Immigration lawyers

[chookey]

Most of us are aware that the Governments hands are tied trying to get rid of convicted rapists and thieves back to their own Countries by these blood sucking leeches who abuse the Legal Aid system.
The same applies with the majority of illegals making their way across the Channel. Most aren't genuine Asylum seekers yet these Immigration lawyers will take the Legal Aid money to stop them from being deported.

Now I think it's only fair that we should accept certain Afghan interpreters who worked alongside our Forces and now face imminent danger. But this particular Immigration Barrister is I feel taking us for idiots. She is taking the Government to Court for refusing an interpreter who worked for the UK Forces for 1 year, 2011-2012. He worked for the US Forces for nearly 10 years but worked for neither for the past 5 years.
I'm not saying he isn't deserving of someone taking him and his family in. But why us?

Story here

 

[Spectre]

Most of us are aware that the Governments hands are tied trying to get rid of convicted rapists and thieves back to their own Countries by these blood sucking leeches who abuse the Legal Aid system.
The same applies with the majority of illegals making their way across the Channel. Most aren't genuine Asylum seekers yet these Immigration lawyers will take the Legal Aid money to stop them from being deported.

Now I think it's only fair that we should accept certain Afghan interpreters who worked alongside our Forces and now face imminent danger. But this particular Immigration Barrister is I feel taking us for idiots. She is taking the Government to Court for refusing an interpreter who worked for the UK Forces for 1 year, 2011-2012. He worked for the US Forces for nearly 10 years but worked for neither for the past 5 years.
I'm not saying he isn't deserving of someone taking him and his family in. But why us?

Story here

Is she as bad as Blair, Matrix Chambers?

 

[chookey]

Is she as bad as Blair, Matrix Chambers?

Don't see any point in making comparisons. I'm trying to highlight the fact that only a few short years ago this argument would have been laughed out of Court. When does an employers' responsibility end?
I understand that there are massive differences in the consequences regarding their type of employment but even a fool should see that if anyone does have a responsibility for the former employee it should be the US.
He last worked for the UK in 2012 after only 12 months service.

Again, I understand the differences but hardly any employee in the UK has any rights until they have completed 2 years with an employer. I am not particularly attacking the former employee or the Barrister. I am attacking the very notion that it is a UK responsibility. The fact the lawyers are using this as a test case highlights to me everything that is wrong with our legal system. Common sense is just thrown out the window.

 

[JonMMM]

Everyone has a right to representation, if we take that away then we become a dictatorship

 

[chookey]

Everyone has a right to representation, if we take that away then we become a dictatorship

What does that have to do with the context of my post???????
I clearly said I agree with looking after those that helped.

 

[silverdale]

I was under the illusion that the Brits and Yanks were over in Afghanistan trying to re-build their countries defences and help their army and security forces take the fight to the Taliban.

Little did we know they'd drop arms, give up without a fight then head for the airport.
I thought it was us helping them not them helping us. We should have took a leaf out the Russians book and f##ked off after 10 years not 20

 

[JonMMM]

What does that have to do with the context of my post???????
I clearly said I agree with looking after those that helped.

Well If it was me I would be trying to get out and applying to all countries that I might have a shot at rather than dying, yes the US is who he has been working for most recently but he also worked for us, so a lawyer working on his behalf is not unreasonable and as said if we limit who a lawyer can work for we become a dictatorship. You are having a go at the lawyer as you don't agree with the plaintive, I am saying that the lawyer is doing nothing wrong and everyone is entitled to legal defence

 

[chookey]

Well If it was me I would be trying to get out and applying to all countries that I might have a shot at rather than dying, yes the US is who he has been working for most recently but he also worked for us, so a lawyer working on his behalf is not unreasonable and as said if we limit who a lawyer can work for we become a dictatorship. You are having a go at the lawyer as you don't agree with the plaintive, I am saying that the lawyer is doing nothing wrong and everyone is entitled to legal defence

I'm having a go at the Lawyer because I don't agree with the plaintiff?
Knock the chip off your shoulder mate. I object to the fact that the Lawyer seems to think the UK is responsible for him. The fact he hasn't worked for the UK for 9 years or the Yanks for 5 years, I doubt he would have too much to worry about anyway.

If he's anyone's responsibility it should be borne by the US. We have had to leave good people there who recently worked with the UK Forces.

 

[JonMMM]

The lawyer is just doing his job, the same as when they represent a murderer, rapist or terrorist. Everyone is entitled to the best defence they can get even if we do not agree with them. To argue that the case should not go ahead or the lawyer should not be representing the plaintive, because of a small amount that you have read is a very slippery road. The whole point of a court case is so that all the evidence can be examined and those that know and understand the law for better than you or I can make a sound decision.

