1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Deportation threats, driving licence revoked, child benefit stopped - all for living legally in the

Discussion in 'UK Visa and Immigration Help' started by KeithAngel, Sep 18, 2017.

  1. KeithAngel
    Offline

    KeithAngel 2063 Lifetime Member

    "A Japanese woman living in London with her Polish husband has been threatened with deportation, had her child benefit stopped and driving licence revoked even though she is lawfully in the country under EU law, it has emerged.

    In a two-year ordeal, photographer Haruko Tomioko, was also threatened with separation from her eight-year-old son.

    She told the Guardian how her life was turned upside down, how she was ordered to pay back £5,000 in child benefit for their son and report to a Home Office immigration centre every month. If she did not comply with the reporting order, she was told she was liable to detention, a prison sentence and/or a fine of up to £5,000.

    Despite several protests and futile phone calls to the Home Office, two weeks ago she was given seven days to leave the country."




    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...omans-traumatic-two-year-battle-to-stay-in-uk
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. Dave_E
    Offline

    Dave_E Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    Did you fall asleep after reading the first four paragraphs Keith?

    Reading further down the article:
    Too much moaning.

    Seems like she did not apply correctly and an immigration barrister is now trying to screw compensation money out of the hard working British taxpayer. :erm:
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Markham
    Offline

    Markham Guest

    Keith must be feeling the effects of old age. Not only does he (arguably) fall asleep whilst reading an article in the Guardian but his age-related short-term memory loss (aka Dementia) has resulted in him posting political articles against the Admin's expressed wishes.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. bigmac
    Online

    bigmac Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    i wouldnt class this as a political thread.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Mattecube
    Offline

    Mattecube face the sunshine so shadows fall behind you Trusted Member

    I think that it is being raised on the dates of events making a sly political point!
    I think @Markham has a point
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Markham
    Offline

    Markham Guest

    I disagree. This is an attempt to blacken the name of the Home Office over something it clearly hasn't done.

    But that aside, this section is where we help people with their visit and settlement visas. This joke of a story has no place here.
  7. Anon04576
    Offline

    Anon04576 Well-Known Member

    Keith didn't actually write the article though, he is merely posting what has been reported.

    I must admit that I have posted related articles to this in so much as the article was poorly presented by the newspaper. Merely to highlight the goings on on both sides, namely the applicant and UKVI. Invariably it is the applicant who gets things wrong but in this case it isnt conclusive as UKVI dont actually explain the potential issue.

    So its fair to say you and dave are jumping to conclusions. However more of a concern is that you are insulting Keith in the process. Dementia isn't something we would want to tag anybody with, it's a nasty disease. Back on track - It is another poorly written article from which we cannot make a sound judgement.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Markham
    Offline

    Markham Guest

    I disagree. Keith has mis-reported the article as Dave points-out, by only quoting from the first part. That suits his anti-Tory agenda nicely. You say that UKVI doesn't "explain the potential issue" - I think they probably did but to those directly affected rather the Guardian to whom they're not answerable for the minutiae of individual cases. But we don't know for sure because it's a badly-written non-story that has nothing to do with applying for visas. Its inclusion here is more likely to confuse than inform.

    As for the insult, I've been called far worse on here and I don't recall you ever coming to my defence on those occasions. A pro-left bias perhaps.
  9. Anon04576
    Offline

    Anon04576 Well-Known Member

    Most people quote the intro of a story and leave a link to read in full. That is the premise of 99% of threads in most forums.

    If they did explain the potential issue, it wasn't in that article and that is what we are discussing here.

    Even articles that don't fully give an explanation are still worthy of debate, it's too close to our own paths to sometimes ignore.

    Well If I see you being insulted I will ask them to give you the same respect that you afford them. Pro-left? Are you sure you don't want to join the new Politics section?

    We have all agreed on the new hidden politics section (actually at your request) so no need for politics to spill out on here.
  10. Markham
    Offline

    Markham Guest

    Quite but in this case Keith has misrepresented the Guardian article whose conclusion is not as he intimates in his thread title. He has politicised what is effectively a non-event, a non-story. This section is where people post their visa questions. They can go to the politics forum if they want to read about political/politicised decisions such as this.

    Which is precisely what they're doing - or so they would claim if challenged.

    Why would I do that when I campaigned to remove all political discussion? I see little to be gained from being one of three posters there, one of whom is a hard-left activist and the other his sycophantic cheerleader? They can have their playground and post all the anti-Tory, anti-Brexit bile they want. Neither appears keen to participate in discussions elsewhere or to help members with questions.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Anon04576
    Offline

    Anon04576 Well-Known Member


    I have to disagree. He has cut and pasted the articles title in to the threads title (albeit slighty truncated at the end).

    You did campaign for the politics forum to be removed initially and then hidden, which we did. I'm not sure what you would gain but you were actually the 3rd most prolific poster within that old politics forum, so the change of heart to then have it stopped is, well, appreciated!
  12. Markham
    Offline

    Markham Guest

    So we have to stoop to the Guardian's level? It too misrepresented the story in its headline.

    Yes, Paul, I did and I am very grateful to you for agreeing to and implementing the suggestion; as you probably know, earlier attempts were thwarted by another. I hope you will soon realise that there's little merit in having the old politics threads open to public gaze.

    As an aside, I am surprised - and a tad annoyed - by Andrew's flounce: when it was he who first campaigned for there to be no politics on this website and after his wish is eventually granted, starts yet another political thread! But he remains a good friend.
  13. Anon04576
    Offline

    Anon04576 Well-Known Member

    I dont know about stooping but inevitably there are going to be posts with stories from varoius sources.

    I dont quite understand Methers departure whilst quoting a public notice which is addressed to everybody but of course that is his perogative.
  14. Markham
    Offline

    Markham Guest

    Public notice? The first two words of the (assumed) quote are "Hi Methersgate" which suggests he's actually quoting a PM he received. Maybe he's forgotten that a certain former member got banned for that!
  15. Anon04576
    Offline

    Anon04576 Well-Known Member

    No it was a public notice in so much as it was addressed to every logged in user. The notice addresses the logged in user personally with their user name but is is public in nature, as in everybody. You have/had it too. The notice had the ability to be removed.
  16. Markham
    Offline

    Markham Guest

    Yes I remember the notice but that it was addressed personally didn't register with me. And I don't think I did anything to cause it to disappear which it did, apparently of its own volition, after 3 or 4 days. As for Andrew, he may be attending the Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth and judging from photos I've seen, all the attendees wouldn't fill a phone box: that might cause him to give vent to his self-righteous indignation. :D

    He'll be back. Eventually.

Share This Page