This is in Review for a good reason.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ord/7111120.stm

 

Bangura loses deportation hearing

Bangura is set to be deported back to Sierra Leone

Watford's Al Bangura faces deportation to Sierra Leone after losing his case to stay in the UK at an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal hearing.

The 19-year-old, who became a father only nine days ago, will launch an immediate appeal against the decision, with the full support of his club.

He arrived from Sierra Leone four years ago, escaping civil war, and was given limited discretionary leave to stay.

But now the Home Office will initiate moves to remove him from the country.

Watford's Head of Football operations Iain Moody said: "This is terrible news for Al and a big shock to everyone at the club.

"We are sad and very disappointed that he has not been granted leave to remain in the UK. We have instructed our advisers to begin preparing an appeal to this decision.

"This is a significant setback for Al and his family but we will continue to fight this case and have full confidence that common sense and justice will prevail and Al will be allowed to continue his life in this country.

"We have been fortunate to count on the support of Watford MP Claire Ward in making representations to the Home Office on Al's behalf and we look forward to continue working with her on this."

Al Bangura has built up his life, having established great ties here, including a family life with his partner and a profession

Watford legal representative Chris Pelentrides

Bangura fears a return to his homeland, where he could be under threat from the Soko tribe, formerly led by his late father.

Watford manager Aidy Boothroyd had said being sent home would be an "absolute disaster" for Bangura.

And club legal representative Chris Pelentrides insisted there was a compelling case for Bangura to be allowed to stay in the country.

"His compassionate circumstances clearly warrant his continued stay in the United Kingdom," he said.

"He has built up his life, having established great ties here, including a family life with his partner and a profession."

Before the ruling, Watford MP Ward told BBC 3CR: "This is a young man who came to this country under very difficult circumstances and as an under-18.

"He clearly has an incredible talent, which has been spotted, and in that sense he was fortunate.

"He has made a very good life for himself and is a significant contributor to the UK economy and to my local economy as a constituent."

Bangura has made over 50 appearances, scoring one goal, since joining the club in April 2005.

 

There's folk coming in here willy nilly with their hands out & this bloke comes from what is genuinely a dangerous place to live, earns a living, and a good enough one so he can contribute to our society, and we want to send him back?

It's an odd world, it really is. I may be cynical but happen he's too dark & the wrong religion.

What are these strange immigration laws then? Most folk would agree that if asylum is the basis of someone's being in the country, and then a tribunal rejects their case, then they should then be returned to their country of origin to apply for a work and residency permit through the proper channels.

 

Should being a footballer make any difference?

 

 

Anyway, for what it's worth, I think he will be allowed to stay. This exact scenario has been played out before in the case of Tranmere's Calvin Zola from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Aye it should make a difference, he's hardly going to bleed us dry is he? Sierra Leon is a dangerous country, I wouldn't want to go back if I was him and his contribution to our economy is relevant compared to some scrounger just legging it through the channel tunnel or 'overstaying their holiday' with their 'cousin', only to marry them when they get caught.

Aye it should make a difference, he's hardly going to bleed us dry is he? Sierra Leon is a dangerous country, I wouldn't want to go back if I was him and his contribution to our economy is relevant compared to some scrounger just legging it through the channel tunnel or 'overstaying their holiday' with their 'cousin', only to marry them when they get caught.

 

Economic contribution would be extremely relevant for an application to be a legal, working immigrant.

 

But when an asylum tribunal is asked to decide on someone's case for asylum, it doesn't matter how good at football they are.

Economic contribution would be extremely relevant for an application to be a legal, working immigrant.

 

But when an asylum tribunal is asked to decide on someone's case for asylum, it doesn't matter how good at football they are.

 

 

That'll be why I mentioned his economic contribution in my initial post then.

Economic contribution would be extremely relevant for an application to be a legal, working immigrant.

But when an asylum tribunal is asked to decide on someone's case for asylum, it doesn't matter how good at football they are.

 

You don't work in the Public Service by any chance? S'like listening to some grey charlie from the Home Counties who wears a bowler hat and lives in Pinner.

 

No Balls is talking common sense - something bureaucrats tend to ignore whilst imposing the letter of the law rather than the spirit.

