Refugee Refuses High Rise Flat - Takes Council To Court - Can't Speak Any English

First topic message reminder :

7th March 2014

Who gave this non-English-speaking REFUGEE the idea that she can take the council to court???

Due to give birth too - how timely.

A refugee took a council to the High Court when she turned down their offer of a high rise council house claiming she was scared of heights. Somalian Naima Mohamoud, who does not speak any English, claims she is separated from her husband and said she was thrown out of friend's house when she told them she was due to give birth. She applied for council accommodation and signed a form agreeing that if she refused an offer of a home she would not get another. Ms Mahamoud was given the chance to move into a tower block, by Birmingham City Council.


http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/#sthash.01Mhvqns.dpuf

Yea, but you say a lot of things that we know are complete crap and you can't produce any evidence for.

Your own post said that 75% of asylum claims are rejected.


is that because they have genuine needs and reasons to claim or because their claims are completely baseless?



Take your time.....!


I also provided an example of asylum claiming bullshit.


what have you provided except for bleeding heart limp wristed denials?

Tommy Monk wrote:Your own post said that 75% of asylum claims are rejected.


is that because they have genuine needs and reasons to claim or because their claims are completely baseless?



Take your time.....!


I also provided an example of asylum claiming bullshit.


what have you provided except for bleeding heart limp wristed denials?

So asylum seekers are now economic migrants, really?


Still not grasping how a country sets is rules on who can stay, that does not mean they are bogus, which again you fail badly on the law on this yet again/

So your whole argument is one big whooping poor association fallacy based again not on any personal knowledge or knowing any asylum seekers or refugees yourself but prejudice and hate

On, my whole argument is based on common sense, facts and honesty.


75% of asylum claimants don't get turned down because they have genuine reasons.

Tommy Monk wrote:On, my whole argument is based on common sense, facts and honesty.


75% of asylum claimants don't get turned down because they have genuine reasons.

No it is based on a system to rule on who gets to stay again showing it odes not prove they are genuine.

Again no asylum seeker is bogus, they seek asylum, whether it is granted is another matter, something you fail to comprehend

75% of asylum claimants get refused because they are full of shit!


And I suspect many of those who get accepted are full of shit too!

Tommy Monk wrote:75% of asylum claimants get refused because they are full of shit!


And I suspect many of those who get accepted are full of shit too!

Hilarious, so they get refused on what grounds?


Does that make them bogus?

If I apply for a licence and yet cannot prove aspects required for this licence does it make my claim bogus or not acceptable?

Take your time on this as will love to make you look a dumbass

FAIL

Tommy Monk wrote:FAIL

THAT IS DIDGE'S FIRST NAME...  

Tommy Monk wrote:FAIL

Yes your posts are an epic fail and still we have no evidence for your claims, just hate and prejudice is all you can offer

75% refused was in Sassy's post.

I posted an example of a bullshit asylum seeker.


There are many more examples if you care to see them rather than to ignore as part of your denial complex.



FAIL

Tommy Monk wrote:75% refused was in Sassy's post.

I posted an example of a bullshit asylum seeker.


There are many more examples if you care to see them rather than to ignore as part of your denial complex.



FAIL

Still not understanding the legal system and that legally there is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker, hilarious and again uses are set standard for our country on those refused..

So yes again an epic fail from you





There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach.
It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. (United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)
The top ten refugee producing countries in 2011 all have poor human rights records or ongoing conflict. Asylum seekers are fleeing from these conflicts and abuses, looking for safety.
(UNHCR, 2011 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons, 2011)
In 2011, worldwide, 17,700 children applied for asylum having arrived in the country of refuge alone, with no parent or guardian. 1,277 of these applications were made in the UK. Many of them come from Afghanistan, which was described by UNICEF in 2010 as “the world’s most dangerous place to be a child”.
Many refugees and asylum seekers hope to return home at some point in the future, if the situation in their country has improved.
The 1951 Refugee Convention guarantees everybody the right to apply for asylum. It has saved millions of lives. No country has ever withdrawn from it.



DOH

So evidence again fro Matti?


Zero


And yet all those granted access to stay here leaves him with no answer also, hilarious when people of hate argue so badly with prejudice


Game over yet again

The UK asylum system is strictly controlled and complex. It is very difficult to get asylum. The decision-making process is extremely tough and many people’s claims are rejected.
Initial Home Office decision-making remains poor. In 2011, the courts overturned Home Office decisions in 26% of asylum appeals. (Home Office asylum statistics fourth quarter 2011)
There is a particular problem with decisions on women’s claims. A 2011 study found 50% of negative decisions were overturned by the courts. (Asylum Aid, Unsustainable: The quality of initial decision-making in women’s asylum claims, 2011)
There were 19,804 asylum applications to the UK in 2011. This the second lowest level in 10 years. (Home Office quarterly statistical summary, asylum statistics 2011)
Since 2005 most people recognised as refugees are only given permission to stay in the UK for five years and can have their case reviewed at any time. This makes it difficult for them to make decisions about their future, to find work and make definite plans for their life in the UK.
The Home Office detains around 1,000 children seeking asylum with their families each year. (Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Intercollegiate Briefing Paper: Significant Harm – the effects of administrative detention on children, young people and their families, 2009)

Thus just because this country turns down people, again does not mean they are not fleeing persecution, hence why Matti struggles to understand anything bless him

Asylum is just a method used by many to try to stay in this country.


Many don't claim asylum on arrival after being here illegally and working etc, but only make a claim when caught and faced with being deported.


Most are not fleeing genuine persecution, and don't seek refuge in the first safe country they get to.


Most just use the system as a means of immigration here where they would otherwise be refused.