Anyone can become a refugee, even a European

‘Anyone can become a refugee, even a European’ is a blog written by Judith Dennis on the 11th May 2017. Looking briefly at different blogs, this seemed to stand out as it is very unusual to the different ones I have written, and certainly help an interesting title which made me curious.

This blog speaks about societies perception of who is believed can become a refugee and who can’t. defiantly not expecting a European to be one. Though read on and find out, this could shock you.

Refugees are often seen to be someone fleeing Syria huddles onto a rickety boat, somewhere in the Mediterranean. Or thought of as families fleeing notorious refugee producing country, like South Sudan for instance.

For a number of years, Albania has been among the top nationalities of people claiming asylum in Britain. Almost all of these claims are refused.

The people who have fled Albania is because their lives are in terrible danger there. These people certainly need our protection and we should be legally obliged to give this protection to them.

Though Albania may be a holiday destination for a lot of people, this doesn’t make it a safe place to settle down and live. Especially got LGBT people there is lots of danger and there is evidence that the government doesn’t keep its people safe.

It has been a shock for many, but the Guardian has revealed some news about the Home office relying on old information and stating that Albania is a safe place to live and sending many people not necessarily from Albanian backgrounds there to live their lives.

This news that had been generated since 201, makes us think that people could have been wrongly sent back to Albania where they were at risk of suffering persecution, or maybe even worse. Those still in the UK, of many living in absolute poverty, will have to make their own way to the Home Office in Liverpool to ask if their case can be reopened. Though many will not even be allowed this option.

Given that decisions on asylum claims can be life or death, it’s vital that the Home Office is held to account for the decisions it makes. After all, no one is above the law, not even the Home Office itself.

Reading this blog has been a shock. Having looked at migration law for some time now, not once did I think that being from somewhere much closer to home you can still be classed as a refugee. So there isn’t even care for our own people now? If that is the case, then who is cared for? I am curious and upset.

The law terminology in this blog was very basic, which yes meant that it was easy to understand, But I would have liked to feel that my law terminology is strengthened by the end of the blog which I don’t feel is the case.

The length of the blog however was great, short and snappy which meant that it could be read at one go, and even gone over several times without any boredom.

There hadn’t of been much backup in this blog which I would have liked to see, as I would have been able to refer to further external sources in this case, but this chance didn’t exist.

Slave Wages: Shining a light on detention centre exploitation


‘Slave Wages: Shining a light on detention centre exploitation’ is a blog written by Toufique Hossain on the 23rd November 2017. Since our tutors have advised us to look at work migration for the week, I decided to go ahead a strengthen my knowledge in this area by picking this blog.

This blog goes on to speak about immigration detainees, which are tortured survivors, refugees and people who later won unlawful detention claims. This blog speaks about needing to help to improve the lives of the detainees.

A maximum of £1 per hour was set for the immigration detainees by the Home office. This was described as a ‘abhorrent policy’ which is unfortunately followed the brave clients which are willing to go ahead with it.

Washing, cleaning, working as a barber and being disqualified from the national minimum wage is only some of what the detainees are required to live with. They are told ‘they can work’ but they are not ‘workers’.

This is typical for the residents of the UK’s grim removal centres. The term ‘removal’ was given by the Home Office. The reality is that many detainees are held there for the long haul. In the meantime, detainees are neither prisoners, nor considered members of society. Out of sight, out of mind.

Deaths and injuries also occur in the detention. Footages on TV have been taken to also show these terrible incidents that take place. Though because they are hidden from the public view, little seems to change, therefore the Home Office feel comfortable carrying on with their crime.

In May a letter was sent to the Home Office on the behalf of several clients to state the facts about the £1 maximum wage, which has been named as ‘irrational, discriminatory and unlawful’. It had been argued that there should be flexibility in how much detainees are paid and that they should have the right to apply to be paid more. If no action is yet to be taken upon this atrocious matter, then it shall be bought to the High Court.

