to think deporting Trenton Oldfield is just mean

(211 Posts)
sashh Sun 08-Dec-13 06:29:43

Trenton Oldfield is the man who disrupted the boat race a couple of years ago.

He is an Australian married to a Briton with a baby daughter. He has lived in the UK for 12 years.

He has applied for a spousal visa and it has been rejected.

He did a stupid thing, for which he has paid with a prison sentence and a criminal record, why punish him more?

Exactly what good will it do to deport him?

Exactly how much harm will it do?

I have not put a link, there are loads of newspaper articles, web pages etc outlining the case.

Roshbegosh Sun 08-Dec-13 06:35:38

I doubt he will add anything to society here and why keep people convicted of crime anyway? They can go and be a happy family in Australia and he will find plenty of causes worthy of his attention over there.

Rosa Sun 08-Dec-13 06:38:23

What would the Australians do if a Brit in the same circumstances did this down under????

scaevola Sun 08-Dec-13 06:38:40

As he's been here for about 12 years, about 10 of them before he committed the offence, why was he still on a spouse visa? If he knew his future was in UK, why did he not secure naturalisation - it seems he would have had plenty of time for that.

Morgause Sun 08-Dec-13 06:40:19

We have more than enough home grown twats without keeping open house for imported ones.

[[ Link to interview in The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trenton-oldfield-interview-the-ripples-of-that-boat-race-stunt-and-how-a-family-could-be-driven-apart-8973804.html]]

This includes the comment "If Oldfield were sent home, his criminal record would mean that his prospects of successfully sponsoring his family for a visa would be slim." So deporting him to Australia would split the family. Surely that means he cannot be deported?

blush try that again ...

Link to interview in The Independent

This includes the comment "If Oldfield were sent home, his criminal record would mean that his prospects of successfully sponsoring his family for a visa would be slim." So deporting him to Australia would split the family. Surely that means he cannot be deported?

Morloth Sun 08-Dec-13 06:57:59

I am sure there was something mentioned on his visa about criminal activity.

If you break a law in a country not your own you could be deported. It is not rocket science.

Roshbegosh Sun 08-Dec-13 07:05:07

He will be getting legal advice and will find a way no doubt. Unfortunately. He should have thought of his wife and child before, stupid twat. Funny they are so important to him now and he wants to be here for them. Were they on his mind when he committed his crime? Does he go out to work to support them?

scaevola Sun 08-Dec-13 07:10:22

They couldn't have been on his mind - or at least not his DC as she hadn't been conceived then.

HanShotFirst Sun 08-Dec-13 07:16:19

Roshbegosh- 'Funny they are so important to him now and he wants to be here for them. Were they on his mind when he committed his crime?'

Totally agree with the above.

Ok, so what he did seems relatively minor and 'the book' was thrown at him (although it was dangerous for himself eg getting hit with the boat or oars and it can be argued, for the people participating). However, you can argue that the law is a complete ass (which it is sometimes) as much as you like, but if you break the law you will run into difficulties elsewhere.

The chances are he will say that this would be denying his right to a family life and not much will happen. But maybe this will be a lesson to him, that he has a daughter that he is responsible for, and as such should find more lawful ways of protesting.

Roshbegosh Sun 08-Dec-13 07:17:56

I am sure the DC was not conceived just to help his case. Peace and love. grin

He was a daft git who not only decided on being a twat but also upset the establishment by wrecking one of their sporting jewels in the crown, his card was marked from that moment.

Stupid arse.

TidyDancer Sun 08-Dec-13 07:49:35

He's a cock, let's be honest, but did he commit a crime worthy of subsequent deportation? No. You could argue that he's a convicted criminal and therefore should fuck off, and I couldn't honestly disagree with that perspective in principle. But I wouldn't want to see a baby punished for actions of her father.

Roshbegosh Sun 08-Dec-13 07:52:32

I think his protest was about class inequality. Maybe he could go with his family to a place that is more equal.
North Korea? China?
Bye, have good lives. Do feel free to pick up on anything you don't like over there and protest.

He obviously didn't think of his future when he committed his crime, did he!? If you are in a country not your own, you behave yourself, or be kicked out. Simple as that.

scaevola Sun 08-Dec-13 08:47:16

You can be deported following a conviction that leads to a custodial sentence.

Usually, it's done only after longer sentences. But this case has been all the way through appeal and tribunal.

Has the tribunal ruling been published? The reasons would be in that, wouldn't they?

notimetotidy Sun 08-Dec-13 09:03:13

There was someone else mentioned in a story in the Daily Fail the other day who couldn't be deported because of some right of family life here even though he had no wife or kids. Can't remember what he did but it was a lot worse than interrupting a boat race.

Iamsparklyknickers Sun 08-Dec-13 09:13:01

I'm sure if you heard half the stories behind immigration rejections you'd have your heart strings tugged at.

He's from outside the EU so subject to stricter conditions and would of known what they are. He now has a criminal record and regardless of the circumstances it's not surprising he's been rejected.

He's not being deported over what he did, he's being deported over having a criminal record. My understanding the rules are very black and white at the first stage. It's not over and I'm sure he can pursue avenues of appeal and reapplication.

He comes from one of the strictest countries in the world regarding immigration so imho was stupid and short sighted to pull the prank he did.

I know a condition of my Indefinite Leave To Remain Visa is no criminal record.

I want to know what kind of visa he was on before. Because I was told you can't actually apply for 'spousal visa' (which is not an actual visa, it's a leave to remain visa) from within the country.

By the way, I've been here 10 years and have no plans to ever apply for citizenship. Many people feel the same. It's expensive and it gives you no rights a ILTR doesn't give you, other than right to franchise.

You know what, regardless of whether his offence was minor or not, I continue to be angry with him. He selfishly decided to destroy something that 18 people had given years of their lives to. For most of them that chance will not hAppen again. Nothing to do with the establishment, just. Lot if young people whose dreams and hard work were destroyed in a second.

So if you could deport people for meanness I would and I am vindictively pleased he faces this. I am a bad person!

Not to forget, his reasons for doing it? Were lost in the stupidity of what he did.

No one cares why he did it, because he was an idiot for doing it.

WhataSook Sun 08-Dec-13 09:41:41

Unlike Tee I plan to apply for citizenship as soon as I can. I think the rules can be changed re ILTR and having read on another topic of a British woman who now cant return to the UK with her DH as he previously had ILTR and didnt apply for citizenship before leaving the country. ..

But agree with pp, he's been a dick and will now have to face the consequences. I hope the family aren't split up though.

GiveItYourBestFucker Sun 08-Dec-13 09:42:19

The rowers are not responsible for the UK's class system in the same way that (eg) whalers are responsible for killing whales. Disrupting a whale hunt is brave. Disrupting a rowing race is selfish. Being responsible for his serious injury or his death would have marked one of the crews for the rest of their lives.

Methe Sun 08-Dec-13 09:48:18

We ought to be immediately deporting any migrants who are convicted of crimes.

As someone up thread said., we've got enough twats of our own without taking on twats from other countries.

As in moving to another country, WhataSook? We have no plans to do that, so I'm not worried.

Also, I have no money for citizenship. We went into debt to pay for my ILTR and previous visas.

Finally, I refuse to be a citizen of a country that insists on my taking a test current citizens can't pass in order to become a citizen!

YANU. It was a peaceful protest against elitism, (though I think he could have chosen a better target). A prison sentence and deportation for interrupting one of the ruling classes favourite days out is such a vindictive overreaction, it proves Oldfield's original point.

But it could have been a very un-peaceful protest against elitism, Daisy.

He or one of the rowers could have been seriously injured or killed.

A peaceful protest is not jumping into the water and blocking heavy objects with your body. Just ask Emily Davison.

scottishmummy Sun 08-Dec-13 09:55:30

He's breached terms of his visa getting criminal record hence reason for deportation

MrsSchadenfreude Sun 08-Dec-13 09:55:54

Tee, you could probably say the same thing about the US citizenship test...

BohemianGirl Sun 08-Dec-13 10:00:28

Hopefully he'll take his family with him

No, actually MrsS.

My husband took the online version of the US test and passed it the first time. The questions are logical and have to do with things US citizens are taught about their own country, such as the form of the government.

I did just look at Life in the UK test again, and it looks like they've taken out some of the more obscure stuff. But it still isn't something I could pass without a lot of studying.

As I said, it's a moot point anyway, as I don't have the money to apply.

@Godrest Yes, I take your point, though realistically any danger would have been to himself. My point is was that his punishment was massively disproportionate and political. He was originally recommended a non-custodial sentence, but he messed with the Establishment and so the Establishment is taking it's revenge. It's political and anyone concerned about free speech and protest should be worried.

SilverApples Sun 08-Dec-13 10:48:12

I do think that if you commit a crime in a country you are not a citizen of, then they have the right to deport you.
Perhaps not for points on your license...but drunk driving? Violence? Yup.
He could have been killed or injured. He tried to spoil something that many love, not just the rich and posh, and he could have traumatised the crew responsible for his harm.
So he lives with his choices. In Australia.

specialsubject Sun 08-Dec-13 10:56:28

while he is hardly an axe-murderer, he has proved that he thinks the rules don't apply to him. He wrecked a sporting day out. As he clearly disapproves of things about the UK, best he leaves.

put him on the plane. Also best he doesn't pass on his attitude to his kid.

entirely agree that this is a twat we can throw out. Pity we can't do it to the home-grown ones.

muffinino82 Sun 08-Dec-13 11:08:52

YABU It's not about being mean, it's about whether his criminal record has led to him failing one of the conditions of his application. At the point of initial application, it is as black and white as that. The reason we have immigration tribunals is to ensure that refused applications can be appealed and, should the judge deem that other factors such as his wife and child outweigh his criminal record, then dandy. Some good may come of all this as maybe this refusal wil make him and other applicants think before they commit a crime.

muffinino82 Sun 08-Dec-13 11:12:46

Daisy So is it ok to put others in harm's way to exercise your right to free speech and protest? He could have died, the boat crews could have been injured or traumatised should Oldfield have been injured or died. The application refusal is not political, it is about the visa application rules being applied to his case.

