[Closed] Quite amazing incompetence, even for our government...

I wonder if HM Govt. also set a bunch of arbitrary 'targets' for Border Agency managers to meet?

Another issue altogether.

For example, if the government expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of rape cases which ended up in court (whether or not the dissatisfaction was justifiable) you would hardly expect the CPS to start prosecuting people who they know to be innocent.

The only aspect of this case that is unfortunate for this couple is the change in the law with regard minimum age for spouse visas to 21 (bear in mind Denmark sent their minimum age to 25!) just after they were married.

They have used the media to highlight their case but she was going to have to leave the UK anyway if she wanted to apply for leave as a spouse of a British citizen. She cannot switch: as a visitor it is written that your intention should be to leave.

In fact, until she's 21, she could go out and apply for leave as a visitor...or a student, or worker etc. Or he could go and live in Canada or wherever with her. Whole thing is a media circus over a fairly undeserving case.

Whole thing is a media circus over a fairly undeserving case.

It might well be a 'circus' but the clowns are clearly the UK Border Agency.

Quote :

[i]"She has become the first unintended victim of changes to UK immigration laws which were designed to protect young British Asian women from being subjected to forced marriages."[/i]

This is very obviously [u]not[/u] a case of 'forced marriage'.

And the law [u]is not[/u] being used as intended.

[i]Quote :

"She has become the first unintended victim of changes to UK immigration laws which were designed to protect young British Asian women from being subjected to forced marriages."[/i]

It was designed to protect women regardless of race. Whether the reasons for the law change was based on protecting specific nationalities is irrelevant...the law can't discriminate on race.

Think of all the different laws based on age: here we have a new law saying the minimum is 21, Denmark 25, etc What if they had got married in a country that allowed marriage at 16 and the law remained as before at 18...should we allow them to apply for leave as a spouse?

I've had to deal with UKBA extensively and can without a doubt say they are incompetent clowns

They work from "the rules" with no discretion allowed (unlike when it was the Home Office) - So now your genuine case's get lumped in with the fake ones etc....And its a one size fits all thing

[i]They work from "the rules" with no discretion allowed[/i]

Why have rules if you got discretionary? I suppose it would be better if all immigration officers at port just used their discretionary regardless of whether that was completely inconsistent with other units.

The Forced Marriages Act changed the law and UKBA is now responsible for adhering to the law in the same way that if they raised the age of driving to 21 in the UK, the DVLA would have to enforce it.

Why have rules if you got discretionary?

To deal with anomalies.

Not really rocket science is it ?

[i]To deal with anomalies.[/i]

Each and every case is different so how do you define 'anomalies' whilst managing to maintain consistency in the decision making process throughout an organisation? It might not be 'rocket science' but defining when discretionary should be applied is a minefield IMHO and should be reserved for cases far more deserving than this one.

For example nuke - The policy which this young couple are caught up in means that the Husband in effect has to leave his own country to enjoy his married life or deportation by proxy of a British citizen. Any reasonable person could see that the marriage is subsisting and therefore discretion should be applied, or do you agree that if British people don't like it they should **** off to the country of there spouses?

I used to be a junior counsel to the crown (C panel) and saw hundreds of cases like this (based on the Mahmood principle). Women and Men were being sent back to there country and made to apply for entry clearance (sometimes waiting years) even though they had 99.9% of the criteria required.

Case law is turning on this principle (default by proxy) but not enough

Another anomaly is the UKBA applying rules to an application that was not made under them

defining when discretionary should be applied is a minefield IMHO

Not in this case IMHO. Nor I suspect, in the humble opinion of most other people.

It's hard to imagine a case more obviously [b]not[/b] 'forced marriage'.

The UKBA should have used their discretionary powers for that reason. Plus, because they managed to screw everything up for the couple by losing their passport photographs.

[i]Any reasonable person could see that the marriage is subsisting and therefore discretion should be applied, or do you agree that if British people don't like it they should **** off to the country of there spouses?[/i]

Right lets go back to my previous example of if they were married in a country that allowed marriage at 16 and lets say the marriage was subsisting and it was not forced. So they can prove all this and then apply for entry clearance to the UK, should discretionary be shown? No because the law states 18 and they'd be refused. End of. Now the law is 21.

I'm not debating the principles behind the Force Marriage Act, I'm arguing that UKBA is there to ensue the law is adhered to and discretionary is inappropriate in this case because it is not sufficiently deserving IMHO.

[i]Not in this case IMHO. Nor I suspect, in the humble opinion of most other people.[/i]

So what about all the other people who can now not apply until 21; should we show them discretion? What makes this case so unique? That they managed to get the BBC to highlight their case?

TBH, you're coming across a tad racist.

The forced marriages act, whilst a deserving principle is ill thought out and catches out "real marriages".

If the couple were to pursue the case as far as possible I've no doubt they'd win on articles 8,12 and 14 of the ECHR (as were the Govt on their previous marriage rules)

Why should a British person be allowed to marry another British person when they're both 16 but, if she's a scum bag foreigner he cant marry her till she's 21?

[i]TBH, you're coming across a tad racist.[/i]

WTF. I find that insulting as I'm arguing applying the law. You try and have a intelligent debate and it just ends up in insults. FFS.

[i]If the couple were to pursue the case as far as possible I've no doubt they'd win on articles 8,12 and 14 of the ECHR (as were the Govt on their previous marriage rules)[/i]

I've no doubt they wouldn't.

It was a joke ffs. And the law in itself is racist (within a strict definition)

Right lets go back to my previous example of if they were married in a country that allowed marriage at 16 and lets say the marriage was subsisting and it was not forced. So they can prove all this and then apply for entry clearance to the UK, should discretionary be shown? No because the law states 18 and they'd be refused. End of. Now the law is 21.

