ChatterBank1 min ago
Ethiopean illegal immigrant
Binyan Mohammed has arrived at Northolt today from the US today met by his lawyers. He has alleged the British security services were complicit in his torture. If true therefore what level of compensation is he likely to receive from us?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7905657.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7905657.stm
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. 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.
The way I understand it is that he is an Ethiopian asylum seeker who was captured in Pakistan
I would like to know if the UK was still paying him his asylum seekers benefit whilst he was in Pakistan and how he managed to pay the fare to travel to Pakistan.
The RAF had to fly him here at great taxpayers expense Why?
Why is he on the national news when our heros [dead or alive] are not mentioned when they come back from Iraq or Afghanistan.
I would like to know if the UK was still paying him his asylum seekers benefit whilst he was in Pakistan and how he managed to pay the fare to travel to Pakistan.
The RAF had to fly him here at great taxpayers expense Why?
Why is he on the national news when our heros [dead or alive] are not mentioned when they come back from Iraq or Afghanistan.
Do you folks above realise the extent to which Failed Asylum Seekers still continue to live in the UK?
It is entirely one thing to fail the asylum process - an entirely different thing to remove the person. They are different processes.
And Rov, an 'illegal immigrant' is an entirely different hing from an 'asylum seeker'.
I don't know for sure this guy's status - probably failed asylum seeker, but one who cannot be exported back to the country of his nationality.
It is entirely one thing to fail the asylum process - an entirely different thing to remove the person. They are different processes.
And Rov, an 'illegal immigrant' is an entirely different hing from an 'asylum seeker'.
I don't know for sure this guy's status - probably failed asylum seeker, but one who cannot be exported back to the country of his nationality.
None of this matters a jot.
It is obvious from the way he has been treated by the UK authorities in the past few days that he will have no worries for the rest of his life.
Anyone who has encountered difficulties overseas recently may wonder how this man managed to secure the services of Foreign Office officials who met him at RAF Northolt. Anyone needing the attendance of the police in this country following, say, being mugged or burgled, may wonder how he managed to secure the attendance, on his arrival, of at least 4 Anti-Terrorist officers. Those who have recently tried to have a lawyer appointed at public expense (including those who may soon learn that even if found not guilty, they can expect to meet their own legal costs) may be surprised to learn that members of his �Legal Team� were waiting at Northolt for his arrival.
As for his status, he was refused asylum, but in 2000 he was given exceptional leave to remain in the UK for four years. In 2001 he converted to Islam and travelled to Pakistan, and then Afghanistan. Apparently he wanted to kick a drug habit and get away from familiar haunts in London. He says that he also wanted to see whether Taleban-run Afghanistan was a good Islamic country.
Quite how all this makes him the responsibility of the UK authorities remains to be seen, but no doubt all will become clear once his lawyers decide how best to screw the taxpayer.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question71 1674.html
It is obvious from the way he has been treated by the UK authorities in the past few days that he will have no worries for the rest of his life.
Anyone who has encountered difficulties overseas recently may wonder how this man managed to secure the services of Foreign Office officials who met him at RAF Northolt. Anyone needing the attendance of the police in this country following, say, being mugged or burgled, may wonder how he managed to secure the attendance, on his arrival, of at least 4 Anti-Terrorist officers. Those who have recently tried to have a lawyer appointed at public expense (including those who may soon learn that even if found not guilty, they can expect to meet their own legal costs) may be surprised to learn that members of his �Legal Team� were waiting at Northolt for his arrival.
As for his status, he was refused asylum, but in 2000 he was given exceptional leave to remain in the UK for four years. In 2001 he converted to Islam and travelled to Pakistan, and then Afghanistan. Apparently he wanted to kick a drug habit and get away from familiar haunts in London. He says that he also wanted to see whether Taleban-run Afghanistan was a good Islamic country.
Quite how all this makes him the responsibility of the UK authorities remains to be seen, but no doubt all will become clear once his lawyers decide how best to screw the taxpayer.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question71 1674.html
I read your other post, NJ, which I thought was brilliantly put together.
Until this country finds a way of 'rebalancing' the apparent inequalities in the law created by the way parts of the Human Rights Articles get interpreted by the judiciary in the UK, we are all doomed to continue suffering more of this nonsense .
Just too many loopholes for 'British residents', of whatever status, to exploit and remain in the country.
I cannot believe that the rest of the EU countries with a history of immigration (France, Germany, in the main) make such a meal of it.
