10 ms·

the BBC article lists the facts, which the Guardian chose to omit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574 - given indefi

by blibble 10y ago

the BBC article lists the facts, which the Guardian chose to omit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574 - given indefinite leave in 1992 to remain in the UK after her marriage - but this lapsed because she lived outside the UK for more than two years - came back to the UK several times for short visits. She lived in the UK in 2003 until January 2005 and says that during this time she made numerous applications for leave to remain, which were all rejected [overstay] - Mrs Clennell eventually entered the UK in 2013 and made two applications for leave to remain - both were rejected, as was her final application in 2016 [overstay] - "... speaking to the BBC's Fiona Walker from the Scottish detention centre, she said: "I knew that when I got indefinite leave to remain I can't stay outside of the country for more than two years. "But then my husband was with me, he came to live with me for five years in Singapore." this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times

johansch 10y ago
It's sad how deep the Guardian has gone down the rabbithole in terms of writing exactly what lifestyle leftists are prepared to pay for (and nothing else). I guess I can sort of understand them from a financial point of view, but I don't really respect them. All of this is btw a consequence of mindless adherence to conversion analysis (A/B testing). I'm pretty sure the Guardian does this, just as well as I am sure that Fox News does it. (Yeah, I don't like mindless adherence to A/B-testing results. I still think there is a place for human and singular thought in design.)
- nvarsj 10y ago
  I'm not sure what's happened at the Guardian the last couple years. I guess my view of them was positive after the Snowden revelations. But esp since brexit they have been producing a huge amount of rubbish, with link bait titles and outright lies or vastly exaggerated claims (so many of these - for example, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/23/queen-gives-theresa-may-royal-seal-of-disapproval-over-brexit https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/23/queen-gives-...). You really can't believe anything written on the Guardian anymore.
  - johansch 10y ago
    I'm sure their core subscribers are really satisfied about their reporting. ;( News really is a hard nut to crack; how do you get people to pay for news reporting that "offend" them?
    - johansch 10y ago
      Before anyone says public service: I would point to Sweden as a counter example. Swedish public radio/TV (modelled after the BBC - there's a license fee for owning a TV receiver) used to be relatively benign, although leftist-leaning. Still, they had solid, smart and honest people who did good reporting. It used to be a very prestigeous place to work for anyone, regardless of political leaning. And there really wasn't much more money to be made elsewhere unless you started your own company. The past decade has been depressing. As the Internet has killed the newspapers and quality reporting has ceased to pay well, our public TV has become a propaganda organ for low-paid activists. Somehow 99% of these people are leftist. Pretty much all of the younger journalists at our public TV and radio (SVT and SR) are going into their jobs out of a (again, 99% of the time leftist) political conviction. (Smarter and/or less idealistic people get a job in the private sector.) In recent years this created a dangerous scenario: a) You have real humans, living in an actual society. They observe their environment. They do notice the crimes their friends and neighbors are victims of. b) You have the public service media constantly stating/arguing for how everything is fine. Obviously this dissonance creates a massive (and justifiably deserved) mistrust in "media".
      - DaUR 10y ago
        This is why the only profession that I'll actually be excited to see replaced by AI is journalism. A few tens of thousands of people out of their (pretty low-paying) jobs, but journalism is so utterly crucial to democracy and societal stability that that could only be celebrated. AI-journalism would be much less expensive, so expect more non-profits delivering high-quality, unbiased journalism thanks to it. A media outlet is only as good as its most mediocre journalist. Open-sourcing and reproducible builds (articles) based on that source code would fix the trust issue.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  On the other hand, there's been a number of cases (IME) where the Telegraph and even the BBC have omitted a fact and the Guardian was one of the only papers to print it in an otherwise almost identical article, changing the reader's viewpoint entirely. There's no good news source as far as this behaviour goes.