Nuke - did you read the article? The point here is that they have been given leave to marry by the UK authorities, and they would be allowed to live anywhere in the EU other than here because they are legally married. If they had married elsewhere in the EU they could live here legally. The only problem is someone is inapproprately applying a rule that was intended to cover a completely different situation without using the leeway that the law specifically built in to avoid this kind of problem. Besides which, you can get married at 16 in the UK perfectly legally.

Ernie - if you think middle managers wouldn't avoid using discretion so as to help them meet their targets, then you have a different experience of middle managers to me. The CPS situation you quote is different in that the CPS have to balance bringing cases that they can win versus ones they can't realistically win ('guilt' is not relevant). In this situation, someone at the bottom will have been told not to use the wriggle room the law allows by a superior who has targets to hit.

[i]Nuke - did you read the article? The point here is that they have been given leave to marry by the UK authorities[/i]

Yes thanks 🙂 but no they didn't get given leave to marry: she had leave as a visitor and she was granted a certificate of approval which allowed them to marry...no further leave was granted.

[i]they would be allowed to live anywhere in the EU other than here because they are legally married[/i]

Under EU law, not domestic legislation of other EU states

[i]he only problem is someone is inapproprately applying a rule that was intended to cover a completely different situation without using the leeway that the law specifically built in to avoid this kind of problem.[/i]

Discretion should be used in the most unique circumstances. Given there are possibly hundred/thousands who can now not apply until they are 21, this case is not unique and therefore not deserving of discretion

[i]Besides which, you can get married at 16 in the UK perfectly legally.[/i]

Oops, fair enough

Besides which, you can get married at 16 in the UK perfectly legally.

Oops, fair enough

I'm guessing nuke you've studied some law. I said this earlier

Why should a British person be allowed to marry another British person when they're both 16 but, if she's a scum bag foreigner he cant marry her till she's 21?

I'm also guessing you'll never get a training contract, think outside of the box..

[i]I said this earlier[/i]

You said other things earlier that to me prove you're not worth discussing anything with.

Ernie - if you think middle managers wouldn't avoid using discretion so as to help them meet their targets, then you have a different experience of middle managers to me.

Who said I thought 'middle managers wouldn't avoid using discretion so as to help them meet their targets' ?

😕

It hardly makes it acceptable though, does it ?

Any more than the CPS pursuing cases which they cannot realistically win, simply to comply with targets.

Claiming you were 'forced' into making an unreasonable decision due to the need to comply with targets is a pisspoor excuse IMO.

And whether the targets are reasonable or not, is a completely different question altogether.

You said other things earlier that to me prove you're not worth discussing anything with.

I'm trained to get you to bite and make a fool of yourself

Seriously, if your looking at a career in Law, I wouldn't bother.

[i]That I'm trained to get you to bite[/i]

Wow...insulting people to make them bite. So clever.

[i]make a fool of yourself[/i]

😆 Me the fool!?!

Wow...insulting people to make them bite. So clever.

So what's your reason for insulting people then ?

I'm sure you'll agree that, "[i]you're not worth discussing anything with[/i]" is fairly insulting.

You could have, not said anything.

Actually what I said earlier was...

[i]You said other things earlier that to me prove you're not worth discussing anything with. [/i]

in reference to the fact he had called me 'a tad racist': I find that far more insulting. Throw in something like this instead of engaging in a decent bit of debate. Oh well

Wow...insulting people to make them bite. So clever.

TBH, looking back on your posts you clearly have a problem with immigrants and also suck up to authority.

I bet you're a young conservative?

I bet you're a young conservative?

Now that isn't very nice.

😐

[i]TBH, looking back on your posts you clearly have a problem with immigrants and also suck up to authority[/i]

I disagree: I don't believe I have made any statements that would be pro/anti immigration aside discussing the specifics of this case and how the law applies.

[i]Now that isn't very nice.[/i]

We agree on something 🙁

You both think they deserved discretionary and I don't because I don't think their case is unique to warrant discretion. I'm baffled why it has to be twisted into insults and this is disappointing but there you go.

I haven't insulted you, merely making an observation and debating with you?

Forget about "the rules" The Home Office work on the basis that they deny everything until they are forced to retreat, for e.g The Gurkha's is a massive case in point. Twice they were defeated in court and each time they screwed them over.

I don't think their case is unique to warrant discretion

Not unique in targeting a girl who is clearly not the victim of a forced marriage ?

Or not unique in that, the UKBA are always losing people's passport photos ?

❓

[i]merely making an observation[/i]

Oh so on what basis did you form the opinion I was 'a tad racist'; as I've said, I don't believe I have made any statements that would be pro/anti immigration aside discussing the specifics of this case and how the law applies. Do you not find it insulting to be accused of being racist?

@ernie: as I said, given there are possibly hundred/thousands who can now not apply until they are 21, this case is not unique and therefore not deserving of discretion. It is debatable whether the photos caused sufficient delay as to stop her from getting married, returning to her home country and then applying for entry clearance in time before the change in law.

It is debatable whether the photos called sufficient delay as to stop here from getting married

It meant they only had one week to arrange their marriage. I think most reasonable people would agree that Rochelle Wallis should have had her visa extended to compensate for the UKBA's cockups and incompetence.

.

Do you not find it insulting to be accused of being racist?

Not I directed at me I know, but I certainly wouldn't feel insulted if some punter on an internet forum accused me of being a racist. I might find it amusing though.

"I bet you're a young conservative?"
Now that isn't very nice.

"It is after all our government which passed the law responsible for this whole mess."
And yet, they gave the UK Border Agency discretionary powers to deal with any possible anomaly where there is clearly no question of a 'forced marriage'.