• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

You lads can stay but your Mum can do one

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#1
Ho bloody hum

A mother whose two sons both served in the British Army last night told how she fears for her life after losing her asylum battle.

Joy Dean Bowman arrived in Newcastle after fleeing Jamaica six years ago with her three children after her abusive husband threatened to kill her.

Her elder son Leven, 28, saw duty in Iraq and Damian, 24, featured in an Army recruiting campaign to persuade more people from ethnic minorities to join up.
I'm so proud to be a Brit right now, you know?

I'd do one of those petition things, but latest news is the poor woman is getting on the plane today.
 
#2
Absolutely disgraceful. I am surprised that they managed to "bowmanise" the aircraft so speedily though! Obviously it's great her sons are here and serving a useful purpose but we obviously don't need mum, so thanks for your cannon fodder children madam and heigh-ho! Another one for adam Ingram to spin his way out of then.

How will these two young soldiers focus on the job in hand when they will obviously be concerned about their mother's welfare, which the country has decided it is in the public interest to ignore?
 
#4
Yet another poorly judged decision by our inept government. Surely we welcome immigrants who bring something worthwhile to our country. What could be more worthwhile than TWO sons serving in our overstretched, undermanned armed forces?
 
#5
Im sure that the redtops and hate mail will spin it too too suit there theme of the day .... immigrants good immigrants bad .... good lord when will the stupidity end
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#6
sandmanfez said:
Surely we welcome immigrants who bring something worthwhile to our country.
You'd like to think so, eh?

Although Mrs Bowman, 49, is not allowed to work because she is an asylum seeker, she has been a healthcare volunteer for the last five years at the Geoffrey Rhodes Centre in Gosforth and is studying to become a nurse.
Arent our taxes currently being used to recruit nurses to the NHS from all around the world? Or is that somebody elses taxes? Wouldnt it be cheaper and better to LET HER STAY AND QUALIFY?

Our Government says...

The Home Office said it would not comment on individual cases, but issued a statement saying: "The Government has made it clear that it will take a robust approach to removing people from the country where they have no legal right to be here.
Oh yeah? And a robust approach to using their next of kin to recruit ethnic minorities?

I'll leave it now, before I start posting in BOLD CAPS
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#7
Poor woman probably had the misfortune to have an address and nationality that was in the database of NOK details.
The Home Orifice know the whereabouts of so few immigrants they had to fill the quotas somehow......
 
#8
TheIronDuke said:
sandmanfez said:
Surely we welcome immigrants who bring something worthwhile to our country.
You'd like to think so, eh?

Although Mrs Bowman, 49, is not allowed to work because she is an asylum seeker, she has been a healthcare volunteer for the last five years at the Geoffrey Rhodes Centre in Gosforth and is studying to become a nurse.
Arent our taxes currently being used to recruit nurses to the NHS from all around the world? Or is that somebody elses taxes? Wouldnt it be cheaper and better to LET HER STAY AND QUALIFY?

Our Government says...

The Home Office said it would not comment on individual cases, but issued a statement saying: "The Government has made it clear that it will take a robust approach to removing people from the country where they have no legal right to be here.
Oh yeah? And a robust approach to using their next of kin to recruit ethnic minorities?

I'll leave it now, before I start posting in BOLD CAPS
Actually their not. Most of the nurses I train can't get jobs as the trusts can't afford to pay them after they have paid the hundreds of people who check to see if the trust is meeting is next set of targets or not.

Managers, not doctors no run the NHS. Maybe we should get the doctors to run the civil service.
 
#9
Local (North East) news reported tonight that her deportation has been delayed because her 15 year old daughter is in the midst of her GCSEs. Never mind about the two lads who served in the the army, or HER contribution to society, - let's not upset the PC brigade.

signed,

Vitriolic 70 year old, York.
 
#10
Alsacien said:
Poor woman probably had the misfortune to have an address and nationality that was in the database of NOK details.
The Home Orifice know the whereabouts of so few immigrants they had to fill the quotas somehow......
Bang on!!! Cannot believe the brass neck of this goverment, they've shot themselves in the foot so many times that they must now be up for a "Darwin award" for their standards of stupidity. :threaten:


We are proud of your boys efforts, serving in the army of the country whose morally corrupt goverment served you so disgracefully.



edited for angry typing!
 
#11
Playing Devil's Advocate here and prepared for incoming, but are these the same ARRSErs who are so vitriolic on other threads when it comes to booting out asylum seekers?

I do not doubt that this lady has skills that could benefit our society. Unfortunately the same rules that the baying masses want applied elsewhere have been applied here. The fact that her sons serve is really neither here nor there. As commonwealth citizens they have that right (they may even have UK citizenship for all we know), but it is really not relevant.

