Jump to content

I doubt anyone cares...


indi
 Share

Recommended Posts

...but the reasons behind this are seriously bad news:

 

Immigration Advisory Service goes into administration

 

 

The Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) has gone into administration, BBC News has learnt.

 

The IAS, which employs 300 people, has closed its 14 branches.

 

One employee told the BBC that staff had been told to clear their desks and that administrators were already in the central headquarters in London.

 

The free service is one of the leading charities giving legal advice and representation to immigrants and asylum seekers in England and Scotland.

 

From April 2009 until March 2010, the charity handled more than 24,000 cases, 14,462 of which were publicly funded immigration cases.

 

In a statement, the ISA said: "The government's reforms include the removal of immigration from the scope of legal aid, and a 10% cut in legal aid fees for refugees seeking asylum within the UK. Immigration accounts for around 60% of IAS's income.

 

"There are few organisations that could cope with the compound effect of removal of immigration from the scope of legal aid and a cut in fees for asylum clients."

'Complex funding rules'

 

The IAS also failed to reach an agreement with the Legal Services Commission (LSC), which runs the legal aid scheme in England and Wales, over the repayment of money which the charity had claimed in error, partly, in IAS's view, due to the LSC's "complex funding rules in place".

 

The charity said the legal aid cuts put it in the position of needing to repay this money from a much reduced income base.

 

The trustees said all avenues of support had been exhausted for it to seek a solvent restructure, and that they had no alternative but to put the charity into administration.

 

Trustees' chairman John Scampion said: "It is a very sad day for us all, and I would like to pay tribute to the staff who have worked diligently and professionally through what has been very difficult and trying circumstances, and to reassure IAS's clients that everything possible is being done to protect their interests during this very difficult time."

'Alternative advice'

 

The LSC said the IAS's decision to go into administration was "theirs alone".

 

A spokesman said: "During recent stewardship activities LSC raised concerns around financial management and claims irregularities which prompted IAS trustees' to conclude that the organisation was no longer financially viable.

 

"Our priority now is to work closely with IAS and the administrators to ensure clients of IAS continue to get the help they need, whilst safeguarding public money.

 

"We are now identifying alternative advice provision in the areas affected and arrangements for case transfer will follow as soon as possible."

Link to post
Share on other sites

so if this closes, more immigrants get thrown out of the country?......how is that bad?

 

If immigrants who were fleeing from a war torn country, where they could possibly killed for ethnicity, or religion, sending them back would to be killed would be bad.

 

Yeah but we get our jobs and women back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so if this closes, more immigrants get thrown out of the country?......how is that bad?

 

If immigrants who were fleeing from a war torn country, where they could possibly killed for ethnicity, or religion, sending them back would to be killed would be bad.

 

Would love to know the actual % of those types of immigrants, I'm sure many plea it, while the majority haven't experienced anything like it. What will they do without their free loophole advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

so if this closes, more immigrants get thrown out of the country?......how is that bad?

 

If immigrants who were fleeing from a war torn country, where they could possibly killed for ethnicity, or religion, sending them back would to be killed would be bad.

 

Would love to know the actual % of those types of immigrants, I'm sure many plea it, while the majority haven't experienced anything like it. What will they do without their free loophole advice?

 

Sounds to me like you don't have a clue at the % and are just going along with what the Daily Mail spout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...but the reasons behind this are seriously bad news:

 

Immigration Advisory Service goes into administration

 

 

The Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) has gone into administration, BBC News has learnt.

 

The IAS, which employs 300 people, has closed its 14 branches.

 

One employee told the BBC that staff had been told to clear their desks and that administrators were already in the central headquarters in London.

 

The free service is one of the leading charities giving legal advice and representation to immigrants and asylum seekers in England and Scotland.

 

From April 2009 until March 2010, the charity handled more than 24,000 cases, 14,462 of which were publicly funded immigration cases.

 

In a statement, the ISA said: "The government's reforms include the removal of immigration from the scope of legal aid, and a 10% cut in legal aid fees for refugees seeking asylum within the UK. Immigration accounts for around 60% of IAS's income.

 

"There are few organisations that could cope with the compound effect of removal of immigration from the scope of legal aid and a cut in fees for asylum clients."

'Complex funding rules'

 

The IAS also failed to reach an agreement with the Legal Services Commission (LSC), which runs the legal aid scheme in England and Wales, over the repayment of money which the charity had claimed in error, partly, in IAS's view, due to the LSC's "complex funding rules in place".

 

The charity said the legal aid cuts put it in the position of needing to repay this money from a much reduced income base.

 

The trustees said all avenues of support had been exhausted for it to seek a solvent restructure, and that they had no alternative but to put the charity into administration.

 

Trustees' chairman John Scampion said: "It is a very sad day for us all, and I would like to pay tribute to the staff who have worked diligently and professionally through what has been very difficult and trying circumstances, and to reassure IAS's clients that everything possible is being done to protect their interests during this very difficult time."

'Alternative advice'

 

The LSC said the IAS's decision to go into administration was "theirs alone".

 

A spokesman said: "During recent stewardship activities LSC raised concerns around financial management and claims irregularities which prompted IAS trustees' to conclude that the organisation was no longer financially viable.

