Do I Message Him Or Let Him Message Me?
Family & Relationships0 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.
Compensation is a matter for the courts..........�0 to >>�million.....who cares?
If Uk agencies have been complicit in torture then people ought to go to prison. I would rather live in a country and risk death following a terrorist attack than living in a Police State where torture is accepted and our "leaders" hide behind hippocitrical statements like "we do not condone torture"
If Uk agencies have been complicit in torture then people ought to go to prison. I would rather live in a country and risk death following a terrorist attack than living in a Police State where torture is accepted and our "leaders" hide behind hippocitrical statements like "we do not condone torture"
All asylum seekers are given legal representation - not just this bloke.
All failed asylum seekers are then given yet more access to legal representation to make sure due process is followed without unfairness before they finally depart this land. It is millions and millions of pounds annually.
Who do you think pays for it? - it is same principal as that for the legal aid scheme.
The legal profession in terms of parliamentary MPs just looks after its own, time and time again.
All failed asylum seekers are then given yet more access to legal representation to make sure due process is followed without unfairness before they finally depart this land. It is millions and millions of pounds annually.
Who do you think pays for it? - it is same principal as that for the legal aid scheme.
The legal profession in terms of parliamentary MPs just looks after its own, time and time again.
rov1200 and R1Geezer
He was granted asylum here in 1994 and was not in Britain illegally. he has not transgressed our laws. His 'offense' for which he has never faced a trial took place in Pakistan. He was arrested for using a false passport when he was returning to the UK. He was effectively then abducted and he claims tortured. In the seven years of his detention, he has never been charged with anything and never convicted. He was not arrested as he arrived back. There are no plans to charge him with any crime here.
As a British resident he is entitled to come back here.
He was granted asylum here in 1994 and was not in Britain illegally. he has not transgressed our laws. His 'offense' for which he has never faced a trial took place in Pakistan. He was arrested for using a false passport when he was returning to the UK. He was effectively then abducted and he claims tortured. In the seven years of his detention, he has never been charged with anything and never convicted. He was not arrested as he arrived back. There are no plans to charge him with any crime here.
As a British resident he is entitled to come back here.
He's entitled to come back here but not to reside here permanently.For that he'll have to apply and the Home Office make a decision.He has, however, been granted temporary leave to remain for two years.No idea why two years.Perhaps it's a standard unit ! I'd have thought six months was enough for him to prepare and file an application for permanent residence. Perhaps he was given two years for his lawyers to come up with a better complaint than the one given by their representative at the press conference.
Not according to the BBC, gromit, and I quote:
In 1994 he arrived in the UK and sought asylum on the basis of his family's opposition to the Ethiopian government. His application was rejected, but in 2000 he was given exceptional leave to remain in the UK for four years.
I calculate that the �exceptional leave� ran out in 2004, some three years after he left these shores.
Quite how that makes him a �British resident� or even a resident of Britain (an entirely different thing) I still fail to see.
In 1994 he arrived in the UK and sought asylum on the basis of his family's opposition to the Ethiopian government. His application was rejected, but in 2000 he was given exceptional leave to remain in the UK for four years.
I calculate that the �exceptional leave� ran out in 2004, some three years after he left these shores.
Quite how that makes him a �British resident� or even a resident of Britain (an entirely different thing) I still fail to see.
New Judge
Thank you for the clarification. It has been widely reported that he was legally here. I got my information form the Daily Telegraph profile which stated...
"Although not a British citizen, Mohamed arrived in London from Ethiopia in 1994 and was granted asylum.
He worked as a cleaner in Kensington, west London, but turned to drugs and claims he travelled to Afghanistan in June 2001 to kick his addiction."
Sky News just say...
"A British resident, Mohamed was born in Ethiopia but came to to the UK in 1994, aged 16, to claim political asylum. He was given permission to stay while his case was investigated and worked as a caretaker."
The Independent says...
Although born in Ethiopia, he was given leave to stay in the UK in 1994 as a teenage asylum-seeker.
I assume your BBC report is the accurate version .
Thank you for the clarification. It has been widely reported that he was legally here. I got my information form the Daily Telegraph profile which stated...
"Although not a British citizen, Mohamed arrived in London from Ethiopia in 1994 and was granted asylum.
He worked as a cleaner in Kensington, west London, but turned to drugs and claims he travelled to Afghanistan in June 2001 to kick his addiction."
Sky News just say...