- BeetleB 10y ago
  >It's sad how deep the Guardian has gone down the rabbithole in terms of writing exactly what lifestyle leftists are prepared to pay for (and nothing else). Keep in mind that this was not a news article. It was in the Opinions section authored by the woman herself. Pick any major news outlet and you'll easily find problems with the opinion pieces.
  - johansch 10y ago
    a) That's a good point. Good catch. It does sort of invalidate some of my claims... if it hadn't been for: b) Wow, they really don't go out of their way marking their opinion pieces as such, do they? I would say it's way, way too understated in terms of typical reader patterns. Basically the headline should be "Opinion: x". Instead it's hidden in a topleft corner. (Maybe they got more conversions after they placed the opinion marker so that people wouldn't see it?)
    - jakobegger 10y ago
      Re b) The article was written in first person. The title of the page is "Irene Clennel: I was forcibly deported (...)". It's very clear that this is a report from the point of view of the victim. There is no conspiracy here.
    - quirkafleeg 10y ago
      Or maybe they think having the word "opinion" in plain sight twice immediately above the headline, and again in the title of the page, is clear enough for most people.
      - johansch 10y ago
        If you have any experience in user experience design you will understand that was not designed to be obvious. What you say "twice immediately above the headline" you appear to mean: - in a quite small font size relative to the headline - horizontally speaking separate from the article itself (which given its fat headline is what draws the attention) Also: Who the ____ looks at HTML titles in the source code? This is what I see in Chrome: "Irene Clannell: I was forc..."
- quirkafleeg 10y ago
  > It's sad how deep the Guardian has gone down the rabbithole in terms of writing exactly what lifestyle leftists- [snip] It's sad that posts like this, which don't even remotely attempt to address the subject, but simply use a link to the Guardian as an excuse for political axe-grinding, are given the time of day at HN.
  - johansch 10y ago
    Well, if you dig slightly deeper you'll find that I do address the Guardian's publishing habits specifically.
    - quirkafleeg 10y ago
      This submission isn't about the Guardian's publishing habits. That's something you brought up a way to repeatedly grind an axe about "leftists" - using the word no fewer than five times already in three posts - in this thread.
      - johansch 10y ago
        Not sure what to say except that it may be quite natural for this word to come up when discussing the Guardian anno 2017?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
fictioncircle 10y ago
> - given indefinite leave in 1992 to remain in the UK after her marriage - but this lapsed because she lived outside the UK for more than two years > this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times You feel trying to take care of dying parents is "gaming the system"? > Clennell was given indefinite leave to remain in the UK after marrying John in 1990 but spent periods back in Singapore caring for her parents before they died.
- vilmosi 10y ago
  Don't get me wrong, it's terrible and unnecessary that this happened to her, but it's not like she didn't know beforehand this would happen or be able to avoid it.
  - stickfigure 10y ago
    That sounds a little bit like: "It's not like my wife doesn't know how to behave so that I won't punch her."
    - DaUR 10y ago
      1. Analogies don't contribute to a debate since they're not based in reason, but in confirmation bias. You're trying to transpose the emotional connotations from one situation to a completely unrelated one. 2. She admits herself that she knew she couldn't stay out of the country for 2 years. There was a law, which she was aware of, and chose not to follow.
gozur88 10y ago
In the US if you overstay that's a big black mark against you when you try to get a new visa. I have to believe the UK is similar.
pmiller2 10y ago
>this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? Surely that should automatically qualify one for at least permanent resident status.
- Kalium 10y ago
  A number of civilized nations have encountered what they deemed to be problems stemming from automatic family visas. This is one way to respond.
- BeetleB 10y ago
  >Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? The US? Reminds me of the Syrian American guy I met. He was a US citizen who moved to Syria in the early 2000's. Got married there and had kids. Then when the civil war occurred, he returned to the US, but could not bring his family. His kids were US citizens, but he had never done the paperwork. So he set about doing it. Before too long they could enter the US. But his wife? That's not "automatic". Even though her husband and kids were US citizens, she had to go through the whole motions of applying, etc. Not allowed to come visit the US in the interim. As a result, his kids did not come to the US - they couldn't leave her alone.
