Quote Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn View Post
FullFact is one of the most notorious "charities" online.
When I pointed out the way Jimmy Dore lied in one of his videos you accused me of "shooting the messenger". Aren't you doing the same thing here?
For the record, I think it's pretty reasonable to do that - if you believe a source to be routinely unreliable and can give examples (which you haven't done here, by the way) then it's fairly reasonable to point that out.
But you're getting too bogged down with the source here, I can provide multiple other sources which say the same thing.
And you're getting too bogged down with the specifics of this case. It's not true that I didn't read it, but I didn't read every last word.
The relevant part for this conversation is the judge's ruling on coming directly:

In short it is the respondents’ contention that Article 31 allows the refugee no element of choice as to where he should claim asylum. He must claim it where first he may: only
considerations of continuing safety would justify impunity for further travel. 18. For my part I would reject this argument. Rather I am persuaded by the
applicants’ contrary submission, drawing as it does on the travaux préparatoires, various Conclusions adopted by UNHCR’s executive committee (ExCom), and the
writings of well respected academics and commentators (most notably Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, Atle Grahl-Madsen, Professor James Hathaway and Dr Paul
Weis), that some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum. I conclude that any merely short term stopover en
route to such intended sanctuary cannot forfeit the protection of the Article, and that the main touchstones by which exclusion from protection should be judged are
the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reasons for delaying there (even a substantial delay in an unsafe third country would be reasonable were the time
spent trying to acquire the means of travelling on), and whether or not the refugee sought or found there protection de jure or de facto from the persecution they were
fleeing
So...

those who defend it are quick to remind us rules are there to be broken. Like the judge in this case.
The judge in this case goes on to quote the UNHCR's own guidelines which agrees with his interpretation of the law