One can't help but wonder why it was necessary to preface the headline with the word "Foreign".
What has his Nationality - & of course they are really referring to his skin colour - got to do with anything?
Because if he wasn't foreign, then he would not have been held pending repatriation. Therefore it is, in this case, germane to the story. Although I do agree that usually the headline makers are looking to exploit divisions within society.
One can't help but wonder why it was necessary to preface the headline with the word "Foreign".
What has his Nationality - & of course they are really referring to his skin colour - got to do with anything?
Because if he wasn't foreign, then he would not have been held pending repatriation. Therefore it is, in this case, germane to the story. Although I do agree that usually the headline makers are looking to exploit divisions within society.
There is a documentary on CH4 on Monday, that should be interesting. There are a couple of trailers on the documentary thread.
Just want to add to this story. I do not know the full facts-any more than the people who have reported on it. What I would say is this.
1. This is not America. "Exemplary" (or "Punitive") Damages are as rare as hen's teeth in this Country (thank goodness). It is expressly outlawed unless awarded on an identical case, and any Judge has to give clear reasons why he has done this. This has not happened here. Trust me-on the extremely rare occasions it happens (I have never seen or been involved in 1 personally) it is the starting point for any appeal, and would be reported on
2. People, any people, do not "win" Damages. Damages are assessed according to strict criteria, for example in relation to loss of earnings, false imprisonment, injury or whatever. Not for being "treated like a criminal". A Judge has agreed that this amount to £100,000 in this instance. And an appeal judge has agreed with that assessment. I don't know why. We are not told why. But it is an assessment for compensation for loss-not "winnings"
'Pakistani asylum seeker is awarded £100,000 payout after complaining she was 'treated like a criminal' when she overstayed in Britain'
Yet overstaying a visa is a criminal offence so she absolutely should have been 'treated like a criminal', surely someone in court could have pointed that out?
Absolute joke.. what a mess this country is in going down the tubes .. should be instantly removed and deported.. no ifs no buts just out out n out .. no one ever mentions that the victims have the right never to have to see them again.. always the bad / wrongin rights never the victims… all wrong this system/ country
Albanian criminal’s deportation halted over son’s distaste for chicken nuggets Evidence about child’s picky eating helps convince immigration tribunal that being forced to leave UK would be unduly harsh
Albanian criminal’s deportation halted over son’s distaste for chicken nuggets Evidence about child’s picky eating helps convince immigration tribunal that being forced to leave UK would be unduly harsh
Apparently the decision not to deport listed the reasons why it would be detrimental to one of his children. The list consisted of just one item, his child's preference for UK chicken nuggets over albanian chicken nuggets. My solution? Deport him and his son and then send some chicken nuggets over each month. Cost would be a few quid a month rather than the tens of thousands this ongoing case is costing.
Yet again the UK legal system is a laughing stock (apologies @Essexphil, but it does seem to have gone downhill since you left it.)
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"
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"
Can we nominate @HAYSIE for the job. Please, can we.
Comments
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/attorney-general-argued-member-sadistic-173203007.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/exclusive-boriswave-of-migrant-families-will-cost-taxpayers-35billion-shock-new-report-finds/ar-AA1y4nTG?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=570f421ffd234840bc138a25892bd7e6&ei=93#fullscreen
There are a couple of trailers on the documentary thread.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/pakistani-asylum-seeker-wins-100-000-after-being-treated-like-criminal-for-overstaying-visa/ar-AA1ysX6P?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=cdce13795ec64981b473dfcc40cd8664&ei=55#fullscreen
1. This is not America. "Exemplary" (or "Punitive") Damages are as rare as hen's teeth in this Country (thank goodness). It is expressly outlawed unless awarded on an identical case, and any Judge has to give clear reasons why he has done this. This has not happened here. Trust me-on the extremely rare occasions it happens (I have never seen or been involved in 1 personally) it is the starting point for any appeal, and would be reported on
2. People, any people, do not "win" Damages. Damages are assessed according to strict criteria, for example in relation to loss of earnings, false imprisonment, injury or whatever. Not for being "treated like a criminal". A Judge has agreed that this amount to £100,000 in this instance. And an appeal judge has agreed with that assessment. I don't know why. We are not told why. But it is an assessment for compensation for loss-not "winnings"
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2010829/asylum-seeker-court-compensation-criticism
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14366047/Pakistani-asylum-seeker-payout-criminal-overstayed.html
Yet overstaying a visa is a criminal offence so she absolutely should have been 'treated like a criminal', surely someone in court could have pointed that out?
out n out .. no one ever mentions that the victims have the right never to have to see them again.. always the bad / wrongin rights never the victims… all wrong this system/ country
Evidence about child’s picky eating helps convince immigration tribunal that being forced to leave UK would be unduly harsh
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/02/09/albanian-criminal-deportation-halted-over-chicken-nuggets/?msockid=23e13fcb0f9d6e6a037a2aa50eba6f93
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/pakistani-paedophile-escaped-deportation-because-125823048.html
Yet again the UK legal system is a laughing stock (apologies @Essexphil, but it does seem to have gone downhill since you left it.)
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"
@Essexphil
"The Daily Mail is making most of its journalists redundant."
The Daily Mail has journalists?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/starmer-backs-deportation-chicken-nugget-181724324.html