In June, a response had been heard. Several strange justifications for the policies had been mentioned. Shockingly, it emerged in an internal document from 2008 that a limit of 75p had originally been considered appropriate but, the memo cautioned, ‘there would be a risk of detainees refusing to engage any longer, and even of disgruntlement’. It seems that clients should be grateful for their £1 per hour salary.

The Secretary of State for the Home Office Amber Rudd, who earns over £100,000 a year, simply cannot bare wage inequality or unequal opportunities.

‘relief from boredom’, is been a statement made as to why the detainees work and that they do not need money for their day to day existence in detention. ‘Work – like other activities – is not compulsory.’

The clients and other detainees are doing work essential to the management of the immigration removal centres, much of it banal and tiring. They are working as cleaners, barbers, laundry workers, litter-pickers and food servers. This work would otherwise need to done by workers paid at least the minimum wage.

Philip Armitage told Nick Ferrari on LBC Radio, ‘clients do need money for their day-to-day existence. They need money to buy credit to speak to their lawyers and their family, and to buy essentials’. Men and women deprived of their liberty, in a position of powerlessness, are forced to carry out unedifying jobs for next to nothing by the circumstances which have been imposed on them. If this isn’t slavery I don’t know what is.

Reading this blog, it had honestly been a shock. All that’s ever heard and mentioned is ‘Human rights’ yet we see the complete opposite, we are seeing slavery, and only down the road. Since nothing has been done about this, indicates that it is encouraged.

The law terminology in this blog was very informative as has made me more curious about some of the terms used, which led me in researching further beyond this blog. It was also a good length yet not too short, which made it an enjoyable read.

Finally there was a fair amount of back up in this blog which made it stand out to me as it came across as very legitimate.


The hostile environment

‘The hostile environment’ is a blog written by Colin Yeo on the 29th May 2017. Having discussed the topic of this blog in last week’s seminar, it has intrigued me in further researching the topic of the hostile environment

This blog speak about a package of measures for migrants, also called ‘the hostile environment’, which has been designed to make life for an individual, who without permission trying to enter the UK difficult, or if already living in the UK, so difficult that they voluntarily leave. Colin Yeo identifies the key aim of ‘the hostile environment’ in his blog as an intention to reduce inward migration and increase outward migration.

Measures the hostile environment includes is the limit to access work; housing; health care; bank accounts and to reduce and restrict rights of appeal against Home Office decisions. Via the Immigration Act 2014 the majority of these proposals became law, and have since then also been followed and tightened under the Immigration Act 2016. It is understandable for a country to have rules and regulations to follow so that the country can remain tidy and have the access of these measures to its own citizens, but if these individuals are already in the country they cannot exactly be living on the streets can they? So why not at least consider part time employment for them to afford at least a meal a day?

Administrative measures have also been introduces to help bring across tougher immigration rules on issues such as overstaying. Steep increases to fees for immigration application have also been introduced which appears to be deliberate intended to m=encourage migrants to leave the UK.

Having said that, it is not like illegal entry or overstaying were not previously criminal offences; under the Immigration Act 1971 being knowingly unlawfully present in the UK or breaching the conditions of a visa are criminal offences. Convictions have steeply declines since a peak in 2005, however, the prosecutions have levelled out at around 500-600 per year. Colin Yeo has mentioned that the Home office and/or police have neither the resources nor the will to enforce existing immigration laws. This has resulted in a decrease in the number of enforced removals of immigration offenders.

Not only does the hostile environment criminalise behaviour that is already criminal, but also criminalises private individuals and entities who fail to abide by the immigration laws in their dealings with other members of the public.

In May 12th, Theresa May came up with the ‘Hostile environment’ term, which stands for ‘dangerous and violent’. For example living and working in a ‘hostile environment’ might be given to journalists visiting a war zone. It has been stated that the reason for all this is to stop people thinking that they can come to Britain and overstay because they’re able to access everything they need.

