More on alleged 6 year rule

By On 12 October 2009 · 3 Comments · In News, Policy

Further to my earlier post on the alleged relaxing of asylum rules, see the Government response to media claims:

Asylum seekers – government response

09 October 2009

The government has responded to claims in the media that up to 40,000 asylum seekers will be allowed to stay in the United Kingdom because it would be too difficult to return them to their home countries.

Phil Woolas, [still] Border and Immigration Minister, said:

‘There is no amnesty.

‘Our guidelines were updated to provide case workers with a simple framework to judge cases, and to avoid long drawn out court battles.

‘No lawbreaker will be allowed to say, and each case is still decided on its individual merits.

‘The UK Border Agency continues to ramp up performance and is concluding several thousand cases a month.

‘Less than 40% of cases are being granted and I am confident that we will clear all of these cases by 2011.’

 
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it
Reddit Facebook Twitter Delicious Mixx StumbleUpon Digg

3 Responses to More on alleged 6 year rule

  1. Mr T says:
    12 October 2009 at 10:14 am

    All this spin is making me dizzy.
    Is there an election looming?

    So 100,000 legacy cases are being streamlined due to the HO’s own inefficiencies at doing its job, and is allowing 40% to “SAY” – I think they mean “STAY”.

    The UKBA in my experience is getting worse. Just the other day I saw that my AIT consultation response had been changed without me being notified let alone consulted.

  2. DP...... says:
    12 October 2009 at 10:16 pm

    If that’s the case Mr T, and if it has your real name on, i’d make some mutterings about data protection…..

    • Mr T says:
      13 October 2009 at 9:54 am

      DP

      I decided to preserve my anonimity.

      It had the Judges name on it, and the UKBA removed it due there being a supposed “allegation”. I veiw it as a statement of fact, but I think it fell on deaf ears. If one can’t describe an adjudication as inaccurate when it contains seven major mistakes, then I can only assume they are covering themselves.

      By the by, the AIT consultation did have a consultation response from the judge as well.