HECTheHeraldAngelsSing Sun 08-Dec-13 11:26:42

Well, I believe that if he'd disrupted a football match (the top league end of season thingie, important one to those who worship football), he wouldn't have been put in prison and subsequently marked for deportation. I know what I make of that! It seems massively unfair.

However, rules are and were at the time he chose to do it - go to prison - get the boot. That was a possible consequence of the decision he made to make that protest and you can't make a choice to do something that can be treated as a crime, know that a possible consequence of committing a crime is prison and a possible consequence of prison is deportation and then expect or demand that you are exempted from the end consequence of your choice.

Was he ignorant of the law or did he believe that it would not be applied to him? No idea. He might yet win the right to stay though. Who knows?

Re : the british test - it is ridiculous, isn't it, Tee? My husband took it a few months ago (after finally getting indefinite leave to remain a few years ago. long story!) . We bought that revision book and I read through it - there is no way I would pass! I hardly knew any of the stuff. It's mostly history and propaganda grin

We paid, he took the test, it's multiple choice he said, he passed at then we had to pay a further over £800 for his citizenship! And he's got to attend some ceremony where he has to pledge allegiance to the queen and all that. I sad it's a good job they can't deport me because no flipping way would I do that! grin

SilverApples Sun 08-Dec-13 11:31:12

Well, he can have fun protesting the massive abuses of Aboriginal rights by the powerful in his own country.

lljkk Sun 08-Dec-13 11:32:49

I cannot find a link... in the news recently, a chap who moved from UK to USA at age of 7 or 8. Never naturalised; was crossing from Mexico back into USA with his family (wife American by birth). He unthinkingly said he was an American citizen when he wasn't. Found guilty of some border crime, banned from reentry to USA, dumped on a plane to Manchester, separate from his wife & kids who can't easily come live in UK.

So I don't know if I can agree with the principle of "deport all the criminals". It means UK would have to absorb back bad people & put up with stupidities of other people's legal systems, too.

I'm in favour of deporting all those who commit crimes - pity we can't do it to citizens too - but it seems he is a priority because he upset important people so that grates on me.

SilverApples Sun 08-Dec-13 11:37:42
limitedperiodonly Sun 08-Dec-13 11:40:54

I for one will sleep soundly in my bed tonight knowing that such a dangerous criminal is no longer walking British streets.

SilverApples Sun 08-Dec-13 11:41:31

'"I need you to know that I'm no angel," said Philip, admitting to short spells in county jail after being found guilty of drug and drink related misdemeanours. "But I'm not a bad guy. All I want is to be back with my family."'

So why would they want him back in the States?

friday16 Sun 08-Dec-13 11:42:43

Hopefully he'll take his family with him

The article from the Indy is hilarious. The main group campaigning for him are people from Cambridge University. I presume he'll tell them to fuck off, given his disapproval of the place. Although quite why Cambridge is more privileged than the LSE, where he did his degree, God alone knows. And why the students at Cambridge who went to expensive boarding schools are any more privileged than him, who went to an expensive boarding school, again, God alone knows. It would take a man with a heart of stone not to laugh.

His wife appears to be as much of a loon, too ("She continues to explore a set of questions that have resulted from her interest in post-colonial theory, the intersection of cultural movements and legal systems, critical art practice and alternative pedagogies. In 2007, together with Trenton Oldfield, Deepa Naik formally established This Is Not A Gateway, a not-for-profit organisation that creates platforms for critical investigations into cities"). Neither of them have strong links to this country, and this country will not be in the slightest bit inconvenienced by their departure.

TheAwfulDaughter Sun 08-Dec-13 11:51:02

I'm in favour of deporting those who commit crimes.

However, when there are numerous cases (reported on by the Daily Fail, but still nonetheless true) of migrants commuting rape, burglary, GBH and other violent crimes who are NOT getting deported- I can't find myself supporting the deportation of someone who disrupted a bloody boat race.

There was no need for him to get a prison sentence- none at all. It was a massive retaliation from the establishment due to him disrupting a quaint British pastime.

I feel a bit ill about his sentencing and his potential deportation when serious criminals will be getting released back into the community in about 7 years. But you know, the areas they terrorised weren't Oxbridge days out but deprived areas with vulnerable people. hmm

WhataSook Sun 08-Dec-13 11:54:36

Yes Tee, I plan to go home at some stage but want to be able to keep my options open.

Agree also with a pp who said if this had have been a footy game the outcome would probably have been different.

lljkk Sun 08-Dec-13 11:59:25

That's the Guy, SilverApples.
Although I'm more worried about very nasty criminals sent back to UK, too.

friday16 Sun 08-Dec-13 12:01:39

However, when there are numerous cases (reported on by the Daily Fail, but still nonetheless true) of migrants commuting rape, burglary, GBH and other violent crimes who are NOT getting deported

In many cases, they are either asylum seekers or EU migrants. In the former case it is at least arguable that the reasons their asylum case was considered still apply, and in the latter you can't meaningfully deport them anyway. Article 8 rights are only part of the argument. Oldfield's neither of those, and deportations are much simpler when there is no debate about their safety in the destination country.

His sole basis for remaining is therefore his, and his family's, Article 8 rights. Given neither he nor his wife appear to like this country very much, it's hard to see why they're quite so keen to stay here, but I guess that applies to a lot of people. And that someone with a criminal record would be unable to be a sponsor for an Australian spousal visa might be a tricky concept for someone who's a bit dim, but you'd have thought that people with master's degrees from the LSE would be able to read.

But for a couple with a self-regarding website like this to complain about privilege is pretty rich. I mean, it's not as though they're actually doing anything productive, and yet money appears to grow on trees. I don't think it's illegal to be stupid arses, and overall I suspect that the tribunal will decide to give them a final warning rather than deport him. But for a man in his thirties to be so juvenile does seem sad.

TiredDog Sun 08-Dec-13 12:05:07

Why does he think he is above the laws of the country? He's a pretentious buffoon

creighton Sun 08-Dec-13 12:07:06

TheAwfulDaughter,you have said almost word for word what I wanted to say, he has upset the establishment and so has to pay.

SilverApples Sun 08-Dec-13 12:07:54

' serious criminals will be getting released back into the community in about 7 years. But you know, the areas they terrorised weren't Oxbridge days out but deprived areas with vulnerable people'

Yes, I'd deport them too, to the country they were a citizen of. If you are living in a country not your own they you should strive even harder to keep the laws of that country, and lose your right to remain if you break them.

TiredDog Sun 08-Dec-13 12:08:27

I think that website shows he has a public image to portray himself as a man of the people fighting 'the good fight' when really he just wishes to be treated as special. Suffer the consequence of being so special

SilverApples Sun 08-Dec-13 12:09:28

The cox in the oxford boat is a friend of mine. She worked for years and years to get her place in that boat.

I don't think it's mean, he could have caused huge injury and not just to himself. I gave no sympathy for him whatsoever.

Hec, it's the £800 more than anything else that stops me.

But the test does make me go hmm a lot.

Nancy66 Sun 08-Dec-13 12:32:01

I agree. He was an absolute twat for what he did but he paid for it. His family life here is another matter.

daisychain01 Sun 08-Dec-13 12:36:57

I pity his child, what an idiot thing to do.

SilverApples Sun 08-Dec-13 12:40:18

So the family move to Australia, he can be an arse in his own place.

MILLYMOLLYMANDYMAX Sun 08-Dec-13 12:40:23

I think you cannot compare swimming between 2 boats where he could have caused death or serious injury to himself or others. (imagine if it had been your oar that had killed him. That person would have carried that around with them for ever) To invading a football match where players would have stopped to have him escorted from the pitch, (no one remotely being injured or dying).
Also the man supposedly is an academic, instead of studying whatever at the LSE maybe he should have spent 5 mins studying his visa t&cs then he would have realised that doing what he did might get him flung out of the country.
Surely marrying and having a baby when you know you are going to be flung out of the country was stupid to the extreme.

TiredDog Sun 08-Dec-13 12:46:01

Or calculated Milly?

DontmindifIdo Sun 08-Dec-13 13:01:39

Agreed TiredDog, I personally think the family you had at the point you broke your visa conditions are what should count, as in, he wasn't married and didn't have any DCs at that point. I really hope he didn't have a DC to improve his chances. That his wife and child might not be able to join him in Australia because of what he's done in the UK isn't relivant, she married him and had a DC knowing full well he had broken his visa conditions and could well be deported and knowing the Australian rules (or at least should have had the basic good sense to check them).

MILLYMOLLYMANDYMAX Sun 08-Dec-13 13:01:58

What a suggestion!!

muffinino82 Sun 08-Dec-13 13:03:19

It's not about the severity of his crime, it's about whether having any sort of a criminal record breaches the conditions of his application. Simple as. The person deciding his initial application will have applied the rules to his case and refused on the basis of the criminal record. As to whether he should have one or not? Well, clearly there was a basis in law upon which he was jailed so he was. If you put others at risk in such a stupid way, then I have no problem with you being punished for it. I bet Australia would be deporting him if he was British and did something similar over there.

TheAwfulDaughter Sun 08-Dec-13 13:05:57

'He could have killed someone', well, he didn't. Or hurt anyone. But if he did, I'd happily deport the fucker.

'He wrecked lots of hard rowing work' Those guys worked really hard. But if we're going to deport someone for being a twat- I'd like to get rid of anyone who has said 'but Mandela was a terrorist!' in the last week and that bloke who cheated on Who Wants to be a Millionaire.

HECTheHeraldAngelsSing Sun 08-Dec-13 13:15:55

"could have"

Yes. Could have.

Do we give prison sentences based on what someone could have done or what they did do?

Nobody did died. Nobody was injured. All that actually happened was a boat race was disrupted. Could have doesn't apply.

So it can be compared to a football match. Based on what actually happened. He disrupted a boat race v he disrupted a football match.

