Bill to disregard part of UK human rights law

[Handsome Jack]

And once again ...

The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a
moderator.

This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material.


============================================ Full text of your message follows
> From: Ja...@handsome.com (Handsome Jack)
> Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
> Subject: Re: Bill to disregard part of the UK human rights law.
> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2023 21:51:40 -0000 (UTC)
>
> Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Am 07/12/2023 um 13:59 schrieb The Todal:
> >> Is the government right to say that the British public regard it as one
> >> of the highest priorities to stop the small boats coming across the
> >> Channel? I think most people have higher priorities. Personally, I'm sad
> >> to see migrants/refugees dying when they attempt to cross in small boats
> >> but I'm not outraged by their attempts to cross, particularly as they
> >> are a very tiny proportion of the number of migrants who come to Britain
> >> by lawful means and whom we need for our care homes and hospitals.
> >
> > This is what most Italians thought 10 years ago or so and see what happened.
>
> What happened was that we gave you indefinite right to remain, including the right to work here.


I answered Ottavio's implied question honestly, politely and constructively, making the point that Italian migrants to the UK have not been treated badly. How can my answer have been off topic or without legal relevance if his question was not?

[Roger Hayter]

You missed the point, he was talking about immigration into Italy,
specifically illegal immigration, and what Italians thought about it 10 years
ago.


Not that I'm expressing an opinion on whether the post should have been
rejected.

--
Roger Hayter

[The Todal]

I took your post to be an ad hominem which might have seemed rather
insulting to Ottavio, who was commenting on immigration into Italy.

Maybe it was not intended that way, but it didn't take the debate any
further.

[Fredxx]

I see so you read insults into posts when there is none to be seen, and
yet white listed moderators' posts often make insults through snide or
sarcastic comments.

> Maybe it was not intended that way, but it didn't take the debate any
> further.

Much like off-topic posts from moderators.

[Jon Ribbens]

If Jack's post is read without the realisation that he has misunderstood
the post he is replying to then it can pretty much only be understood as
an attack on the previous poster and therefore should be rejected.

If it is read *with* the realisation that he has misunderstood, then it
is an off-topic reply that makes no sense as a response to the actual
meaning of the previous post, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable
to reject it.

Either way, I don't see cause for complaint here. If anything, Jack
should be thanking Todal for sweeping his mistake under the rug and
preventing him from making himself look foolish.