BBC Breakfast Inaccurate Reporting of Settlement Visas

[Kevin1908]

BBC Breakfast this morning had an extremely badly reported piece on the current settlement visa issue. They featured a British woman with her 2 British kids who left Syria last year due to the troubles.Her Syrian husband is stuck in Jordan and has had 2 visa applications turned down.

She is not working as she left Syria due to the troubles so has no chance of meeting the earnings requirement.

The BBC mentioned the £18600 limit but failed to mention that this was the minimum figure. They also mentioned that 47% of the people in the UK would also not meet thsi requirement. Not sure if that is correct or not but given the misreporting probably wrong.

What they reported next was disgraceful bearing in mind the BBC is meant to be unbiased and not the mouthpiece of the Government.

The BBC reported the fact (Incorrect) that the Government didn't want immigrants immediately claiming benefits if a sponsor can't support their spouse. This is of course completely incorrect.

I consider that this incorrect biased misreporting violates the BBC charter and I think anybody affected by this should complain to the BBC and their MP.

The BBC should not be providing the ignorant bigots with ammunition.

[Jay Sata]

I watched that item and it pretty much summed up the womans plight.

You say

The BBC reported the fact (Incorrect) that the Government didn't want immigrants immediately claiming benefits if a sponsor can't support their spouse. This is of course completely incorrect.

Are you suggesting the government do want immigrants claiming benefits?

This woman is British and so are her children so she is entitled to benefits.

The clip is here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01c661x

Edited July 2, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Kevin1908]

I watched that item and it pretty much summed up the womans plight.

You say

The BBC reported the fact (Incorrect) that the Government didn't want immigrants immediately claiming benefits if a sponsor can't support their spouse. This is of course completely incorrect.

Are you suggesting the government do want immigrants claiming benefits?

This woman is British and so are her children so she is entitled to benefits.

Not sure of the point that you made. She would be able to claim benefits that is not the issue. The BBC repeated the Goverment line and the line so often quoted by the opponants that the earning requirement was brought in to ensure that they can support their spouse and that the spouse (immigrant what ever you want to call them) wont claim benefits which of course thay can't for 5 years and they get their ILR. 7by7 repeats this fact over and over again but still people, the BBC and the Government don't get it.

If the BBC can't get that simple fact correct why bother reporting it at all. What else are they totally misreporting?

Personally, although the woman and her kids and husband are in an impossible situation this particular case is not representative of the plight that most sponsors/spouses find themselves in. I think most people will be completely unsympathetic to her plight.

[evadgib]

I watched that item and it pretty much summed up the womans plight.

You say

The BBC reported the fact (Incorrect) that the Government didn't want immigrants immediately claiming benefits if a sponsor can't support their spouse. This is of course completely incorrect.

Are you suggesting the government do want immigrants claiming benefits?

This woman is British and so are her children so she is entitled to benefits.

The clip is here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01c661x

Unable to play that clip on this PC. What's stopping her going the Surinder Singh route?

[Jay Sata]

The reporter said that the financial barrier is set at £18600 and even used a graphic and caption to emphasise the point.

This lady appears articulate and intelligent and I'm sure she'll soon find a job to earn over that limit.

It appears her husband had a business in Syria so he must have accounts?

[Kevin1908]

I watched that item and it pretty much summed up the womans plight.

You say

The BBC reported the fact (Incorrect) that the Government didn't want immigrants immediately claiming benefits if a sponsor can't support their spouse. This is of course completely incorrect.

Are you suggesting the government do want immigrants claiming benefits?

This woman is British and so are her children so she is entitled to benefits.

The clip is here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01c661x

Unable to play that clip on this PC. What's stopping her going the Surinder Singh route?

They were living in Aleppo. She left with the kids (British) due to the fighting. The husband can't get a visa and is stuck in Jordan. It has been cited that the Government policy on immigration is splitting up families and is against the kid's human rights to a family life.

[Kevin1908]

I watched that item and it pretty much summed up the womans plight.

You say

The BBC reported the fact (Incorrect) that the Government didn't want immigrants immediately claiming benefits if a sponsor can't support their spouse. This is of course completely incorrect.

Are you suggesting the government do want immigrants claiming benefits?

This woman is British and so are her children so she is entitled to benefits.

The clip is here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01c661x

Unable to play that clip on this PC. What's stopping her going the Surinder Singh route?

They were living in Aleppo. She left with the kids (British) due to the fighting. The husband can't get a visa and is stuck in Jordan. It has been cited that the Government policy on immigration is splitting up families and is against the kid's human rights to a family life.

This particular case highlights the failure by the British Government to allow the human rights to the British kids. Put the income limit to one side, do the kids have the right to access to their father, if no then Cameron should pull the UK out of the European Human Rights convention.