Unless the law imprisons people based on things that had the potential to happen but didn't?

If that is the case, that's fairly worrying. Almost anything could happen. Do we put people in prison who didn't actually do anything but might have if things had gone differently?

Anyway, that's by the by. As I went on to say very clearly, daft as it may be, whatever agenda there may or may not have been, the rules are there and they are clear.

It is possible to both believe that he is being treated more harshly because of the sport he chose to disrupt and feel that he knew the possible consequences and can't moan now.

friday16 Sun 08-Dec-13 13:31:03

Do we give prison sentences based on what someone could have done or what they did do?

Try driving down the M6 after drinking half a bottle of scotch and see if "but I didn't hit anyone" get you your license back. Try driving down the M6 at 150mph and see if you avoid an instant jail sentence, irrespective of how well you did it.

Do we put people in prison who didn't actually do anything but might have if things had gone differently?

Again, tell me your views on drink driving. Are you saying that provided you don't hit anyone, it should be legal? Speeding? Driving uninsured in a car with bald tyres whilst texting? Most of the time you'll get away with it.

friday16 Sun 08-Dec-13 13:32:05

So the family move to Australia, he can be an arse in his own place.

Actually, the don't. With a criminal record, he can return to Australia, but he probably can't get a spousal visa for his wife or a visa for his child.

All that education at the completely unprivileged LSE, but he was too thick to think of that.

SilverApples Sun 08-Dec-13 13:34:02

Can the wife not apply for a visa on her own? Move to Oz as an adult with child?

MILLYMOLLYMANDYMAX Sun 08-Dec-13 14:15:52

My thoughts exactly Friday.

HECTheHeraldAngelsSing Sun 08-Dec-13 14:39:35

Really? You're comparing disrupting a boat race with drink driving and choosing to suggest that my comparing attitudes and likely consequences of disrupting a boat race v disrupting a football match means it is likely that I condone drink driving? That is so funny. I like you. You're hilarious.

ok. since ordered to disclose them as part of my defence, my views on drink driving is that it is illegal and if you do it, you will be dealt with by the law.

If you are caught drink driving and you haven't injured anyone, the punishment will be different to the one you get if you are drink driving and you kill someone.

I doubt you would get 10 years in prison if caught drink driving on the grounds that although you didn't hurt anyone, you might have, if you'd been going down that road 10 minutes earlier and if someone had been walking across the road. No. You'd get sentenced based on what actually happened. I mean, I could be wrong. If people have received a sentence for causing death by drunken/dangerous driving or whatever the official term is on the grounds that it didnt happen but it could have happened, then I will be more than happy to change my pov. I'm willing to say I'm wrong if that actually does happen. I'm not part of the justice system, maybe they do give people a prison sentence for what they might have done if things happened differently than they actually did.

If I rob a bank and wave a gun about will I get 25 years for murder on the grounds that I might have fired the gun and killed someone? No, I'll get whatever sentence comes my way based on what I actually did.

I will say it again and then I'm done and will go off in search of cake and wine and all things fun. I believe that the sport that he chose to disrupt disproportionately affected his punishment, based on the reality of what actually happened but that regardless of that, when you choose to do something, you cannot bemoan the consequences of your choice. So it's tough titty for him.

This is not to be taken to mean that I condone drink driving, murder, or wearing white after labour day.

Bowlersarm Sun 08-Dec-13 14:42:45

YABU.

No sympathy from me. Selfish idiot.

EllaFitzgerald Sun 08-Dec-13 14:43:52

Judging by the interview in the link provided, he's not being deported, but administratively removed, which is not the same thing at all (although, admittedly, it still boils down to him being put on a plane).

If he has an appeal pending, the Judge will decide whether it will be a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights to remove him. If so, then I suspect the same thing will happen as in the case that NoTimeToTidy referred to and he'll be allowed to remain. It's by no means the end of the road for him just yet.

scottishmummy Sun 08-Dec-13 14:46:49

he comes across as entitled.despite his advantages and education he's unable to work out actions and consequence
he's petulant criminal,and now he'll be deported

MILLYMOLLYMANDYMAX Sun 08-Dec-13 15:11:46

Taken from a law website.

The punishments handed out by the courts will usually include a minimum 12-month ban from driving alongside a hefty fine, which can be up to £5000.

In addition, an individual can be sentenced to six months in prison if they are a first-time offender, and severely longer for subsequent offences.

So yes you can get a prison sentence even if you haven't actually killed someone.

Surely if Trenton Oldfield was protesting against Elitism then surely by asking that the law does not apply to him he is putting himself into the elitist category of people he was protesting against.

SoupDragon Sun 08-Dec-13 15:14:53

If I rob a bank and wave a gun about will I get 25 years for murder on the grounds that I might have fired the gun and killed someone? No, I'll get whatever sentence comes my way based on what I actually did.

Isn't that what he got? confused

Marylou2 Sun 08-Dec-13 15:14:58

Mean in what way? Presumably he was aware that break the law might be a breach of his visa.His wife and child can join him in Australia. No sympathy.

AngelaDaviesHair Sun 08-Dec-13 15:28:30

Surely courts do consider what might have happened. It's relevant to the state of mind and degree of culpability of the criminal. Throwing a Molotov cocktail in an empty park: bad. Throwing a Molotov cocktail in a crowded park: worse. Even if on both occasions no one was actually hurt. The potential for harming someone is much greater in the second example. The perpetrator is taken to have recognised that and punished more harshly as a result.

I think talk of the Establishment closing ranks to punish this twit is overstating it rather a lot. Equally the main risk to life and limb was that of injury to Twatty Oldfield himself, and the supposed danger to others appears exaggerated. But actually, people generally get quite stiff sentences for public order offences, ^pour encourager les autres' and before he started his 'protest' (self-aggrandising public posturing, if you ask me) Twatty should have genned up on that.

limitedperiodonly Sun 08-Dec-13 15:38:16

Try driving down the M6 after drinking half a bottle of scotch and see if "but I didn't hit anyone" get you your license back. Try driving down the M6 at 150mph and see if you avoid an instant jail sentence, irrespective of how well you did it.

That's it though, isn't it? We are charged with what we did, and what the Crown Prosecution Service think is most likely to secure a conviction, not the consequences of our actions.

So you could be pissed or driving like an F1 driver on a motorway and kill someone, the most you'll be charged with is causing death by dangerous driving, if that.

You'll still face the penalty which will be loss of licence and possible imprisonment, and you would deserve that.

But though many people would want you to be, you cannot be charged with murder, because that wasn't your intention and therefore you would be acquitted.

I understand the anger of people who've lost loved ones to idiot drivers. But I also see why they're charged with what they've done, rather than what might have been.

I don't feel any particular sorrow for this person. But I do see his case as similar to those convictions for benefit fraud, relatively rare and a populist drop in the ocean.

Golddigger Sun 08-Dec-13 15:42:27

He doesnt seem to like our rules.

limitedperiodonly Sun 08-Dec-13 15:46:20

Surely courts do consider what might have happened.

Yes they do. It's like the young man jailed for dropping a fire extinguisher off the roof of Millbank Tower into a crowd during the student riots a couple of years ago.

He was charged with violent disorder and got two and a bit years. The charge was appropriate. I don't know what the range of sentencing is within it. But dropping a fire extinguisher from height into a crowd is worse than dropping it into a swimming pool with no people around, and I guess the judge took that into account.

I do know that if he'd have been charged with attempted murder, as many people demanded, he'd have probably have walked free, because his intention was not to murder.

Roshbegosh Sun 08-Dec-13 16:39:29

We needn't worry about Trayton. He must be loaded if he was studying as an overseas student at LSE. Rich and privileged I imagine.

friday16 Sun 08-Dec-13 16:53:49

He must be loaded if he was studying as an overseas student at LSE.

He claims to have had a scholarship. Some might call that quite a privilege.

DontmindifIdo Sun 08-Dec-13 17:06:51

HEC - I think a better comparasion would be between someone being drunk in charge of a car and someone being drunk in charge of a bike (also illegal to ride a bicycle when drunk). Thta has a maximum fine of £1k (I think!). You could argue that both are drunk in charge of a form of transportation so it's unfair the driver would get a stiffer sentance, but the fact is, drunk driving you could quite easily hurt/kill someone, on a bike, you're highly unlikely to kill anyone (other than yourself). Therefore the crimes have sentances to that reflect the possibility of hurting someone else.

If he'd intrupted a football match, there would be no possibility of someone being hurt, or him killing himself. By interupting the boat race there was a risk of him or others being hurt. That he didn't is why the sentence wasn't higher, but the risk he took with other's lives should be taken into consideration.

Plus he's obviously a cock and quite frankly, we've got enough of our own thanks, don't need to be putting up with Aussie ones as well.

HavantGuard Sun 08-Dec-13 17:08:14

The consequences do seem harsh and out of proportion to what he did.

I do have sympathy for him and his family, but I have more for people who are being sent back to their country of birth simply because their visas have expired. He chose to risk his by deliberately breaking the law to make a point.

sashh Sun 08-Dec-13 17:08:45

OK IABU.

I'm not a fan of his, it just seems wrong to possibly split up a family like that. But I'll go with the majority.

plummyjam Sun 08-Dec-13 17:16:09

He's a selfish, thoughtless bellend who time and again has shown utter disregard for the consequences of his actions for other people.

First the rowers who had dedicated years of sweat and toil to training for the boat race, secondly to his wife and finally to his daughter who was evidently conceived after he was prosecuted and presumably aware of the implications this would have for his right to remain in the UK.

Knobjockey. Sorry but I have very little sympathy for him.

friday16 Sun 08-Dec-13 17:23:31

His wife and child can join him in Australia.

Well, they can't, because as an Australian citizen with a criminal record he's entitled to live in Australia, but unlikely to be able to sponsor a spouse. She could apply in her own right, but a single mother who writes papers on intersectionality may not be a resource of which Australia feels a need for more. She'd also be subject to whatever the Australian equivalent of "no recourse to public funds" is.

