A 92 year old widow, being cared for by her daughter in UK, faces deportation to South Africa:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/18/widow-92-return-south-africa-deportation-battle-myrtle-cothill
Disgrace or a firm and fair immigration policy in action?
What does the panel think?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 18 Feb 16 at 19:18
|
>>What does the panel think?
1) There is no conceivable possible law which will address 100% of cases fairly.
2) Exceptions should be possible
3) The Daily Mail lookers will shriek if they perceive an injustice
4) the Daily Mail lookers will shriek if there is an exception
e.g. Throw all illegals out unless they are cute and compete on the XFactor.
If the woman is financially independent and her daughter is willing to commit to funding her for the duration, then I can see no reason to refuse.
|
|
Disgrace....... surely there must be someone in management who can make a common sense decision?
|
|
I am guessing we are missing the part where she lied to get entry into the UK in the first place?
|
All these illegal immigrants need to be deported!
Oh, the aged white ones are OK are they and only the black, brown, yellow * ones should be deported?
* delete as appropriate.
Ok, you will know from my previous posts that my views are to be generous to immigrants as proportionally they are very similar to us (law abiding, hard working, tolerant etc.).
It is clearly right that the lady stays, it is human decency and even if a clinical analysis were undertaken one could argue that she is 92 - how much longer is she really going to be here for?
Live and let live and the country will be a better place.
|
>>Live and let live and the country world will be a better place.
|
"I am guessing we are missing the part .......... "
Like old Brits retiring to Spain ......... white, black, blue or green what does it matter, if they're well beyond the age for reproduction?
|
>> "I am guessing we are missing the part .......... "
>>
>> Like old Brits retiring to Spain
No its nothing like old brits retiring to Spain. The reason she is being deported is because she entered the country illegally, that is intending to come here to live, but not bothering to tell anyone that when she entered as a visitor.
>>......... white, black, blue or green what does it
>> matter, if they're well beyond the age for reproduction?
what the hell does colour have to do with it?
|
"No its nothing like old brits retiring to Spain."
It is, inasmuch as that they're too old to multiply.
"what the hell does colour have to do with it?"
That's the point I'm making ........ ask Zippy.
|
>> "No its nothing like old brits retiring to Spain."
>>
>> It is, inasmuch as that they're too old to multiply.
>>
What the hell does that have to do with someone who entered the country in a deliberately deceptive manner? Why the attempt to keep taking this individual case of of context?
|
As Zero said, it may be the lies told allegedly on initial entry to UK that are the problem.
Otherwise, it should have been quite straightforward to get an Elderly Dependant visa.
Requirements
- The elderly dependant is a parent or grandparent;
- The elderly dependant is wholly financially or mainly dependent on the relative present and settled in the UK and has no other relatives; in their home country with the ability to provide adequate support;
- If widowed/made widower the elderly dependant is 65 years of age or older;
- If travelling as a couple one of the elderly dependants is 65 or older;
- The relative present and settled in the UK must be able to support and accommodate their elderly dependant without recourse to public funds.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Thu 18 Feb 16 at 22:37
|
" like Old Brits retiring to Spain " - If you are a British citizen or British subject with right of abode in the UK, you do not require a visa to enter Spain.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Thu 18 Feb 16 at 22:15
|
Reminded me of another grandmother who was threatened with deportation after having lived here since she was a baby
www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8678748.Deportation_after_65_years_of_living_in_the_UK_/
|
|
What have we become as a nation to kick out a old person who wants to stay with her daughter the last few years of her life?
|
"What have we become as a nation to kick out a old person who wants to stay with her daughter the last few years of her life?"
The 'forces of law' will always go for a soft target. There are plenty of others who are more deserving of deportation.
|
Even the Guardian admits:
'In its reasons for the decision, it said that Cothill had “obtained entry to the United Kingdom by deception, and that she and her daughter arranged their affairs with the deliberate intention of making her removal difficult.â€'
So, whatever is going on here, it isn't very simple.
Oddly, the Guardian seems to be running a "Because she's white she should get to stay" campaign.
|
>> it should have been quite straightforward to get an Elderly Dependant visa.
The rules have changed since 2012 and now it is extremely difficult to get such visa (for non-EU nationals).
|
There isn't really an option to overlook the fraudulent immigration unless you want to send the message to aspiring immigrants that they should enter as a visitor, and then appeal against deportation, rather than apply for residency in the first place.
There is an obvious fudge available to Sir Humphrey here, which is to keep adjourning the appeal until she dies.
|
It doesn't make any difference what colour she is... none at all.
Her undoubted illegality is balanced out by her age and vulnerability.
