A Nigerian woman who tried and failed eight times to secure asylum in Britain was finally granted the right to stay after joining a terrorist organisation just to boost her claim.
If you do join a terrorist group then you *can* stay.
The judge who gave the 49-year-old woman the right to stay acknowledged that she was not being honest about her political beliefs and had become involved with the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) only “in order to create a claim for asylum”.
The woman, who came to the UK in 2011, joined IPOB in 2017. A separatist group that has been blamed for acts of violence against the Nigerian state, it has been banned as a terrorist organisation by Nigeria but is not proscribed in the UK.
Upper tribunal judge Gemma Loughran ruled that the asylum seeker’s activities on behalf of the group meant she had a “well-founded fear of persecution” under human rights laws due to her “imputed” political opinion.
At which point the usual observation. The moment you’ve got a system of any complexity at all then folk will try to beat that complexity.
“But no one would cut their dick off just to win bicycle races.” “But no one would reject a job to stay on welfare” “But no one would join a terrorist group just to stay in the country” – yes, they would. Observably.
But no one would talk Granny into topping herself…….
I have to be a bit careful here – but something similarly bizarre is happening near me. Sorry for the vagueness.
A gentleman in some authority near where I live has decided to become trans.
He had previously been living in a foreign country and brought his wife and children back to the UK to take up this job a couple of years ago.
He was not permitted to transition where he had been living.
The suspicion is that he planned this all along and played a long game. Came back to Britain, established himself, so he couldn’t be sacked and now is going for the op.
Sheeeeshhhh. This has established that Hamas have right of residence in the UK.
How the hell did we end up here? My guess is a long chain if small, stupid decisions made by our politicians over a period of decades.
From the schools to the universities to the chambers and finally to the courts.
They’re the ones “interpreting” the law now.
Did someone take pity on Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke’s Mum?
Don’t worry, Labour will clear the backlog:-
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Hmmmm, nah Approved.
Only another 300 to do before Tiffin.
The traditional solutions to lawless judges are extremely painful for the judges.
Hang the lot!!!!
PS. Hmmmm! That seems to be my solution to EVERY problem. Doesn’t it??
“At which point the usual observation. The moment you’ve got a system of any complexity at all then folk will try to beat that complexity.”
You also have to include the fact that government is slow to react. If you game an offering with the private sector, they will move fast. Like there was the one about free insurance with a new Citroen car and it led to lots of Citroens being bought for barely qualified 18 year olds because the car payments were less than insuring almost any car. I think Citroen stopped doing it within a few months. As soon as they realised they were paying for a lot of very expensive insurance, they stopped. And based on my own experiences of a product being gamed, the company moved very fast. Sent a message to all branches, shut down sales on the system.
The asylum system only ever worked when travel was really expensive and inconvenient. So, you got political leaders, writers, business people. If someone wanted out of Shitholistan they generally went to a neighbouring country of Shitholistan. The 1948 and 1951 treaties just don’t work in 2025. The asylum problem started around the early 1990s. But even by 2005 it was clear there was a big problem. We had gone from a few thousand per year to tens of thousands per year. And in the face of a world where war was declining.
I used to be a firm advocate of ‘stringing ’em up.’
My attitude has changed down the years. Not through any namby pamby humanitarian consideration, but I consider the British state, even in a revolutionary situation, totally incapable of getting it done right.
I think Steve is right and we should allow nature to take over. Lions every time.
The asylum problem started around the early 1990s
You can blame airline deregulation in the EU and USA, Stelios, O’Leary, and Boeing (and latterly Airbus) for the 737 and A320. They enabled hell of an externality.
The people of this country have been shouting there are too many migrants since the 1950’s. And since the 1950’s the msm, lefties and politicians of all stripes have been ignoring them.
O/T, I see the lesbian brown Chelsea footballer got acquitted of racial harassment. Apparently calling plod ‘thick and white’ over and over whilst being arrested is perfectly acceptable………….
I’m going start referring to these constant insane judgements by woke judges as “chicken nugget rulings”.
First question is…. How on earth can someone, under any system, try and fail for a Status eight times?
While obviously lying all the way….
Just….how?
If you can make it difficult to deport you, then the system will follow the path of least resistance. Hence why you can fail 8 times and find that attempt number 9 is the charm.
There are people who are easy to deport and you almost never hear about those cases. The person in question agrees to go quietly, board a plane, and that is the end of it.
If you know how to play the system, you can turn yourself into an indigestible lump.
Do we have info on how these asylum seekers got here?
Small boats, obvs, but they are a small minority.
Who comes as a student / health worker / tourist visa / dependant etc and then claims?