All these being things that a graduate of the LSE might have thought of first, of course.

Does anyone understand what it was that he was protesting about?

TiredDog Sun 08-Dec-13 18:11:14

People having to take responsibility for the consequence of their own actions (regardless of how disproportionate they perceive the consequence to be) would have a huge positive impact on this country.

SoupDragon Sun 08-Dec-13 18:18:51

it just seems wrong to possibly split up a family like that

It will be him who split the family up.

limitedperiodonly Sun 08-Dec-13 18:21:35

Does anyone understand what it was that he was protesting about?

No. He seems a twat. I'm sure that if I met him I'd want to crown him in under five minutes.

However the consequences for being a twat are harsh. Therefore I can find some sympathy for his twattishness in my black and stinking heart. Can you?

scottishmummy Sun 08-Dec-13 18:27:56

He is a Marxist agitator,educated privately and lse protesting about entitled elite
Kettle.pot.black

Roshbegosh Sun 08-Dec-13 18:30:39

He was protesting about inequality I society I think. That was why I suggested upthread that he moves with his family to North Korea or China. He can see how accommodating they are when he protests but presumably he will like the social equality there.

VivaLeBeaver Sun 08-Dec-13 18:34:25

Hipster twat. Will be no loss to the uk.

limitedperiodonly Sun 08-Dec-13 18:41:52

It doesn't really matter. Perhaps he doesn't even care about his partner and child and they'll stay in the UK while he goes to Australia and they won't care either.

Maybe they'll be eligible for benefits.

It's just the idea that so many on this thread think he has his just deserts that amuses me.

currentbuns Sun 08-Dec-13 18:52:38

This article provides some insight into his motivations. It's rather interesting.
As I understand it, plenty of far more serious criminals have been able to remain in the UK on the basis of their "right to a family life."
TS seems sincere to me, others clearly disagree. However, I do feel that any deportation from the UK should be contingent upon an agreement with the Australian government that his wife and child are able to join him there. Splitting up the family would be cruel in the extreme. His wife played no part in his actions at the Boat Race (in fact she disagreed with the stunt), so she and her daughter should not be punished.

friday16 Sun 08-Dec-13 18:54:46

However the consequences for being a twat are harsh. Therefore I can find some sympathy for his twattishness in my black and stinking heart.

He appears to have no insight. Both he and his wife are giving it the "oh, society is so dreadful, what I did was right, it's all the establishment's fault, me, me, me". She, if anything, is worse than him.

If he'd said "yes, what I did was twattish, and I regret it deeply, I accept that I could be administratively removed, but I would ask for some consideration for my child who was conveniently conceived after the event so as to complicate my deportation, not that I was planning ahead or anything and my child's mother" then I might be inclined to think differently.

But as they're both still banging on about how dreadful this country is, and how we don't understand, and how we should realise that he's special and different, they can fuck off.

The words he's looking for are "sorry, I won't do it again". The words she's looking for as "he's a bit of an arse, but if he stays in this country, I'll try to make sure he's less of an arse in future" (after all, his only right of abode would stem from being her husband). But what they appear to want is a round of applause and a pat on the back.

HopAlongOnItsOnlyChristmas Sun 08-Dec-13 19:07:57

friday says it much better than I can, he doesn't even seem to like living here FFS.

ophelia275 Sun 08-Dec-13 20:45:03

How come he can be deported but some rapists can't? What a topsy turvy world we live in.

'the fuck is his website on about??

friday16 Sun 08-Dec-13 20:59:03

How come he can be deported but some rapists can't?

He's got a passport for a safe country. There's no serious risk that the Australian government is going to shoot him on the tarmac as soon as his plane lands, nor that they are going to refuse him admission or strip him of his citizenship.

Most of the cases the Daily Mail froths about reports centre around asylum seekers, often those that have been granted asylum, who then commit crimes. If they were deported, they could well be subject to whatever it was that was the reason they were granted asylum in the first place, always assuming that the country they left would have them back anyway.

Now you might argue that they should have thought of that before committing the crime, and I may well agree with you, but the UN Refugee Convention (amongst other things) doesn't see it that way. If the country they originally came from refuses them entry, who else is going to take them? And if the country they originally came from accepts them, and the promptly shoots them, where does that leave us? It would be nice if there were simple black and white answers, as the Mail thinks there should be, but unfortunately real life's a lot more complex than that.

Not every child who arrived on the Kindertransport grew up to be a moral paragon, and I presume that some proportion of them ended up on the wrong side of the law. We still did the right thing in not deporting them back, you know.

MidniteScribbler Sun 08-Dec-13 21:21:33

I'm not sure that I believe that his spouse won't be able to join him here. I sponsored my (now ex) husband to come in to Australia, and whilst he had to provide police clearances from all of the countries that he had lived in, I was never required to provide any.

JoanRanger Sun 08-Dec-13 21:37:35

There are people who have committed no crimes and have been deported.

There are people who have committed no crimes and been refused a spousal visa.

Why should he be a special case just because he has some publicity? Which he got by committing a crime? Totally effing pointless protest too...

JoanRanger Sun 08-Dec-13 21:41:10

I couldn't find the link, but a short time after the London riots some of the comps in one of the worst-hit areas of London announced that (I think) 8 or 9 of their pupils had been offered Oxbridge places. That won't be the only similar story. He's behind the times on elitism.

marfisa Sun 08-Dec-13 21:59:57

YANBU, OP. Don't back down so easily! I can't believe how close-minded some of the comments on this thread are.

He did something wrong and stupid. He went to jail and paid the price. Why does he deserve to be punished twice, which is what would effectively happen if he were deported? Why do his innocent wife and child, British citizens, deserve to be punished as well? He should be allowed to stay if only for their sake.

The punishment proposed here is entirely disproportionate to the crime. I'm not condoning what he did - it was reckless and unjustifiable - but essentially it was a peaceful protest. The authorities want to deport him on the grounds that he is "not conducive to the public good". That is a very fuzzy standard to use. Deportation orders are not something that should be handed out like sweets.

Human rights are the core issue here, and after that, free speech.

Anyone who has had direct experience of being torn apart as a family by immigration issues would have a hell of a lot more sympathy than most of the above posters do.

friday16 Sun 08-Dec-13 22:16:26

He went to jail and paid the price. Why does he deserve to be punished twice, which is what would effectively happen if he were deported?

Then are you arguing that no-one should be deported? After all, deportation is always going to be an additional punishment for non-citizens over those available for citizens.

Why do his innocent wife and child, British citizens, deserve to be punished as well?

So are there any crimes that in your view would merit the deportation of someone who has a spouse and child in the UK?

Anyone who has had direct experience of being torn apart as a family by immigration issues would have a hell of a lot more sympathy than most of the above posters do.

His immigration issues are entirely self-inflicted. Firstly, if he'd wanted to stay, he could have taken UK citizenship at any point over the past ten or fifteen years, in which case we would not be having this debate. She has taken UK citizenship (she's originally Indian, I believe). He could have done. He chose not to. Secondly, if he'd not wanted to be subject to removal, he could have tried not breaking the law; I know, just a crazy idea. This is not some Kafka-esque hidden evidence persecution: he committed a crime, wittered on about his hatred for this country, and is now suddenly surprised to have been taken at his word.

free speech.

There are no free speech issues here at all. I'm pretty absolutist on free speech, and set the bar very high for restraint and very low for shouting "free speech issue". This is not a free speech issue.

friday16 Sun 08-Dec-13 22:30:56

By the way, you can see the family's, er, flexible attitude to inequality and elitism in the Guardian earlier this year. "At the time Naik was teaching in Saudi Arabia" Really? These are people committed to equality, justice and the end of oppression? So what the actual fuck was she doing working in one of the most unequal, unjust and oppressive regimes in the world? And what does Trenton think would have happened had he pulled a similar stunt there?

Morloth Sun 08-Dec-13 22:39:45

Big crime, little crime it doesn't matter.

When you are a guest in another country, you abide by the laws of that country or you get booted.

This is on him, he committed the crime and then created a baby (interesting timing there), he has created his own situation.

The visa rules are not a secret, it really isn't very hard to abide by most country's laws when you are visiting.

I have lived in and visited many countries over the last 20 years. Not once have I been asked to leave.

Really. Not. That. Hard.

The guy seems like a wanker, really if you guys want to keep him, it is no skin off my nose, but bloody hell you are a bunch of softies and he will be laughing his arse off if he gets his way.

marfisa Sun 08-Dec-13 22:39:58

friday16, I would support deporting someone who actually DID present a threat to the public good. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Oldfield does indeed fit this criterion. If he had presented a real danger to society, presumably he would have been jailed for longer than six months. As the OP said in her post, 'Exactly what good will it do to deport him?'

His immigration issues are entirely self-inflicted.
And his wife and child? In what way is their dilemma 'self-inflicted'?

It's interesting that you seem to think that if he had become a naturalised British citizen, everything would be fine. In fact, the government now has the power to remove the citizenship of naturalised British citizens if they deem a naturalised citizen to be not conducive to the public good. And this is happening increasingly frequently. So yes, citizenship might offer an additional layer of protection, but it's by no means fail-safe.

he wittered on about his hatred for this country
Source please?

And even if he did 'witter on', does anyone who criticises a country deserve to be deported from that country? All right then. But this isn't a free speech issue. Oh, definitely not. hmm

Look, nothing I've read about this man makes me like him. But he doesn't deserve to be deported for saying things that people don't like.

marfisa Sun 08-Dec-13 22:48:20

friday16, your arguments are getting wilder by the moment. Teaching in an oppressive regime is not OK? Schools, colleges and universities are often places where people are resisting/undermining the oppressive regime.

morloth, I think that the length of time he had spent in the UK is relevant. After 12 years you are more than 'a guest'.

Not sure this debate will go anywhere because I suspect what's really underlying it is an anti-immigration versus a pro-immigration bias. If you see immigrants as second-class people, you're not going to be bothered by riding roughshod over their human rights.

Slipshodsibyl Sun 08-Dec-13 22:48:24

But he isn't being deported for saying things people don't like.