Employers, landlords, colleges, universities, banks, building societies, doctors and local government all have to run immigration status checks, incentivised by statutory duties, civil fines and criminal offences.

Various problems can and do cause migrants to become unlawful citizens. These include forgetting to answer one of the many questions on the form; smiling too much in your passport photo and applying one day late for an extension of your visa.

Access to employment, access to love, access to housing, access to health, access to banking, access to roads are all illegal to unlawful immigrants, giving practically no reason to live because they do not have the funds to buy a basic meal. This is astonishing.

The cost of immigration appeals have also been on the rise, where the actual cost of an application actually costs £252, individuals are required to pay £2,297 to an indefinite leave to remain application in 2017. Where are people supposed to get this kind of money from having impose such harsh rules on them?

Due to the difficulty that is purposely created in allowing one to become a British citizen, there is almost double the number of voluntary returns in comparison to enforced return.

Reading this blog, I was put through lots of different emotions. Understanding both sides, where the country wants to make sure its country remains tidy and regulated, but also for individual who want to create a better life for themselves and their family, it is tough.

It is upsetting to know that some individuals wait 7 years and over practically stateless until they hear back. Leaving their whole life on hold, from being a child to an adult and still waiting for something that is unknown whether it would be possible or not. I do not feel that this is fair, if there isn’t enough worker then perhaps recruit more to give those individuals a quick answer, whether that being yes or no but at least they aren’t just waiting around for the unknown.

This blog has really developed my law terminology due to its in depth explanations and examples used throughout. At the same time, it was very clear and easy to understand, so it being long did not make it boring or any harder to understand.

There was lots of information to back up what the blog had said. The use of graphs and data to also illustrate what is being said I also thought was great.

An immigration lawyer reviews Paddington 2: life in the hostile environment

‘An immigration lawyer reviews Paddington 2: life in the hostile environment’ is a blog written by Colin Yeo on the 13th November 2017. Having looked at various immigration blogs over the past month or so, I am intrigued in widening my knowledge and looking at the range of subtopics within Migration law. By giving myself a range of choices between blogs, I have decided to read Colin Yeo’s blog further to give me a clearer insight about the key elements further explored in the blog.

This blog goes on to speak about the Paddington 2 film, though there has been plenty of disbeliefs about the scenes that occurred throughout the movie, Colin still managed to hold in his thought and watch the movie then go ahead and speak up about his own views of the matter.

As an immigration Lawyer, Colin Yeo was able to tell us that that the portrayal of life in the UK as an illegal immigrant in Paddington 2 was ‘utterly unreal’.

Though many disbeliefs did exist, Colin still thought that it would be kind to start with the bits of the film that he believes that film maker did get right.

The application fee is a costly procedure and would have required Paddington to save over six times as much as he does for the pop-up book around which the plot revolves. Also for that application to succeed, he would need to prove that Aunt Lucy “as a result of age, illness or disability require long-term personal care to perform everyday tasks” and that there is no-one in Peru to provide such care or it is not affordable.

It has been outlines that every day, inhuman immigration rules are creating the most unimaginable pain and suffering for many migrant families around the UK.

By simply remaining in the UK, that is classed as a criminal offense. It is also mentioned that anything Paddington does over and above breathing attracts additional criminal and civil penalties. These affects not only Paddington himself, but also those who come into contract with him.

We are then informed that Paddington gets a job. He tries his hand as a barber then as a window cleaner. As of 12 July 2016, Paddington is committing a criminal offence by working, under section 26A of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended by the Immigration Act 2016.

These are classic cash in hand jobs, which is uncharacteristically savvy of the young bear. Keeping his money in a large jar is a wise move. Were Paddington to attempt to bank his hard earned cash, the bank or building society would, under obligations imposed by the Immigration Act 2014, have to check his immigration status before opening a new account. From 1 January 2018 any existing account Paddington had already set up would also be at risk of closure. The money he earns could be frozen and seized.


