to wonder whether those who object to the deportation...

[dolphinsandwhales]

of the 19 year old who claimed asylum from dv after overstaying a tourist visa would like to extend asylum offers to all victims of dv worldwide who live in safe countries?

The case seems ridiculous to me, asylum should be granted to those in genuine cases of persecution etc, Mauritius is not a country that persecutes those in fear of dv. I wonder whether the teachers involved in trying to prevent the deportation would mind losing some pension to pay for all the increased asylum seekers who are fleeing safe countries?

Point is that once settled in the UK, and making a contribution to the UK, anyone who's here legally should be treated with sensitivity to their circumstances.

But she wasn't legally here. Which is the point.

3little you forgot the word 'some'. Yes it's hard to get rid of some very tough cases, but again that does not mean that none go. You simply don't read about successful deportation so much because getting rid of criminals and other nastier cases is actually an everyday thing. Again, why because some people are harder to deport than others anyway does that then mean that those who don't qualify to be here shouldn't be removed in accordance with the law? It's warped logic and completely self-defeating as an argument. Most immigrants aren't criminals, so do all illegals and failed asylum seekers get to stay on that basis?

You can't worry about individual cases. Any individual case could be presented in way that tugs on the heart strings but we can't let everyone who wants to stay her stay.

I don't disagree with deportation where there is legitimate reasons for doing so etc. I do however have an issue with someone who ignores all protocol and then spends months wondering why her attempt failed. .

Quite, pixie. But it's OK, because apparently she's not an axe murderer. According to a Telegraph article in 2013 there were around 1500 foreign national criminals detained post sentence completion, with average time to remove them down to around 70 odd days. Still more get removed voluntarily without appealing. But apparently the fact that the odd nasty case hits the headlines when there are difficulties means that this girl is above the law, both international and domestic. It's a ridiculous argument. Either we enforce the law, or we don't.

Thanks for the book recommendation BOFtastic. Looks great! I've ordered a bundle of three books as we've not read any of FCB.

It's beautifully written, you won't regret it

I meant a more sober there- force of habit!

she is not the one who was the victim it was her mom she came over two years after her mom so if she was safe for two years why is she not safe now what has changed?

she entered perfectly legally but now she is older she should have applied for a student visa

since when do dv victims move countries? i had broken bones and battered i had to stay in the same town as the creep!

apparently she was due to take exams this june i would have allowed her to take them then deported her sorry

Yashika Bageerathi may not have been directly attacked by the person who abused her mother but that does not mean it has not had a huge impact on her life

dv is not just about broken bones and bruises. her mother came here to build a life for herself and once she could sent for her children. thankfully we do not have to flee a country, we have support so we do not have to leave our children behind but in developing and third world countries this is often what is done to support a family

She can complete her a levels in her country that's just another tact to stay

And as for splitting up family's her mother who is sobbing on the news was not so worried she she fucked off to the uk with out them for almost two years

she came here to start a life that was safe maybe her life was at risk and this was her only option, not all abusers of women attack children

she could not do this in her own country which I am sure is where she would rather be

many many people from developing countries leave their children behind and send money home or bring them here once they have a home for them

freudian then perhaps her mother should have ensured she 'built' this life legally then? Being a victim of DV doesn't mean you're immune to the laws of the country - saying that she wouldn't have been granted asylum even then because Mauritius is a country capable of dealing with it's own affairs. Or, she could have moved to another place - like many of us have had to do.

And Mauritius is not a developing or third world country. That is the whole point.

In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, Mauritius is on the same list as the UK for it's safety, policing etc?

Many people who live there have come out in droves to question why anyone would seek asylum elsewhere.

I thought there would be a last minute reprieve and was surprised when there wasn't. It is sad on a personal level. But on the other hand if asylum was granted then it would really have to be granted in other cases of domestic violence.

Mauritius does come under the list of developing countries (unless the news reports and wiki list is wrong)

do you not think if she could go back in time she would. leaving your family behind, the fear of what you have left behind starting a new life making one for your children and yourself to be safe in must take a huge about of courage. she got it wrong how she went about it a women who once again is being punished and so is her daughter

she is being used as an example

You are thinking of it from a purely emotive point of view, you're imagining a situation which in turn is forcing your opinion.

