|
|
Post by Peschi on Dec 12, 2007 15:57:48 GMT -1
Watford manager Adrian Boothroyd has slammed the decision by the Asylum and Immigration Authorities to deport midfielder Al Bangura as 'completely ludicrous'.
The Championship leaders have launched an appeal against the decision after the authorities denied the 19-year-old leave to stay in the United Kingdom and ordered a mandatory return to Sierra Leone.
But Boothroyd is hopeful that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith will personally intervene and reverse the 'ridiculous decision'.
He said: 'After the immigration hearing I said that I had faith in British justice but obviously I was totally mistaken because it's a completely ludicrous decision.
'This country, great as it once was, seems to allow anybody in to send benefits wherever they fancy and we have one young man here who pays his taxes, has a fiancee and a newborn son and somebody somewhere thinks it's a good decision to send him back to Sierra Leone. It's ridiculous.
'We've been sent a document with the reasons why he's being deported and they are ridiculous.
'We are appealing and I only hope that rather than these pen-pushers someone higher up - perhaps the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith herself - can look at it and make a decent decision instead of the one we've got.'
Bangura has yet to feature in the league this season after a succession of injuries but made 16 appearances in the Premier League last season as the Hornets were relegated.
He arrived in the UK at the age of 15 and made his debut for the Hornets as a 17-year-old in April 2005.
Bangura became a father just nine days ago and will be forced to leave his girlfriend and son behind if he is deported back to Sierra Leone - where he has no immediate family.
It is also highly unlikely that Bangura would qualify for a work permit to return in the future as he is uncapped and Sierra Leone are outside the top 70 nations in FIFA's rankings.
Boothroyd said: 'Al Bangura came over to this country as a 15-year-old boy.
'He's escaped two civil wars and his father was killed in a civil war.
'But he managed to get a lucky break by being scouted by this football club who could see that he has a massive talent.
'He thought his life had changed for the better and everything had settled down and now he's been told that he has to go back.
'You put faith in the system but very often it comes back to haunt you.
'He's having to be consoled and he's in a state of shock.'
Boothroyd also confirmed that the club have already launched an appeal and hoped that leading figures in the game would help overturn the decision.
He said: 'We have 10 days to appeal and we are in the process of doing that.
'We are trying to drum up support from the relevant people who we hope can help and will be talking to Brian Mawhinney of the Football League.
'We are also trying to speak to Jacqui Smith herself but that is easier said than done.
'We do hope that common sense will prevail and that Al can stay in the country.
'He's a terrific young player who made his debut at 17 in a relegation battle.
'He's very, very talented and is part of our family now who will be a big player for us in the future.
'But this is about more than football now, this is a young man's life who has had some unbelievably nasty things happen to him.
'He then had a chance to be a good role model but someone seems to think it's a good decision to send him back to play on pitches of rubble against teams we've never heard of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fizzy Bread on Dec 12, 2007 16:14:46 GMT -1
Unbelievably idiotic decision  It's a joke. Aidy's totally right about some people who come into this country, sponge of the state and do nothing. Not to mention he'd have to be separated from his family. Makes you think though, I mean, for instance, he's my age and look at everything he's gone through, and gone on to do footballing wise, plus becoming a father.. |
|
|
|
Post by C@V on Dec 12, 2007 16:16:03 GMT -1
Rules is rules. If he doesn't have the right to reside then he should go. Just because he is a little well known should make no difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rulesaints on Dec 12, 2007 16:23:47 GMT -1
"Born in Freetown, Sierra Leone, he fled the country upon the death of his father. His father was a member of the Poro Secret Society, and tradition stated that his son must join upon his death. Not wanting to, he went to Guinea where he met a Frenchman, who took him to France and intended to make Bangura a male prostitute."