[Jay Sata]

But your claim in the title of this thread is that the report is inaccurate.

How?

The wife and kids could have stayed with the husband in Jordan.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Kevin1908]

But your claim in the title of this thread is that the report is inaccurate.

How?

The wife and kids could have stayed with the husband in Jordan.

The BBC stated that the change of law was to prevent immigrants from claiming benefits. I know and most people seem to know that until an immigrant gets an ILR then thay can't claim benefits. Is that not an inaccurate statement? Are you in favour of the BBC making incorrect statements.?

Why should this British woman and her British kids live in Jordan, a country by the way they thet have no entitlemement to stay in.

[7by7]

Kevin, if anything, I thought the report biased towards Mrs.Gabbar. If you think otherwise I suggest that you direct your complaints to the BBC; this is a visas and migration forum, not a forum for complaints about BBC bias!

evadgib, the family cannot use the Surinder Singh route unless she has lived and worked in another EEA state and her husband lived there with her.

I don't know why they cannot live in Jordan together; but as she and the children are British, why should they? She is British/Syrian, her husband is Syrian, what is there for them in Jordan?

Whether her husband still, after the fighting which caused them to flee Syria, still has a flourishing business there is irrelevant; he doesn't anyway, it was all destroyed in the fighting. Anyone who knows anything about this new financial requirement knows that the immigrant spouse's income is disregarded.

[Jay Sata]

The reporter quoted the rules re self support for migrants.

No inaccuracy or bias anywhere in the clip which was sympathetic to her plight.

I can't comment on her desire to live in Jordan but I've not had a bad time on my couple of visits to Amman.

We are not exactly talking Somalia here.

[theoldgit]

this is a visas and migration forum, not a forum for complaints about BBC bias!

Indeed, however will let this run for now as this is a subject close to many people's hearts, but please don't get carried away.

[Kevin1908]

The reporter quoted the rules re self support for migrants.

No inaccuracy or bias anywhere in the clip which was sympathetic to her plight.

I can't comment on her desire to live in Jordan but I've not had a bad time on my couple of visits to Amman.

We are not exactly talking Somalia here.

The BBC quite clearly stated that the purpose of the eaning limit was to ensure that a sponsor can support the spouse and that anybody coming to the UK as an immigrant can't claim benfits. I would have thought, given how many times 7by7 repeats that that immigrants can't claim benfits until they have an ILR, people would understand it by now.

Even the BBC can't seem to understand that.

The BBC repeated verbatim the Government's false stance on this issue. That is bias.

[bobrussell]

The item was perfectly accurate IMO. It shows up the complete lack of discretion that can be exercised by the UKBA/Home Office.

The childrens rights to family life are clearly being contravened. It cannot be claimed that the family could go back to Syria and live in safety there. In effect the husband is a refugee in Jordan. This is not the same situation as the majority of UK citizens wanting their non-EU spouse to settle in the UK.

Clearly both parents are well educated so pretty unlikely to remain a burden on the tax payer for long. There are some situations where it is perfectly appropriate for the tax payer to help short-term and from the limited information this may well be one of them.

Playing the legal human rights card is a difficult one but there are occasions where the country has to do the right thing!

[Jay Sata]

The BBC repeated verbatim the Government's false stance on this issue. That is bias.

What false stance? It's government policy endorsed by Parliament.

There is a story behind every case like this but sympathy does not cut much ice with public policy and law whatever the area.

Are you suggesting that every time we have problems somewhere in the world the rules should be tossed aside?

Egypt is facing civil unrest and I'm sure there are a few expats there who maybe on the way home soon. They will have to

comply with the visa rules just like everyone else.

[7by7]

No one is saying that they don't have to comply with the rules.

But this case highlights the unfairness of the new financial requirement.

Saying Jordan is a wonderful place is stupid. The husband is a refugee there and the family have nothing there, whereas in the UK they have family willing and able to support them until they can support themselves.

Edited July 2, 2013 by 7by7

[Kevin1908]

Kevin, if anything, I thought the report biased towards Mrs.Gabbar. If you think otherwise I suggest that you direct your complaints to the BBC; this is a visas and migration forum, not a forum for complaints about BBC bias!

evadgib, the family cannot use the Surinder Singh route unless she has lived and worked in another EEA state and her husband lived there with her.

I don't know why they cannot live in Jordan together; but as she and the children are British, why should they? She is British/Syrian, her husband is Syrian, what is there for them in Jordan?

Whether her husband still, after the fighting which caused them to flee Syria, still has a flourishing business there is irrelevant; he doesn't anyway, it was all destroyed in the fighting. Anyone who knows anything about this new financial requirement knows that the immigrant spouse's income is disregarded.