 

"Our priority now is to work closely with IAS and the administrators to ensure clients of IAS continue to get the help they need, whilst safeguarding public money.

 

"We are now identifying alternative advice provision in the areas affected and arrangements for case transfer will follow as soon as possible."

 

yet another disgraceful move. cuts to legal aid damage the most vulnerable sections of society from even making an attempt at getting justice. the knock on effect of closing down a charity that has done an immense amount of good through the years is morale sapping for me, but more importantly, disasterous for thousands.

 

of course with so many rednecks brainwashed by a media that promotes divide-and-rule, many Brits will take glee in anything that damages the lives of immigrants/foreign people/vulnerable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so if this closes, more immigrants get thrown out of the country?......how is that bad?

 

If immigrants who were fleeing from a war torn country, where they could possibly killed for ethnicity, or religion, sending them back would to be killed would be bad.

 

Would love to know the actual % of those types of immigrants, I'm sure many plea it, while the majority haven't experienced anything like it. What will they do without their free loophole advice?

 

Sounds to me like you don't have a clue at the % and are just going along with what the Daily Mail spout.

 

Never bought the Daily Mail in my life. Sounds like you haven't got a clue either but happy to go along with the PC Brigade.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so if this closes, more immigrants get thrown out of the country?......how is that bad?

 

If immigrants who were fleeing from a war torn country, where they could possibly killed for ethnicity, or religion, sending them back would to be killed would be bad.

 

Would love to know the actual % of those types of immigrants, I'm sure many plea it, while the majority haven't experienced anything like it. What will they do without their free loophole advice?

 

Sounds to me like you don't have a clue at the % and are just going along with what the Daily Mail spout.

 

Never bought the Daily Mail in my life. Sounds like you haven't got a clue either but happy to go along with the PC Brigade.

 

 

 

Naa mate,  I went through it, I know exactly what some people go through to find a safe haven.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's your story dino? Sounds interesting.

 

I moved here in 93 from Bosnia and Herzegovina at the age of 7, thanks to my parents my story is pretty tame. A few months before the war I was sent with my sister to stay with friends in Serbia so I missed the start of the war and didn't have a clue what happened until a few years later.

 

It was a different story for my parents. My dad is a Bosniak Muslim, and as such was persecuted by the Serbian Army when the Balkans war kicked off. He, along with his father, brother, and pretty much all the Muslims in our neighborhood was rounded up by our former neighbors and taken to the Omarska concentration camp. They spent 6  months there until CNN broke the stories of the camps and the serbian military was forced to release their prisoners. The people in these camps went through some really bad shit, my family mad it out alive.

 

After my dad got out, my parents collected me and my sister, and we met a guy in Croatia who had been given money from some charity to take any people in our situation out of the country. We drove through Europe in a minivan with other refugees, (almost ended up staying in Holland due to friends) and arrived at Peterlee.

 

The fact is that there are genuine refugees who come to this country to keep their lives. Our standard of living before the war broke out in Bosnia was very good, my dad was a vet and he got a good salary. When we moved here he couldn't practice as he needed extra qualifications, so we basically started again. What I'm trying to say is we didn't move here to get an easy ride and benefits.

 

 

Obviously this isn't the case with everyone and some people do take advantage of the benefits this country provides. But I think having a body to make such judgments would be a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers mate, very interesting indeed.

 

I guess it is a difficult balance, we want to be able to help people genuinely in need but we also have to be able to manage our resources and public services. Those of us lucky enough to be born into one of the wealthiest and safest societies in the world should remember how many people aren't so lucky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers mate, very interesting indeed.

 

I guess it is a difficult balance, we want to be able to help people genuinely in need but we also have to be able to manage our resources and public services. Those of us lucky enough to be born into one of the wealthiest and safest societies in the world should remember how many people aren't so lucky.

 

Yeah I was talking about this to one of my mates the other day. Your country of birth is so important to the quality of your future life, it's insane! Something like 25% of the world is consuming 75% of it's resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers mate, very interesting indeed.

 

I guess it is a difficult balance, we want to be able to help people genuinely in need but we also have to be able to manage our resources and public services. Those of us lucky enough to be born into one of the wealthiest and safest societies in the world should remember how many people aren't so lucky.

 

:thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that this is such a bad thing is because these are some of the most vulnerable people in society and the government has pretty much removed their only lifeline with this action. This will result in a huge number of people with valid claims for asylum being sent back to face danger and persecution in some of the most dangerous places on Earth, people will die because of this.

 

I haven't got the time to put together a long explanation at the moment, but here are a few points.