  - refurb 10y ago
    but he had never done the paperwork Sounds like he dropped the ball.
    - jakobegger 10y ago
      A bit of compassion for someone fleeing the war would be appropriate.
    - BeetleB 10y ago
      >Sounds like he dropped the ball. You're actually making my point for me: The US requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa to come and live with them. If it didn't, there would be no ball to drop. (Never mind that you also quote the part that is irrelevant to his spouse).
tobltobs 10y ago
What baffles me is that in the new Brexit UK it seems not to be enough to be married for 27 years to a British citizen to get a permanent visa or even the citizenship.
- blibble 10y ago
  UK citizenship is granted by residence, not marriage. she had indefinite leave to remain (permanent residency), the only condition to keep it is you have to visit the UK at least once every 2 years, she then spent 8 years outside the UK without visiting, so she lost it. she had the option of taking UK citizenship after five years residence, but chose not to as Singapore doesn't allow dual citizenship. she wouldn't have been granted government accommodation in Singapore as she would be a foreign national the UK border force is literally blameless here, if anything they were over-compassionate in granting her another visa after she overstayed previously, which lead to the eventual detention and deportation
- DaUR 10y ago
  Except she "knew that when I got indefinite leave to remain I can't stay outside of the country for more than two years". This is what she, herself, said. The title seems almost cynical when she could have avoided this whole ordeal had she followed procedure, which she admits she was familiar with. Also, blaming this on "Brexit UK" is transparently inflammatory since the requests for leave were made, and rejected, a decade before Brexit was even a question.
s_kilk 10y ago
Question: in what way is the public interest being served by ejecting this person from the country?
- pklausler 10y ago
  Respect for the rule of law and the observance of due process, maybe.
  - s_kilk 10y ago
    And what is the purpose of the law if not to benefit the people? Must we really defend the arbitrary malice of a system which inflicts harm for no benefit?
    - pklausler 10y ago
      If you don't like the law, change the law.
      - metasean 10y ago
        The first step of which should include asking questions about the law. Why does it exist? What prompted its creation in the first place? Does it meet its original goals? What does it inadvertantly do? How does it fail? etc.
danboarder 10y ago
Horrible bureaucracy. How can we create a world where citizens can move about the globe freely?
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  Citizens are members of countries, not the planet. It would be more accurate to say "people" instead of citizens - the word itself implies nationality
- purple-again 10y ago
  After we agree on a universal set of principles and how/who/when to enforce them. So never.
  - danboarder 10y ago
    Never say never. We have birds that migrate from Canada to Chile without papers. One day people will be able to travel freely as well.
- johansch 10y ago
  I suspect a lot of the leftists that support abolishing borders would not like the consequences of such a policy. Really, quite a lot of them tend to sustain their lives on tax-funded sources. It would be fun to watch them panic and starve though ;)
mwj 10y ago
It's not really a textbook case though is it? She's not some student over here to study "English" at some dodgy language course while working in a bar. She's married 20 odd years with British born children...
nyrulez 10y ago
This seems to be the problem: ""Initially when I applied for indefinite leave to remain I got it no problem at all. So I thought when you're married down here, you're entitled to be here. "The kids are born here, my husband is from this country, so I don't see what the issue is, but they keep rejecting all the applications."" Why she never got a citizenship is something I don't understand. I used to think marrying a citizen puts you on the path towards that but may not be the case in the UK. She definitely assumed things here that were not right and that came back to haunt her.
epistasis 10y ago
>this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times Do you view this type of situation as one where it is appropriate to use restraints?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by blibble 10y ago