He's had his fair share of bad things and this decision is just ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by GeoFox on Dec 12, 2007 17:12:53 GMT -1
Aidy's totally right about some people who come into this country, sponge of the state and do nothing. Not to mention he'd have to be separated from his family. In a very general sense, there are arguments for or against immigration but ones surrounding immigrants sponging off the state are largely a myth, though as in any case there are exceptions. If you look at the composition of the population on jobseekers allowance or some of the major benefits...you will find they are hugely white and British. And in most cases what is stopping them getting jobs is not that they are filled by immigrants. I work in a town which has full employment - there are a lot more jobs than people wanting jobs. But I encounter a lot of people who say they can't get a job and will cite reasons such as 'the immigrants are taking them all up.' Well its probably because they will work harder and be more reliable for the company. Some people are just unemployable and will not get offered jobs because they've been out of work 6 years, are always off 'sick,' have a crap attitude whatever. Its issues that the individual can put right themselves if they really got their arses into gear and did something about their situation frankly. The situation this chap is in is probably not much different to that which faces many many people but I don't know enough about his circumstances or case to realistically comment. |
|
|
|
Post by Fizzy Bread on Dec 12, 2007 17:30:54 GMT -1
Aidy's totally right about some people who come into this country, sponge of the state and do nothing. Not to mention he'd have to be separated from his family. In a very general sense, there are arguments for or against immigration but ones surrounding immigrants sponging off the state are largely a myth, though as in any case there are exceptions. If you look at the composition of the population on jobseekers allowance or some of the major benefits...you will find they are hugely white and British. And in most cases what is stopping them getting jobs is not that they are filled by immigrants. I work in a town which has full employment - there are a lot more jobs than people wanting jobs. But I encounter a lot of people who say they can't get a job and will cite reasons such as 'the immigrants are taking them all up.' Well its probably because they will work harder and be more reliable for the company. Some people are just unemployable and will not get offered jobs because they've been out of work 6 years, are always off 'sick,' have a crap attitude whatever. Its issues that the individual can put right themselves if they really got their arses into gear and did something about their situation frankly. The situation this chap is in is probably not much different to that which faces many many people but I don't know enough about his circumstances or case to realistically comment. Yes I was over generalising and perhaps a little out of context but I did not include being white as having anything to do with it. Immigration is a wider issue though, yes the 'white, working class British' arguably don't have the motivation or whatever to work as hard as perhaps those who have fled a country through war, poverty etc, as their lives depend on what little money they can earn, therefore work harder. My point was simply that he contributes to the economy just like the rest of the legal immigrants and citizens by paying tax. I'm not criticising immigrants, more the bureaucracy that exists to push paper day upon day instead of actually looking at the people they want to remove from the country. |
|
|
|
Post by GeoFox on Dec 12, 2007 17:50:42 GMT -1
In a very general sense, there are arguments for or against immigration but ones surrounding immigrants sponging off the state are largely a myth, though as in any case there are exceptions. If you look at the composition of the population on jobseekers allowance or some of the major benefits...you will find they are hugely white and British. And in most cases what is stopping them getting jobs is not that they are filled by immigrants. I work in a town which has full employment - there are a lot more jobs than people wanting jobs. But I encounter a lot of people who say they can't get a job and will cite reasons such as 'the immigrants are taking them all up.' Well its probably because they will work harder and be more reliable for the company. Some people are just unemployable and will not get offered jobs because they've been out of work 6 years, are always off 'sick,' have a crap attitude whatever. Its issues that the individual can put right themselves if they really got their arses into gear and did something about their situation frankly. The situation this chap is in is probably not much different to that which faces many many people but I don't know enough about his circumstances or case to realistically comment. Yes I was over generalising and perhaps a little out of context but I did not include being white as having anything to do with it. Immigration is a wider issue though, yes the 'white, working class British' arguably don't have the motivation or whatever to work as hard as perhaps those who have fled a country through war, poverty etc, as their lives depend on what little money they can earn, therefore work harder. My point was simply that he contributes to the economy just like the rest of the legal immigrants and citizens by paying tax. I'm not criticising immigrants, more the bureaucracy that exists to push paper day upon day instead of actually looking at the people they want to remove from the country. No you didn't, sorry I was stereotyping! Indeed, there are other sides to the debate of course I just don't think the hoarding benefits one, fuelled by the right wing tabloid press is just not a particularly valid one. He does contribute to the economy and to be honest I have no idea reading that why he is being deported. But if he wasn't a footballer, even with a new born baby, fiancee and an eventful past, I very much doubt many would give a damn. |
|
|
|
Post by ovechkin8 on Dec 12, 2007 18:27:56 GMT -1
Rules are rules.
However in this instance common sense should be applied. He should be given leave to stay until such time as his employment ceases whereupon the situation in Sierra Leone should have become even better or he can move to nearby Nigeria Abidjan perhaps which is very prosperous.
We cannot continue to afford refugee status to everyone whether it be Mexican Mayans being brutalised by the Mexican government for instance otherwise half the world could have the legal right (outdated as it is0 to come here.
However the decision is farcical considering persons captured in Afghanistan & claiming they were on holiday there are allowed to return to this country & then are let out once they arrive & we have Taliban commanders residing here because they are fearful of the Northern Alliance.
It is also doubly farcical considering the number of criminals inc.a serial rapist from Sierra Leone are allowed to stay here & after having served their pathetically short sentences will in all honesty be allowed to stay on despite court orders ordering deportation.
And a lot of benefits do exit the country & many wages earned by many here are sent back home & do not enter the economy here , not to mention all the black marketeering.