You can sympathise with personal circumstances and if her daughter is about to take exams then presumably that would have been considered in the appeals process. But you cannot have it both ways. This government has been accused of double standards in many forums-nand trust me I dispise this government-but the rules are the rules.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#12
devexwarrior said:
are these the same ARRSErs who are so vitriolic on other threads when it comes to booting out asylum seekers?
Probabally. My view? If a 1st generation immigrant is convicted of a crime that could carry a prison sentence, boot them.

I would hope someone in Government would look at each case on its merits. But then I hope theres fairies at the bottom of my garden.

She is indeed off the hook. For now (linky)
 
#13
This is very disturbing; two decent sons serving Britain whilst their mother who tries to serve a useful purpose is sent back to face a real threat.

The answer as to why is obvious. Mrs Bowman was not a burden on society, she didn't bring anti social diseases here and didn't take a bed on the NHS after lying about being a mature student.

What is wrong with this poxy country that it returns decent persons and keeps the shíte that washes up unwanted on our shores?

How come they kept the shítebag 'Makosi' who welched on her contract to train as a nurse because she 'might' have been at risk in South Africa because of her antics on TV yet returned a decent woman to face a certain threat?
 
#14
Also discussed here.

I've vented my anger at asylum seekers who, whilst living here, has committed a serious crime that should entitled them to an instant boot of the country, not proven their reason of threat for coming here in the first place or have brought their entire family and pet cat to live in the same home once they've got their foot onto the council property ladder and none of them are working/studying. I've had the wonderful experience of the last example living next door to me which is probably why I would moan about it. I've no problem with anyone coming here, intergrating, wanting to be treated like as everyone else and postively contributing to society.
 
#15
The answer as to why is obvious. Mrs Bowman was not a burden on society
She sought assylum and consequently was not allowed to work, so presumably she was housed and maintained at our expense.

How come they kept the shítebag 'Makosi' who welched on her contract to train as a nurse because she 'might' have been at risk in South Africa because of her antics on TV yet returned a decent woman to face a certain threat?
Makosi has not been granted assylum, she is no more entitled to it than Mrs Bowman. A tribunal has ruled that it is not presently safe to return her to Zimbabwe (in fact there has been a ruling that means it is not safe to return anyone to zimbabwe), when it is she will have to go.

Mrs Bowman may well feel threatened by her ex husband, but that isn't ground for being given assylum. If it were then anyone could claim that they felt threatened by someone in their own nation and then be allowed to stay here indefinitely. The fact is that Jamaica has laws to protect her that are enforced fairly by its government. It is not our job to protect everyone who is threatened by someone in their homeland (or as in this case, someone who isn't being threatened but thinks an ex husband might find her and might then theaten her).

devexwarrior hit the nail on the head for me. Whatever laws we have must be enforced fairly and equally. The fact that this ladies sons served is not relevant. As it happens I think our immigration laws are grossly unfair in many instances (and as my wife is an immigrant I have had relatives refused entry for the flimsiest of reasons when they have come to the UK to visit), but unless people are prepared to support fairer laws (which seems unlikely given the public appetite for making immigration more difficult) then those laws are what we must live with.
 
#16
GwaiLo said:
The answer as to why is obvious. Mrs Bowman was not a burden on society
She sought assylum and consequently was not allowed to work, so presumably she was housed and maintained at our expense.

How come they kept the shítebag 'Makosi' who welched on her contract to train as a nurse because she 'might' have been at risk in South Africa because of her antics on TV yet returned a decent woman to face a certain threat?
Makosi has not been granted assylum, she is no more entitled to it than Mrs Bowman. A tribunal has ruled that it is not presently safe to return her to Zimbabwe (in fact there has been a ruling that means it is not safe to return anyone to zimbabwe), when it is she will have to go.

Mrs Bowman may well feel threatened by her ex husband, but that isn't ground for being given assylum. If it were then anyone could claim that they felt threatened by someone in their own nation and then be allowed to stay here indefinitely. The fact is that Jamaica has laws to protect her that are enforced fairly by its government. It is not our job to protect everyone who is threatened by someone in their homeland (or as in this case, someone who isn't being threatened but thinks an ex husband might find her and might then theaten her).

devexwarrior hit the nail on the head for me. Whatever laws we have must be enforced fairly and equally. The fact that this ladies sons served is not relevant. As it happens I think our immigration laws are grossly unfair in many instances (and as my wife is an immigrant I have had relatives refused entry for the flimsiest of reasons when they have come to the UK to visit), but unless people are prepared to support fairer laws (which seems unlikely given the public appetite for making immigration more difficult) then those laws are what we must live with.
re my bold above, I have said a few times in legal debates, Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right.
 
