The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[snowychap]

My feelings on the matter are a combination of the last two posts:

To be fair to Philip Davies, the guy's a prick.

[a m ole]

21 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Yesterday he also filibustered a bill to increase the maximum sentence that can be given for criminal cases of animal cruelty, an area of law for which the UK already has among the more lenient sentences in the developed world (no matter how horrendous the cruelty, the maximum sentence is 6 months). He's just a bit of a word removed.

 

1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said:

To be fair to Philip Davies, his objection to the bill in question was not an opposition to the aim of the bill itself, only that it excluded humans.

He claimed that as 25% of victims of human and animal based violence are humans, the bill should be species neutral.

He said in his previous speech that in the case where humans represent the majority of victims, such as in West Midlands Safari Park and eating chips at the seaside, it would be unthinkable that any legislation would be passed which excluded animal victims the same.

Not an unreasonable point.

The hit-piece in the Independent followed the general prejudice to condemn all appeals on behalf of human victims, as being automatically misozoonistic.

Davies describes himself as anti-zooist but pro-equality, which is exactly how the vast majority of animals describe themselves when responding to surveys. 

I know i'm being silly 

[peterms]

So, we need engineers, but we must get rid of foreigners, especially black ones.

So what to do, when faced with the dilemma of a newly-trained engineer, a gifted student, who is not only black but also a woman?

Hmm, best deport her.

Quote

'Exceptional' student faces deportation three months before graduation

Shiromini Satkunarajah, who has lived in the UK since the age of 12, was arrested on Tuesday and taken to Yarl's Wood Detention Centre

An “exceptionally able” engineering student is set to be deported with just three months left of her degree.

Shiromini Satkunarajah, a student at Bangor University, was arrested on Tuesday and taken to Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre.

The Home Office have since informed Ms Satkunarajah she will be sent back to her birthplace, Sri Lanka, on 28 February.

She was informed by the Home Office this week that her application for a full student visa had been denied.  

Iestyn Pierce, Bangor’s head of electrical engineering, described Ms Satkunarajah as “exceptionally able and diligent”.

“I have no doubt that Shiromini would achieve first-class honours,” he said.

A relative of Ms Satkunarajah told The Independent that she was most concerned about being unable to complete her education.

“Shiromini came here when she was 12. Her whole life is here, all of her friends and family are here. She has no one in Sri Lanka, we’re a small family. She won’t be able to continue with her education.”

“Our family are devastated. My mum’s just been crying all the time.”

At the time of writing, a Change.org petition calling on Home Secretary Amber Rudd to grant Shiromini leave to remain had gathered 16,000 signatures. The campaign group 'Unis Resist Border Control' told The Independent Ms Shivani Jegarajah from Mansfield Chambers would be lodging a judicial review to stop Tuesday's impending removal from taking place.

A spokesperson for the Free University of Sheffield, who have been campaigning for Ms Satkunarajah to remain in the UK, said: “The deportation of Shiromini is emblematic of the cruelty of the Home office more widely.

“Previous interventions in deportations have had success with contacting flight companies to ask them to use moral discretion and halt the flight: in this case, contact Manchester Airport and Qatar Airways.”

Sanaz Raji from Unis Resist Border Controls said:  "Although Shiromini is an exceptional student with a bright future ahead, we advocate for all students, regardless of their academic aptitude. No one should be denied the right to an education."

We have seen far too many international students woefully mistreated both by universities who use us as ‘cash cows’ to financially prop up their institutions, while the Home Office attacks us in order to justify their racist and xenophobic migration policies.”

The Home Office said it would not comment on the details of an individual case.

These things are being done in our name.  We need to oppose them.

[peterms]

This is seriously wrong.

Quote

A Grandmother Has Been Deported With Just £12 In Her Pocket Despite Living In Britain For The Past 30 Years

Irene Clennell was put on a flight to Singapore on Sunday before she had the chance to speak to her lawyer or see her British husband to say goodbye.

A grandmother who made headlines for being placed in immigration detention after living in Britain for nearly 30 years was forcibly removed from the country on Sunday.

BuzzFeed News revealed earlier this month that Irene Clennell, 53, was being held in Dungavel detention centre in South Lanarkshire because the government wanted to remove her to Singapore.

She is the main carer for her sick British husband, John, and has two British sons and a British granddaughter.

Speaking to BuzzFeed News from the plane on the runway at Edinburgh airport, she said she had just £12 in her pocket, nobody to stay with in Singapore, and no change of clothes.

Clennell had been planning to see a new lawyer on Monday morning to discuss the potential for a fresh case. She believes her sudden removal was planned for a Sunday so she would have no chance of getting hold of a lawyer to stop it...

 

[HanoiVillan]

Had her indefinite leave to remain removed because she spent too long in Singapore looking after her dying parents. 

