Angelus71 4 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-immigrant.html Edited October 21, 2009 by Angelus71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelus71 4 Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) However one immigration judge, Judith Gleeson, remarked in the official ruling that the cat 'need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice.' Edited October 21, 2009 by Angelus71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 You realise there's >95% chance that the mice remark was tongue in cheek right? The cat was one of many reasons considering that the relationship was genuine enough for him to stay, the Home Office just thought too much weight had been placed in it. wtf is with this paper anyway? The headlines on the right are robbing me of my will to live. I'm not even sure that one about periwinkle geldof and short bizzle was in English. The case could be a complete farce, but at least find the facts somewhere more neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelus71 4 Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 You realise there's >95% chance that the mice remark was tongue in cheek right? The cat was one of many reasons considering that the relationship was genuine enough for him to stay, the Home Office just thought too much weight had been placed in it. wtf is with this paper anyway? The headlines on the right are robbing me of my will to live. I'm not even sure that one about periwinkle geldof and short bizzle was in English. The case could be a complete farce, but at least find the facts somewhere more neutral. Erm, yes, I did realize that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 You realise there's >95% chance that the mice remark was tongue in cheek right? The cat was one of many reasons considering that the relationship was genuine enough for him to stay, the Home Office just thought too much weight had been placed in it. wtf is with this paper anyway? The headlines on the right are robbing me of my will to live. I'm not even sure that one about periwinkle geldof and short bizzle was in English. The case could be a complete farce, but at least find the facts somewhere more neutral. What a fucking appalling article btw. Like how it mentions that the cat was only a small part of what was taken into consideration as an aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Send the cats back !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I dont understand! he's an ILLEGAL immigrant. so fuck if he's got a cat/lass/couple of pots and pans. send the fooka back as its against international law (ie. ILLEGAL) for him to be here! ffs, this country is beyond belief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38787 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Send the cats back !!! They come over here, eating our mice and using our litter, and can they speak English? No, bloody "Miaow" and that's if they bother to speak at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Send the cats back !!! They come over here, eating our mice and using our litter, and can they speak English? No, bloody "Miaow" and that's if they bother to speak at all. ...and those evil looks they give you as they snuggle up for another nap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38787 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Send the cats back !!! They come over here, eating our mice and using our litter, and can they speak English? No, bloody "Miaow" and that's if they bother to speak at all. ...and those evil looks they give you as they snuggle up for another nap. The country's going to Hell in a Handcart, and I blame the cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missed Sticks 0 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Send the cats back !!! Send them back, send them back, send the black one back. Cats that is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I dont understand! he's an ILLEGAL immigrant. so fuck if he's got a cat/lass/couple of pots and pans. send the fooka back as its against international law (ie. ILLEGAL) for him to be here! ffs, this country is beyond belief! International Law? Eh? Irrespective of whether the judgement is correct (I don't know anything about the case other than what it says in the Mail), it's people taking that inflamatory bollocks at face value that beggars belief. The comments are hilarious and scary with equal measure as well. "BNP all the way for me" etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I dont understand! he's an ILLEGAL immigrant. so fuck if he's got a cat/lass/couple of pots and pans. send the fooka back as its against international law (ie. ILLEGAL) for him to be here! ffs, this country is beyond belief! International Law? Eh? Irrespective of whether the judgement is correct (I don't know anything about the case other than what it says in the Mail), it's people taking that inflamatory bollocks at face value that beggars belief. The comments are hilarious and scary with equal measure as well. "BNP all the way for me" etc. just because you dont like the the Mail or the BNP that doesnt mean everybody has to agree with you, but the fact is, if he's facing deportation in the 1st place then it must be because he's here ILLEGALLY. come on, think about it. the term 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT' has the word 'ILLEGAL' in it. that means its 'ILLEGAL' for said person to be here. its people that are dissmissive of said 'inflamatory bollocks' who are really scary as they are avoiding the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26434 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) And now he's no longer here illegally so what's the problem? Edited October 21, 2009 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 But without illegal immigration the world would never have got Arnold Schwarzenneger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 But without illegal immigration the world would never have got Arnold Schwarzenneger. and i bet you said that with a straight face as well!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 But without illegal immigration the world would never have got Arnold Schwarzenneger. and i bet you said that with a straight face as well!! Probably not as straight as yours was when you said "its people that are dissmissive of said 'inflamatory bollocks' who are really scary" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 And now he's no longer here illegally so what's the problem? no problem bud, but i still reckon he should have been sent home. he's broken the law and got away with it cos he's got a cat/lass/pots & pans etc........... By this logic does this mean i can rob the local post office?? I've got TWO cats, and a wife, and 2 kids, and lots of pots & pans!! Simples!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 But without illegal immigration the world would never have got Arnold Schwarzenneger. and i bet you said that with a straight face as well!! Probably not as straight as yours was when you said "its people that are dissmissive of said 'inflamatory bollocks' who are really scary" wasnt straight, it had an ironic smirk on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) I dont understand! he's an ILLEGAL immigrant. so fuck if he's got a cat/lass/couple of pots and pans. send the fooka back as its against international law (ie. ILLEGAL) for him to be here! ffs, this country is beyond belief! International Law? Eh? Irrespective of whether the judgement is correct (I don't know anything about the case other than what it says in the Mail), it's people taking that inflamatory bollocks at face value that beggars belief. The comments are hilarious and scary with equal measure as well. "BNP all the way for me" etc. just because you dont like the the Mail or the BNP that doesnt mean everybody has to agree with you, but the fact is, if he's facing deportation in the 1st place then it must be because he's here ILLEGALLY. come on, think about it. the term 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT' has the word 'ILLEGAL' in it. that means its 'ILLEGAL' for said person to be here. its people that are dissmissive of said 'inflamatory bollocks' who are really scary as they are avoiding the issue. Illegal you say? Where have I said everyone has to agree with me btw? The FACT (see I can use capslock too) is the government thought he was here ILLEGALLY but the courts have ruled he has a LEGAL right to stay here. I didn't even say I thought the decision was correct, all I was saying was it's probably not the most balanced view you're getting from the Mail. The funny thing is though that all the people commenting there (many of whom live abroad ironically) are going on about Britain going to the dogs/cats and saying it wouldn't happen elsewhere when I would say (given the ruling was based on HUMAN RIGHTS) that the judgement was made based on European Law we have signed up to via the Human Rights act. Edited October 21, 2009 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 And now he's no longer here illegally so what's the problem? no problem bud, but i still reckon he should have been sent home. he's broken the law and got away with it cos he's got a cat/lass/pots & pans etc........... By this logic does this mean i can rob the local post office?? I've got TWO cats, and a wife, and 2 kids, and lots of pots & pans!! Simples!! Needs to be added to cunt poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I dont understand! he's an ILLEGAL immigrant. so fuck if he's got a cat/lass/couple of pots and pans. send the fooka back as its against international law (ie. ILLEGAL) for him to be here! ffs, this country is beyond belief! International Law? Eh? Irrespective of whether the judgement is correct (I don't know anything about the case other than what it says in the Mail), it's people taking that inflamatory bollocks at face value that beggars belief. The comments are hilarious and scary with equal measure as well. "BNP all the way for me" etc. just because you dont like the the Mail or the BNP that doesnt mean everybody has to agree with you, but the fact is, if he's facing deportation in the 1st place then it must be because he's here ILLEGALLY. come on, think about it. the term 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT' has the word 'ILLEGAL' in it. that means its 'ILLEGAL' for said person to be here. its people that are dissmissive of said 'inflamatory bollocks' who are really scary as they are avoiding the issue. Illegal you say? Where have I said everyone has to agree with me btw? The FACT (see I can use capslock too) is the government thought he was here ILLEGALLY but the courts have ruled he has a LEGAL right to stay here. I didn't even say I thought the decision was correct, all I was saying was it's probably not the most balanced view you're getting from the Mail. The funny thing is though that all the people commenting there (many of whom live abroad ironically) are going on about Britain going to the dogs/cats when and saying it wouldn't happen elsewhere when I would say (given the ruling was based on HUMAN RIGHTS) that the judgement was made based on European Law we have signed up to via the Human Rights act. are you saying the government made a mistake signing up to the human rights act? (Joke!) I'm not going to argue about the EU or the human rights act cos quite simply i disagree with both of them (not the motives, just the implementation of both). just seems very strange to me that (Great)?? Britain thought it was illegal for him to stay, yet the Eu courts thought it was ok cos he has a cat (i know there was more). as i said earlier, he's broken the law and got away with it. does this not boil your piss? cos it sure does mine!! oh, and its Caps Lock (2 words). Its only on the button, ffs!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 And now he's no longer here illegally so what's the problem? no problem bud, but i still reckon he should have been sent home. he's broken the law and got away with it cos he's got a cat/lass/pots & pans etc........... By this logic does this mean i can rob the local post office?? I've got TWO cats, and a wife, and 2 kids, and lots of pots & pans!! Simples!! Needs to be added to cunt poll. you and me both brother!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I dont understand! he's an ILLEGAL immigrant. so fuck if he's got a cat/lass/couple of pots and pans. send the fooka back as its against international law (ie. ILLEGAL) for him to be here! ffs, this country is beyond belief! International Law? Eh? Irrespective of whether the judgement is correct (I don't know anything about the case other than what it says in the Mail), it's people taking that inflamatory bollocks at face value that beggars belief. The comments are hilarious and scary with equal measure as well. "BNP all the way for me" etc. just because you dont like the the Mail or the BNP that doesnt mean everybody has to agree with you, but the fact is, if he's facing deportation in the 1st place then it must be because he's here ILLEGALLY. come on, think about it. the term 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT' has the word 'ILLEGAL' in it. that means its 'ILLEGAL' for said person to be here. its people that are dissmissive of said 'inflamatory bollocks' who are really scary as they are avoiding the issue. Illegal you say? Where have I said everyone has to agree with me btw? The FACT (see I can use capslock too) is the government thought he was here ILLEGALLY but the courts have ruled he has a LEGAL right to stay here. I didn't even say I thought the decision was correct, all I was saying was it's probably not the most balanced view you're getting from the Mail. The funny thing is though that all the people commenting there (many of whom live abroad ironically) are going on about Britain going to the dogs/cats when and saying it wouldn't happen elsewhere when I would say (given the ruling was based on HUMAN RIGHTS) that the judgement was made based on European Law we have signed up to via the Human Rights act. are you saying the government made a mistake signing up to the human rights act? (Joke!) I'm not going to argue about the EU or the human rights act cos quite simply i disagree with both of them (not the motives, just the implementation of both). just seems very strange to me that (Great)?? Britain thought it was illegal for him to stay, yet the Eu courts thought it was ok cos he has a cat (i know there was more). as i said earlier, he's broken the law and got away with it. does this not boil your piss? cos it sure does mine!! oh, and its Caps Lock (2 words). Its only on the button, ffs!! OOoooooOOO HE'S BROKEN THE LAW!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I dont understand! he's an ILLEGAL immigrant. so fuck if he's got a cat/lass/couple of pots and pans. send the fooka back as its against international law (ie. ILLEGAL) for him to be here! ffs, this country is beyond belief! International Law? Eh? Irrespective of whether the judgement is correct (I don't know anything about the case other than what it says in the Mail), it's people taking that inflamatory bollocks at face value that beggars belief. The comments are hilarious and scary with equal measure as well. "BNP all the way for me" etc. just because you dont like the the Mail or the BNP that doesnt mean everybody has to agree with you, but the fact is, if he's facing deportation in the 1st place then it must be because he's here ILLEGALLY. come on, think about it. the term 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT' has the word 'ILLEGAL' in it. that means its 'ILLEGAL' for said person to be here. its people that are dissmissive of said 'inflamatory bollocks' who are really scary as they are avoiding the issue. Illegal you say? Where have I said everyone has to agree with me btw? The FACT (see I can use capslock too) is the government thought he was here ILLEGALLY but the courts have ruled he has a LEGAL right to stay here. I didn't even say I thought the decision was correct, all I was saying was it's probably not the most balanced view you're getting from the Mail. The funny thing is though that all the people commenting there (many of whom live abroad ironically) are going on about Britain going to the dogs/cats when and saying it wouldn't happen elsewhere when I would say (given the ruling was based on HUMAN RIGHTS) that the judgement was made based on European Law we have signed up to via the Human Rights act. are you saying the government made a mistake signing up to the human rights act? (Joke!) I'm not going to argue about the EU or the human rights act cos quite simply i disagree with both of them (not the motives, just the implementation of both). just seems very strange to me that (Great)?? Britain thought it was illegal for him to stay, yet the Eu courts thought it was ok cos he has a cat (i know there was more). as i said earlier, he's broken the law and got away with it. does this not boil your piss? cos it sure does mine!! oh, and its Caps Lock (2 words). Its only on the button, ffs!! I'm saying the Human Rights act is the reason for the judgement. It wasn't Britain vs. the EU either. It was the Home Office (to use your logic - are you saying the British Government is never wrong? etc. zzzzz) vs. an individual in a British Court. If you think the cat was the deciding issue then you're one of people I'm saying is daft for taking the article at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now