Morloth Sun 08-Dec-13 22:55:42

Well that depends on his visa marfisa.

He is a guest if his visa status says so.

I have been an immigrant in the UK, we lived there for almost 6 years and I am an Australian.

I have a child born in the UK.

When we decided to go there, we applied for visas, we had a good read of the rules.

Basically it boils down to 'behave yourself and don't cost us any money'.

He had choices, he was an idiot, now he has fewer choices.

HopAlongOnItsOnlyChristmas Sun 08-Dec-13 22:59:40

The child was born after he was convicted. He knew full well what could, and probably would, happen to him, and then imposed that on a baby. This is entirely his own fault.

marfisa Sun 08-Dec-13 23:02:48

But not the baby's fault!

SoupDragon Sun 08-Dec-13 23:07:03

And his wife and child? In what way is their dilemma 'self-inflicted'?

It has been inflicted upon them by their husband/father.

SoupDragon Sun 08-Dec-13 23:09:26

If you see immigrants as second-class people

Who sees them as second class people?

HopAlongOnItsOnlyChristmas Sun 08-Dec-13 23:09:45

So anyone who would be deported after being convicted of a crime, gets to stay if they have a child?

That's going to end well.

marfisa Sun 08-Dec-13 23:10:43

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to a family life. This right should be overridden only if a person represents a genuine danger to the state.

Here by the way is the text of the letter that hundreds of members of Oxford and Cambridge universities signed:

^As staff, students, and alumni of Cambridge and Oxford Universities, we are calling on the Home Secretary to stop deportation proceedings against Trenton Oldfield for disrupting the Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race in April 2013.

We neither believe that this action constituted an infraction serious enough to warrant such a heavy penalty, nor accept that it establishes that Mr Oldfield is ‘undesirable, has unacceptable associations and could be considered a threat to national security’.

The Boat Race is a game; its disruption should not result in any individual’s deportation. Certainly its disruption should not be cause to separate an individual from his family, which includes a recently-born child.

We note that the race was completed successfully and no one was harmed by Mr Oldfield’s actions. We do not wish this draconian penalty to be applied in the name of an event representing our institutions.^

friday16 Sun 08-Dec-13 23:11:00

And his wife and child? In what way is their dilemma 'self-inflicted'?

The child was conceived after he was convicted, so has been introduced into this as a pawn for fairly cynical reasons. She appears to be as deluded as him, rather than being some naive innocent.

In fact, the government now has the power to remove the citizenship of naturalised British citizens

Only if they are dual nationals. You would have thought that given he dislikes Australia as well (" I no longer felt comfortable being part of the colonial situation there, the occupation of Aboriginal lands. I felt I was undermining their lives.") he would have revoked his Australian citizenship and become a UK citizen. Well, aside from the "London being one of the most unequal cities in the developed world" thing he and his wife bang on about, which will come as something of a surprise to people in Mumbai slums. Or indeed Riyadh. Presumably his wife stays in hotels with no windows when she visits there.

And this is happening increasingly frequently.

About twenty cases, all of them associated with terrorism, most of them involving people who have travelled abroad and are using UK citizenship as a flag of convenience while engaged in violence. The bar is rather higher. You're welcome to look at the list of cases and tell me the ones you'd want living next door to you.

does anyone who criticises a country deserve to be deported from that country?

No. But it makes the case that you have strong ties to a country in which you have committed a crime rather harder to make. And rather begs the question of why, given you're actively choosing to live somewhere rather than remaining in the place you were born and have right of abode, you would choose to live somewhere that you don't like.

Would I deport him were I home secretary? No. He and his wife are arses deserving of ridicule, not dangers to our society. But do I care overmuch if May wants to make an example of him pour encourager les autres? Not particularly. He's a privileged layabout who thinks that because he's got an MA and can spell intersectionality he should be exempt from the law that applies to the little people. And as a graduate of the LSE, his animus towards Oxbridge for being elitist is pretty hilarious.

Morloth Sun 08-Dec-13 23:13:08

No, it is his fault that his baby will be without their father.

His, all his.

It is all on him. Nobody else.

He has done this, not the UK.

Having a baby doesn't mean you get to ignore the law. In any case he broke the law and then had the baby, that doesn't seem at all suspicious to you? Does he really think that the UK are that gullible?

When I had my baby in the UK, it was made clear to me what the rules would be around that. I made the choices for my children. If I had just decided not to bother with all the rules, my baby would have been put in a similar position and that would have been my fault.

Daykin Sun 08-Dec-13 23:23:01

I have far more sympathy for the many people who live apart from their children because spousal visas are refused due to the governments discriminatory immigration policy.

There are loads of (mainly women) UK citizens raising children alone as they don't earn enough to bring their (often high earning) partners into the UK. There are men who have never seen their children because they can't afford to visit and earn enough to maintain two homes in different countries. Often the non EU citizen can't even get a tourist visa as the refusal of a spousal visa counts against them. The government tried to deport a head teacher from USA a few weeks ago. His crime was his wife didn't earn over the £18600 needed to stay in the UK. Luckily for them the Scottish government stepped in as there is a severe shortage of head teachers in rural Scotland. Most people aren't so lucky.

People think being married is enough to bring your spouse into the UK, or living here most of your life, or having children born here. It's not. I feel for the bloke but the amount of people in this situation through no fault of their own is staggering.

marfisa Sun 08-Dec-13 23:23:27

I do know something about some of the cases of people who have had their British citizenship stripped from them, friday. They have been accused of terrorism, yes, but most of them have not actually been tried in a court of law. And twenty cases may not sound like many, but when you consider that even during World War II, in the conflict with Nazi Germany, only a few dual nationals were stripped of their British citizenship (four, to be precise), Theresa May's actions start to look pretty heavy-handed.

marfisa Sun 08-Dec-13 23:26:11

I agree with you about the UK's discriminatory immigration policy, daykin. Completely dreadful.

People think being married is enough to bring your spouse into the UK, or living here most of your life, or having children born here. It's not.

Yes, this, so much this!

marfisa Sun 08-Dec-13 23:30:05

Personally, I think that Oldfield's appeal will probably fail, and his wife and child will suffer. Because the immigration authorities don't give a damn about human rights conventions - if they don't have to, why should they? And the UK will be rid of a bloke who is a bit bonkers but in no way harmful to the "public good" at all.

DoubleLifeIsALifeOfSorts Mon 09-Dec-13 03:03:35

I don't get the issue here. It's not a punishment or singling him out in any way, it's a basic immigration - you break the law, you don't get to stay here.

Once you open the law up to degrees of criminal behaviour it becomes impossible to enforce with any degree is consistency or fairness. And basically, why should the rules be loosened anyway? Who would it benefit? Uk citizens? The economy? Attitudes to immigration? No benefit to changing a clear and enforceable condition of immigration.

Why should he be any different? He has a criminal record, he doesn't get to stay. Simples.

Why should the uk choose to have him? He hasn't shown any respect for his host country, of shown that he will abide by our laws.

Of he wanted to stay and keep his family in tact, he could have chosen to do so.

DoubleLifeIsALifeOfSorts Mon 09-Dec-13 03:08:19

And I say this on the context of having actively fought a human rights case for years, pouring all my mo eh and effort into an extremely complicated and awful situation, and knowing first hand exactly where the unfairness lies in our system... But this is not one of those cases.

Man breaks law, man breaks immigration condition... Man whines and whines about unfairness... Err, nope, no sympathy for him (idiot). Sympathy for wide and child, yes, but he has done this to them, nobody else.

claraschu Mon 09-Dec-13 04:28:54

I agree with the OP and the letter from Oxford and Cambridge.

plummyjam Mon 09-Dec-13 05:39:03

One of the Oxford rowers collapsed with exhaustion and had to be hospitalised after the restart.

Trenton Oldfield's actions were in no way harmless, what he did was calculated and he should have thought about the personal consequences to himself and his family before the protest and not least before updiffing his wife.

friday16 Mon 09-Dec-13 07:05:30

They have been accused of terrorism, yes, but most of them have not actually been tried in a court of law.

You know what? I don't care. British citizenship is a privilege. We know it's a privilege, because so many people are keen to obtain it. People who are nationals of another country who then apply to add a British passport to their collection are being given a privilege. It's not a right, and it's not something that should require "beyond a reasonable doubt" to remove.

If you want to insist that British citizenship, once granted, can only be rescinded subject to a criminal court's decision then there's a reasonable corollary: that if it's made harder to rescind, we should make it harder to obtain. If it's going to be a massive exercise to remove it, then it should be a similarly massive exercise to get.

So we could stop issuing citizenship on the basis of marriage or residence or refugee status, and make it equivalent to an MBE or DV clearance: the product of a combination of merit and deep investigation. If it's issued by a full-scale legal progress, we can make its withdrawal similarly governed.

Until then, it should removed on the same level of proof as it's issued.

But I do think you're keeping some interesting friends. Bilal al-Berjawi had his dual-nationality revoked, and died while fighting alongside Islamist insurgents in Somalia. His death was announced by al-Shabab as follows: "The martyr received what he wished for and what he went out for. Brother Bilal al-Berjawi was exposed to bombing in an outskirt of Mogadishu from a drone that is believed to be American. He was martyred immediately."

How unreasonable of us to not want him as a UK citizen.

OddBoots Mon 09-Dec-13 07:20:48

I wish him luck in campaigning to allow his wife to return to Australia with him, despite him being a convicted criminal.

StainlessSteelBegonia Mon 09-Dec-13 07:24:24

It's quite an OTT reaction to a rather silly act of civil disobedience, yes. It might make a few narrow minds rejoice, but it won't actually make the UK a better place or free up jobs for the locals.

friday16 Mon 09-Dec-13 07:48:46

but it won't actually make the UK a better place

Yes it will. It shows that privileged, over-entitled trustafarians from other countries who come here, slag this country off, get in the way, make a nuisance of themselves and contribute nothing to either our economy or our culture aren't welcome. That's not a small benefit. Many of us would be quite happy to throw Bullingdon club tossers out too, but it's difficult because they have UK citizenship; here we have an LSE graduate with a private income who wanted to make an arse of himself, and luckily he isn't a British citizen. It's the gift that keeps giving, isn't it? Presumably we'll deport Vladimir Umanets (the tosser that wrote in felt tip on a Rothko and called it art) when he's released, too. Good: I wonder how Putin will react when he tries the same trick at home?