You don't know why she did what she did. We only have her accusations of DV. Why did she flee on her own? Why didn't she leave and go elsewhere in her country instead of directly to the UK? Why did they not go through the legal route? Ask yourself these questions using a logical mind and it would point towards them knowing exactly what they were doing and hoping to get away with it. Don't you think this would have been looked into further? There would have been correspondence with the country she fled from.

Sorry wrong about it not being 'developing' but that doesn't mean it's not a safe country to live in. In fact has one of the most successful democracies and has enjoyed years of constitutional order

If you speak to people who live there, they'll tell you the same. The whole circumstances of this claim are dodgy, and people are only in uproar because it's a young woman who's a student, and of course the key words 'domestic abuse'.

It is exactly the same as us, suffering DV here, and going over to the US on a tourist visa. And staying illegally. Would that wash? No it wouldnt

And she isn't being used as an example. We wouldn't even know about it if it wasn't for the media support for her, built purely by the people she knows. The government have gone about this exactly as they would any other person, but unlucky for that person they haven't received the same support and spotlight.

communities in Asian countries tend to be much tighter, hiding is far more difficult the support for women fleeing dv is very limited (look to google for reports) and the attitude to dv may not be and is unlikely to be as advanced as it is here within society

you are comparing to living here to a country with a very different culture and support for women so it is hard to compare

and like I said before leaving your children behind to build a life elsewhere is done out of necessity for thousands of people from developing countries. I feel I could never leave ds to work in another country I also have support so I never have to do that

I don't understand all these comments about her being separated from her family.

1. They left her alone in Mauritius to come to the UK.
2. Her family are also under process to be sent back, and are free to go home with her now if they wish.

Has there been any actual proof of the alleged dv?

Because DV only exists when there's proof. Because all women seek help and get it on record.

Sigh.

I was the one who started the other thread, which turned out quite unedifying. I have been off Mumsnet for a few days. Now I see the poor girl's been deported. The powers that be could at least have had the decency to wait for a few weeks so she could complete her A levels - what a waste. I would be horrified to imagine my daughter or niece going through this.

I feel bad because I started what I thought was a fairly uncontroversial thread. It's intention was to help Yashika's case, and it started off OK. Then some posters who clearly disagreed with the family's claim for asylum came along and a whole bandwagon rolled in. It was often stated by some posters that she had done something illegal by overstaying her visa. What these posters forgot was that she was a minor when she entered the UK, and so that was not her responsibility. And as others have said, OK it was illegal for the family to overstay, but its a fact that sometimes people in desperate situations do desperate things. Most posters will not have been in that situation, but a little empathy wouldn't go amiss. Whatever the rights and wrongs of her mother's case, Yashika certainly didn't deserve what has happened to her.

I admittedly didn't know all the ins and outs of the family's situation and this was constantly trotted out. But neither did the rest of the posters! They just assumed the family were chancers. Perhaps there was a touch of racism involved. Certainly it was reasonable to ask if people would sign the petition/send the emails - not 'unrealistic' at all, quite normal. No one was forcing them to do so though obviously.

There were some bloody stupid comments made - like 'that girl looks far older than 19, there is something fishy going on there' - er if you actually knew any one of that age, you would realise that their looks can vary a lot, some could pass as 14, some as late 20s. However she looks like a normal 19 year old to me. 'Her local MP, although Conservative, is only supporting her for votes.' Well, we now know that at least one other MP is supporting her (Keith Vaz).

I feel that I didn't handle the situation very well, and can only hope that this didn't negatively affect her cause. I think maybe I came over a bit aggressive which was inept of me - I was having a bad day and was quite unprepared for the negative response that seemed to come from a large proportion of posters. I certainly won't be apologising to anyone though - there were no shrinking violets on there, and they knew exactly what they were doing.

I would agree that we should be sceptical of the cases of people similar to Abu Hamza etc and deport them as soon as possible. But in this very different case could we not have been civilized and shown a little compassion, even if only to let the poor girl stay 6 more weeks to finish her A levels?

Anyway I'm sure everyone would agree in hoping for an eventual safe outcome for Yashika and her family.

According to a Home Office statement, the decision to refuse asylum and remove her has been presented in court and upheld on no fewer than five occasions. Given the propensity of courts to override such decisions, it's pretty hard to conclude that it was anything other than correct under the law.