To ask you to sign up to this campaign?

[Niamer]

If you voted for "Brexit at any cost" this will not be of any interest to you. If you voted Leave because you wanted the best for your family and UK, or you voted Remain, please consider supporting Gina Miller's campaign. She is pushing for a meaningful Parliamentary vote at the end of Brexit negotiations, ie with an option to remain in the EU if the deal we get isn't as good as what we have already. Most of my friends who voted Leave have said "Yeah, I wouldn't mind", as however we voted, most of us want the best for our children.
Please sign up here:www.campaign2018.org

Have just read up on the Singaporean woman's case and it really isn't all that it's been dressed up as.
A lot of artistic licence at play (being generous).

www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/how-to-spot-a-nazi-a-certain-style-and-a-taste-for-torture-a7594351.html

Wrong The use of paid trolls and AI is documented. Even though I suspect a paid troll (and sure enough they disappear at 5pm) I still engage as I refuse to allow these arguments to dominate the debate on here.

However you do not have to go very far back on this thread to find regular posters trying to close down debate with sarcasm and emotion........

Have just read up on the Singaporean woman's case and it really isn't all that it's been dressed up as.
A lot of artistic licence at play (being generous).

That's fine if your sources are verifiable, but very often the information that spreads around the Internet is not fact-checked, and is repeated in multiple articles often with a single, unverified source. Googling can therefore give a false sense of the accuracy of the information.

I don't know anything about this woman's case, except to say that migrancy cases are often not cut and dried, because people's lives are complicated, especially if their family commitments are split between 2 continents. I have read Colin Yeo's article on her case (he is a well known immigration lawyer) in which he suggests that immigration officers may not have exercises the discretion available to them. It may be that discretion wasn't called for in this case, but I think with the HO it is generally fair to assume that they have acted in poor faith unless you have good evidence to the contrary,

A lot of artistic licence at play (being generous).

The same could be said of some of the speculations against the couple.

migrancy cases are often not cut and dried, because people's lives are complicated, especially if their family commitments are split between 2 continents

Indeed so, Misti! I linked to Colin Yeo's article on the other thread, but it received no scant response from the Roolz Iz Roolz posters, whilst they were happy to speculate wildly on the intimacies of the relationship and pronounce confidently on the fraud committed by the family members. Artistic licence indeed.

That's fine if your sources are verifiable, but very often the information that spreads around the Internet is not fact-checked, and is repeated in multiple articles often with a single, unverified source. Googling can therefore give a false sense of the accuracy of the information.

YY agree completely - in this case the mainstream media have done exactly that.
The 'facts' are lacking and emotive statements have been used instead.

That's a big problem I have with mainstream media at the mo tbh - too much attention given to creating a different angle or making a story more clickworthy - but unfortunately the more dry fact-based reporting doesn't get readers.

Wrt this lady in particular, there is a lot of emotive fact-light reporting going on as with some of the other cases recently.
It's a shame because there are numerous, very real problems wrt spousal right to remain uncertainty etc at the mo but they're not getting the attention they rightly deserve because they've not got the headline-grabbing emotion attached to them.

happy to speculate wildly on the intimacies of the relationship and pronounce confidently on the fraud committed by the family members.

I'd like to see those comments removed by Mumsnet on the grounds that they are potentially libellous, but I can't face going onto that cesspit of a thread to report them.

It's a shame because there are numerous, very real problems wrt spousal right to remain uncertainty etc at the mo but they're not getting the attention they rightly deserve because they've not got the headline-grabbing emotion attached to them.

This one only came to public attention when she was actually removed. The fundraiser on gofundme had been up for about 3 weeks but had raised hardly anything until she was actually removed on Sunday. The case of the engineering student who has just got a reprieve is unusual in that she became news before removal, though not until she was in detention.

Semi The thing is that the facts of the case are being reported across Asia in media not given to covering the emotion, and a readership that would not particularly respond to it if they did. The readership is receptive because of the history, and that it is a manifestation of a wider patttern of discrimination against Asian spouses (and almost certainly mainly Asian wives), even those who are professionals with skills that a future truly open Britain is going to need. In both Singapore and Hong Kong there are many holders of British passports because their families contributed to past prosperity but who found their passports devalued when it suited the U.K. Government.