The bottom line is 'is it reasonable to kick out an old biddy in the circumstances she is in'. My vote is 'no' it isn't.
However, my vote would be to let Gurkhas and similar stay... and foreign rapist/murderers/significant criminals have to clear off.
For some unfathomable reasons we seem to do the exact opposite.
|
|
Any reason why her daughter, who obviously loves her, cannot go and take care of her old Mum in SA?
|
Sorry but... age and infirmity hasn't prevented a lot of other court actions taking place over the past few years, and threatened prosecutions which were not proceeded with due to flimsy evidence. Why should this lady be any different (except she is already known to be guilty, as opposed to having her day in court).
I don't really agree with myself (- that's not to say Rolf etc should go free!!!) but I don't see why one is OK and the other isn't.
|
"and foreign rapist/murderers/significant criminals have to clear off. "
Agreed - I think, in these circumstances, we have to be pragmatic. When jail spaces are limited, we should lock away the most dangerous and, in the queue for deportation, ............ we should boot out the most dangerous first. I know looks can be deceptive, but that lady doesn't appear to be much of a threat.
|
But is it right or fair that other applicants for a visa with equal or better claims who applied by the correct channels have their claim rejected but someone who lies in a planned attempt to deceive is granted the right to stay?
I think not.
|
"But is it right or fair that other applicants for a visa.........."
No, it wouldn't be right or fair, but let's get rid of the dodgy ones first; this woman would be simply further down the queue - unless she suddenly decided to go on the rampage. I suppose she could already be well down the queue and now it's her turn?
|
www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing-Deportations.pdf
Good read. 38,000 removed or went voluntarily from the UK in 2014. 38,000 stories.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-35617277
The deportation to South Africa of a 92-year-old woman, who is cared for by her daughter in Dorset, has been temporarily halted.
|
Shouldn't this be an automatic 'yes':
"Myrtle Cothill, who was born under the British flag in 1924, and whose father fought for Britain in the first world war".
|
>> Shouldn't this be an automatic 'yes':
It can't be, can it, if the law says different?
But you don't need to make the argument. They have gone for the fudge, they just have to keep the review going indefinitely.
|
>>they just have to keep the review going indefinitely.
>>
In this case indefinitely won't be very long. Is she using NHS facilities by any chance?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 19 Feb 16 at 20:48
|
>> In this case indefinitely won't be very long. Is she using NHS facilities by any
>> chance?
>>
Guardian journalist Lisa O'Carroll has posted the judge's decision
twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/700453433481043968
It says that Myrtle Cothill was not a “person of credit†and had used “obtained entry into the United Kingdom by deception and that she and her daughter arranged their affairs with the deliberate intention of making her removal difficultâ€.
Also states that "the appellant had obtained NHS treatment to which she was not entitled" and the "application contains an untruth".
|
>> Guardian journalist Lisa O'Carroll has posted the judge's decision
>> twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/700453433481043968
Thanks for that link. While The Guardian had previously quoted Judge Ockeltons comments I could not find any record of his being involved.
Once the Home Office had decided to deport Mrs Cothill she appealed to the First-tier Tribunal and, losing there, to the Upper Tribunal. She lost there as well. That decision is available ot the government website tinyurl.com/zw923un (pdf) but it was heard by Judge Manuell. His decision is worth a read too albeit written for a technical audience.
It looks as though, in a last throw of the dice, Mrs Cothill asked Ockelton, as President, to review the decision. He was unimpressed!!
The Home Office, having gone all the way on an appeal in this case, has now rolled over in face of a public campaign.
I'd imagine there's a flood of grannies from the Commonwealth thinking they might get through same loophole.
|
>> Shouldn't this be an automatic 'yes':
>>
>> "Myrtle Cothill, who was born under the British flag in 1924, and whose father fought
>> for Britain in the first world war".
Myrtle Cothill the "lying conniving devious woman who was fit enough to fly to the uk, and bright enough to lie to immigration, but suddenly not fit enough to fly home" Myrtle Cothill you mean?
Ok Its probably not christian to fly her home, she is here now, but lets not turn her into a ruddy saint shall we and lets make clear to her she is ruddy lucky she wasn't taken on board a plane in handcuffs.
|
|
I do believe the Right Honourable Gentleman 'as a point.
|
>> Shouldn't this be an automatic 'yes':
>>
>> "Myrtle Cothill, who was born under the British flag in 1924, and whose father fought
>> for Britain in the first world war".
