THE Home Office has been accused of dirty tricks after a sick young child and her family were forced to leave the country.
Eight-year-old Waieeba Qudoos, who suffers from malaria, was taken from Glasgow’s Yorkhill Hospital just three days after surgery and sent to a detention centre in England with her mother and sisters last week.
Now Waieeba, her mum Humaira and sisters Maida, 6, and Mahnoor, 3, have been sent back to Pakistan - despite fears Humaira will face persecution there.
Phil Jones, of the Unity Centre in Ibrox, which supported the family, said staff and volunteers were heartbroken to hear of the family’s removal.
He said: “They didn’t notify the family’s lawyer until 5.15.pm on Friday and even then it was their old lawyer, not the one dealing with the case.
“Then there were problems getting documents to the new lawyer in time.”
The family was detained twice this year after failing in an asylum bid.
Humaira, who came to Scotland with the children and her husband, said he deserted the family and she had suffered abuse.
But the courts ruled against her staying in Scotland, despite a temporary reprieve when the family were reunited with neighbours in Scotstoun.
Mr Jones said dozens of supporters contacted the Home Office to try to stop the repatriation.
A Border and Immigration Agency spokesman said: “The Government has made it clear it will take a robust approach to removing people from the country where they have no legal right to be here.
“We only return those whom the asylum decision-making and appeals processes have found do not need international protection and who can therefore return safely.”
Publication date 28/11/07
10 responses so far ↓
shuck // November 28, 2007 at 7:09 pm
This sounds like a typical case of “sour grapes”
This family has absolutely no right to remain in the UK after having their asylum claim refused and more likely than not had their appeal at court dismissed.
Claiming that the mother may face percecution on her return to Pakistan is nothing more than Propoganda.
It has been established that she won’t so I would guess she was an economic migrant posing as a genuine asylum seeker and has been found wanting in her asylum claim. The sooner people realise this is a typical case the better.
STOP THE PROPAGANDA NOW!!!!!!!!!
Michael Woods // November 29, 2007 at 11:31 am
Judging by the tone of your posts Shuck I’m sure you’re very familiar with sour grapes.
But what you read above is all about empathy, ( look it up ).
It is that the “due process” which you argue is infallible has failed yet again.
The Border and Immigration Agency officers in charge of the case proved themselves negligent and/or malicious by failing in their duty. Getting papers to the lawyers late is an unfair practise used by dubious officers of the Law unsure of the strength of their case. So they cheat.
This kind of dirty tactic should be robustly punished.
We pay them to act fairly and even-handedly, they have proven yet again incapable of this.
We need some form of public oversight to bring this out of control agency to heel.
If Ms Quodoos and family do indeed suffer persecution on their return then we must hold the Border and Immigration Agency officers involved fully responsible and punish them.
Because they bent the rules to achieve that for the worst possible reason.
Which is to appease the tide of pseudonym-pond life baying for the removal of Asylum Seekers whatever the consequences.
Michael Woods // November 29, 2007 at 12:50 pm
I’ve just looked up the word “shuck” in a dictionary.
Having re-read some of your posts I can begin to see why that particular pseudonym kinda suits you. I’ve saved you the trouble of looking it up.
shuck (shk)
n.
1.
a. A husk, pod, or shell, as of a pea, hickory nut, or ear of corn.
b. The shell of an oyster or clam.
2. Informal Something worthless. Often used in the plural: an issue that didn’t amount to shucks.
tr.v. shucked, shuck·ing, shucks
1. To remove the husk or shell from.
2. Informal To cast off: shucked their coats and cooled off; a city trying to shuck a sooty image.
interj. shucks (shks)
Used to express mild disappointment, disgust, or annoyance.
Good choice of name given what you say above.
Ali // November 29, 2007 at 3:21 pm
“The sooner people realise this is a typical case the better”.
Shucks, Shuck, the sooner you cease to present your opinions as facts, the better.
How would you know what a ‘typical case’ is?
shuck // November 29, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Lets face the facts here.
1) This family were legally removed from the UK because they are failed Asylum seekers (Fact).
2) The Judicial system of the UK after considering this families appeal upheld the initial decision of the Home Office (Fact).
3) They had no legal basis to remain in the UK (Fact).
4) Mr Woods and Ali fail to accept that this family could have been abusing the asylum system of the UK in order to gain leave in the UK (Fact).
5) Mr Woods and Ali cannot accept that others may hold a different view from their own and resort to personal attacks on those who fit into this bracket.
6) It could be considered that this family were no more than Liars, Cheats and Theives (Fact).
7) This family are typical ecoomic migrants posing as genuine asylum seekers (fact).
Mr Woods, in your recent posts you have referred to me as a sad sad man, you are entitled to your opinion but please try and keep it in line with the subject in question. It really does come across as a weakness in your charachter.
I was of the opinion that personal insults would be removed by the Moderator as they add nothing to the debate. Maybe the Modeator is willing to accept this type of language from you?
Moderator??????
Furthermore, fom your recent rants Mr Woods one could assume that u are a few trees short of a forrest.
[MODERATOR:- Regular commentators will have their comments added without being approved unless they break the rules, then they may lose all privileges. If any commentators wish to report abuse, you can do so by emailing the details to quickmail@paih.org - Jamie]
shuck // November 29, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Mr Woods, I forgot to ask—Do you believe everything you read in the papers?
Michael Woods // November 30, 2007 at 11:09 am
I think your confusion of fact and fiction above says it all.
We will now increase our support for families like the Qudoos because of the dirty tricks played by the devious officers of whatever they call themselves this month agency, and because of the crowing of such as yourself, ( I also read the unmoderated blogs on which you and your xenophobic mates post ).
As for insult, I find most of your comments an insult to common decency so I don’t think you have room for complaint. ( see the self-contradicting (6) above).
The moderator persists in giving your apalling views space nevertheless in each of your post-banning reincarnations Robert-true glaswegian-shuck so quit the whinging.
Fact is this country has legislation to eventually outlaw such as the dodgy officers involved in this case.
Sooner = better and we can then eradicate some of the more facist excesses such as the outrage of dawn raids and jailed children and with that the support base of xenophobic pillockry this country spawns.
shuck // November 30, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Mr Woods, If a failed asylum seeker informed you that black was actually white would you beleive them?
Ali // December 1, 2007 at 1:16 pm
What’s your point, Shuck?
Kickemout // December 1, 2007 at 9:44 pm
[Moderator:- "Abusive" comment is now Blocked and Deleted. Commentator is now banned from posting on this site - Jamie]
Leave a Comment