"A British resident, Mohamed was born in Ethiopia but came to to the UK in 1994, aged 16, to claim political asylum. He was given permission to stay while his case was investigated and worked as a caretaker."
The Independent says...
Although born in Ethiopia, he was given leave to stay in the UK in 1994 as a teenage asylum-seeker.
I assume your BBC report is the accurate version .
I have reason to believe that the term 'resident of Britain' applies to those who have been granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR). To that extent, the individual has then been given an indefinite right to stay here. This is entirely separate from British Nationality. I suspect (but again I am not sure) that the Sec of State can revoke this right, and would do so if the individual was convicted of committing criminal offences. Indefinite means just that - no time limit put on it - but not a permanent right.
There is not a standard bucket size, Fred. Individuals applications are treated on their own merits. For example, student applications (to study here) would be granted leave to remain based upon the length of their course.
There is not a standard bucket size, Fred. Individuals applications are treated on their own merits. For example, student applications (to study here) would be granted leave to remain based upon the length of their course.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-115358 2/The-14-men-sent-Britain-Guantanamo.html
Apparently he is 1 of 14 men sent to Britain from Guantanamo, and suprise, suprise most are suing the British Goverment'
Why do we accept them back they should be the US's problem?
========================================
David Miliband officially welcomed Mohamed's return yesterday
He was flown back on a luxury Gulfstream jet accompanied by two Foreign Office officials, two Metropolitan police officers and a doctor.
The Foreign Office and Home Office jointly paid for the trip, which is estimated to have cost as much as �160,000.
It all beggars belief, when we have hundreds of old people in this country dying of hypothermia, isn't it time for them to receive a little VIP treatment.
Apparently he is 1 of 14 men sent to Britain from Guantanamo, and suprise, suprise most are suing the British Goverment'
Why do we accept them back they should be the US's problem?
========================================
David Miliband officially welcomed Mohamed's return yesterday
He was flown back on a luxury Gulfstream jet accompanied by two Foreign Office officials, two Metropolitan police officers and a doctor.
The Foreign Office and Home Office jointly paid for the trip, which is estimated to have cost as much as �160,000.
It all beggars belief, when we have hundreds of old people in this country dying of hypothermia, isn't it time for them to receive a little VIP treatment.
buildersmate: I know full well who will have to foot the bill for this character - believe it or not I was being facetious!
However, on the broader question of asylum seekers, I don't think any fair-minded person objects to a person in genuine need, ergo someone in proven fear for their own personal safety, who seeks shelter in a safe haven.
Nevertheless, why would someone make a journey from as far away as the likes of Ethiopia, bypassing who knows how many other "safe havens" in order to get to dear old Blighty? I find it impossible to believe that we were the only, and nearest, option he had.
Not only that, but what was he doing then wandering around Pakistan/Afghanistan or wherever in 2002 before being arrested and detained? Why wasn't he still within the "safe haven" he had fled to 8 years before? Why would he go and put himself at substantial risk in such countries
as above? Let's face it, how many Brits jet off to places like those for a nice, relaxing holiday?
There are so many alarming aspects to this and we are yet again being suckered into accommodating this guy thanks to the fact that we are the softest touch in the world when it comes to any old unsubstantiated sob story.
However, on the broader question of asylum seekers, I don't think any fair-minded person objects to a person in genuine need, ergo someone in proven fear for their own personal safety, who seeks shelter in a safe haven.
Nevertheless, why would someone make a journey from as far away as the likes of Ethiopia, bypassing who knows how many other "safe havens" in order to get to dear old Blighty? I find it impossible to believe that we were the only, and nearest, option he had.
Not only that, but what was he doing then wandering around Pakistan/Afghanistan or wherever in 2002 before being arrested and detained? Why wasn't he still within the "safe haven" he had fled to 8 years before? Why would he go and put himself at substantial risk in such countries
as above? Let's face it, how many Brits jet off to places like those for a nice, relaxing holiday?
There are so many alarming aspects to this and we are yet again being suckered into accommodating this guy thanks to the fact that we are the softest touch in the world when it comes to any old unsubstantiated sob story.
As everybody knows living in Britain is a soft touch for terrorists. He'd be arrested if he went back to Pakistan or Afghanistan. He knows that the human rights act gives him more protection than those who live here. He'd hardly likely to get benefits anywhere else and probably living accommodation is being lined up for him. His family will be allowed to join him. And during his idle time he'll be able to plot the downfall of western civilisations. He must think he's living in paradise.
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.