It is the standard of journalism that has plummeted, rather than the legal system.
I remember the time when the Torygraph was a quality newspaper. No longer.
You get lots of these sorts of stories. A typical example is the 1 at 13:31. The Headline says "paedophile escaped deportation..." The reality? The Tribunal Judge at 1st instance ruled in his favour, whereupon the Home Office appealed and won. Which the article (as opposed to the Headline) admits
The 2nd type is the trivialisation of sensitive matters-like the "chicken nuggets" one. There would have been 100+ reasons given, both in favour and against deportation. There usually are. But the Telegraph just selects 1 for clickbait.
This is how bad it is getting. The Daily Mail is making most of its journalists redundant. And replacing them with the clickbait operatives of MailOnline.
Is the legal system perfect? Of course not. Never has been. Never will be. Makes important mistakes sometimes-just not on the trivial bases papers would have you believe.
Reminds me of my first mentor when I was starting out. 2 of his sayings were:-
"In our adversarial legal system, 1 man's justice requires another man's injustice". And
"I really miss the days when the Solicitor was the only man in the village who could read and write"
Denmark’s ‘zero refugee’ mission – and what lessons Starmer can learn
Whether these reports are accurate or not, is it any wonder that the Patriots movement is growing daily.
If Reform become a major political force successive Governments can't say they never saw it coming.
The problem is that those charged with running our society are so far removed from reality, they actually think that it's still only far right extremists who are getting the hump with how the Country is going.
We are living in a powderkeg and people are starting to light matches.
Whether these reports are accurate or not, is it any wonder that the Patriots movement is growing daily.
If Reform become a major political force successive Governments can't say they never saw it coming.
The problem is that those charged with running our society are so far removed from reality, they actually think that it's still only far right extremists who are getting the hump with how the Country is going.
We are living in a powderkeg and people are starting to light matches.
Rather depends on what you mean by "accurate". Because there is a whole load of articles like this at the moment. With a totally incorrect Headline, then some more rubbish. Then, when they are confident that you have stopped reading, they actually tell the truth. Safe in the knowledge that they have successfully duped thousands of people. People just like you. So-please read this. If you want the truth.
I'll split this into 3 parts-the Telegraph; what has really happened early on; and what is really happening now. Not difficult-once you understand how the legal system works
1. The Telegraph. It's ownership, to put it mildly, is complicated. The official owners are the Barclay Brothers (technically, the surviving one and the other's family). Billionaires. Been tax exiles for decades. Also the only people that I know to have chosen to bring more than 1 case to the European Court of Human Rights. They defaulted on a £1.2 Billion loan to a Bank, who now officially runs various parts. And they are annoyed because the last Govt prevented them flogging the Paper to the United Arab Emirates, citing the National Interest. But they are owed a further £600 milly, so best the Telegraph don't upset them. And most of their journalists are long gone, and replaced by clickbait merchants. And the Paper refuses to reveal its circulation
2. Here is the nugget of truth. This drug-dealing chancer managed to persuade a Judge that various things were true. It looks like without any supporting evidence. And that happens. What happens is that a Judge decides in favour of 1 side, and then (subconsciously or otherwise) fits the facts to fit his preferred verdict. Because some people get hoodwinked. In exactly the same way the Torygraph has done to you. Because you have allowed someone to slant the facts to fit your preferred verdict. It is rare-but I have been on both sides on rare occasions
3. The Govt did not accept this decision. They appealed it-as the Telegraph well know. Because it is in their article. Here's the important legal bit. Appeals do not operate in the way non-Lawyers imagine. The Appeal Court does not re-hear the case, and substitute its verdict for the original one. That's not the way these things work. The original guy isn't there. What does happen is that the Appeal Judge (who is more Senior than the original one) looks at the info available to the original Judge, and says whether or not the original decision was a reasonable decision. On those facts. And, if it is not, refers it back to the original Court (or, in this case, Tribunal) for a fresh decision. Which is exactly what happened here. The appeal judge said the first guy clearly was either having a bad day or believed someone when they told him "gullible" wasn't in the dictionary.
So-what will happen next? This guy doesn't have a snowball's. His family might-we don't have enough info. And the Appeal Judge has said all the exact things you would want him to say. It's all there. In the Telegraph article.
Hidden under the lying Headline. Which is the only thing "removed from reality"
Sorry Phil, I really didn't express myself very well.
When I was talking about the accuracy I maybe should have used the word veracity. I was alluding to the misinformation that is contained within such headlines and acknowledging the burred half truths presented in a way to elicit a prescribed response.
When I was talking about people removed from reality, I was referring to politicians, rather than the judiciary, and the absolute disconnect with ordinary people that permeates the halls of power.