Paddington’s window cleaning business was clearly self-employed in nature. His work as a barber, however brief, would be regarded by the authorities as employed work. This is a real problem for the unfortunate shop owner, who faces a fine of up to £20,000. We have been told that Colin has come across several cases in my own work where a migrant was “encountered” in a shop, claiming to be minding the till temporarily or just hanging out with friends, but where a hefty civil penalty was imposed on the employer anyway.

Paddington lodges with the Browns in their elegant home at 32 Windsor Gardens. If Paddington pays any contribution towards his accommodation – perhaps a share of the weekly shopping, or even payment in marmalade – that would bring these living arrangements within the “right to rent” scheme created by the Immigration Act 2014. The Brown family would face a civil penalty of up to £5,000 for allowing Paddington to live with them, and could even be prosecuted if they knew about or “had reasonable cause” to know about his unlawful immigration status.

Finally, we see Paddington have a brush with the law. His immigration status would be one of the first things police officers would check, under Operation Nexus. Under this joint working operation between police and immigration officials, even victims of crime have been threatened with removal. As a defendant in a trial, as of 13 November 2017 Paddington will need to provide his nationality or face further criminal charges.

Paddington is destined to end his time in the UK as a Foreign National Offender. Any sentence of 12 months or over attracts automatic deportation. In prison, he would be constantly badgered by immigration officials to agree to an early removal.

It was stated that after all he would have gone through, early removal from the UK’s hostile environment back to Darkest Peru would seem like a very attractive option.

Reading this blog, it kind of hit me and I had to think once more about the struggles that people in the UK, so close to me are suffering in their day to day lives. How can you be expected to stay alive yet it is illegal to rent? To work? Where are the human rights? I understand that the country can’t have random immigrant acting as legal immigrants, but these individuals are not even given the opportunity to appeal or do anything to make them a part of a legal society. Heart-breaking.

The law terminology in this blog was very informative as has made me more curious about some of the terms used, which led me in researching further beyond this blog. It was also a good length yet not too short, which made it an enjoyable read.

Finally there was a fair amount of back up in this blog which made it stand out to me as it came across as very legitimate.


5 things to understand about the August 2017 changes to the Immigration Rules: families, income and the MM case


‘5 things to understand about the August 2017 changes to the Immigration Rules’ is a blog written by Latitude Law on the 31st July 2017. This blog came across very informative with the use of good legal significance, so I became more interested in reading further and finding out what it is about.


This blog speaks about the 5 changes to the immigration rules of August 2017, these being; The £18,600+ requirement stays the same for most people; Additional sources of permitted income can only be relied upon when there are ‘exceptional circumstances’; Only certain extra sources of income will count; The onus is on you to prove your circumstances and the income available; The new rules make it harder for you to settle in the UK permanently.

Firstly, looking at the £18,600+ requirement which stays the same for most people. This stays the same at £18,600 to sponsor your partner alone, 322,400 to sponsor a partner and child and increasing with each additional child included in the application. The MM has done however, is force UK visas and Immigration to widen the pool of acceptable sources of income, giving families more opportunities to show that they meet requirements of the rules. I feel that the changes that MM have put forward is beneficial as it gives individuals more options and helps them in providing their financial evidence in which the requirements expect individuals to rely on. This will put individuals at ease and take some stress off their shoulders, which is much needed in such processes as it is known to be a stressful process.

Now looking at the second point which is, ‘additional sources of permitted income can only be relied upon when there are ‘’exceptional circumstances’’ ‘. It mentions that not all families will benefit from this August rule change and does not give enough information on it. I think that this is unfair as it is unclear to individuals and they will not know whether they meet this criteria or not. This causes extra stress for many individuals which could mean they don’t focus well enough on all their other required paperwork which will result in a poor outcome and possible health issues too. It is also not fair to put somebodies hopes up but no guarantee them something as it is not right to leave people hanging around for something that is not confirmed, just a maybe.