 

[chookey]

The lawyer is just doing his job, the same as when they represent a murderer, rapist or terrorist. Everyone is entitled to the best defence they can get even if we do not agree with them. To argue that the case should not go ahead or the lawyer should not be representing the plaintive, because of a small amount that you have read is a very slippery road. The whole point of a court case is so that all the evidence can be examined and those that know and understand the law for better than you or I can make a sound decision.

Read more than you kid. The Barrister is a woman, not a man.
As per usual you are blind and read more into my post than actually exists.

My post is simple. He last worked for the UK 9 years ago and only did so for 12 months. He last worked for the US 5 years ago and in 2 stints served nearly 10 years. Who if any, is responsible?
If you don't understand that question then perhaps you can get someone to interpret it for you. But of course, as we all are aware, you view any subject concerning Muslims through a different visionary system. I think it's called "bias".

 

[nara]

But of course, as we all are aware, you view any subject concerning Muslims through a different visionary system. I think it's called "bias".

Works both ways I'm afraid chookey m8

 

[Rumpelstiltskin.]

Its the same old ambulance chasers. ppi, diesel vehicle suppliers etc, any where they can extort money, keeps them in a job and in money.

 

[chookey]

Works both ways I'm afraid chookey m8

You think I'm being biased?

 

[JonMMM]

Ok what exactly did he do for the UK? He may well have preformed vital services, that the Taliban bill kill him for. This is for a court to decide, by all means have an view, but to say that someone is not allowed their day in court is wrong

 

[Rumpelstiltskin.]

Rehana Popal - Clerksroom Direct

 

[Sandra51]

Rehana Popal - Clerksroom Direct

Sounds like a right trouble maker and just the type of person Jeremy Corbyn would have loved to have as his Justice Minister if he had ever become PM and who knows what honours he would have give her if he made Chakrabarti a baroness for failing to find the obvious discrimination against Jews in the Labour party when she supposedly investigated it and made her report that she could not find any.

 

[silverdale]

Ok what exactly did he do for the UK? He may well have preformed vital services, that the Taliban bill kill him for. This is for a court to decide, by all means have an view, but to say that someone is not allowed their day in court is wrong

And he might not have performed vital services as Chookey said he might be a toilet attendant. Its the timescale that's the issue and he worked for the Yanks "after" he possibly cleaned the cubicles, who knows, all hypothetical.

What gets me is, this "working for the Brits/Americans" ?. Weren't we there to working/aiding the people of Afghanistan ?.
The people of Afghanistan were trying to save their own country from the Taliban.
That's like having a fire at your home and you try to put it out. You shout for help then when someone helps you you say "There you go it's your fire, not mine".

These people weren't aiding us they were in theory trying to aid themselves to defend their own country and the Afghan people from a brutal regime coming back into power.

They had 20 years to prepare and $300 million a day pumped in by the Americans alone then for their army and security forces to drop tools when the Taliban drove into Kabul.

We need to understand, we cannot take democracy to every country on the planet and by the same token we cannot take all their people in as well.
These internal power struggles in some cases have gone on for 100 of years.

Quite a few who escaped on British flights were journalists politicians etc that's were it becomes sticky when you say they worked for the British and Americans,



they worked for Afghanistan

 

[JonMMM]

Point is without the court case we dont know, that sort of the point to establish evidence.

As to going into Afghanistan so save the people, thats utter rubbish we went in for revenge of 9/11

 

[silverdale]

True the Americans did go into Afghanistan to "try" and eliminate the Taliban and capture Bin Laden. They stopped for 20 years yes that's 2-0 years in total to try and help the people of Afghanistan to eventually protect and defend themselves from the Taliban.
This is the only way forward, there is no other way, the fight has to start from within.
The way the Afghan army/security forces downed tools took everyone by surprise. No one was prepared for the way the Afghan soldiers simply rolled over and offered no resistance in the capital.

I see Lisa Nandy MP has been on the TV blasting the way all the people weren't evacuated out of Afghanistan before the UK/USA soldiers left.

I'll explain Nandy, 20 years of prep no one expected no resistance from the army. We were hoping they would be prepared to try and repell the Taliban.
The only bullets fired in Kabul were from Taliban guns as they celebrated their walk over victory.

I'm sure I read around a dozen Taliban have already been detained after they were found on some of the evacuation flights.

Bomb the poppy fields I say, that's the biggest killer

 

[willin]

Point is without the court case we dont know, that sort of the point to establish evidence.

As to going into Afghanistan so save the people, thats utter rubbish we went in for revenge of 9/11

I may be being a bit thick here, WHO decides there is a case and to spend god knows what on legal aid?

I think there is more to going into Afghanistan than simply for revenge, more to do with economics. AND I don't think the "we" is correct for 9/11