There are many costs kept hidden in terms of immigration namely infrastructure costs.
The CBI & large companies love the situation at present. It allows wages to be kept low.Thats all very well for those arriving here. To them its well above what they earn at home but not to those residing here & the standard of living relative to it.
However people that are just lazing around should be made to work but they & those on low wages should get adequate renumeration & tax breaks to make it attractive & stop the ever increasing gap between the haves have nots.
Most of the job being taken up are unskilled & should be filled by people here. And as for importing skilled workers ? Other countries like Germany look to reskill & educate their kids to the nth degree so that they can fill these jobs.
Here the easy solution seems to be recruit from abroad even when its not necessary considering the number of teachers ,nurses & doctors made redundant or looking for posts. Once again no investment in human resources in this country .
Further immigration is unsustainable & not really necessary if investment were made in human resources here.
Ultimately we should be aiming to lower the population here to around forty million not keep increasing it & look for the trend to repeated globally.
The global population is massively above the planets carrying capacity & unsustainable too particularly with increasingly unpredictable growing seasons for farmers.
|
|
|
|
Post by GeoFox on Dec 12, 2007 18:55:56 GMT -1
Some good and reasoned points Ovech.  Have an exalt! Not sure I agree with you on the last bit about being well over the planet's carrying capacity. Malthus said a similar thing over 200 years ago which hasn't proven so after the population has exploded since. And because he wrote before the industrial revolution...since, man's capacity to feed itself is incredible and the technology to do so has grown fast such that what wasn't possible then, is now. This may be more stretched in the future with larger populations, less productive land and advance of the deserts but technology advances too...GM crops are probably the next green revolution. I just don't take such a pessimistic view on it. People going hungry in this country, and throughout the world (even in droughts) are the result of poor distribution of food - i.e. not there not being enough food in material terms. Food supply in times of shortage is a political issue which can be solved. I agree the key restraining factor on immigration is infrastructure. The housing market is stretched and the roads crowded. You have to factor in education, health, prison services etc too. But if these are in place, the British economy will continue to grow strongly with more people coming in and working. Of course these levels cannot be maintained forever because we are an island and our green space will suffer. Its just when you think that point is reached really and I'm inclined to think that at present the benefits outweigh the costs but its getting closer. You have to also obviously think of cultural and social impacts. skilled workers - I think we should be doing quite a bit to retain our graduates etc which will secure the future of the country in that regard. There are quite a lot of government measures through Train to Gain in place to give help to employers wanting to upskill workforces...but they still won't want to risk time and some money doing that when such workers may get trained and poached by another firm. I've put my thoughts on unskilled workers...no easy answer really...I don't think its as easy as getting people who are on jobseekers and benefits back into work and I wouldn't blame an employer making a rational decision to employ immigrant labour. Law exists which should be enforced to keep standards and regulations at a certain standard for all workers. |
|
|
|
Post by ovechkin8 on Dec 15, 2007 7:48:05 GMT -1
Regarding Malthus his doom laden prediction has not come true. Yet.. Science has kept pace with population growth & latterly using hydroponics, using alternative energy sources to extend growing seasons, modified crops ie drought resistance, rust resistance etc etc. But it can only go on for so long. Take a look at the soil structures in many areas. They are exhausted & only replenished by usagfe of fertilizer. The crumb structure & horizons are lost. The changes in ocean currents occurring now are affecting for instance India & China .Without the monsoon seasons here much of the interior of these nations would be desert. The nature of habitats here is already fragmented in many places. Barely 1% of heathland & marshland habitats survive from 1900 & yet these are under pressure. Taking a look at many butterfly species you then get problems in genetic drift to homzygosity & a reduction in vigour & the problem is occuring for species globally. Radical measures need to be enforced to curtail population growth. The planet is at breaking point. As far as I'n concerned if the government were not so obsessed with importing immigrants here there would be no need for all this extra housing. Besides there are some 900000 houses lying derelict in urban areas. But there also needs to be a change in thinking & attitudes. Everyone seems to be obsessed with the idea of having to have their own house often living alone or having multiple properties. Other nations are building housing for workers in cities in irban renewal cutting out commuting & revitalising these areas. Here yet more suburban sprawl. Why not build houses with an extra floor ? More space vertically or extend basements as living /storage space ? Its a geologically stable area. Sadly politicians have zero vision or awareness. I see our local MP whom I have spoken to is a moron of the highest order is set to take up Banguras case. It raises a legal precedent which no doubt unscrupulous lawyers who are leeching public funds to line their pockets will use to make sure others who no longer have leave to stay will use.  |
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Dec 15, 2007 19:38:19 GMT -1
I so wish I had come across this thread earlier. THIS is why this is a quality message board. Well done all - I came on to read more on the Bangura case and to have a little gloat about today's result and find this.