As I understand it, the Dublin Convention means they have to claim in the first safe country they reach. So on the face of it, we could deny an asylum application even if the claimant changed planes at Schipol.
(And I do mean deny the application, i.e. refuse to hear it at all.)
This is a consequence of a number of problems:
– it has been made difficult to physically deport someone, including if they are appealing the deportation. So they stay and can appeal, and appeal again. Even if there’s a “final order”, the actual physical movement is delayed, and delayed again.
– asylum is granted on plausible fear of persecution, without investigation into the grounds as to whether the persecution is justified. So you get headchoppers fleeing the mob generated by their actions, applying for asylum, and it being granted.
– even when they are removed, they can come back and most likely apply for asylum and it will be considered as if it were a new application. Sometimes it’s because they’re using a new name (and they have no documents), but sometimes they don’t bother.
Norman,
“You can blame airline deregulation in the EU and USA, Stelios, O’Leary, and Boeing (and latterly Airbus) for the 737 and A320. They enabled hell of an externality.”
You can’t *blame* them. I don’t even mind the government watching and legislating as changes happen, but it’s 20+ years after this shift. What the fuck do all the people in the Home Office do all day?
Gibbet the judges:
Berlin — A driver drove a car into a group of people in central Munich on Thursday, injuring almost 30 people, including children, authorities said. Police said at least 28 people were injured and the suspect was believed to be a 24-year-old Afghan asylum-seeker. Officials said earlier that at least two of those injured were in a serious condition.
The wealthy professional regime functionaries who have brought so much suffering, degradation and death to Europe should be elevated above the people, until they starve to death and the crows eat them.
@philip
“As I understand it, the Dublin Convention means they have to claim in the first safe country they reach. So on the face of it, we could deny an asylum application even if the claimant changed planes at Schipol.”
Not “safe” but “EU”, plus a few others. There wasn’t a provision to remove someone who came via Turkey or Serbia even if they’d have been perfectly safe there. Also “have to” is incorrect. The asylum seeker is perfectly entitled to move to and claim in another EU country. There’s no legal offence committed and it doesn’t invalidate their claim of asylum. It’s just that this EU country is then also perfectly entitled to send them back to the first EU country they got fingerprinted in, without considering their claim further.
It wasn’t a very effective mechanism from the UK’s point of view since more asylum seekers ended up being sent to Britain than Britain sent back elsewhere. That’s surprising on the face of it, since most asylum seekers were reaching the UK via other countries. I think the issue was that, under the system, EU countries also sent dependents round the blocks. So provided a father got into Britain without being processed elsewhere first, then the other EU countries were more than happy to send his wife and kids on to us.
Since this is an EU thing, it’s no longer relevant to the UK post Brexit.
Western Bloke,
The classic example in the private sector is when Hoover offered two free flights to America (worth £600) with the purchase of just £100 worth of product. They reacted fairly quickly, but not before some 300,000 customers had signed up.
The incident is notorious enough to have its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_free_flights_promotion
Yes, it is very cool indeed. Can we get her put in charge of the Chagos islands situation? With her attitude, and experience with human rights laws, we’ll end up getting paid by Mauritius to keep the islands. With a generous payment left over to go to the Chagossians themselves.
@philip – “(And I do mean deny the application, i.e. refuse to hear it at all.)”
I take it you’re also in favour of dispensing with criminal trials too? Just lock them all up as mere accusation is sufficient.
But the correct solution is to allow free movement. Just as in the 19th century countries started to realise that trade barriers were bad for prosperity, in the 21st century we need to recognise that people barriers are bad for prosperity. So if someone is oppressed, they should be able to leave and go somewhere nicer. Just as they can quit a job or move away from a nasty neighbour.
Don’t be a universalist dreamer, Charles, and read your Huntington:
‘Differences among civilisations are not only real; they are basic. Civilisations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition, and, most important, religion. The people of different civilisations have different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear. They are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes.’
How do intend your free movement to cope with that? Because thus far it has failed us badly.
Visas stamped NRTPF.
Deport if criminal, carrying a communicable disease, or not identifiable.
No asylum claims granted for anyone ever.
And repeal the laws against discrimination – if some employers in the UK don’t want to hire ’em, they legally can discriminate, they’ll pay a price if the miss a good employee and someone else gets them.
@Charles will be along to correct me, but I think that would be his jist.
Charles:
Sure, do invite them to live in your neighbourhood..
Now… for the rest of the people here…
Any bets on how long Charles would last surrounded by examples of his “All Welcome” policy?
Charles
I didn’t suggest condemning asylum seekers out of hand. I suggested not hearing their application if they had come from a safe country.
However, I’ll take your point. Let’s have applications decided by a jury, not a judge.