‘Only certain extra sources of income will count’ is the third point. I think that this point is made very clear so there should be no confusion when reading it and it should help any applicant identify what is required of them or meant by this statement right away. Not only does it tell you which kind of extra sources of income, but also specifies to the reader to know who it is from and how long for.

The fourth point, which is ‘The onus is on you to prove your circumstances and the income available’. This point has not gone into much detail, as it illustrates that anyone who has already prepared a UK visa application will know what you must provide at every stage, so it therefore has not been rewritten. Though it does mention that will any additional sources of income that requires extra paperwork too. Though this is repetitive as it has already been mentioned earlier on in the paragraph.

Finally the fifth rule being. ‘The new rules make it harder for you to settle in the UK permanently’. This final point explains that the new rules set out a 10-year route to permanent settlement in the UK, twice the length of residence required by those who satisfy ‘normal’ income rules. It requires a longer qualification period, which means more applications required to be submitted, this means more money to pay as you work towards settlement. I completely disagree with this rule and hope for it to be made easier for applicants as putting somebody’s life 10 years on hold is ensuring you will make them ill and depressed. Also have various struggles in not being able to start up a family until everything is sorted, or struggling with present family.

Reading this blog, I felt I was giving lots of informative information which made me curious and intrigued in researching further about some rules which have now changed. Some rules I thought were understandable, however some others made me feel slightly stressed as I feel too much is being asked of the individual, in terms of their time, money, effort and most importantly the stress that is caused to the individual because of the outrageous 10 years waiting time can honestly make someone extremely ill. It is not fair to take somebodies human rights away but getting them to put their whole life on hold because of some paperwork procedure which has to take place for the government to be happy.

I don’t feel that there was much information to back up the information that has been given to me in this blog, perhaps if more dates of images were included it could bring it more to life.

Lastly, the layout of the blog I thought was very neat, easy to read and understand. Especially with the use of numbering which helped separate each rule from the other I thought was very helpful.



Immigration judge under scrutiny after tribunal confirms he is failing to meet standards

‘Immigration judge under scrutiny after tribunal confirms he is failing to meet standards’ is a blog written by Gherson Immigration on the 9th October 2017. Having previously read a Blog from Gherson Immigration and really enjoyed it, I have decided to look at another. After having read the first few lines I was intrigued to find out more so I read further..

This blog speaks about the immigration judge which has been found to be failing to meet his duties and having lack of knowledge of the requirement of the immigration rules.

The judge is called Majid. He is blind and works with an assistant, however, though the Upper Tribunal accepted that this would restrict him from conducting complex matters in writing at short notice, his disability should not impair his ability to apply the law together with his reasoned conclusion.

After having carried out several examinations on judge Majid to test his ability in his current job, it has come to conclusion that he is ‘’wholly failing to meet the standards that are demanded by the office of a judge and expected by the parties’’.

There has been several appeals against Judge Majid’s decisions as he did not provide sufficient informed reasons for his given decisions, and due to this, parties have been left uncertain of the reasons of the outcome of their matter.

After having examined the appeals against judge Majid, it appeared clear that not only did he know the basic principles of the immigration rules and not the relevant requirement for each specific application, but he also did not seem to have full understanding of his own powers as a judge. The basic principles of the immigration rules in which he has listed have also often appeared to be wrong.

Further, for the reasons set out in the individuals decisions of each of the 13 cases which Judge Majid was responsible for, each of the 13 appeals have been remitted to the First Tier Tribunal to be re-heard before an unconnected judge.

Reading this blog, I was put into lots of different emotions. I at some points sympathised with Judge Majid because I feel like if he was able to do his job properly then he defiantly would not be making these mistakes deliberately. This may well be down to the lack of training or lack of support that he gets alongside him as he needs it more than any other judge due to his disability.