So nice to read Geo's words - a point of view rarely heard amid a wilderness of tabloid driven presumption and ignorance regarding immigration; a highly markettable commodity among our too often xenophobic and intolerant little island culture.
My understanding of demographics is that we are increasingly dependent upon immigrants to not only to fill our job market but to fuel our economy. Were it not for immigration we would be experiencing a population decline and would embarking on a project to deal with our age imbalance. We are living longer and having fewer children. A significant section of our current workforce is nearing retirement and increasingly financially able to take it. We are not replenishing our workforce at a sufficient speed.
In the meantime, we have massive cultural problems with our so-called indigenous population as boys underachieve at school and it certainly isn't my impression that our city centres and our police forces are tied up with the immigrant population falling out onto the streets every Friday and Saturday night. I don't mean this as too reactionary or conservative a point, but we do have issues to address in ourselves before we decide to blame "alien forces".
In the meantime, elsewhere in the world, populations explode and pressurise resources and environments directly because of the abject poverty which we to some extent create but to a very real extent perpetuate through our tolerance of it. Whilst the young population multiplies in many areas of the world and the opportunities go unfilled in another, the movement of people to address the imbalance is inevitable. If we do not like all of the consequences then we should be far sighted enough to work to address the problems and find a cure at source.
Regarding the Bangura case, some "rules are rules" because public opinion drives the politics that sets the rules. You do unto others as you would have others do unto you. The day that we turn away a human being and tolerate the intolerable and unnecessary impact that this will have upon his life and his family's then we should be deeply ashamed of what we have become. The benefits of this case may just be that a lot of attention will be given to it and perhaps, at last, the phrase "asylum seeker" will be seen to be a description of a victim rather than its common use as an alternative word for an "illegal immigrant". It seems inconceivable in our popular myth driven culture regarding immigrants that the words "asylum seeker" can be preceded by anything other than the word "bogus" and I hope this case study provides an opportunity to drive that out.
|
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Dec 15, 2007 19:44:07 GMT -1
If you're interested in such matters (and sorry for still going on ut teaching about this is a large part of what I do for a living - and yes I do work hard to keep my own opinions out of what I teach children) but these two YouTube links are at least food for thought:
|
|
|
|
Post by mortontheblade on Dec 16, 2007 12:08:37 GMT -1
would it be over-simplifying things for watford to just send him out on loan to another EU based Club until he gets a passport there?  its what Liverpool did with Mark Gonzalez (sp?) Chelsea did with Alex (hush hush  ) We (Sheffield United) even have a deal with a Belgian club, by which we sent certain non-EU players to play with them... |
|
|
|
Post by Lollipop on Dec 16, 2007 20:16:20 GMT -1
Quite a lengthy feature article about him in the Guardian supplement magazine yesterday. An interesting read!
|
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Dec 16, 2007 20:33:19 GMT -1
Rules is rules. If he doesn't have the right to reside then he should go. Just because he is a little well known should make no difference. so, they let him stay as a teenager, give him a national insurance number, let him pay his 40% tax and contribute to all of watfords 'commmunity projects' and charity commitments then tell him 12 days after the birth of his child (with an english mother - his girlfriend) that he must go home to a country where he is wanted dead?? I dont care if he's a footballer, or a £5.90 an hour cleaner - if they are contributing in a positive way to our country then they should be allowed to stay under a new rule called 'common fucking sense'! |
|
|
|
Post by shinny on Dec 16, 2007 20:33:38 GMT -1
This is a stupid decision
Is there a petition yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Dec 16, 2007 21:01:54 GMT -1
I dont care if he's a footballer, or a £5.90 an hour cleaner - if they are contributing in a positive way to our country then they should be allowed to stay under a new rule called 'common fucking sense'! Agreed entirely. I've always maintained that I'm happy for anyone who's willing to come to the country and pull their weight to stay. Those who just wanna leech and mooch can fuck off elsewhere - and that includes native Brits too. |
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Dec 16, 2007 21:16:04 GMT -1
"Common sense". Those are the words I was looking for. Can we import more of that too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Dec 16, 2007 21:22:51 GMT -1
"Common sense". Those are the words I was looking for. Can we import more of that too? I think, nowadays, a more apt term would be, "Uncommon sense" |
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Dec 16, 2007 23:49:47 GMT -1
|
|
It's a joke. Aidy's totally right about some people who come into this country, sponge of the state and do nothing. Not to mention he'd have to be separated from his family. 
Have an exalt!
)