Until this country finds a way of 'rebalancing' the apparent inequalities in the law created by the way parts of the Human Rights Articles get interpreted by the judiciary in the UK, we are all doomed to continue suffering more of this nonsense .
Just too many loopholes for 'British residents', of whatever status, to exploit and remain in the country.
I cannot believe that the rest of the EU countries with a history of immigration (France, Germany, in the main) make such a meal of it.
>And Rov, an 'illegal immigrant' is an entirely different
>thing from an 'asylum seeker'.
Most asylum seekers are just illegal immigrants who get caught, so plead the "asylum" card to extend their stay here.
Most claim some rubbish that if they go back to their country someone will tread on their toes so it is dangerous to return.
And this gullible country just takes their word for it.
And we are further dragged down to third world levels.
>thing from an 'asylum seeker'.
Most asylum seekers are just illegal immigrants who get caught, so plead the "asylum" card to extend their stay here.
Most claim some rubbish that if they go back to their country someone will tread on their toes so it is dangerous to return.
And this gullible country just takes their word for it.
And we are further dragged down to third world levels.
There are a few critical differences, jake.
No doubt she did not expect, upon arrival, that the UK authorities sustain her and her family for the rest of her life. Then, having secured herself a safe future in the UK, I doubt she then went over to Germany whilst the Nazi regime was still extant to see how things were going on there. Finally, I don�t suppose she sought huge wads of compensation from the UK taxpayers by suggesting that they were somehow responsible for her plight.
If, quinlad the UK authorities were complicit in acts of torture against this man (which is yet to be proved) then, yes, individuals should be punished. But the UK taxpayer should not.
But the root cause of all this is that this man, having been refused asylum, should have been returned to Ethiopia.
No doubt she did not expect, upon arrival, that the UK authorities sustain her and her family for the rest of her life. Then, having secured herself a safe future in the UK, I doubt she then went over to Germany whilst the Nazi regime was still extant to see how things were going on there. Finally, I don�t suppose she sought huge wads of compensation from the UK taxpayers by suggesting that they were somehow responsible for her plight.
If, quinlad the UK authorities were complicit in acts of torture against this man (which is yet to be proved) then, yes, individuals should be punished. But the UK taxpayer should not.
But the root cause of all this is that this man, having been refused asylum, should have been returned to Ethiopia.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_gui dance/mohamed-judgment4-04022009.pdf
There are numerous questions that need answering:
The British government announced Friday afternoon that it had reached an agreement with the United States for the release of Binyam Mohammed, ...
What was the wording of this special agreement?
He was captured and transported in the frame of the US extraordinary rendition program.
Since this individual was captured and sent to Guantanamo Bay.by the US, then why have we agreed to have him back?
Why don't they just transport him back to where he was captured? It would then be up to him to gain entrance back in the UK.
It was rightly accepted on behalf of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (the Foreign Secretary) that BM had an arguable case that he had been subject to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by or on behalf of the United States Authorities during his two year period of incommunicado detention.
Then let him take it up with the US, we should keep our noses out of it.
How do these individuals find the resources to travel and engage legal teams? He even has the Queen on his side....
Between,
The Queen on the Application of Binyam Mohamed (Claimant)
And,
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
(Defendant)
We seem content to take in the worlds garbage, be it nuclear or any other toxic waste, criminals or anything else that the rest of the world wants to get rid of.
There are numerous questions that need answering:
The British government announced Friday afternoon that it had reached an agreement with the United States for the release of Binyam Mohammed, ...
What was the wording of this special agreement?
He was captured and transported in the frame of the US extraordinary rendition program.
Since this individual was captured and sent to Guantanamo Bay.by the US, then why have we agreed to have him back?
Why don't they just transport him back to where he was captured? It would then be up to him to gain entrance back in the UK.
It was rightly accepted on behalf of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (the Foreign Secretary) that BM had an arguable case that he had been subject to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by or on behalf of the United States Authorities during his two year period of incommunicado detention.
Then let him take it up with the US, we should keep our noses out of it.
How do these individuals find the resources to travel and engage legal teams? He even has the Queen on his side....
Between,
The Queen on the Application of Binyam Mohamed (Claimant)
And,
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
(Defendant)
We seem content to take in the worlds garbage, be it nuclear or any other toxic waste, criminals or anything else that the rest of the world wants to get rid of.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.