However, I also felt upset and angry for the unclear decisions made and fed back to the applicants, or wrong decisions I should say. Individuals are required to wait for a very long time until they receive a hearing date, this pause whilst waiting for that date is very stressful and make lots of people very ill as it puts their whole life on hold, therefore I feel that when they do receive their decision, that should at least be clear and relevant to each individual, not generic facts, which also most of the time have appeared to be wrong. The UK is meant to be very ‘Human Rights’ orientated, though I feel that is not actually the case, because if so then appeals should be taken very seriously, but the facts that there has been room for mistakes in such situations, even if not deliberate, is very poor and needs to be seriously looked into with a very sincere apology given to each applicant too.

I don’t feel that this blog has really developed my law terminology because it is very basic and straight to the point. However, this did mean that it was very easy to understand, and not too lengthy so I was able to read it all in one go and avoid taking breaks in-between as I was able to take all the information in immediately.

There wasn’t much information to back up what the blog had said. Perhaps having some photographs would have made it appear more appealing and also having more information about certain specific immigration rules would have also helped the reader understand and engage more with what is being said.





Banks to be required to carry out 70 million immigration checks every quarter on current account


 ‘Banks to be required to carry out 70 million immigration checks every quarter on current account’ is a blog written by Gherson Immigration on 27th October 2017. This blog seemed reasonably short in comparison to many other blogs I have come across so I thought it would be good to have a range and explore this one further. I read the first few sentences and it drew me in so I read on.

This Blog speaks about the purpose of the Immigration Act 2014, which highlights the importance of banks and building societies to carry out checks when opening current accounts in order to identify disqualified persons. A ‘disqualified person’ which in this blog is defined as ‘a person in the united kingdom, who requires leave to enter or remain in the united kingdom but does not have it, and for whom the secretary of state considers that a current account should not be provided by a bank or building society’.

Several approaches have been taken to ascertain whether an individual is a ‘disqualifies person’ or not. Banks and Building societies use details such as name, date of birth an address against a database supplied by the Home office and held by an anti-fraud agency (CIFAS), which is in relation to foreign national who the Home Office believe are in the UK illegally, and who they deem to be liable for removal from the UK.

If after checks are taken the secretary of state determines that the individual is a ‘disqualified person’, they may apply for a freezing order. Whilst the bank or building society are awaiting confirmation by the Home Office the current account will remain open, it is also unlikely that the individual will be informed that they have been flagged as a potential ‘disqualified person’

Though they have the ability of freezing the account, the home office may make exceptions to this case and make provisions to allow the ‘disqualified person’ to access fund to meet their reasonable living costs and legal fees

Unfortunately errors do occur at times where individuals who are legally in the UK have their accounts frozen in error. This also allows for further errors where the Home Office may use the information given to them to pursue enforcement measures against the individuals identified as being a ‘disqualified person’. This is a lengthy procedure to get resolved which causes lots of error within individuals.

To some extent I agree with some of the points raised in this blog, as I feel like it is to help maintain the countries safety and so that it is clear who is present and who is not. However, thy system can do with some maintenance clearly as I don’t feel it is expectable to be freezing individual’s bank accounts when they are a British citizen, even if it is a mistake. It is understandable that mistakes do happen in the work place, but if they are serious then they should be resolved immediately and defiantly not leaving the individual at any harm. However in this blog, it tells us that the Home Office could potentially make the situation even harder for the individual and the resolving of the issue is also a long winded procedure. I don’t feel that this is fair as this individual could be in a situation where it could change certain paths in their life if their bank account is been frozen but they urgently need to access it, whether that is for work or health purposes.

Also, I do understand and agree that if it is a ‘disqualified individual’ then their bank account should be frozen, however I feel like the individuals situation needs to be looked further before making the final decision. This is because for instance it is different for someone who may have just came to the country and lives here alone and someone who perhaps has been in the country for a while and has family living in the UK too.

I don’t feel like Ghersons blog provided much evidence to back up what is being stated so at times I felt the need to go into external sites to find out more about what is being said and get further information.