johansch 10y ago

It's sad how deep the Guardian has gone down the rabbithole in terms of writing exactly what lifestyle leftists are prepared to pay for (and nothing else). I guess I can sort of understand them from a financial point of view, but I don't really respect them. All of this is btw a consequence of mindless adherence to conversion analysis (A/B testing). I'm pretty sure the Guardian does this, just as well as I am sure that Fox News does it. (Yeah, I don't like mindless adherence to A/B-testing results. I still think there is a place for human and singular thought in design.)

nvarsj 10y ago
I'm not sure what's happened at the Guardian the last couple years. I guess my view of them was positive after the Snowden revelations. But esp since brexit they have been producing a huge amount of rubbish, with link bait titles and outright lies or vastly exaggerated claims (so many of these - for example, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/23/queen-gives-theresa-may-royal-seal-of-disapproval-over-brexit https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/23/queen-gives-...). You really can't believe anything written on the Guardian anymore.
- johansch 10y ago
  I'm sure their core subscribers are really satisfied about their reporting. ;( News really is a hard nut to crack; how do you get people to pay for news reporting that "offend" them?
  - johansch 10y ago
    Before anyone says public service: I would point to Sweden as a counter example. Swedish public radio/TV (modelled after the BBC - there's a license fee for owning a TV receiver) used to be relatively benign, although leftist-leaning. Still, they had solid, smart and honest people who did good reporting. It used to be a very prestigeous place to work for anyone, regardless of political leaning. And there really wasn't much more money to be made elsewhere unless you started your own company. The past decade has been depressing. As the Internet has killed the newspapers and quality reporting has ceased to pay well, our public TV has become a propaganda organ for low-paid activists. Somehow 99% of these people are leftist. Pretty much all of the younger journalists at our public TV and radio (SVT and SR) are going into their jobs out of a (again, 99% of the time leftist) political conviction. (Smarter and/or less idealistic people get a job in the private sector.) In recent years this created a dangerous scenario: a) You have real humans, living in an actual society. They observe their environment. They do notice the crimes their friends and neighbors are victims of. b) You have the public service media constantly stating/arguing for how everything is fine. Obviously this dissonance creates a massive (and justifiably deserved) mistrust in "media".
    - DaUR 10y ago
      This is why the only profession that I'll actually be excited to see replaced by AI is journalism. A few tens of thousands of people out of their (pretty low-paying) jobs, but journalism is so utterly crucial to democracy and societal stability that that could only be celebrated. AI-journalism would be much less expensive, so expect more non-profits delivering high-quality, unbiased journalism thanks to it. A media outlet is only as good as its most mediocre journalist. Open-sourcing and reproducible builds (articles) based on that source code would fix the trust issue.
vertex-four 10y ago
On the other hand, there's been a number of cases (IME) where the Telegraph and even the BBC have omitted a fact and the Guardian was one of the only papers to print it in an otherwise almost identical article, changing the reader's viewpoint entirely. There's no good news source as far as this behaviour goes.
BeetleB 10y ago
>It's sad how deep the Guardian has gone down the rabbithole in terms of writing exactly what lifestyle leftists are prepared to pay for (and nothing else). Keep in mind that this was not a news article. It was in the Opinions section authored by the woman herself. Pick any major news outlet and you'll easily find problems with the opinion pieces.
- johansch 10y ago
  a) That's a good point. Good catch. It does sort of invalidate some of my claims... if it hadn't been for: b) Wow, they really don't go out of their way marking their opinion pieces as such, do they? I would say it's way, way too understated in terms of typical reader patterns. Basically the headline should be "Opinion: x". Instead it's hidden in a topleft corner. (Maybe they got more conversions after they placed the opinion marker so that people wouldn't see it?)
  - jakobegger 10y ago
    Re b) The article was written in first person. The title of the page is "Irene Clennel: I was forcibly deported (...)". It's very clear that this is a report from the point of view of the victim. There is no conspiracy here.
  - quirkafleeg 10y ago
    Or maybe they think having the word "opinion" in plain sight twice immediately above the headline, and again in the title of the page, is clear enough for most people.
    - johansch 10y ago
      If you have any experience in user experience design you will understand that was not designed to be obvious. What you say "twice immediately above the headline" you appear to mean: - in a quite small font size relative to the headline - horizontally speaking separate from the article itself (which given its fat headline is what draws the attention) Also: Who the ____ looks at HTML titles in the source code? This is what I see in Chrome: "Irene Clannell: I was forc..."
quirkafleeg 10y ago
> It's sad how deep the Guardian has gone down the rabbithole in terms of writing exactly what lifestyle leftists- [snip] It's sad that posts like this, which don't even remotely attempt to address the subject, but simply use a link to the Guardian as an excuse for political axe-grinding, are given the time of day at HN.
- johansch 10y ago
  Well, if you dig slightly deeper you'll find that I do address the Guardian's publishing habits specifically.
  - quirkafleeg 10y ago
    This submission isn't about the Guardian's publishing habits. That's something you brought up a way to repeatedly grind an axe about "leftists" - using the word no fewer than five times already in three posts - in this thread.
    - johansch 10y ago
      Not sure what to say except that it may be quite natural for this word to come up when discussing the Guardian anno 2017?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

fictioncircle 10y ago

> - given indefinite leave in 1992 to remain in the UK after her marriage - but this lapsed because she lived outside the UK for more than two years > this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times You feel trying to take care of dying parents is "gaming the system"? > Clennell was given indefinite leave to remain in the UK after marrying John in 1990 but spent periods back in Singapore caring for her parents before they died.

vilmosi 10y ago
Don't get me wrong, it's terrible and unnecessary that this happened to her, but it's not like she didn't know beforehand this would happen or be able to avoid it.
- stickfigure 10y ago
  That sounds a little bit like: "It's not like my wife doesn't know how to behave so that I won't punch her."
  - DaUR 10y ago
    1. Analogies don't contribute to a debate since they're not based in reason, but in confirmation bias. You're trying to transpose the emotional connotations from one situation to a completely unrelated one. 2. She admits herself that she knew she couldn't stay out of the country for 2 years. There was a law, which she was aware of, and chose not to follow.

gozur88 10y ago

In the US if you overstay that's a big black mark against you when you try to get a new visa. I have to believe the UK is similar.

pmiller2 10y ago

>this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? Surely that should automatically qualify one for at least permanent resident status.

