British Court Of Appeal Slams Home Office

[fisherd3]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6682465.stm

As we know they do a great deal of the time, but whose got the dough to chase them.

British 'Democracy'.

It's there if you have got the big money but otherwise pretty similar to a banana republic.

RIP Britain for Brits.

Edited May 24, 2007 by fisherd3

[ronw]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6682465.stm

As we know they do a great deal of the time, but whose got the dough to chase them.

British 'Democracy'.

It's there if you have got the big money but otherwise pretty similar to a banana republic.

RIP Britain for Brits.

All very sad,but the rot set in a long time ago.......................

.shortly after the first Anglo-Saxon set foot on the beach!!!

[Eff1n2ret]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6682465.stm

As we know they do a great deal of the time, but whose got the dough to chase them.

British 'Democracy'.

It's there if you have got the big money but otherwise pretty similar to a banana republic.

RIP Britain for Brits.

All very sad,but the rot set in a long time ago.......................

.shortly after the first Anglo-Saxon set foot on the beach!!!

Just another example of "Human Rights" subverting attempts to control overt abuse. In the context of an alleged 10,000 sham marriages a year the Government tries to legislate to stop them, and the judges just kick it all into touch. So anybody who succeeds in getting to the UK illegally has an easy means of staying there, whilst the partners of the members of this forum and many many others have to jump through all sorts of hoops to come to the country legally. In theory, the test for either type of applicant is the same, but in practice it won't be, because almost no in-country applicant is subjected to any from of interview these days to test the genuineness of a settlement application based on marriage.

Edited May 25, 2007 by Eff1n2ret

[the gent]

Tourette,

The Judges are simply using the very same legislation Bliar and his motley crew so favoured in establishing their liberal tree hugging credentials and to criticise them for doing so strikes one as somewhat perverse.It is no secret that the judiciary dislikes this current government's ham fisted approach in dealing with the fall out from their inept immigration policies and consequently they seldom fail to give a bloody nose when the opportunity arises, particularly when the wretched Home Office and their dunderhead staff are concerned.

A possible solution to the problem of bogus marriages might be a requirement for all foreign spouses to leave the UK in order to gain the requisite visa in their own country should they wish to seek settlement on the basis of a marriage contracted in the UK . Those who arrived legally in possession of a fiance visa would of course be exempted. A further refinement might be a requirement for the UK resident spouse to also attend the interview, a reasonable test and one more likely to add credibilty to the claim that the relationship is genuine. At least this way no charge of discrimination could be levelled and the inconvenience would surely be regarded as insignificant when measured against what is to be considered as a life long commitment.

One is always heartened to see the Home Office sufferng a reversal but I have to say that the judgement in this case is quite sound and an important, if somewhat minor, step in protecting the individual against an overbearing neo stalinist regime such as Bliar's.

I'm surprised you haven't seen its worth and have chosen to dwell upon the rather more parochial issues particularly in the context of East European migration et al. You don't read the Daily Mail do you?

[Ollie]

In some respects its a good ruling. As it is another one that is pushing the UK to repeal certain aspects of HRA. As we're just about the only european Country that adheres to it in its entirety, that makes sense to me. The Govt. have openly talked about this now, but more to do with terrorism. But as this is one route of legitimising status in the UK that will be taken advantage of by those seeking to damage it, it should fit in somewhere.

I am always puzzled why any illegal immigrants have any rights here? But hey, thats just me. And Gent, I wouldn't pick up a tabloid if you paid me. But this is a big problem that is costing me as a tax-payer, with all the other scams we are subjected to, and I for one, have had enough.

[chinadarling]

I am going through this immigration crap rigth now and it is terribly annoying.

Locks keep out honest men

and immigration ######s over honest people.

only solution is to have a more sensible rules and rules less hard on honest people.

I think Canada has a only 1 wife per 3 years...but they still have 6 month wait and dont have fiancee visa etc... which is silly, what if my wife does not like my home? better to give them a chance to check it out and run before they are married not after.

[bkk_mike]

If you read the story, the legal issue wasn't with the rules as such. The issue was with the exemption to the rules if you married in at the Church of England.

i.e. If you're not CofE, you need to pay immigration £135 and ask permission to get married, but if you're CofE you don't.

Any law that gives a preference to one religion over another rightly deserves to be thrown out by any legitimate court. (As a Scot - and the Church of Scotland was not granted the same exemption, I thought it was racist on the basis of, if you're an English Christian, you can marry anyone you like for free, but if you're a Scottish Christian you have to pay immigration £135 and ask for immigration's permission...)

Best wishes to the judges on a good decision. This law was racist in more ways than the obvious one.

(For the matter of curbing scam marriages, they can simply bring the law back in, without the exemption for the Church of England, and it wouldn't be discriminatory any more.)

[the scouser]

For the matter of curbing scam marriages, they can simply bring the law back in, without the exemption for the Church of England, and it wouldn't be discriminatory any more.

It's not as straightforward as that, I'm afraid. There are various constitutional issues at stake here, and the Church of England won't be told by the government who it can and can't marry. Indeed, that was why the exemption was introduced in the first place for those marrying in an Anglican church.

There is another issue unrelated to the church which revolves around civil liberties, and that is, who is the government to dictate to any individual whether they can get married? The best solution is to allow people to freely marry, but insist upon them leaving the U.K. in order to get a visa before returning. The genuineness of the relationship can then be tested at the visa application stage. However, this would be unenforceable if the union were to be between a foreign national and an EEA national, so, of course, all your dodgy types would ensure that they marry an EEA national.

Scouse.

[colino]

I sometimes feel

that it would be easier to get to a french port and smuggle them in to england then jump out the lorry and claim political aslyum,, get dss a house ,clothing allowance , free meds, the lot, then work at a agency picking fruit and veg , then after 2 or 3 years come back here after selling up and live the life of riley, than to try and be honest