Forum menu
Scribble , prod , wibble scribble
Not amongst your best efforts
None of that reply attempts to say we got this decision wrong
Bureaucratic system in (possibly) wrong decision shocker. In other news 500,000 people die every year from malaria for lack of a $5 mosquito net.
Does anyone win an argument over this?
As far as i can see no one has argued this or any other system is perfect.
I am not sure why you think anyone would want to argue that a system where on one side you have people that may be telling the truth or lying and on the other side people might be under pressure to make a certain decision about events in a far off land would always produce the correct outcome ( where the correct outcome may be the opposite of what you want ).
What you have in this case, is a person who did not convincingly show over 4 years that he might be in unwarranted trouble if he was returned after claiming and being turned down for asylum, plus a lot of shout-y posturing and bog all evidence that he has come to harm.
Can you envisage a scenario where, he might have tried it on, failed to get asylum, been returned to his own country and just decided not to get in touch with some people he had promised to call ?
Very few systems are perfect. But this is a system that incentivizes its staff to get particular outcomes, and which sets arbitrary targets for appeal rejections (which are nearly 50% higher than the historical rate). Oh, and an appeals process which was just found unlawful and which almost certainly reduces the likelihood of successfully appealing, but which we're still using anyway.
Despite which, the successful appeals rate is IIRC roughly 12 times higher than the criminal appeals rate which suggests the initial decisions are pretty unreliable. Theresa May's office withdrew 3000 immigration decisions unchallenged in 2013 after an appeal was lodged. So even the Home Office itself clearly has no faith in those decisions.
Imagine you're depending on a legal process, and you know that historically 50% of people will win their case, but a new rule has been brought in that says now only 30% should win.
This isn't imperfect- it's broken, and by design. And what do these decisions and these numbers suggest about the government's approach as a whole?
Does anyone win an argument over this?
^My thoughts entirely.
Man goes through legal system including numerous appeals and loses
STW masses with far less info than anyone involved in decision making process decide decision was wrong..
shocker...
I'll of course take back this sentiment if actual proof of harm of this individual is forthcoming, but until then...
STW masses with far less info than anyone involved in decision making process decide decision was wrong..
Probably sums up very many threads on here, but its a forum how else would it work.
[quote=ninfan opined]None of that reply attempts to say we got this decision wrong
😆
Well played.
Can you envisage a scenario where, he might have tried it on, failed to get asylum, been returned to his own country and just decided not to get in touch with some people he had promised to call ?
As easily as i can imagine a system where staff are pressurised to turn down genuine asylum seekers in order to hit politically motivated targets leading to the death of some people.
I am sure we can both imagine these entirely plausible scenarios
NW explains rather eloquently why one is made more likely by this givts policies
Someone has to make hard choices... If no one did we'd all be in trouble. Also, how much do you think the country should spend investigating each case and coming up with that choice?
That said, I hope the guy is ok.