[dAVe80]

Disability benefits: PIPs should be for 'really disabled'

FFS!

Quote

Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those "taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide says.

No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre" decisions of tribunals.

Ministers say the changes will save £3.7bn but leave a "strong safety net".

But disability charity Scope criticised Mr Freeman's "crude" distinction between physical and mental health.

And Labour said the comments were "an insult to disabled people".

Understanding anxiety

Responding to criticism online to his interview on BBC 5 live's Pienaar's Politics, Mr Freeman later tweeted that he had suffered from anxiety and depression in childhood, adding: "I don't need and lectures on the damage anxiety does."

The government is proposing changes to PIPs, which replaced the Disability Living Allowance (DLA), after two tribunal rulings at the end of 2016 which it said would have added £3.7bn to the benefits bill by 2023.

The benefit is intended to help people cope with the extra costs of living with ill health or disability and are made according to the points a person scores in an assessment of their needs.

In his BBC interview Mr Freeman said: "These tweaks are actually about rolling back some bizarre decisions by tribunals that now mean benefits are being given to people who are taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety," he said.

"We want to make sure we get the money to the really disabled people who need it."

The Conservative MP for Mid Norfolk added that he and the prime minister "totally" understood anxiety. "We've set out in the mental health strategy how seriously we take it," he added.

After the interview, shadow chancellor John McDonnell tweeted: "This is an insult to disabled people. (George Freeman) should apologise immediately or Theresa May should make him."

And Scope chief executive Mark Atkinson said: "It is unhelpful to make crude distinctions between those with physical impairments and mental health issues because the kind of impairment someone has is not a good indicator of the costs they will face.

"Many disabled people will now be anxiously waiting to hear as to whether or not these tighter rules will affect their current PIP award.

"The government must offer clarity and reassurance that these new measures will not negatively affect the financial support that disabled people receive now or in the future, and that they stand by their commitment to making no further changes to disability benefits in this Parliament."

'Trapped'

Disabilities minister Penny Mordaunt said she was reforming the PIP payments to "restore the original aim of the benefit" to make sure support was given to the most needy.

Mr McDonnell said he was "furious" about the proposed changes to PIPS, and said Labour would pressurise the government to reverse them in next month's Budget.

"Next week the Tories will make out that the economy and the public finances are doing better, however, they are planning to go ahead with a £3.7bn cut to the disabled," he said.

The cuts would mean many people with severe disabilities "are going to be trapped in their homes", he added.

The Liberal Democrats said the government was using court losses "as an excuse to severely restrict disability benefits".

A DWP spokeswoman said the government was "committed to ensuring our welfare system is a strong safety net for those who need it"

 

[Davkaus]

9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Had her indefinite leave to remain removed because she spent too long in Singapore looking after her dying parents. 

Yup, she was out of the UK for 7 years so it was removed. Which she knew about. Then she came back in to the UK on a tourist visa and overstayed. Surprisingly, Buzzfeed have gone for the unbelievable, unjustified deportation angle, rather than reporting it as someone knowingly outstaying their visa, and being deported for remaining in the country illegally. Did anyone say Fake News?  

I think it's fair to say that when someone, illegal immigrant or not, is being deported, a civilised society should let that person pack their shit and not throw them on a plane with £12 in their pocket, and nothing and nobody waiting for them on the other side, though. 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Davkaus

[HanoiVillan]

4 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Yup, she was out of the UK for 7 years so it was removed. Which she knew about. Then she came back in to the UK on a tourist visa and overstayed. Surprisingly, Buzzfeed have gone for the unbelievable, unjustified deportation angle, rather than reporting it as someone knowingly outstaying their visa, and being deported for remaining in the country illegally. Did anyone say Fake News?  

I think it's fair to say that when someone, illegal immigrant or not, is being deported, a civilised society should let that person pack their shit and not throw them on a plane with £12 in their pocket, and nothing and nobody waiting for them on the other side, though. 

Ha, fair enough, should have investigated that story more carefully. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

 Buzzfeed is not a legitimate source for news. Utter garbage. Funnily enough the story made it's way into the Guardian too. 

[Davkaus]

I'm actually quite angry that it's been picked up as a story to bash the tory government with, because it's an incredibly weak propaganda peice that falls apart with the slightest bit of scrutiny. It's a distraction from things that actually matter.

Our online privacy thrown away, the NHS being seemingly managed in to a deliberate demise, the acts of war against disabled people...This government is not serving the people. Yet when you have multiple things to critisise, including one that's as weak an argument as this deportation story gives an easy target to attack, and distracts from other more serious concerns. When one story turns out to be nonsense, people start to think the others are blown out of proportion too.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Davkaus

[blandy]

42 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'm actually quite angry that it's been picked up as a story to bash the tory government with, because it's an incredibly weak propaganda peice that falls apart with the slightest bit of scrutiny.