Kalium 10y ago
A number of civilized nations have encountered what they deemed to be problems stemming from automatic family visas. This is one way to respond.
BeetleB 10y ago
>Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? The US? Reminds me of the Syrian American guy I met. He was a US citizen who moved to Syria in the early 2000's. Got married there and had kids. Then when the civil war occurred, he returned to the US, but could not bring his family. His kids were US citizens, but he had never done the paperwork. So he set about doing it. Before too long they could enter the US. But his wife? That's not "automatic". Even though her husband and kids were US citizens, she had to go through the whole motions of applying, etc. Not allowed to come visit the US in the interim. As a result, his kids did not come to the US - they couldn't leave her alone.
- refurb 10y ago
  but he had never done the paperwork Sounds like he dropped the ball.
  - jakobegger 10y ago
    A bit of compassion for someone fleeing the war would be appropriate.
  - BeetleB 10y ago
    >Sounds like he dropped the ball. You're actually making my point for me: The US requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa to come and live with them. If it didn't, there would be no ball to drop. (Never mind that you also quote the part that is irrelevant to his spouse).

tobltobs 10y ago

What baffles me is that in the new Brexit UK it seems not to be enough to be married for 27 years to a British citizen to get a permanent visa or even the citizenship.

blibble 10y ago
UK citizenship is granted by residence, not marriage. she had indefinite leave to remain (permanent residency), the only condition to keep it is you have to visit the UK at least once every 2 years, she then spent 8 years outside the UK without visiting, so she lost it. she had the option of taking UK citizenship after five years residence, but chose not to as Singapore doesn't allow dual citizenship. she wouldn't have been granted government accommodation in Singapore as she would be a foreign national the UK border force is literally blameless here, if anything they were over-compassionate in granting her another visa after she overstayed previously, which lead to the eventual detention and deportation
DaUR 10y ago
Except she "knew that when I got indefinite leave to remain I can't stay outside of the country for more than two years". This is what she, herself, said. The title seems almost cynical when she could have avoided this whole ordeal had she followed procedure, which she admits she was familiar with. Also, blaming this on "Brexit UK" is transparently inflammatory since the requests for leave were made, and rejected, a decade before Brexit was even a question.

s_kilk 10y ago

Question: in what way is the public interest being served by ejecting this person from the country?

pklausler 10y ago
Respect for the rule of law and the observance of due process, maybe.
- s_kilk 10y ago
  And what is the purpose of the law if not to benefit the people? Must we really defend the arbitrary malice of a system which inflicts harm for no benefit?
  - pklausler 10y ago
    If you don't like the law, change the law.
    - metasean 10y ago
      The first step of which should include asking questions about the law. Why does it exist? What prompted its creation in the first place? Does it meet its original goals? What does it inadvertantly do? How does it fail? etc.

danboarder 10y ago

Horrible bureaucracy. How can we create a world where citizens can move about the globe freely?

1_2__3 10y ago
Citizens are members of countries, not the planet. It would be more accurate to say "people" instead of citizens - the word itself implies nationality
purple-again 10y ago
After we agree on a universal set of principles and how/who/when to enforce them. So never.
- danboarder 10y ago
  Never say never. We have birds that migrate from Canada to Chile without papers. One day people will be able to travel freely as well.
johansch 10y ago
I suspect a lot of the leftists that support abolishing borders would not like the consequences of such a policy. Really, quite a lot of them tend to sustain their lives on tax-funded sources. It would be fun to watch them panic and starve though ;)

mwj 10y ago

It's not really a textbook case though is it? She's not some student over here to study "English" at some dodgy language course while working in a bar. She's married 20 odd years with British born children...

nyrulez 10y ago

This seems to be the problem: ""Initially when I applied for indefinite leave to remain I got it no problem at all. So I thought when you're married down here, you're entitled to be here. "The kids are born here, my husband is from this country, so I don't see what the issue is, but they keep rejecting all the applications."" Why she never got a citizenship is something I don't understand. I used to think marrying a citizen puts you on the path towards that but may not be the case in the UK. She definitely assumed things here that were not right and that came back to haunt her.

epistasis 10y ago

>this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times Do you view this type of situation as one where it is appropriate to use restraints?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]