How many Polish workers, paying tax and helping build our economy, have felt the need to behave like this? If you want the definition of privilege "living in a £350k flat in East London while buggering around writing about intersectionality" looks like a pretty good definition, and it certainly beats working for a living, as does claiming benefit and tagging artworks. Polish migrant workers haven't had fully-funded scholarships to the LSE, nor have they found a magic money tree which funds them to be a professional arse. Given the government's net migration target (a blunt instrument, granted), throwing Oldfield out means margin in the targets for one more Polish worker. If his wife and child follow him, there's margin for a whole family. That seems like a good trade.

This isn't about poor downtrodden victims of the immigration system. This is about rich, entitled, privileged tossers taking advantage of this country's hospitality. If someone pisses on your floor, you aren't a bad host if you throw them out of your house.

limitedperiodonly Mon 09-Dec-13 08:31:29

I don't want to throw Bullingdon Club members out of my country as it happens. Or BNP members, for that matter, however much I may despise them.

Polish workers and other legal economic migrants compete with UK workers for jobs and depress wages and working conditions, certainly in low-skilled, low-waged occupations.

I have nothing against migrants, not even law-abiding illegals, but that is true.

Therefore if I was in competition with one of your glorious Polish workers for a minimum wage job I might prefer them to be removed than a privileged ex-LSE tosser who wasn't interested in working.

Throwing out Trenton Oldfield is just another easy way for Theresa May to look hard and boost her campaign for the leadership Conservative Party.

It's a pointless gesture which doesn't make my country a safer or more just place for anyone else which is surely the point of deportation.

sashh Mon 09-Dec-13 08:55:23

People think being married is enough to bring your spouse into the UK, or living here most of your life, or having children born here. It's not. I feel for the bloke but the amount of people in this situation through no fault of their own is staggering.

OK this is going off topic but yes these rules can be extremely cruel.

My parents live in East Lancashire.

A father there had left his exwife and children in South Africa where her elderly parents lived. These are primary school aged children.

Exwife then commits suicide. The children can't live in their grandparent's old people's home permanently so their father tries to get them in to the UK.

But he is earning less than the £18600, but he is working and earning. He has a large extended family living close by who are willing and able to support him financially and materially.

But he still can't get the visas.

Fortunately this story has a happy ending because someone stepped in and got them on a plane with tourist visas.

I think the government only backed down because once the children were in Britain it was difficult to argue they would be better off with their father and large extended family than in a South African orphanage.

Morloth Mon 09-Dec-13 09:04:59

The rules are not a secret.

StainlessSteelBegonia Mon 09-Dec-13 09:15:31

The rules can be applied fairly cack-handedly, though. Doesn't matter if you're alright and its some other poor bugger though, eh?

MistressDeeCee Mon 09-Dec-13 09:17:03

He's married with a baby daughter, they have a family life here - where's the compassion? He's already been punished the man isnt a murderer or comitted a heinous crime. Although as an immigrant, he may as well have as its so frowned upon nowadays.Seems to me days its if you're not a Brit then get lost, no looking into compassionate circumstances for you..too many people in UK have become extremely xenophobic and by the time they wake up to themselves the rest of the world will have left them & their smallmindedness way behind.

friday16 Mon 09-Dec-13 09:30:04

and by the time they wake up to themselves the rest of the world will have left them & their smallmindedness way behind.

He's Australian (and has remained so, even while slagging it off and living here for ten years). He might like to consider Australian immigration policy as an example to compare with UK policy. Ditto USA, Canada and (particularly) New Zealand. Few people in his position even without the conviction (ie low income, small child, wife) would be able to get anything other an a tourist visa into any of those countries. Which "rest of the world" were you alluding to who you imply has a more open-door immigration policy than ours?

limitedperiodonly Mon 09-Dec-13 09:30:24

sashh I heard of a Briton with a Sudanese wife and a child who was born in Sudan. I don't think there will be a happy ending in their case.

Well, there will be for our Government's tough image on immigration, because he will have to live in Sudan if he wants to be with them. Therefore these people, who most of us would regard as British and are willing to work, won't be a drain on our society.

I don't know all the ins and outs but the way his British BIL was telling it the rules have fairly recently been changed.

So while not secret, the rules are not widely-known and this couple, who have a legitimate and long-standing marriage have been caught out.

Morloth Mon 09-Dec-13 09:35:17

You need to find out about this stuff before you partner up with/have children with people from different countries.

It is important so that you don't end up in this sort of situation.

UK is the softest of soft touches.

He is laughing at you and slagging you off all at the same time.

By all means keep him! We have plenty of twats right here - when can we send them your way?

MistressDeeCee Mon 09-Dec-13 09:35:47

friday16 Im well aware he's Australian. If Australian immigration policy is strict then Im assuming you mean, he should be flung out of UK in line with a policy he has nothing to do with hmm. Ive no intention of going into detail about who has what immigration policy..deffo not on Mumsnet! & that was hardly the point of my post. My view is that he could be shown some compassion and Im not about to change that view, just because he isnt British. Ive no doubt tho, that others will soon enough be along to discuss immigration in detail so I'll leave you to it.

StainlessSteelBegonia Mon 09-Dec-13 09:48:46

I'm not sure you can characterise the UK as the "softest of soft touches" if it splits up families over a fairly pointless bit of civil disobedience. Good God, whatever will the new policy be next time someone streaks at Lords' - registration on the sex offender's register?

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 10:01:35

DoubleLife said:

I don't get the issue here. It's not a punishment or singling him out in any way, it's a basic immigration - you break the law, you don't get to stay here.

...

Why should he be any different? He has a criminal record, he doesn't get to stay. Simples.

You could hardly be more wrong on this count. He absolutely IS being singled out. There is no automatic deportation for non-citizen residents in Britain who have been convicted of a crime and served a prison sentence of less than 12 months. If they have been convicted and served less than a 12-month sentence, the decision of whether to deport them or not is discretionary. If they have served a sentence of 12 months or more, then something called 'mandatory deportation' kicks into play, but even then a judge would have discretion to overturn the order.

The case for deportation is even more dubious given that it was very unusual for him to receive a six-month sentence in the first place for the type of offence that he committed. He was singled out for special punishment then, and he is being singled out for special punishment now.

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 10:11:55

As for dual nationals who have had their British citizenship removed, I wrote above, They have been accused of terrorism, yes, but most of them have not actually been tried in a court of law.

And friday answered:
You know what? I don't care.

That's the difference between your perspective and mine in a nutshell. I do care. Even if these people have committed atrocious crimes, they deserve to be tried and and convicted in a court of law before a punishment as severe as removal of citizenship is imposed. Fair legal process is what makes us DIFFERENT from terrorists and fascist regimes FGS. Otherwise we're just stooping to their level.

It's for similar reasons that I don't think Oldfield should be deported, although I would be the first to say that from everything I've read, he sounds like a bit of a prat. We don't deport people for being prats.

That's also why all those Oxbridge academics signed a letter in support of his case. It's not because they all think Oldfield is a great guy. It's the principle that is at stake.

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 10:15:48

And to the poster who said that other Western countries have immigration policies that are even worse than the UK's, well yes, absolutely. The USA and Australia violate the human rights of refugees and immigrants every day. That doesn't get the UK off the hook. Do they really want to be part of a hall of infamy?

friday16 Mon 09-Dec-13 10:26:48

Even if these people have committed atrocious crimes, they deserve to be tried and and convicted in a court of law before a punishment as severe as removal of citizenship is imposed.

As I say: OK, if it requires a judicial review to remove citizenship, it should require a similar test to grant it. You tell me what you think is a reasonable standard for each end of the process, and provided they're the same, I'm happy. Granted on the basis of a simple form, signed off by a civil servant? OK, that's the threshold for removal. Only removed by a judge with right of appeal to a superior court? Fine, then that's the threshold for granting it.

Anyway, Oldfield has been tried and convicted in a court of law. Your talk about people being stripped of dual nationality without trial is irrelevant. He isn't a dual national, and has no UK nationality to be removed. He's here on (presumably) indefinite leave to remain, and it's been rescinded. Had he taken UK nationality and revoked his Australian nationality, this wouldn't have arisen. He apparently likes living here, right up to the point of doing anything about it. And he is getting due process: his case is being considered by a judge as we speak.

I simply don't understand what obligations I've got in terms of UK citizenship towards Somali terrorists who hate us but like the benefits system, or Australian citizens who hate us but like, oh, the vibrancy of the intersectionality or something. They're guests. They pissed on the floor. They get to make their case, our government decides. That's about the end of it.

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 10:49:09

Yes, I agree that the dual national issue isn't directly relevant to Oldfield. I only brought it up because you made some comments about how he should have applied for citizenship already, implying that citizenship would offer some kind of absolute immunity. I think it's worth noting that under Theresa May, this isn't the case. And this speaks to the whole mindset of the current government.

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 10:50:08

I simply don't understand what obligations I've got in terms of UK citizenship towards Somali terrorists who hate us but like the benefits system

Daily Fail much?

friday16 Mon 09-Dec-13 10:54:17

One of your examples of the poor misunderstood dual-nationals was an al-Shabab leader who was killed in Somalia while his wife was giving birth in London, according to that well-known fascist rag the Guardian. What other interpretation would you put on the events?

implying that citizenship would offer some kind of absolute immunity.

It would if he took British citizenship and revoked his Australian citizenship.

AngelaDaviesHair Mon 09-Dec-13 10:57:42

Oldfield has been refused at this stage because, as muffinino has been saying, the rules require it. They are completely black and white (conviction=refusal) and there is no discretion to do things differently.