I take your point. However 

Quote

She is the main carer for her sick British husband, John, and has two British sons and a British granddaughter."

If that part is true, aside from the bundling her out of the country with no notice, no money, no proper arrangements at the destination, how is taking a mother and a wife away from dependent husband and from children a good or decent thing to do?

[Davkaus]

It's not a good thing to do, I just resent stories with deliberately misleading and partial information.

Quote

A grandmother who made headlines for being placed in immigration detention after living in Britain for nearly 30 years

Technically true, however those 30 years ended in the 90s.

It's a shitty situation all round, especially when her sick husband remains here, but she has had several applications for residency visas denied. 

What is the right thing to do when a person has an application to reside in the country denied, and is then found to have basically entered fradulently as a 'tourist' with no intention to leave again?

 

[snowychap]

13 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It's not a good thing to do, I just resent stories with deliberately misleading and partial information.

Technically true, however those 30 years ended in the 90s.

It's a shitty situation all round, especially when her sick husband remains here, but she has had several applications for residency visas denied. 

What is the right thing to do when a person has an application to reside in the country denied, and is then found to have basically entered fradulently as a 'tourist' with no intention to leave again?

 

From where have you got these details (especially the bit in bold)?

Edit: This piece has a bit more detail (I don't know how true those details are, obviously):

Quote

Clennell met her husband in London in the late ‘80s.  When pregnant with her first child she wanted to be closer to her mother-in-law in County Durham, which she also decided would be a good place to bring up her children: “It’s peaceful, and everybody knows each other.”  

Now 52, she is the primary carer for her husband who has recently undergone a vascular bypass and hernia treatment: “John has worked all his life and never relied on income support, until now, because of illness.”

For 26 years she and the rest of the family travelled a lot between the UK and Singapore, and she spent long periods of time in the Asian island state - caring for her parents. Her mom had cancer and died in 1999 and her dad died in 2008 after a long illness.

Irene Clennell received her permanent resident status when she married, but subsequently lost her right to stay as a permanent resident on the grounds of multiple absences from Britain – despite her British husband and family.  

This meant she was required to apply for a visa every time she wanted to return to her family in the UK.

On several occasions she was forced to stay in or return to Singapore because her UK visa applications were refused or she was refused entry.

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by snowychap

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It's a shitty situation all round, especially when her sick husband remains here, but she has had several applications for residency visas denied. 

What is the right thing to do when a person has an application to reside in the country denied, and is then found to have basically entered fradulently as a 'tourist' with no intention to leave again?

I think that if there is, as in this case, a long term marriage then regardless of the illness, which would be an additional factor, people should be allowed to live here. It's not some kind of sham arrangement which would be quickly disolved is it? I don't get why people from abroad who are married to UK citizens can't live here legally. 

[Davkaus]

The Beeb has an article that's a bit more detailed than the Buzzfeed shite.

I was mistaken about the 90s though, while she left in '92 she spent a couple of years here up until '05.

@blandy I'd agree with that. I am not defending our immigration policy at all. I did find this section of the article interesting though. I'm not convinced we know the whole story:

Quote

After being turned back at a UK airport in 2007, she makes another application at the British High Commission in Singapore in 2012. However, Mrs Goh-Piper says, this was rejected on the basis that Mrs Clennell did not provide proof of contact with her family.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574

 

Quote

 

A woman married to a British man for 27 years has been sent back to Singapore.

Irene Clennell told the BBC she has been removed without warning.

She had been living near Durham with her husband, and has two British sons, as well as a granddaughter, in the UK.

Periods spent abroad caring for her parents are thought to have invalidated her residential status.

It is understood Mrs Clennell has spent most of her life in Singapore.

The Home Office said it expected all those without leave to remain to exit the country once their visa expires.

• Woman faces removal after 27 years

Mrs Clennell told the BBC she was put in a van and taken to the airport from the Dungavel Detention Centre in South Lanarkshire on Saturday.

She also said she was unable to contact her lawyer and did not have the chance to get any clothes from her home.

She had been held at the facility since the start of February.

Applications rejected

Mrs Clennell, who had been living in Chester-le-Street, was given indefinite leave in 1992 to remain in the UK after her marriage - but this lapsed because she lived outside the UK for more than two years.

According to Li Goh-Piper, a Kent-based supporter who is running a petition calling for her return to the UK, she had arrived in 1988 and married two years later.

Mrs Clennell and her husband moved to Singapore in 1992, before Mr Clennell returned to the UK in 1998 with their children.

Mrs Clennell remained to care for her mother and says she came back to the UK several times for short visits. She lived in the UK in 2003 until January 2005 and says that during this time she made numerous applications for leave to remain, which were all rejected.