 

Having your initial visa/asylum application rejected does not mean that it is not a perfectly valid and legal application. The officers who process applications have a quota set for the number they must reject meaning that valid applications often get initially rejected despite the applicant having done everything by the book and meeting all of the criteria. At present many of those people win on appeal, but if people are unable access legal advice then many of the will not even know that they can appeal, let alone be able to negotiate their way through a complex legal system of which they know nothing. I know people personally who have had this happen to them. In the case of asylum seekers we are talking about pretty much the most vulnerable people in the country, often they have come from situations that are frankly impossible for people over here to comprehend, I could give x-amount of examples from people I've met, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to tell their stories on here, so you'll just have to take my word for it. Anyway, these people have no idea how to prepare a legal case and the only help they get is from people like the IAS and other legal aid funded immigration solicitors. Now that they won't get that help, what are they supposed to do? We as a supposedly civilised society have a moral responsibility to ensure that they are treated fairly and legally and our government has failed - deliberately so - to do that.

 

Apart from the moral case, there is a practical one too. It should be pretty fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain that the harder you make it to do something legally the more likely it will become that people will do it illegally. At present the UK's immigration system is not only hard to negotiate - it's a total fallacy that it's easy to get into the UK, it isn't - it is fundamentally unfair. As I have said, people can do everything right and meet all the requirements for a visa and still be rejected. What incentive is that for people to do it legally? After all isn't it illegal immigration that people are supposedly up in arms about, or are people seriously saying that we shouldn't be granting people asylum who have genuine cases? How are we supposed to know if someone's case is genuine if they are never allowed to make it? The problem with our current system isn't that it is unfit for purpose, it's that it is chronically underfunded and therefore impossible to police properly. Starving it of yet more funding isn't going to make it better, it's going to make it worse and in the long-run that'll end up costing us more money, not less.

 

I could go on... but I won't - for now at least.

 

All I'll add is that I do know what I'm talking about. A large part of my job involves immigration; I process people's applications for citizenship and settlement and have dealt with well over a thousand cases in the last year and a half and in that time I've personally sent about £850,000 in fees to the UKBA; I speak to people at the Home Office on a daily basis and know the areas that I deal with like the back of my hand; etc, etc, etc.  I've also been involved in raids on sham marriages and stuff like that too, so I'm fully aware of both sides of the story. Not only that, but I know a number of people who have been through the system personally, including me. So if people want to get into a game of putting their medals on the table, there you go, what have you got?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that this is such a bad thing is because these are some of the most vulnerable people in society and the government has pretty much removed their only lifeline with this action. This will result in a huge number of people with valid claims for asylum being sent back to face danger and persecution in some of the most dangerous places on Earth, people will die because of this.

 

I haven't got the time to put together a long explanation at the moment, but here are a few points.

 

Having your initial visa/asylum application rejected does not mean that it is not a perfectly valid and legal application. The officers who process applications have a quota set for the number they must reject meaning that valid applications often get initially rejected despite the applicant having done everything by the book and meeting all of the criteria. At present many of those people win on appeal, but if people are unable access legal advice then many of the will not even know that they can appeal, let alone be able to negotiate their way through a complex legal system of which they know nothing. I know people personally who have had this happen to them. In the case of asylum seekers we are talking about pretty much the most vulnerable people in the country, often they have come from situations that are frankly impossible for people over here to comprehend, I could give x-amount of examples from people I've met, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to tell their stories on here, so you'll just have to take my word for it. Anyway, these people have no idea how to prepare a legal case and the only help they get is from people like the IAS and other legal aid funded immigration solicitors. Now that they won't get that help, what are they supposed to do? We as a supposedly civilised society have a moral responsibility to ensure that they are treated fairly and legally and our government has failed - deliberately so - to do that.

 

Apart from the moral case, there is a practical one too. It should be pretty fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain that the harder you make it to do something legally the more likely it will become that people will do it illegally. At present the UK's immigration system is not only hard to negotiate - it's a total fallacy that it's easy to get into the UK, it isn't - it is fundamentally unfair. As I have said, people can do everything right and meet all the requirements for a visa and still be rejected. What incentive is that for people to do it legally? After all isn't it illegal immigration that people are supposedly up in arms about, or are people seriously saying that we shouldn't be granting people asylum who have genuine cases? How are we supposed to know if someone's case is genuine if they are never allowed to make it? The problem with our current system isn't that it is unfit for purpose, it's that it is chronically underfunded and therefore impossible to police properly. Starving it of yet more funding isn't going to make it better, it's going to make it worse and in the long-run that'll end up costing us more money, not less.

 

I could go on... but I won't - for now at least.

 

All I'll add is that I do know what I'm talking about. A large part of my job involves immigration; I process people's applications for citizenship and settlement and have dealt with well over a thousand cases in the last year and a half and in that time I've personally sent about £850,000 in fees to the UKBA; I speak to people at the Home Office on a daily basis and know the areas that I deal with like the back of my hand; etc, etc, etc.  I've also been involved in raids on sham marriages and stuff like that too, so I'm fully aware of both sides of the story. Not only that, but I know a number of people who have been through the system personally, including me. So if people want to get into a game of putting their medals on the table, there you go, what have you got?

 

:clap:

 

I married a girl from overseas. Had a rather stressful time bringing her home for a while, nothing as bad as you intimate though. Considering I was British, married and with a child who was already registered for a UK passport I was amazed at how we were dealt with in some aspects of the process. What it must be like for genuine cases with no UK connection, such as you describe, I cannot really begin to imagine.

 

They even questioned me as to why I wanted to return to the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...