You don't work in the Public Service by any chance? S'like listening to some grey charlie from the Home Counties who wears a bowler hat and lives in Pinner.

 

No Balls is talking common sense - something bureaucrats tend to ignore whilst imposing the letter of the law rather than the spirit.

 

FFS.

 

No, I don't.

 

Most days we hear that it's a simply matter of common sense that all those people who are in the country illegally should be packed off straightaway on the next boat.

 

The asylum tribunal is charged with deciding whether or not an individual has a valid case for asylum. They found, in this case, that it was probably safe for Bangura to be in Sierra Leone. Under these circumstances, Bangura has to find another legal basis for staying in the country, and that shouldn't change just because he's a footballer.

 

It's already far more attractive for people to try and enter the country on spurious asylum claims than it is for them to apply to be a legal migrant worker with a visa. Given that most people who come into the country from abroad are under the sad misapprehension that this is some sort of bountiful land of opportunity, why would anybody apply through the more stringent channels, if they believe that all they need to do is secure their big break of a regular income source in order to stay in the country?

 

All that this decision means is that the tribunal didn't believe that he has a valid asylum case - and surely none of us can comment sensibly on how safe it would be for this lad to be Sierra Leone. Therefore, it's not unreasonable that he has to secure another legal basis for being in the country. For example, our law states that a footballer from outside Europe only automatically gets a work permit in this country if his country is in the top 70 of the FIFA rankings, and he has played in 75% of his country's games in the last 2 years - should a player be able to get round this system by merely making an asylum claim, and becoming a first-team regular whilst his application is pending?

 

No, sometimes we have to accept we have systems for a reason and that it's not all just one big beaurocratic conspiracy engineered by grey charlies in bowler hats.

 

Anyway, for what it's worth, I believe that once he goes through the proper channels, he will secure a visa, just like Calvin Zola did.

All that this decision means is that the tribunal didn't believe that he has a valid asylum case - and surely none of us can comment sensibly on how safe it would be for this lad to be Sierra Leone.

Hmmm, maybe I'm not sensible then as I'm still holding off from booking my next holiday there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/co...les/1061561.stm

Hmmm, maybe I'm not sensible then as I'm still holding off from booking my next holiday there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/co...les/1061561.stm

 

What exactly am I supposed to be looking at?

 

The first sentence on that page reads: "Sierra Leone, in West Africa, emerged from a decade of civil war in 2002, with the help of Britain, the former colonial power, and a large United Nations peacekeeping mission."

 

Are you saying it's not safe for anyone to live in Sierra Leone in 2007, and as such, we would be obliged to take in every single one of its inhabitants if they arrived on our shores tomorrow.

 

 

All I'm saying is that it's a decision for the tribunal to make, and their information is a little more in-depth that a 'country profile' on bbc.co.uk

We've just visited a country at civil war which ended in 2001.

I thought maybe my holiday reference made it clear I was being flippant, folk tend to do this on here. FFS, get from up yersen or find some sensible mates!

I thought maybe my holiday reference made it clear I was being flippant, folk tend to do this on here. FFS, get from up yersen or find some sensible mates!

 

My apologies, I thought you actually wanted to discuss this topic seriously.

We've just visited a country at civil war which ended in 2001.

 

 

And I still think it safer than Sierra Leone.

Happen it was watching something on blood diamonds that made me think 'blimey, I don't fancy that country', but I still beleive in all seriousness, if the guy says his life is in danger if he goes back, I believe him.

I was putting his refusal to stay in this country in context with immigrants who contribute nothing to the UK's economy.

but I still beleive in all seriousness, if the guy says his life is in danger if he goes back, I believe him.

 

I'm not trying to sound hostile, or up myself, but surely you appreciate that it's perhaps for the best if our asylum tribunals apply a more exacting standard of interrogation than this!?

I'm not trying to sound hostile, or up myself, but surely you appreciate that it's perhaps for the best if our asylum tribunals apply a more exacting standard of interrogation than this!?

 

Well, the current one seems a little odd to me, so maybe they could give this a try. It might work you know.

for what its worth (i usually keep such opinions to myself), i feel it wrong that someone who arrives in the country as a minor, apparently done no wrong, and clearly making a contribution to the economy should be treated in such a way. in fact this guys case should be highlighted as a positive of immigration. it would appear a hardline approach is being taken against the wrong person.