#17
Semper,
Right and Wrong in the sense you mean is entirely subjective though. We elect MP's and they make laws on our behalf. Civil servants then enforce those laws on our behalf. Courts then interpret the law to ensure it is applied fairly and consistently. That is entirely Right.

This lady applied for assylum and was refused because she had no grounds to be granted assylum, it's that simple. The court had no power to grant her application.

If you want it to be different then you need to change the law, which I have no problem with. But if you change the law the consequence will be that both cases you personally think are deserving and cases you personally think are underserving will succeed.

Personally I'd rather be generous, but given that there has been much public pressure for harsher immigration/assylum laws that is unlikely to happen.

If you are arguing that this lady should be allowed to stay here on some other grounds, well she has been. She has been allowed to stay in the interests of her daughter whilst she completes here education.

Remember also that if she becomes dependant on her sons and they are permantently settled here she can apply to settle here under our normal immigration rules. So whether she will ever actually leave is entirely unpredictable.

All that has happened is that the law has been properly applied. The woman was ill advised to apply for assylum, but again I don't see the clamour to provide more taxes for better advice and support services or increasing legal aid to immigrants and assyklum seekers.

What is the alternative to having the law applied fairly and consistently?
 
#18
Semper,

I agree, the law and justice are often miles apart.

Gwailo I agree with your sentiments when you said:

We elect MP's and they make laws on our behalf. Civil servants then enforce those laws on our behalf. Courts then interpret the law to ensure it is applied fairly and consistently.


I fear your sentiments are however somewhat sentimental as the reality of our laws I feel is something more akin to this:


We elect MP's and they make laws on our behalf.

I feel we elect something closer to a Royal Family these days in how they agree high wages and perks for themselves and treat the prols who elected them with disdain. This Royal Family then make laws (when forced into it - dragged kicking and screaming from Cliff Richard's Holiday home or a croquet lawn near you) or change laws to suit lobbyists who may perhaps donate handsomely to party funds.

Civil servants then enforce those laws on our behalf.


The Civil Servants then face an uphill task of enforcing laws to quotas, being forced to deal with offensive cuddly toys (see golly toy thread) and fearing for their jobs when driven to using force to effect an arrest instead of reasoning with criminals and giving them tea and biscuits. Politically minded managers oversee these under-funded, under-manned civil servants and enforce the laws with PC, lets please all minorities first and foremost, efficiency.

Courts then interpret the law to ensure it is applied fairly and consistently.

Courts then spank fraudsters who've cost businessmen (proper voters - who might not only vote for the ruling party but donate to the cause) money and at the same time give paltry sentences to low-lifes who prey on kids, elderly or kick Policemen to within an inch of their lives. This way we don't highlight the fact that the rulers haven't funded enough jail space 'cos the ones we have are stuffed with luxury goods.

I know I'm ranting a bit (more than a bit) but feel that my interpretation of what goes on is closer to the truth than the ideal that you suggest.

I say again, the law and justice are often miles apart.

This woman wants to give something, service and sons, why can't she stay? If the law says she can't - then the law's wrong!

Standby for an influx of Romanians and Bulgarians who may, if not work for the health service, certainly send plenty of business their way!

Rant over, from one with no faith in either the criminal justice or immigration/asylum system and intending to retire with a rifle and thirty reasons why people should stay out of my garden!

GOTW
 
#19
This woman wants to give something, service and sons, why can't she stay? If the law says she can't - then the law's wrong!
GOTW,
I think sometimes people misunderstand, or perhaps intentionally misinterpret, the law. The law does not say "She can't stay" as you suggest. In fact the law has allowed her to stay. At least until her daughters education is complete.

The woman has not applied to stay in the UK as a dependent of her sons. She could do that and she might be granted permission on that basis, she hasn't done so though...her choice, not the governments, civil servants or the courts.

The woman has not applied for a visa on compassionate grounds. She could do that and she might be granted permission on that basis, she hasn't done so though...her choice, not the governments, civil servants or the courts.

What she did was to apply for asylum, and she has no basis for such a claim that can be justified. consequently her claim failed.

So the womans predicament is entirely of her own making. No civil servant and no judge had the power to grant her what she was seeking, nor did any minister for that matter. She simply had no grounds for claiming asylum and was bound to fail in her attempt to get it.

Now it may be that someone gave her bad legal advice, but that wasn't the judge, civil servants or the government.

There are only one thing that would allow this woman the automatic right to live here permanently, which I think is what you are suggesting she should have. That is a law that gives the right of abode automatically to the relatives of ex servicemen. I have no problem with that at all, but I don't see any support for that here of more generally.
 

Latest Threads