Always appreciate and respect your inside perspective of legal matters though.
Comments
What they can all read and write now?
I thought that they only had to learn to add up "How much can I get away with charging for this".
Or taking away "How much will I have left from your bill payment after I pay for my new Roll Royce".
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/ghanaian-wins-right-to-stay-in-britain-after-staging-marriage-she-did-not-attend/ar-AA1z0gah?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=8b30f5996f1a44d1f4159e77497562d7&ei=12#fullscreen
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/drug-dealer-allowed-stay-britain-061700614.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/zimbabwean-paedophile-allowed-stay-uk-151115357.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/denmark-s-zero-refugee-mission-and-what-lessons-starmer-can-learn/ar-AA1z9el4?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=1b88409344884592f22acffdc649667d&ei=80#fullscreen
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/staggering-waste-home-office-spent-060000486.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/slovakian-jailed-over-shovel-attack-181624840.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/iraqi-asylum-seeker-allowed-to-stay-in-britain-after-his-mother-refused-to-hand-over-id-claiming-he-would-be-at-risk-over-car-repair/ar-AA1zmt40?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=bc9579a0d036447cc6209af41602425b&ei=11#fullscreen
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jailing-sex-offender-asylum-seeker-132440837.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/sudanese-asylum-seeker-receding-hairline-060000513.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/egyptian-nhs-doctor-who-glorified-hamas-spared-deportation/ar-AA1zw7DA?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=1d84834461354e089f2b8b5f019a129a&ei=71#fullscreen
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/albanian-people-smuggler-deemed-valuable-111003373.html
If Reform become a major political force successive Governments can't say they never saw it coming.
The problem is that those charged with running our society are so far removed from reality, they actually think that it's still only far right extremists who are getting the hump with how the Country is going.
We are living in a powderkeg and people are starting to light matches.
I'll split this into 3 parts-the Telegraph; what has really happened early on; and what is really happening now. Not difficult-once you understand how the legal system works
1. The Telegraph. It's ownership, to put it mildly, is complicated. The official owners are the Barclay Brothers (technically, the surviving one and the other's family). Billionaires. Been tax exiles for decades. Also the only people that I know to have chosen to bring more than 1 case to the European Court of Human Rights. They defaulted on a £1.2 Billion loan to a Bank, who now officially runs various parts. And they are annoyed because the last Govt prevented them flogging the Paper to the United Arab Emirates, citing the National Interest. But they are owed a further £600 milly, so best the Telegraph don't upset them. And most of their journalists are long gone, and replaced by clickbait merchants. And the Paper refuses to reveal its circulation
2. Here is the nugget of truth. This drug-dealing chancer managed to persuade a Judge that various things were true. It looks like without any supporting evidence. And that happens. What happens is that a Judge decides in favour of 1 side, and then (subconsciously or otherwise) fits the facts to fit his preferred verdict. Because some people get hoodwinked. In exactly the same way the Torygraph has done to you. Because you have allowed someone to slant the facts to fit your preferred verdict. It is rare-but I have been on both sides on rare occasions
3. The Govt did not accept this decision. They appealed it-as the Telegraph well know. Because it is in their article. Here's the important legal bit. Appeals do not operate in the way non-Lawyers imagine. The Appeal Court does not re-hear the case, and substitute its verdict for the original one. That's not the way these things work. The original guy isn't there. What does happen is that the Appeal Judge (who is more Senior than the original one) looks at the info available to the original Judge, and says whether or not the original decision was a reasonable decision. On those facts. And, if it is not, refers it back to the original Court (or, in this case, Tribunal) for a fresh decision. Which is exactly what happened here. The appeal judge said the first guy clearly was either having a bad day or believed someone when they told him "gullible" wasn't in the dictionary.
So-what will happen next? This guy doesn't have a snowball's. His family might-we don't have enough info. And the Appeal Judge has said all the exact things you would want him to say. It's all there. In the Telegraph article.
Hidden under the lying Headline. Which is the only thing "removed from reality"
When I was talking about the accuracy I maybe should have used the word veracity. I was alluding to the misinformation that is contained within such headlines and acknowledging the burred half truths presented in a way to elicit a prescribed response.
When I was talking about people removed from reality, I was referring to politicians, rather than the judiciary, and the absolute disconnect with ordinary people that permeates the halls of power.
Always appreciate and respect your inside perspective of legal matters though.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/fury-as-800-000-migrants-set-to-gain-right-to-stay-in-the-uk-forever/ar-AA1zK22V?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=9d52824a2d7c411bf77d8a22451331dc&ei=185#fullscreen