However, he can appeal and if he does, as I understand it there will be a broader review of the decision in which all the kinds of points people are making on this thread can be argued out. So there isn't necessarily a final decision for us to argue about.

I don't know, I don't take to the man or his wife, but at the same time it is easy to sneer about activists who are often massive twits and yet also socially useful and sometimes brave. We repress them and their protests at our peril, even when their protests are as inchoate and self-serving as Oldfield's.

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 11:00:49

The rules are not completely black and white. Conviction does not equal refusal. There IS discretion to do things differently.

Sigh.

And Oldfield has already appealed. The hearing is today, thus all the press about it.

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 11:10:11

friday, I've seen your posts on some other threads (about primary education, for instance) and they have always seemed to me to be sane and lucid.

But using terms like the poor misunderstood dual-nationals is Daily Fail talk. It's inflammatory. I never said they were all good people; I said that they were British citizens who deserve due process like every other British citizen.

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 11:11:24

But again, I'm straying away from the Oldfield topic.

Home today with poorly DS. Need to get off computer and do something about my trainwreck of a house.

AngelaDaviesHair Mon 09-Dec-13 11:12:37

No need to sigh. I am not an expert in immigration law, simply trying to summarise what I thought another poster had explained. If I've got it wrong, why not point that out without being patronising?

Morloth Mon 09-Dec-13 11:29:03

Actually I have changed my mind.

He absolutely should be allowed to stay.

DuckToWater Mon 09-Dec-13 11:35:36

It does seem very OTT. Could be a breach of right to family life, stop equating his case with international terrorists!

friday16 Mon 09-Dec-13 11:46:00

I said that they were British citizens who deserve due process

And Oldfield isn't even a British citizen, and is getting due process. Which level of judicial appeal is he on today? Could you point out which part of the process he's gone through that doesn't meet up with your, or indeed international, standards?

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 11:53:58

Sorry, AngelaDavies, I didn't mean to be patronising. blush I am just frustrated with posters repeating that criminal conviction results in automatic deportation, because it doesn't. See my post today at 10:01:35.

Morloth??? Are you serious?

AngelaDaviesHair Mon 09-Dec-13 11:56:09

Thank you. And apologies back. I should actually be snarking at DH, who is like a grumpy hungover teenager in the mornings and expects me to take the role of his mother in getting him out of bed (rage, seethe), rather than posters on MN.

Morloth Mon 09-Dec-13 11:59:08

Yup.

Thinking about it. Britain is going to want reimbursement for the flight. Then I am sure there will be a tussle in the Australian courts. He doesn't seem the type to get a job so we will have to support him.

Right now he is your expense/problem.

Lets keep it that way, eh?

So I have changed my mind and agree it would be mean to deport him. Mean to Oz. But mean nonetheless.

All yours.

I can't believe they conceived a child to strengthen his case. That's fucking sick.

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 13:17:46

They didn't conceive a child to strengthen his case. Some posters on this thread have alleged that they conceived a child for that reason, but it's only speculation.

Couples in long-term relationships often decide to start families.

I feel a sigh coming on again.

Call me a cynic, but conceiving when you know there is a very real possibility you are about to be deported is ILL ADVISABLE at best.

currentbuns Mon 09-Dec-13 13:56:22

This thread is upsetting me. The child is here now, the circumstances of her conception are frankly irrelevant. Have you seen the picture of this child? Her innocent little face? Those clamouring for her family to be split up & her father deported - simply to teach him a lesson - seem very vindictive to me.

Slipshodsibyl Mon 09-Dec-13 14:05:02
friday16 Mon 09-Dec-13 14:05:57

It's all irrelevant, as he isn't being deported anyway.

The due process he was supposedly being denied, and the conspiracy amongst the establishment which was plotting against him, appear to have come to his aid.

Mind you, he's still an arse.

"He said he was not willing to subject his wife to racial abuse and possibly violence in Australia that he said had been targeted at people of "Hindu origin". He complained of "water-cooler racism" and "passive aggressive racism" in the country."

So let's get this straight, Trenton: one definition of racism might be making sweeping statements about the political and ethical views of large groups of people defined mostly by their ethnicity. Pot. Meet Kettle.

Rpeg Mon 09-Dec-13 14:06:33

Totally agree that there is a ridiculous level of inequality in this country. But his action was stupid and mis-targeted. He is inarticulate, naive and, dare I say it, a bit thick. So I couldn't summon up much sympathy, although I actually don't think deporting him was fair. Anyway, he's won his appeal, so OTT wailing about his child and her "innocent little face" (retch) can stop now.

Gutted.

Slipshodsibyl Mon 09-Dec-13 14:15:06

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/09/thames-boat-race-protester-asks-tribunal-to-overturn-deportation?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

A former schoolmate at Bradfield College boarding school in Berkshire seems to suggest he wasn't always so contemptuous of the elite!

scottishmummy Mon 09-Dec-13 14:15:25

Christ alive it's not the Disney channel ease up on the innocent wee face schmaltz

StainlessSteelBegonia Mon 09-Dec-13 14:17:58

Quite right - nice to see British common sense prevailing in the end. Deportation was a frankly unhinged response to a public nuisance conviction.

Next, life sentences for rural drink driving convictions! And bring back hanging for littering!

EdithWeston Mon 09-Dec-13 14:19:18

I thought the "innocent little face" post was sarcastic hyperbole, tbh.

scottishmummy Mon 09-Dec-13 14:19:48

I think a fair few on mn would have drummed up some mula for his flight home

Rpeg Mon 09-Dec-13 14:20:07

I thought it was to begin with, Edith, but re-reading it seems to be deadly serious.

Rpeg Mon 09-Dec-13 14:21:06

Perhaps currentbuns can clarify if she can overcome her terrible "upset".

scottishmummy Mon 09-Dec-13 14:24:23

Buns post,it's 100%ham.innocent wee face. Christ will no one think of the wean

friday16 Mon 09-Dec-13 14:25:24

Before the deportation notice arrived I was writing a long letter to our daughter explaining our concern for her and for her generation … I was essentially mapping all the social and democratic rights being taken away from her, that we have had the benefit of.

He does take himself quite seriously, doesn't he?

AngelaDaviesHair Mon 09-Dec-13 14:27:14

It is a very bonny baby, though.

If only that were enough, my father would have been a shoe-in for his Indef Leave to Remain Visa, instead of having to jump through endless hoops and queue up at Croydon at stupid o'clock in the morning.

AngelaDaviesHair Mon 09-Dec-13 14:28:39

Tsk! 'of which we have had the benefit', Trenton. Or have you rejected over-privileged elite emphasis on grammar?

currentbuns Mon 09-Dec-13 14:31:07

I stand by my post. The class saboteur (or whatever he is) comes across as something of a prat, but there is an innocent child involved. I found the tone of this thread pretty spiteful, tbh.

hareinthemoon Mon 09-Dec-13 15:03:58

I've lived here for 25 years. I have British children. I have ILTR of my own accord, not a spousal visa. I am aware that the rules on this can be changed at any time; indeed, they have changed several times since I've been here.

I love this country, much more so than my (British) husband. I feel deeply connected and committed here. But part of my love for it takes the form of trying to change what I think is wrong with it. I think that this is not only a right but a duty, to my children and to the culture I feel I belong to.

I've been completely blindsided by the response to this case. I'm really shocked to be seen as "just a visitor", and shocked by the vitriol.

And, actually, quite scared to post this.

sad

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 15:04:47

If only that were enough, my father would have been a shoe-in for his Indef Leave to Remain Visa, instead of having to jump through endless hoops and queue up at Croydon at stupid o'clock in the morning. grin and sad

Hurrah for the triumph of common sense, as StainlessSteelBegonia said. I am surprised and relieved.

And yes, friday, hurrah for due process.

ActionA Mon 09-Dec-13 15:08:57

Fully in favour of people trying to change things that are wrong. But targeting a rowing team that may well be from comprehensive schools and have worked hard to paricipate in a sporting event is just plain stupid and self centered. Not saying the guy should be deported. I don't think he should. But he is an idiot, and it wouldn't be a loss if he wasn't here.

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 15:11:17

I hear you, hareinthemoon. My position is virtually identical to yours.

On lots of issues, I find Mnetters very open-minded, so I was also surprised by the turn this thread took.

I can only speculate that Oldfield didn't do much to endear himself to the general public (the whole concept of "I will protest against societal inequality by ruining the Oxford/Cambridge boat race!" never made much sense in the first place). TBH, when I first heard that he was going to be deported, I thought, so what. But I have friends who work on these issues, and when I understood the full story, I changed my mind entirely. Not about the man, but about the principles at stake.

I do wish he would now eat humble pie and acknowledge that the Oxbridge community isn't made up purely of snobby elitists, now that so many members of it have come to his defence (the Guardian article said that the letter was signed by Cambridge academics, but that's a mistake; it was both Cambridge and Oxford ones).

friday16 Mon 09-Dec-13 15:11:50

I feel deeply connected and committed here

So why not take British citizenship?

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 15:13:48

I know that question wasn't directed at me, but taking citizenship does cost a hell of a lot of money. Not everyone who is eligible for it can afford to go for it straight away.

PleaseHelpWithSchoolChoice Mon 09-Dec-13 15:15:23

That TINAG website is a spoof, right? Intersectionality? Platforms for critical investigations into cities? The socio political history of fences and railings?? Ha ha hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa.......

AchyFox Mon 09-Dec-13 18:18:14

Think Teresa will be choking on her coco-pops over this one.

She must have thought it was a bit of an open goal to get middle-England onside.

Now some lilly-livered wig wearer has said:

^ immigration tribunal judge, Kevin Moore, told Oldfield: "There is no doubt as to your character and commitment and the value you are to UK society generally.^

<gently performs Heimlich manoeuvre on Teresa>

There, there Teresa. There, there.

friday16 Mon 09-Dec-13 18:30:46

Think Teresa will be choking on her coco-pops over this one. She must have thought it was a bit of an open goal to get middle-England onside.

