smokin in the Jim Carey sense! Good to hear you’ve kicked the habit, I’m still strugglin. Will get you something concrete on that claim, if something exists.

Rumbold:

Thanks for that. If it does turn out to be true then I repeat that I think it’s something bloggers could do a lot to monitor. Please see my comment on Sunny’s excellent post about West Midlands police too.

Fair point. In this case I meant the Foreign/Home office, because that is where the relevant applications were made.

Ashik:

Sorry about that- thanks for the correction. I was going on what the lady from the FMU said at the conference.

Mixtogether:

“First thing I would submit needs a good looking at is that the government is trying to quietly renege on its undertaking to make recognition of honour issues statutory in SCHOOLS. I hear they are looking to make it stat for health professionals and police, but are getting a bit queasy about schools. Fuck em. Who does a young child see most- a police officer, a doctor or their teacher? Enough said.”

I have to agree with you 100% there. Too many schools are resistant to promoting this sort of teaching, for fear of offending people.

Agreed. This is a very pernicious piece of legislation… bought in by the Tories and Labour still hasn’t got the balls to get rid of it.

I didn’t know they were trying to get out of making FMU guidelines mandatory mixtogether. That’s really exasperating, because I think that was one of aspects of the civil protection act I can really envisage working. Can you give me info on that?

I gave up smoking over a year ago. It’s about time I changed my handle

Galloise Blonde I’m sure you were smokin’ as ever

Rumbold I know exactly what you mean about welling up when these truly lovely women are talking about such horrific experiences. Gives you a real fire in your belly to DO SOMETHING, right? Hold that thought…

My loose understanding is that moves are afoot to allow young girls to turn down visa applications anonymously via the FMU. I know this is something many campaigners want to see. Don’t forget that stalwarts like Ann Cryer have been working their magic behind the scenes for a long time. Where there’s a will there’s a way.

Things to watch out for now are ACTIONS by the specific individuals responsible for implementing all the good intentions that have been aired both at the IKWRO conference and at the launch of the Honour Helpline some weeks ago. For now I will simply say that we know the names of the government and police officials who are supposed to be acting, and as I have discussed with Galloise I think their names need to become much more current in the blogosphere to ensure proper scrutiny.

The MSM has a habit of turning up to the big events and then stubbornly resisting any sort of follow-up coverage. This is where blogging can truly come into its own, with the kind of close access offered by those here present…

First thing I would submit needs a good looking at is that the government is trying to quietly renege on its undertaking to make recognition of honour issues statutory in SCHOOLS. I hear they are looking to make it stat for health professionals and police, but are getting a bit queasy about schools. Fuck em. Who does a young child see most- a police officer, a doctor or their teacher? Enough said.

We know all the names and pack-drill for these people, and I think a little scrutiny care of the 5th estate would go a long way to getting more done so that we’re not still hearing these horror stories in 15 years time.

Can I get an ‘amen’?

However, there is no point in the ECO refusing a spouse application on the grounds of FM if on (the inevitable) appeal the courts are just going to overturn that decision.

The ECO will need to show how he came by his decision to refuse. In doing so any representations made by the spouse eg. a letter stating it was a case of FM will be exposed. Presumably bearing a negative reaction toward the sponsor from her husband and family.

We need joined up govt more than ever! A piecemeal approach to FM applications will simply expose the victim, possibly with tragic consequences.

Britain has (or should have) the right to refuse entry to anyone that it considers unsuitable.

it is interesting, because of course i know what you’re getting at, but i would say the very pertinent point in all this is that the difficulty is there is no one “It” – there are different departments for example in Govt – which have different remits and rules and co-ordination of what “Britain” and “It” is doing – is the difficulty. Specially since Govt Ministers often do not know the reality of the rules their Dept – and hence “Britain” is setting out, and it is usually in conflict with the next Dept. is doing – who is also again part of what “Britain” is doing.

i find it frustrating the complete lack of acknowledgement of the reality of bureaucracy in these sorts of discussions. “Britain” must do this “Britain” must do that. That sort of thing only works if you are having academic abstract discussions and contrasting “Britain” with “America” or something, in some sort of vague international relations way. We are here, we need to think about what “Britain” breaks down into : processes, systems, bureaucracy, different layers of governance etc. Otherwise, its all just vague journalism type talk.

It was very well organised. I was especially pleased when I saw that they were serving meat at lunch. Thanks again. Please, by all means re-post this.

Ashik:

“The FMU position has been that if a sponsor does not wish to support an appellant (for whatever reason incl. forced marriage) they must state this in writing. The appellant would fail to satisfy the ‘intention to live together and subsisting marriage’ element of the Rules. The application would therefore be refused. The appellant and his duly appointed legal representatives then basically have the right to peruse ALL the documents pertaining to the decision, including the letter from the sponsor withdrawing support. This is only fair.”

If parents are forcing their child to marry, then it makes sense not to have the child’s refusal in print, otherwise their life could be at risk when the documents were made public. Britain has (or should have) the right to refuse entry to anyone that it considers unsuitable. In a case like this, it is clearly not in the interests of ‘natural justice’ for a person’s life to be put in danger (as it probably would be), since Britain is not obliged to let that person in anyway.

Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
“Reclaiming Honor in Jordan”

I do not understand how the FMU can influence an Entry Clearance Officer’s (ECO) decision in spouse applications. A Notice of Refusal must be promulgated by an ECO whenever entry is refused. This is the legal basis for a subsequent appeal before an Immigration Judge.

The FMU position has been that if a sponsor does not wish to support an appellant (for whatever reason incl. forced marriage) they must state this in writing. The appellant would fail to satisfy the ‘intention to live together and subsisting marriage’ element of the Rules. The application would therefore be refused. The appellant and his duly appointed legal representatives then basically have the right to peruse ALL the documents pertaining to the decision, including the letter from the sponsor withdrawing support. This is only fair.

If the FMU has changed their position, I would be much obliged if you could point me to the new policy. It would not be in accord with natural justice. Generally it is best practice not to exclude information in court from one or another party.

It would be rather nice if the government chose your second option and then stuck to their guns. The Daily Mail needs to be told where to get off, I think.

ironically most people don’t know anything about the ‘no recourse to public funds’ rule.

and it seems to be in the media’s interest to keep that shush, because otherwise how can you complain about non-EU immigrants ‘taking recourse to public funds’ if people find out that non EU immigrants can’t do that!?

can’t fan flames so easily can you when you find people are paying taxes into your pot, not getting it back out, so who gets more as a result? People on the dole, that’s who. They’re the ones who most directly benefit from non-EU immigrants who work and pay taxes and have no recourse to public funds.

and given that rule is in place but the immigration “debate” never mentions it or clearly has very little knowledge of reality and procedures, but is so inflammatory anyway. what would happen if you got rid of it/ Either one gets rid of in secret and doesn’t tell anyone, and then the daily mail will have something to complain about when they say ‘they’re getting benefits! Or you tell everyone “actually.this rule existed,..but we think we’re going to scrap it, and have a hoo-ha.

Can I repost this?