Overall, the layout and legal significance of the blog was very easy and simple to read with a very clear layout. I also like the fact that it was sharp and short, as it meant that no breaks were needed and you can just read it all in one go.

Home Office: a stroke is not “exceptional circumstances”

Home office: a stroke is not ‘’exceptional circumstances’’ is a blog written by Conor James McKinney on 20th October 2017. I found this blog very interesting so I further explored it, and the reasons behind the decisions made.

This blog is about a family of four, mum, dad, and 2 children living in the UK. Where the children are 7 and 10 year old. The mum acts as a carer for both the children and her partner who has suffered from a stroke resulting in weakness to his upper and lower limbs, severe expressive language difficulties and post-stroke epilepsy that leads to up three seizures a day of 30 minute durations. The father and two children are British citizens, whereas the mum is a Philippine and is required to return back home to renew her visa every so often. This results in endless issues and anxiety for the family and they will not be able to run a day to day life without the support if their mother by their side.

He must look after his children without their Philippine national mother because these do not constitute “exceptional circumstances”. This has been a statement in the eyes of the home office. How can anybody see this as a simple issue? And allow for someone to suffer both physically and mentally by threatening to take away from them their only source of support.

Though Ms Waterman has over stayed and has entered on a visit visa, being in such circumstance should be an exception with no doubt, as having to leave the country and apply from abroad is not a very realistic option giving that her partner is in the state the he is in and her kids are still at school and need a guardian to be on top on their studies, meetings at school, doctors’ appointments and preparing their meals for them.

Ms Waterman’s representative, Christopher Dias of Dias Solicitors, passed on the message to free movement of Ms Waterman’s British partner and his current health situation to outline his incapability’s and the support he must have on an ongoing basis, as for the home offices refusal to help indicate that this is a special circumstance in which Ms Waterman is urging for. Having outlined al crucial points, once again the application has been denied. This is outrageous, who can even conclude such outcome. Where the Human right in this situation, Ms Waterman are is practically the life machine for her family and there is yet so humanity in this whole terrible situation the poor family is in.

Mr Waterman was then told that she still has the option open to her to return to the Philippines and apply for the correct entry clearance. They also came up with the ridiculous conclusion of whilst she is away, he partner will care for himself as well as his two children. For someone who is incapable of feeding himself or even making up a sentence together, how has the home office concluded that he will care for himself and two other children? This is bizarre. Hurtful.

Medical professionals and therapists have also written to the home office, to show the seriousness in this matter and that there is no other way around it in hope that this will give the home office an extra push and it may knock some sense into their heads. This appeal has been further reported to the guardian in hope that better news will report once the appeal is concluded.

Having carried out further research. We can finally see that Simon Waterman’s wife has at last been granted a visa to stay in the UK. Though this is such a relief and it has made the whole family, internal and external super happy, the pain and sorrow that the family had to experience from the home office is certainly not acceptable. Having put the family through such situation, it has mentally fractured the family and has defiantly not contributed to making Mr Simon Waterman any better in his given condition.

Having read and analysed this blog, I was put through many different emotions, varying from angry, to sadness and shock. Though I understand that human rights are mentioned but not always followed, but I still thought that the world had some sort of heart or kindness, but this has proven otherwise to me. I understand that state sovereignty plays a huge role in such situations as it is up to each individual country whether they want to follow through with something like this, but I still find it hard to digest the cruelty that surrounds us. As much as it hurt to read and analyse this, but it has also by far been one of my favourite blogs, hence why I have chosen it. Many aspects have come into it all at once and I enjoyed the research part of it where I was able to find similar blogs about different scenarios which have been fairly similar in situation. I just sincerely hope that situations like this are dealt with by beautiful souls, who do not wish to destroy, but rescue a family’s life.


I have used the actual website for reference to help me write this blog, as well as the guardian where I was able to find out the full story of Ms Waterman being granted the visa to remain in the UK. As well as other links which I was able to find which had a similar story to this family.