After being turned back at a UK airport in 2007, she makes another application at the British High Commission in Singapore in 2012. However, Mrs Goh-Piper says, this was rejected on the basis that Mrs Clennell did not provide proof of contact with her family.

---

Visa rules

• A Returning Resident visa is required to come back to live in the UK if a person given indefinite leave to enter or remain loses their documents or is away for more than two years

• An application must demonstrate a person has strong family ties to the UK, has lived in the UK most of their life, their current circumstances and why they have lived outside the UK

• Ruling does not apply if an applicant has a spouse or partner who is a member of the UK armed forces and joins them overseas

Source: Home Office

---

Mrs Clennell eventually entered the UK in 2013 and made two applications for leave to remain - both were rejected, as was her final application in 2016.

Mrs Clennell says her husband is now in poor health and she has become his principal carer.

Previously speaking to the BBC's Fiona Walker from the Scottish detention centre, she said: "I knew that when I got indefinite leave to remain I can't stay outside of the country for more than two years.

"But then my husband was with me, he came to live with me for five years in Singapore.

"Initially when I applied for indefinite leave to remain I got it no problem at all. So I thought when you're married down here, you're entitled to be here.

"The kids are born here, my husband is from this country, so I don't see what the issue is, but they keep rejecting all the applications."

A Home Office spokesman said: "All applications for leave to remain in the UK are considered on their individual merits and in line with the immigration rules.

"We expect those with no legal right to remain in the country to leave."

The charity Migrant Voice says a campaign is starting to bring her back to Britain.

Director Nazek Ramadan said her case was "yet another example of how arbitrary policies tear apart families and ruin lives".

 

 

[Davkaus]

Either way, I'd agree there's a lot of room for improvement in our immigration policy, and in circumstances as described, some room for empathy and compassion. However I think the time for that is when the person is applying, and appealing any rejections.When someone returns on a tourist visa to bypass the returning residents process, and deliberately flouts immigration law, I think it's a bit late for good will.

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

The Beeb has an article that's a bit more detailed than the Buzzfeed shite.

Yes I had a look elsewhere and it would appear that the whole family lived in Singapore in the 90s for five years and that this is when she lost her indefinite leave to remain (which apparently lapses automatically after an uninterrupted two year period away from the UK) and the visa issues began from there.

It's obviously a much more complicated story than the one reported by Buzzfeed (and a few weeks ago by the Heil amongst others) and it would be helpful for people to know the full story in order to make a proper judgement but I think it still highlights issues with immigration policies and the enactment of them.

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

When someone returns on a tourist visa

Where have you got this from as I can't see it in the Beeb piece you quoted or the ITV one I saw referenced on another site.

On what basis was she readmitted to the UK? Did she enter on a tourist visa or was she given temporary leave to enter and remain?

[peterms]

39 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

When someone returns on a tourist visa to bypass the returning residents process, and deliberately flouts immigration law, I think it's a bit late for good will.

You make it sound like it's someone trying to cheat the system.

What seems clear is that she has been married to a UK national for decades, lived with him both here and overseas, has children born here, and there is no suspicion that the marriage was or is a sham or a device.

She has been caught up in an arbitrary rule which has deprived her of her right to remain.  Presumably if her parents had had the foresight to die quickly rather than linger on, she could have returned here within the two year period and been ok.

So much for family values, respecting marriage as an institution, and all the other claptrap we hear from the tories. 

It's a case that defies common sense as well as simple humanity, and illustrates that the main goal is to get drive foreign-born people out of the country no matter what the personal cost.  Unless they're rich, of course, in which case they are welcomed with open arms.  It makes me vomit.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

 

55 minutes ago, blandy said:

I take your point. However 

If that part is true, aside from the bundling her out of the country with no notice, no money, no proper arrangements at the destination, how is taking a mother and a wife away from dependent husband and from children a good or decent thing to do?

It's not. It's ridiculous. And I imagine she felt as outraged when previously being turned away.

It's a shame that she has been let down repeatedly over an 18 year period and no government has managed to look more deeply into the practical implications of such a policy.

[TrentVilla]

 

With the Tories you always need to watch what the left hand is doing while the right hand is poking a disabled child with a stick.

Not content with screwing up the prison service, the NHS and the lives of everyone north of Oxford they are now attacking pupil funding in education.

Its a huge attack on funding for schools often with the poorest intakes of children in cities like Birmingham, Nottingham, Liverpool, Manchester.

They are addressing an imbalance in funding apparently. That imbalance being giving more to the kids of poor people to try and educate them out of poverty.

This Government is abhorrent and it sickens me the impunity with which they do these things and the absolute absense of anything even remotely close to meaningful opposition.