>>
There are tens of thousands of very old people in the Commonwealth whose fathers fought for Britain in the first or second world wars.
|
>> There are tens of thousands of very old people in the Commonwealth whose fathers fought
>> for Britain in the first or second world wars.
>>
and?
|
|
Lets have em all over here shall we? I'm sure social services and the NHS can cope.
|
>> Lets have em all over here shall we? I'm sure social services and the NHS
>> can cope.
>>
Why don't we selectively choose who stays and who doesn't?
So if you or your family have contributed to the well being of this country or you have bona fide roots... then 'yes' you can stay.
Alternatively, if you are otherwise a guest here and abuse the privilege... cheerio.
I agree that there cannot be a free for all for the whole world's poor or downtrodden to aim for here... however, that shouldn't mean you ignore those with a decent claim.
It greatly irritates me that we'd ignore an injured Ghurka, for example.. yet would allow a foreign rapist/ murderer to stay because of his alleged human rights.
I don't condone this lady's underhandedness (and take the point about other people trying to do it properly).. but, presumably there was no way she could achieve this legitimately and she's seemingly in the catch 22 of her not being allowed here and her daughter / son-in-law not being citizens of SA (and presumably they have jobs etc here allowing a sensible income, so SA would be a huge unknown to them, even if they were allowed to go there).
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 20 Feb 16 at 09:59
|
>> Alternatively, if you are otherwise a guest here and abuse the privilege... cheerio.
I think, judging by the comments of those judges who have looked into this case, that pretty much sums this case up.
|
>> and?
just saying, like.
|
It's difficult to see how Mrs Cothill is not going to end up reliant on UK public funds. Indeed, it's clear from Judge Manuell's decision that she's already a 'health tourist' user of the NHS.
She's 92 and has various health problems. It's a strong possibility that those problems will worsen. She'll need treatment by the NHS and when her daughter's family can no longer care for her she may need Residential or Nursing Home care. Her SA pension, reported to be £300 a month, will barely dent the cost of former, never mind latter. Unless she has substantial capital, accessible in UK, then either her daughter will have to top up or the Local Council will have to do so.
Not a dig at anyone who has posted here but......
Do any of us really believe a Mrs Patel, brought in from Mumbai with similar subterfuge and other circs being equal too, would get same public sympathy?
|
>> Do any of us really believe a Mrs Patel, brought in from Mumbai with similar subterfuge and other circs being equal too, would get same public sympathy?
>>
I think so yes, different groups of people. But I think they'd still be sympathy.
|
>>
>> >> Do any of us really believe a Mrs Patel, brought in from Mumbai with
>> similar subterfuge and other circs being equal too, would get same public sympathy?
>> >>
>>
>> I think so yes, different groups of people. But I think they'd still be sympathy.
I'd like to think you are right, but I don't believe it for one moment.
|
>> Her SA pension, reported to be £300 a month
R7500 - effectively very very little.
20 years back, and forward-projecting -it might have been worthwhile, but the constant tanking of the rand since then, and some serious inflation, has seen local pensions become pretty worthless.
Last edited by: Ian (Cape Town) on Sat 20 Feb 16 at 11:40
|
Report in today's Grauniad states that:
After reading the story in the Guardian on Thursday, British nationality experts at Philip Gamble and Partners are now trying to establish if she maybe entitled to a British passport because of her father’s Crown service.
|
Bromp, that opens a door, doesn't it?
Every aged saffer, Oz, Kiwi, Indian, Pakistani, Nigerian, Ghanaian, Tanzanian, Jamaican etc etc etc who can prove their father served in the old 'empire' military will be eligible.
Remember the Gurkhas? They were directly 'Crown Service', yet got a severe shafting.
|
Ian,
I don't know answer to that although I'd understood that most concessions for Commonwealth and other former colonial countries were closed off by the eighties. Suspect the firm concerned are looking for free publicity.....
|
>> Not a dig at anyone who has posted here but......
....here's the dig anyway.
|
>> ....here's the dig anyway.
The question was around whether Mrs Patel (or Mrs Muhammed or that matter) would have got 70,000 signatures. It wasn't about the 'commentariat' in here.
|
>> Do any of us really believe a Mrs Patel, brought in from Mumbai with similar
>> subterfuge and other circs being equal too, would get same public sympathy?
Of course she wouldn't. As I made the point earlier, it's odd that the Guardian has chosen to run the "Elderly white person must be allowed to stay" story.
But then this woman is "British".
|
>>
>> But then this woman is "British".
>>
Just like the children of service personnel from the West Indies who similarly "fought for Britain" in the two world wars, and who subsequently settled in Britain ?
|
92 Year Old Widow to be Deported - No FM2R