These are growing economies that we want to trade with more. Perhaps manifesting such racist, and quite probably sexist, attitudes to Asians is a barrier to our future success? I have certainly found it is a barrier to an open relationship. How can you trade effectively with these growing economies if we start from a position where they perceive we have a negative attitude to their ethnicity and illusions of superiority

Wrong The use of paid trolls and AI is documented. Even though I suspect a paid troll (and sure enough they disappear at 5pm) I still engage as I refuse to allow these arguments to dominate the debate on here

I think engaging and putting alternative arguments is the answer if one suspects a shill. I would point out that I have been accused of being paid to post on these threads before now. I can't say whether it was an attempt to stop me posting on a particular thread, or just an attempt to undermine my credibility and therefore that of my arguments. As I say, I don't deny it goes on but I think people need to be very wary of using it as another way of trying to discredit the opposing view, if there is no evidence to support the poster being anything other than an ordinary poster.

Slightly off the topic but not completely, that Guardian article I linked to - no outright lies but a lot of skating round the truth to paint a particular picture. The Guardian does it all the time, gives a really one sided, selective report of what should be a factual news story to ensure it fits with their party line. So trolls are possibly not the only people willing to be a bit misleading to promote a certain message (which is not to condone, but just to point out it goes on elsewhere too).

The big elephant in the room is the actual success of the eu. If business was booming, if it was able to effectively and swiftly deal with all its problems, if it was a cohesive effective organisation, there would be no need for any of this as it would simply speak for itself wouldn't it.

Yy to the guardian wrong, in my naive youth I read it, but realised a long long time ago as you say it gives one sided heavily slanted view of story. That fits its party line. In fact you can see why some posters who live and die by it get so worked up!!

Wrong Of course it does, all the media does, but at least it falls short of outright lies and making 2+2 =5. It doesn't have to regularly print apologies in microscopic print in the back at the back of the paper like the Mail and Sun.

There should in my opinion be critical thinking / media studies classes in our schools as well as constitutional history etc. to equip people to see that there are different perspectives and agendas in the media and indeed all social media.

No I could not disagree more because the guardian omits facts. Omission is the greatest lie.

Yes clearly needs to be media classes

Omission is the greatest lie
That doesn't even make sense.

"Omission is the greatest lie" Well lets see, if facts are omitted then you can go to other sources and use your judgement to come up with a balanced account, or they will emerge in debate with friends or on mums net . If someone prints an outright lie, like for instance, amongst ones I have had parroted to me "half of all prison inmates are immigrants", "Turkey is about to join the EU" " We will stay in the single market and limit immigration" "British nationals will still be able to travel freely and work in EU countries just like they did in the 70s" "They are going to have an EU army" all of which they claim they read in the Daily Mail or even heard on the BBC, then they are not going to go elsewhere to look because they believe these are true facts, and you can argue against them until you are blue in the face but you are not such a credible source ......

Of course there is absolutely no chance of media studies being introduced in to the general curriculum by a government who has tried to hijack even the history curriculum to tell the story it wants. They do not want an electorate that thinks for itself, they want an electorate that swallows it's version of truth, just like China............

So just to be clear then.....we are happy to rubbish the guardian article, and take any other with opposing views as absolutely correct ?

My problem with the Guardian article is that it completely omits really pertinent facts such as where the grandmother has been living for the last couple of decades.

I don't know whether all the other articles are 100% correct. I am also not talking about the "views" of articles, but whether they are selective about what information they include in order to paint a particular picture. To me, that's not what newspapers should be doing. They should give us the facts and let us make up our own minds what we think, not try to manipulate their readers.

The Guardian does it all the time, gives a really one sided, selective report of what should be a factual news story to ensure it fits with their party line.

As does the Telegraph. People know the slant of both papers, and are at liberty to read the same news in both, and draw their own conclusions.

Signed up, thanks for sharing OP me too OP thanks!

The Guardian article does not omit any of the facts that are also included in the Telegraph article on the subject, and even the Daily Mail only prints in addition that the husband saying that people have said it is a marriage of convenience but that surely 27 years of marriage proves that is not true. None speculate on the state of the marriage but perhaps that is because there is no basis to do that? Perhaps narrow minded people suffering from a lack of empathy think having spent time apart because of conflicting family circumstances is proof enough but objectively, and I am sure in the eyes of the newspapers' legal advisers (even the Daily Mail's ) it is not. Subjectively it is a fact of life for those who live between countries and cultures that families sometimes have to part in the interests of the family, especially when it comes to care of elderly parents and the education of children.

The real issue is not just the inhumanity, and a Home Office that not only did not use its discretion, but resorted to nefarious means to get her out of the country before she could access legal help, and how this makes us look in the eyes of the rest of the world.......

And Amber Rudd has revealed her true nature with her 'fake news' comment on Preston.

Agree with mother's post, Rudd and May are legitimising state terror. How else would you describe incarcerating then removing a carer on a Sunday afternoon with only £15, to a foreign country? Most would be terrified.

Behaviour noted, by many Ms Rudd and May.