/
http://freemovement.wordpress.com/
So we now have 3 government ministers arguing about a cat.
"Chris Huhne has apologised to Theresa May for pointing out similarities between her speech, and one by UKIP leader Nigel Farage, to a journalist.
The energy secretary told the Guardian journalist that a website had noted Mr Farage had made similar claims about her controversial cat deportation case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15233811
"Chris Huhne has apologised to Theresa May for pointing out similarities between her speech, and one by UKIP leader Nigel Farage, to a journalist.
The energy secretary told the Guardian journalist that a website had noted Mr Farage had made similar claims about her controversial cat deportation case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15233811
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff