Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Dubious deportation ruling in the UK
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:11:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <volqmt$33ids$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vol84l$2vc9s$2@dont-email.me> <volb1f$306pl$2@dont-email.me>
 <voljf8$2vc9s$3@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:11:41 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="df7279077ff9e4bb596b1d48b59a0b19";
	logging-data="3262908"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/l2F0nfa8HE7dJvbWqV5O467IK7OHSLyo="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Nt3naPCN2P5duZeOalCjf5B4HoM=
In-Reply-To: <voljf8$2vc9s$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 2/13/2025 3:08 PM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2025-02-13 12:44 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 2/13/2025 11:54 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>> A British tribunal made a bizarre ruling on a proposed deportation of 
>>> an Albanian man and his family: they decided against deportation 
>>> because the man's son doesn't like European chicken nuggets and will 
>>> only eat British chicken nuggets. The tribunal apparently thought it 
>>> would be beyond cruel to make this kid eat non-British nuggets!
>>>
>>> Both Leo Kearse and the BlackBeltBarrister have made videos on this 
>>> case expressing their astonishment:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnXDsozZawM [7 minutes]
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1C0ByXGs2w [10 minutes]
>>
>> What are the chances that a lot more (i.e., more convincing) evidence 
>> of expected hardship was introduced ...of which "chicken nuggets" was 
>> just an incidental mention during extensive testimony?  Any?
>>
>>
> Watch the second video and try to find ANY further grounds for 
> preventing deportation. The presenter of that video is a practising 
> lawyer and seems shocked at the ruling.

Even as the on-screen document (4:30) is referring to "chicken nuggets" 
as an *example*, your commentator is calling them a *principle*. 
("...that was the only principle upon which this decision turned.") 
That's a willful misrepresentation, as it quite clearly is just the only 
example given of a much broader and more palatable *principle*.  Decide 
for yourself whether that's deceptive ...i.e., whether we should suspect 
(as I do) that other examples were offered in court, though someone 
chose to include only one in the report.  Note also the abundance of 
evidence offered that the kid in question is 'special needs' ...which, 
if true, is by itself a near-guarantee of a separation's harshness.