I would have thought that the only way to get the current laws changed would be to get the MP's on side and some public sympathy. The only way that will happen if it is firstly covered in the media and reported accurately. I happen to think that this was not a good case to illustrate the situation that I am in or the plight of sponsors who can't even get a visa.

If when this is covered in the media, and on the BBC at that, that it is going to be inaccurately reported and simply pander to the racists, bigots and hypocrates then the law will never be changed.

I do expect unbiased reporting at least then let people make their minds up. Bringing up the immigrants on benefits isn't helping. You bang on about it enough.

[Kevin1908]

The BBC repeated verbatim the Government's false stance on this issue. That is bias.

What false stance? It's government policy endorsed by Parliament.

The stance about immigrants claiming benefits, have you got it yet?

[7by7]

Kevin, as you feel so strongly about it, make an official complaint.

To my mind it was not a "stance about immigrants claiming benefits" nor a comment on same; it was a very brief statement on why the government had introduced a financial threshold based upon the reasons given by the government.

Edited July 2, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

In the case this morning where her husband's business was burned down surely there is a case for refugee/asylum status?

[Kevin1908]

Kevin, as you feel so strongly about it, make an official complaint.

To my mind it was not a "stance about immigrants claiming benefits" nor a comment on same; it was a very brief statement on why the government had introduced a financial threshold based upon the reasons given by the government.

I have complained to BBC Breakfast already. I tried to check the BBC charter about biased reporting but at work I can't download the pdf for some reason..

As long as the public are conned into thinking that this is about immigrants getting benfits then the law will not be changed. It also doesn't help quoting the £18600 figure when that is only the minimum.

[bobrussell]

There are situations where a decision should be decided not by rules but by what is right. If Egypt erupts into Syria-like violence (hopefully will not as a very different country) then of course we should look after British families caught up or fleeing from it.

These are families being forced from their homes by fighting not making economic or personal choices.

[7by7]

In the case this morning where her husband's business was burned down surely there is a case for refugee/asylum status?

As it was you who provided the link to the clip, I thought you would have watched it!

As it says in the report, if she were a Syrian in the UK as a refugee then her husband could join her, but because she is also British he has to apply via the immigration rules.

Of course, if he could somehow make his way to the UK he may then be able to claim asylum. But doing that without some sort of entry clearance is not as easy as some would have us believe.

BTW, for those, like evadgib, who can't play the clip, I understand it is only available in the UK.

Kevin, I don't understand your point about £18,600 being the minimum. The words "at least" used in the report makes this clear!

[Kevin1908]

Kevin, I don't understand your point about £18,600 being the minimum. The words "at least" used in the report makes this clear!

They made a strong point about only 47% of the population meeting the £18600 figure. The public will have the view that this is the level to be attained. clearly the percentage meeting the £18600 figure and the higher figure will be even less that 47%. Even the BBC reported whinced at the 47% figure. They covered themselves by saying at least but this was misleading in the context that 2 kids were involved . They were British so excluded. Had they been then the figure would have been a lot higher than £18600. Would anybody watching this have really been aware of that.

[7by7]

The report said that the figure was "at least £18,600." making it obvious, I'd have thought, that it may be more in some circumstances.

You do, I trust, know what "at least" means; so do most of the rest of the British public.

However, for Mrs. Gabbar, who the report was about, this is the figure as only her husband would be applying.

I understand that the 47% figure, which has been used elsewhere including, IIRC, the report of the Parliamentary review, comes from the Office of National Statistics.

I have not seen that figure disputed in any official way.

[Jay Sata]

This figure of 47% of the UK not earning above £18600 seems incorrect to me.

I've written to More or Less on R4 to see if they can enlighten me.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Waterloo]

I think you will find the figure is pretty solid when they first set the limit at £18,600 only %45 of the working population could meet it according to the goverments own figures.

I see no mileage for the Goverment talking this figure up, in fact the reverse it just highlights the unfairness of the current rules.

[Kevin1908]

The report said that the figure was "at least £18,600." making it obvious, I'd have thought, that it may be more in some circumstances.

You do, I trust, know what "at least" means; so do most of the rest of the British public.

ok without the sarcastic comments of course I know what "at least" means but without qualifying that how can the public form an opinion.

If you don't like this thread appeal to the Oldgit to have it removed.

[Kevin1908]

This figure of 47% of the UK not earning above £18600 seems incorrect to me.

I've written to More or Less on R4 to see if they can enlighten me.

I agree for once, is this 47% of the population or 47% of working people. A big difference.

[David48]

When I saw that Kevin1908 had posted a topic ... I had to tune in (BBC - 'tune in' ... oh, never mind)

Kevin ... I'm an armchair fan.

I was quite a fan of the BBC ... did they factually get something wrong ... or was it an interpretation of the facts?

Carry on ...

.