Taken from the Mail on sunday

 

"The Hatton Cross asylum and immigration hearing was told that his troubles in Sierra Leone began after he rejected a cult called Soko which is run by his father.

When he told his elders he did not want to take part they threatened to kill him and mutilate him. He says he fled to Guinea, where he slept rough, and was befriended by a Frenchman who smuggled him into Britain."

 

 

Id love to here more about this "Soko Tribe", I couldnt help but chuckle a bit when I read this

Taken from the Mail on sunday

 

"The Hatton Cross asylum and immigration hearing was told that his troubles in Sierra Leone began after he rejected a cult called Soko which is run by his father.

When he told his elders he did not want to take part they threatened to kill him and mutilate him. He says he fled to Guinea, where he slept rough, and was befriended by a Frenchman who smuggled him into Britain."

Id love to here more about this "Soko Tribe", I couldnt help but chuckle a bit when I read this

 

According to Wikipedia: "Soko is a jazz fusion duo, featuring pianist Michael Sokolowski and bassist Houston Ross. The group formed as a trio in Charlottesville, Virginia in 1991, with Sokolowski, Ross, and drummer John Gilmore. The group performed live for several years, then released their first studio album, In November Sunlight, in 1996. The album received notably high record sales for an instrumental album, mainly due to its guest appearance by members of the Dave Matthews Band?Dave Matthews, LeRoi Moore, and Tim Reynolds."

 

Perhaps he is not musically gifted, so did not want to join the band?

I'm not trying to sound hostile, or up myself, but surely you appreciate that it's perhaps for the best if our asylum tribunals apply a more exacting standard of interrogation than this!?

 

 

Oh dear. Are they all like you on thew@nkererer.co.uk? Stick with it and you'll learn we like a bit of a wind up on here. You do seem to be taking this one rather seriously. Are you about to be deported? Don't tell me M'crayons is actually your surname and your christian name is M'beki?

Edited December 12, 200718 yr by bolty58

According to Wikipedia: "Soko is a jazz fusion duo, featuring pianist Michael Sokolowski and bassist Houston Ross. The group formed as a trio in Charlottesville, Virginia in 1991, with Sokolowski, Ross, and drummer John Gilmore. The group performed live for several years, then released their first studio album, In November Sunlight, in 1996. The album received notably high record sales for an instrumental album, mainly due to its guest appearance by members of the Dave Matthews Band?Dave Matthews, LeRoi Moore, and Tim Reynolds."

 

jazz fusion? the poor sod, no wonder he legged it

niiiice

Are you about to be deported? Don't tell me M'crayons is actually your surname and your christian name is M'beki?

that doesnt sound too christian

dunno what he's moaning about, at least he'll be best at football back there

 

We've just visited a country at civil war which ended in 2001.

 

 

And a large number were held against their will for the majority if their stay

dunno what he's moaning about, at least he'll be best at football back there

 

 

Subbuteo players always used to end like that when I was a kid, leave a game a mid-match to have your tea and someone used to stand on your back four.

Oh dear. Are they all like you on thew@nkererer.co.uk? Stick with it and you'll learn we like a bit of a wind up on here. You do seem to be taking this one rather seriously. Are you about to be deported? Don't tell me M'crayons is actually your surname and your christian name is M'beki?

 

You must have a passing familiarity with The Wanderer to bring it up yourself, so I'll let you decide that one.

 

Apart from the holiday comment, I don't think much else of what No Balls wrote was intended to be flippant, much less a wind-up. So what part of my contribution to this reasonably serious discussion has wound you up?

You must have a passing familiarity with The Wanderer to bring it up yourself, so I'll let you decide that one.

 

Apart from the holiday comment, I don't think much else of what No Balls wrote was intended to be flippant, much less a wind-up. So what part of my contribution to this reasonably serious discussion has wound you up?

 

You are correct. I was being serious in my belief that it's a shame when a bloke can bring something to this country and get told to leave but others seem to be free to bleed it dry.

I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-spongers of any colour or creed.