Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
7 October 2010
05:3974009As solicitors prepare and seek a Judicial Review of the HO decision to deport the X Factor wannabee reject Gamu Nhengu public support for the Zimbabwean overstayer gathers momentum.Should she be allowed to stay under exceptional circumstances or should she be removed?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
7 October 2010
07:4974016If the public support is based just on a telly appearance I despair.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
7 October 2010
08:1174020Someone in the public eye should not be treated differently from anyone else.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
7 October 2010
08:1874022in a word,deport.regardless of public opinion.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 October 2010
08:1874023Jan and Bern - quite correct.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 October 2010
08:2074024If public opion is measured by some X Factor fans then we really would have reason to despair.
7 October 2010
09:4374034Already despairing BarryW!!
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
7 October 2010
15:3174059I`ve found out from other`s about this story, and of course she should be deported. The government and the law of England rule this country, NOT the box.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
7 October 2010
15:5074060It is unconstitutional to make an exception of law based on TV popularity. Were the exception to be made, it would be a clear case of press-ganging Gov. through TV fame and glamour. It would have disastrous consequences, as the Law in our Country is based on precedent, meaning that once an exception like this were made, it would become valid, in theory, in millions and even tens of millions of cases in years to come, for any person, not just anyone seekinf TV fame!
We already had a case of populist TV press-ganging of the Law when an actress decided to promote a change in the Armed Forces regulations regarding Gurkas. The outcome was that, once all is counted, a Gurka soldier becomes, on average, a lot more expensive to employ in the British Army than a British soldier! It so happened that in the meantime Gov. started to cut back drastically on pubblic spending, and now even the Police Force has announced it must reduce its numbers, and that when the Tories were promissing to increase Police security in our Country during the Election campaign! So many people being laid redundant, or about to be laid redundant, and Dover's District Council making plans to cut local spending by 40% over the next five years, and Councils all over the Country in the same situation, and here we have TV glammour acting as if we were all roling in money! Well, would the TV ask Gov. to reconsider sending many of our people into redundancy?
If they showed a young British woman whose husband was about to be made redundant due to spending cuts, and made a compassionate case, may-be the public oppinion would be moved to ask for an exception, but then hundreds of thousands of other British people facing the axe would ask to be included in that exception.
Populist press-ganging to make the Law unequal can be dangerous!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
7 October 2010
15:5374061there has never been any suggestion that she will get any preferential treatment beacuse of her alleged celebrity status.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
7 October 2010
16:0174064That officialy, Howard! But the news papers make it clear that the whole case is based on celebrity!
7 October 2010
16:0774065Howard - I may have de-railed the thread a bit - sorry. It was not my intention to suggest telly was the driver, but that if it were, it would be appalling. Although, knowing the general public and their tabloid tastes, I am inclined to think it is the case.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
7 October 2010
16:4774071alex
it was only the comic cuts press that raised the issue as they know their readers only know of minor celebrities, they were nor suggesting a campaign to keep her here.
Guest 699- Registered: 3 Jun 2010
- Posts: 292
7 October 2010
17:2074080why was allowed on x factor in first placew , cant see tesco employing someone who has not got 100% clearance by immagration , or do they check within someones 12 week trail ?
not all lost what is wrong with the zimbabwe x factor ?
gives the pakistan and indian gamblers something to bet on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7 October 2010
22:1974160Without going into the rights or wrongs 'Gamu Nhengu' would be one Hell of a name on a Scrabble board!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
8 October 2010
07:1974180I would think that anyone being deported back to Zimbabwe with Mugabe in charge will face a very difficult time - everyone there faces a difficult time under this thug and terrorist and this family will fare worst than most.
They've lived here for over 8 years and always been productive, so based on other cases, I believe she and her family should be allowed to stay - nothing to do with X Factor.
Roger
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
8 October 2010
07:2674183ROGER;
The only thing with what you say is, should everyone from that country apply to come here do we accept them all?????
I don't know enough about this lady to gve an informed decision but im sure it wll develope over time.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
8 October 2010
07:4574186I'm not saying that keith, but in this instance, her family have been here for 8 years, why now decide to send her back. Terrorism in Zimbabwe is rife, especially if you don't support Mugabe.
Roger
8 October 2010
08:4974188Roger, the fact that failed asylum seekers might have been in the UK for a prolonged period is usually down to the fact that the Home Office takes so long to remove them as they exercise their rights of appeal and M.P.s make representations etc. Let's rip up the 1951 Convention.
There's a sonnet fixed to the Statue of Liberty:-
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Fine words in their time but it would be a bit daft if the U.S. Immigration Service used them as operating instructions. I suggest that that's the position of the 51 Convention on Human Rights.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
8 October 2010
13:0374214ROGER;
Just because shes managed to evade being caught, If that's correct, that's no reason to let her stay, and If Roger you agreeth this lady because of the Govt out there, surely its the same for other's who come over?
How can you treat them differently?, or are we now sayng, if you come over and avoid being caught we will let you stay.
If you go through the right channels we wll deport you.
I'm getting worried here I'm soundng like a tory lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
