Donate SIGN UP


1 to 20 of 29rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Seems pretty self-explanatory.

What do you think is missing?
"children born in the UK will only have British citizenship if at least one of their parents is a British citizen or is living in the UK with permission to stay in the country permanently."

He didn't so the rule of law has been followed.

Sometimes decisions are harsh but if you bend the rule for one ....
Do ya think that he was 'deliberately let out of the country' , in order not to let him back in ?
He's a little boy, separated from his mother and the the only country he's ever known. Whoever made that decision wants horsewhipping.
The details in the article are quite clear really, at the very least the boy should be reunited with his Mother whilst they decide what to do next.
I disagree kvalidir

As I said above, where do you draw the line?

The parents have a responsibility in this too you know. And where is the father? Who is paying for this childs upkeep?
In response, a Home Office spokesperson said: “A letter was sent to Mohamed’s mother in March advising her that her son’s passport had been revoked. We understand that despite this Mohamed was taken out of the UK in July and last Sunday was unable to re-enter as he did not hold a valid passport.​

I rest my case.
Too right, AOG.
Any normal person can see that.
If she received the letter in March regarding the mis-issuing of the passport, why did she let him travel abroad in July?

I think she bears a great deal of responsibility in this matter.
Question Author
An extract from readers views:

/// A Belgium paper has a different twist on this, from their story the mother was also in Belgium, flew home without him when he was denied boarding, and now cannot (will not) return. Perhaps he travelled out on her passport? ///

/// here's part of the story ///

/// The six-year-old Mohamed Barrak Diallo Bangoura, born in 2012 in Leeds, last week spent six weeks vacationing in our country. But when he wanted to fly back from Zaventem with his mother last Sunday, the boy was told drily that he was not allowed to board the plane. In Brussels they had received that explicit order from the Home Office in London - say the British Immigration Office. ///
Agree with Mamya. You cant cast children adrift if you consider yourself to be a civilised country.
It seems the mother cast the child adrift.
Whatever the rules, there should be the opportunity to look at specific cases in case the best option is to make an exception. Since the boy wasn't noted as not being allowed here, or whatever, since birth, and issued with a passport, it looks like this might be a case for consideration. Seems more a government screw up than anything.
AOG, do you think that the authorities might think he's been radicalized?
if he has a British birth certificate then no problem. If he was born here but his parents did not register the birth then they messed up. End of, next!
Question Author

/// Agree with Mamya. You cant cast children adrift if you consider yourself to be a civilised
country. ///

Easy fix, let the mother seek asylum in Belgium.
-- answer removed --
//Ms Keita is in the UK and unable to travel because she was residing in the country based on her son’s British citizenship.//

Why isn't she being deported then?
Did anyone read the whole thing? YMB has been explaining to you.

//The letter to Ms Keita from the Home Office in March stated that the child’s claim to British citizenship was no longer valid because it had “come to light” that neither she nor her husband were settled in Britain at the time of the child’s birth.//

Do the math & stop the boo-hoos.

-- answer removed --

1 to 20 of 29rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Can There Be More To This Story Than We Are Being Told?

Answer Question >>