Or, alternatively, next time she's expelling some asylum seeker in genuine and well-founded fear for her life, she can say "but the tribunal system works well, because it found in favour of a rich, articulate, educated man with a trivial offence against his name, so now that it has found against this poor, inarticulate, illiterate woman who may or may not have stolen a loaf of bread to feed her child, we must trust its judgement".

Oldfield's an arse. But he's a white, anglophone arse who presumably traces back to this country within a few generations (he's the right age for his parents to be ten pound poms, isn't he?). So even the hardcore racist xenophobes will see him as one of them. In their eyes, being an arse, even being an arse at the boat race, is a great deal less of an offence than being black.

So May could use him as a beard. "Look," she can say, "we follow due process and shit, so how can you say our decision to expel this Somali woman who's certain to be tortured upon her return is racist, because Mr Arse won his appeal. She can appeal, too, you know, just like he did, and due process is available to everyone with an LSE degree, money, powerful friends and a good story to spin to the newspapers."

scottishmummy Mon 09-Dec-13 18:33:21

Frudays,got it nailed,I agree

limitedperiodonly Mon 09-Dec-13 18:45:11

There is a judge called Kevin?

How the fuck did he get through?

Yes, Theresa May saw this as rabble-rousing. All grist to the leadership mill but not so good as whining about Al-Qaeda lieutenants when you've got your fucking dates wrong or railing against gay Bolivian cat lovers, which actually wasn't true. And she knew it.

But she also knew that most people wouldn't know it.

AchyFox Mon 09-Dec-13 19:07:23

Friday, interesting take.

But that Our-JusticeSystem-is-Blind argument would be far more powerful if Oldfield had in fact been deported.

VivaLeBeaver Mon 09-Dec-13 19:16:28

Has he been allowed to stay then?

AchyFox Mon 09-Dec-13 19:27:44

Yup

Morloth Mon 09-Dec-13 20:05:22

Lets hope everyone gets the memo about the new UK 'anchor baby' law.

Or as friday16 implies will that only be for eccentric rich white men who can do what they like?

The guy is a twat. I am glad he is staying there. Enjoy.

Lets hope everyone gets the memo about the new UK 'anchor baby' law.

So true angry

marfisa Mon 09-Dec-13 22:19:10

Lets hope everyone gets the memo about the new UK 'anchor baby' law.

Absolutely. Damn that article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights for presuming to declare that everyone has the right to a family life. What an outrageous idea!

And how dare Trenton Oldfield procreate when obviously he was obligated not to do so?

I guess he didn't get the memo.

Seriously, I hope this case does set a precedent, and helps to highlight the kind of deportation cases friday refers to, where the victims are less privileged and can muster fewer resources to obtain justice.

friday16 Mon 09-Dec-13 23:11:21

Damn that article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights for presuming to declare that everyone has the right to a family life.

"except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Obvs.

scaevola Tue 10-Dec-13 07:35:26

Perhaps the "anchor" part of the baby could be disregarded if one looked at the family that existed at the time of the offence?

The father need not have been separated from his baby, who would have been Australian by descent, and could have accompanied him. His DW would have to go through ordinary immigration procedures (just like every country requires).

As UK generally doesn't deport for offences with a sentence of under 1 year (though in theory can for any crime that has a custodial sentence), this case was dodgy. Now, he claims the baby was conceived by accident, and probably was. But if the idea of "anchor baby" does take hold, then that is not good (generally, as immigration dodge) but also in terms of pressure into pregnancy for vulnerable (controlled?) women.

janey68 Tue 10-Dec-13 07:46:56

The guy is a manipulative twat who has a ridiculously high opinion of himself; god only knows what thats based on.
Still, he's got what he wanted now. Shame he can't respect other people's hard work and aspirations.

marfisa Tue 10-Dec-13 09:29:21

Scaevola, I see what you mean, but the term "anchor baby" doesn't even really apply here, as the mother is a citizen herself. (The term is considered an offensive and pejorative one, by the way: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby)

Even if mother and child could move to Australia to join him, why should the mother be deprived of living in her home country? (presuming of course that her non-citizen spouse is not a danger to the public). Why shouldn't she have the right to live in her own country with her child and spouse?

And while I agree that the possibility of women being put under pressure to conceive is a troubling one, is there any realistic alternative? I think that as a default position, we have to assume that women are agents able to make their own reproductive choices, and that if couples decide to have a child together, this choice must also be respected.

friday16 Tue 10-Dec-13 09:37:18

I think that as a default position, we have to assume that women are agents able to make their own reproductive choices

That's right, marfisa, because immigration issues are all about well educated, articulate women who write about intersectionality and shit, who have happy consensual marriages with Australian LSE graduates and write letters to their children about democratic deficits. No one is every going to use the pregnancy and marriage of a woman as a way to continue chain immigration, and only the Daily Mail BBC would dare say otherwise.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24819609

"A 14-year-old girl became pregnant after being taken to Pakistan by her father and forced to marry a man, a judge has said.

She was subjected to violence during which a gun was produced, according to Mr Justice Holman.

The girl returned to England where she gave birth.

Details emerged in a written ruling following a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in Birmingham.

'Harrowing'
Two weeks after the ceremony, the marriage was consummated, the ruling said.

The judge said: "The girl has given an account of the circumstances surrounding that marriage which are, frankly, harrowing.

"On her account... this was a grave example of a marriage which was forced under considerable duress, involving at one stage the production of a gun and physical violence upon her.

"The marriage was consummated about two weeks later after further threats to her if she did not permit her husband, who was then aged about 24, to have sexual intercourse with her.

"As a result, while still aged 14, she became pregnant."

Local authority officials wanted the marriage nullified, but the judge said the girl would have to initiate proceedings herself for this to take place."

marfisa Tue 10-Dec-13 10:08:07

friday, we have to assume that women are agents making their own reproductive choices unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. In the case you cite, the mere fact that the girl was 14 is disturbing enough on its own. Of course immigration abuses exist and must not be tolerated -- especially not cases as clear-cut as this one.

What I object to is the use of offensive terms like "anchor baby" when it's pure speculation to say that a couple's decision to conceive a child at a given time is motivated by immigration-related concerns. When and why a couple decide to conceive is their own business and part of their private life. That's why the very term "anchor baby" is considered offensive.

I ask again what the alternative would be. Should we declare that immigrants or people with uncertain visa status are forbidden to procreate?

You do know that the organisations set up to help refugees and immigrants are particularly concerned about women, children and other vulnerable groups? If immigration advocates are supporting Oldfield's case, it's not because they're blind to his privilege. It's because they think that his case could ultimately highlight/improve the plight of people much more vulnerable than he is.

marfisa Tue 10-Dec-13 10:18:22

I'm also not sure why people are mocking the notion of intersectionality. Is it just because it's a clunky word with too many syllables?

Because it's not just jargon, it actually means something interesting and important. It is (wikipedia again) 'the study of intersections between different disenfranchised groups or groups of minorities'. In other words, I might be considered part of a vulnerable group if you take into account only the fact that I'm a woman and grew up in a low-income household. However, if you look at other aspects of my life, I have big advantages: I'm white and the household I grew up gave me lots of cultural capital (my family read books! lots of books). Intersectionality just means that you have to look at the way different elements of a person's background come together to make them more or less vulnerable in society. It's kind of a no-brainer idea, and maybe we don't need a fancy word for it, but social scientists find it a useful shorthand.

I've no idea though whether the kind of research carried out by Oldfield's organisation is actually worthwhile, but there's certainly nothing dodgy or stupid about the concept of intersectionality on its own.

friday16 Tue 10-Dec-13 10:22:56

Should we declare that immigrants or people with uncertain visa status are forbidden to procreate?

We shouldn't reward it, because the effect will be to make vulnerable women with UK passports yet more vulnerable. The primary purpose test exists for a reason, as does the recent raising of the minimum age for sponsoring a spousal visa from 18 to 21 (I think). The imposition of the salary limit on spousal visas has the same purpose. They are blunt instruments, designed to prevent the prevalent practice of forcing women into marriages with people from "back home".

What you're essentially saying is that anyone who can marry a UK citizen, here or abroad, and then get her pregnant should be able to stay as of right, irrespective of nature of the relationship. That's not going to end well, and the victims of it won't be getting letters of support written by professors.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shafilea_Ahmed

If immigration advocates are supporting Oldfield's case, it's not because they're blind to his privilege.

Since he's completely blind to his privilege, I wouldn't be so sure.

marfisa Tue 10-Dec-13 10:34:12

Since he's completely blind to his privilege, I wouldn't be so sure.

Yeah, well, you may have a point there. grin

friday16 Tue 10-Dec-13 10:34:22

Because it's not just jargon

It's jargon, used to dress up simple ideas in excluding language.

And if our friends the Oldfields want to throw modish feminist theory around, the other popular phrase "check your privilege" might be resonant with them.

marfisa Tue 10-Dec-13 10:43:39

Well, I don't think it's necessarily jargon. It depends on audience, doesn't it. If you're a social scientist talking to other people working in the same field, it's just part of your shared vocab. Like naice ham or LTB or a biscuit when you're on MN.

I wouldn't use it when talking to people on MN or talking to most of my RL friends, because then it would be excluding language. And I'm not patronising those audiences either, because they are perfectly capable of understanding what the concept means. Using the word would just obfuscate things.

friday16 Tue 10-Dec-13 11:01:52

If you're a social scientist talking to other people working in the same field, it's just part of your shared vocab.

Isn't that the definition of jargon, that it's a shared vocabulary used amongst experts which is not understood, or is not understood precisely, by those outside the field?

marfisa Tue 10-Dec-13 11:11:27

Ah. Yes, now that you mention it, it is. blush

However, I think the popular understanding of jargon involves the idea that the terms used don't actually mean anything significant or worthwhile. People will say dismissively, "Oh, that's just jargon". And the point I was trying to make is that intersectionality is not a idiotic term unlike 'anchor babies'.

marfisa Tue 10-Dec-13 22:46:07

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now