Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Oh dear indeed, the hard of thinking poster is back.
Oh dear indeed, the hard of thinking poster is back.
Then why only post the bit that might have supported your assertion rather than the meat of the article that didn't?I did.
Because it's the relevant part of the document, in black and white: " it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK". Everything after that simply explains that a country cannot penalise you for breaking the law. Not that it is not illegal.Then why only post the bit that might have supported your assertion rather than the meat of the article that didn't?
Anyway. I'm no longer sure that you have serious intentions in this discussion so I will bid you a good day and lets have the right result tonight. On that maybe we can agree.
Because it's the relevant part of the document, in black and white: " it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK". Everything after that simply explains that a country cannot penalise you for breaking the law. Not that it is not illegal.
I said above, "happy to not get into an argument over it" but seems you decided you must.
Anyway, yes about the footy :-)
Oh dear indeed, the hard of thinking poster is back.
Against him? It's pointless.Try defending your position instead of throwing insults.
Against him? It's pointless.
It's somewhat of a semantic point, but I think you'll find it can still be illegal (depending upon the relevant countries laws), merely that the person has immunity from prosecution based on the fact that they are asylum seekers.It’s not illegal because they have a complete defence to immigration offences if they are asylum seekers.
Is it illegal to kill someone in self defence?
Try defending your position instead of throwing insults ;-)Much like yourself then.