1/ In 2001, the appellant (Mr Disha, an Albanian National) entered the country illegally.
He makes an asylum claim on the basis of political persecution.
Given this would be quite difficult to pull off from Albania (a safe country) he lies about being from Yugoslavia.
2/ Thankfully, his claim is rejected in September 2001 (8 months after it was filed) due to lack of any evidence he was being persecuted.
He appeals this decision, although this is withdrawn in March 2003.
3/ However, despite the fact that Mr Disha was lying about being persecuted, was not from Yugoslavia, and was probably using a fake name, somehow he gets Exceptional Leave to Remain in September 2005 and then Indefinite Leave to Remain.
4/ In 2006, Mr Disha marries a naturalised British Citizen. They have two children - one born in 2009 and one in 2014.
Child C (2014) is central to Disha's case, in part due to the grounds he dislikes Albanian chicken nuggets.
5/ In 2017 Mr Disha is sentenced to two years in prison for acquisition of, or of possession of criminal property.
He is found with €300,000 in cash on his person, which is later determine to be the profits of crime.
6/ After spending just two years in prison, the Home Office begin a 'deprivation of Citizenship' process in 2019.
Two more years later, in 2021, Mr Disha is deprived of UK Citizenship on the grounds he acquired it through deception.
7/ In 2021 Mr Disha begins a lengthy appeals process which will have cost the taxpayer huge amounts of money.
He claims the deportation order goes against his 'human rights'.
8/ The judge allows this appeal on 'human rights grounds'.
She decides that it would be 'unduly harsh' to ask child C to either move with Mr Disha to Albania, or stay with his mother if she chose to remain in the UK.
9/ The judge's decision rests on child C's 'educational needs'.
Key facts about this claim:
1) Child C has no formal diagnosis 2) There is no professional assessment of whether their needs could be met in Albania 3) CAHMS have said they don't meet the threshold for support
10/
4) Child C hasn't seen a proper educational psychologist. Just a trainee who provides no CV 5) The school's educational report only lists 'emotional regulation, independence; reading and writing' where Child C needs support
11/
6/ Much of the evidence of Child C's educational needs relies just on a letter written by a neighbour to the court claiming they have 'special needs' and another by a family friend claiming Mr Disha has been 'supportive' in helping Child C 'trying to get a diagnosis.
12/ The judge rules Mr Nisha is important to Child C's life because he eats with the family, helps the child with emotional regulation and 'spends time with him playing Lego figures'.
13/ This is where the chicken nugget claim comes in.
As part of the evidence Child C has special needs, it is claimed that they 'will not eat the type of chicken nuggets that are available abroad'
14/ Thankfully, the upper-tribunal found that this bizarre case 'involved the making of an error of law'.
Does this mean the criminal can finally be deported? Not necessarily.
We will now go back round again with a different First-tier Tribunal judge making a new ruling.
15/ The system is totally broken.
The Government don't publish First-tier Tribunal decisions. We don't see the outcome of most of these cases.
A criminal with falsified documents, who lied in their asylum claim, should never have been allowed to stay for 20 years.
We urgently need reform - of the tribunal system, the ECHR, and how we process these claims.
@stephenfhwebb's paper 'Why is it so hard getting immigration numbers down?' for Policy Exchange sets out how we could resolve many of these problems.
Victims of grooming gangs were described by the police as "child prostitutes". In some cases, they were arrested instead of the perpetrators.
No one has been arrested for this negligence.
🧵of girls failed by the institutions which were meant to protect them.
After being groomed and trafficked by a violent sexual predator, an assessment by the Police and the Children's Social Care authority blamed a 13 year-old girl for "placing herself at risk of sexual exploitation and danger"
A 14 year-old girl's mother voiced concerns that her daughter was being groomed. Her social worker concluded that the mother "was not able to accept her growing up".
One of the worst things about these crimes is the scale of institutional cover-up.
Back in September 2016, local officials in Telford - including current Labour MP Shaun Davies - said that further investigation of child sex abuse wasn't "necessary".
In 2016, when Lucy Allan (former MP for Telford) requested an inquiry into the grooming gangs which had scarred the area, the council leader and 9 of his colleagues wrote a letter to the Home Secretary.
Despite the fact that the signatories admitted they were "under no illusions that there are significant concerns around the sexual exploitation of children in Telford", they told the Home Secretary "we do not feel at this time that a further inquiry is necessary".
People often claim the 'culture wars' are over. However, @Policy_Exchange's History Matters Compendium, a year-long review of changes to the presentation of history, shows that activists continue to rewrite the past.
🧵of our findings:
1/ The Government have dropped plans to require local councils to hold a referendum before renaming streets.
This means that any activist council seeking to rename a potentially 'offensive' or 'imperialist' street name will not be required by legislation to consult residents.
2/ The City of London Corporation has just voted to commission research into their links to slavery.
They are spending £34,400 on a project seeking to name every Lord Mayor, Sheriff, Alderman, and Common Councillor who may have benefitted at all from the slave trade.
In August the Home Office introduced a Zombie Knife amnesty. They agreed to pay £10 per knife.
They expected that 472 Zombie Knives would be surrendered.
Instead, one wholesaler alone has surrendered 35,000 blades.
🧵thread on incentives and what went wrong with the scheme.
1/ In September 2024 amendments to the Criminal Justice Act (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 were passed which added zombie knives and machetes to the list of prohibited knives.
2/ In preparation for the ban, the Home Office planned a surrender scheme which would allow members of the public to hand in these types of weapons
Labour's 'strengthened' football governance bill will force clubs to engage in EDI to maintain their license.
The government claim this is a product of a 'fan-led review'. In reality, they're using long debunked research from McKinsey to justify a toxic agenda.
Short 🧵
1/ Much has already been written about the hubris of trying to regulate football.
@PaulGoodmanCH has an excellent thread on the bill here:
and @Fox_Claire spoke wonderfully in the Lords on freedom of speech and EDI in football.