This doesn't seem right. Can't imagine what she has done to be given such a serious ban.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-visa-entry-uk

And then we welcome folks like this:

Isis-supporting couple planned Christmas terror attack after meeting on online dating site | The Independent

Poor lady. It sounds like another innocent person slipped through the cracks and nobody is prepared to sort it out.
Shame on them!

You only ever get half the story from those type of articles. I'm not sure what claim the Jamaican lady in the first article thinks she has for Right of Abode. Jamaica became independent the year she moved to the UK. She would've been a Jamaican citizen from that point onwards with 34 years to become a British citizen.

I imagine there is some legitimate issue at the HO, but considering her age, her history in the UK, her family being here, you would think she could be permitted to VISIT ?! Even if there was fear of an overstay, she's 83!

That presumes that she will actually leave. Too many people taking the mickey like this lady.

Could you 100% guarantee that she would leave the UK at the end of this visit?

Red Flags to me from the article
worked for the NHS for 30 years
“I’m 83, and no one knows how long we have to live (family members live in the UK but how many in Jamaica?)
I lived and worked in Great Britain nearly all my life. So she has very strong ties to the UK so what about Jamaica?)
I could understand it if I wanted to live in the UK but I don’t: I just want to visit (OK what evidence did she provide to show this?)
In 2015, the family paid an agent in Jamaica to apply for a visitor’s visa, which was refused for a range of reasons that her lawyer, Sajjad Malik from Humd Solicitors, has described as “baseless”. (Of course he's gonna say that)
The Home Office claims Williams did not submit all the documentation required. Williams’s family and her lawyer deny this. (Again of course he would say this and many BE posters on here have been refused work/study permits PR and other things because of incomplete documentation).

Sure it sounds horrible if reading the article but as Brit In Paris says we don't have the full story so I reserve my thoughts on if it was a good or bad decision.

No mention of what happened to the husband. He may have died between her last visit and the 2014 application thus giving her less incentive to return.

I think this part is key:

You only get an automatic 10-year ban for overstaying, breaching the conditions of a previous visa or deception. I suspect that her agent, with or without her knowledge, misrepresented the facts or provided fraudulent documents.

Oh my god I cant believe you just wrote that are you seriously suggesting that there are some bent lawyers/immigration agents/consultants who would willingly submit false paperwork or misrepresent a client
Let me just check our files to see how many cases we have pending for offences such as this or fake marriages, educational qualifications etc etc etc.

Yes, as an NHS nurse, and as someone who did live here for 30+ years, and has family, she should be given the benefit of doubt. Even if she breaches her visa, and overstays or tries to gain residency, so what. Unless she has some criminal history or something.

I agree. Why does it always have to be what it says on paper and not empathy that is the deciding factor?

Unless I missed something I'm not sure that's the best example of mickey taking.

This is a great example of the sort of thing I've always been in favour of the official saying when they claim breach of confidentiality by revealing anything - albeit in this case they have said something detailed about insufficient application.

I've seen so many "Heartless social security officials expect me to live on £7.39 a week for me and my two kids" sort of nonsense, where a spokesperson says "we can't comment on individual cases" when they could actually add "however, the minimum rate for a single mother and two children is £250 (or whatever) and the only reason for them having less would be where some of their benefits is paid to third parties with their agreement and/or there is some other income."

The thing is, any decent journalist could take a quick look at the rates easily and freely available in so many sources and either include that in the report themselves - better yet, put that to the single mum making the complaint and see if it's still a story she wants told.

Similarly, if it's as BIP says then the writer of the story should be including that bit of research giving the woman and/or her representative the chance to address it.
I can't help but contrast this with those cases that occasionally make the news where some convicted and undesirable scrote (to put it mildly) who is an ideal candidate for being castaway on a desert island somehow is allowed to remain in the UK with associated full rights with a (human) right to life argument.

FL says can you guarantee she will leave. Can you guarantee anyone will leave? What about a "just say no" campaign.

How about a “ humanity” campaign?

I contrasted that myself in the second link (terrorists). Thousands of higher risk individuals are whisked through the immigration system on compassionate grounds, and then a upstanding former resident is treated with the heaviest of hands.

I don't want to cast aspersions because if the family hired the agent could mean that they told porkies or told the agent to tell porkies without her knowledge. Alternatively the agent could have porkie told of his volition.

Previously discussed at length here.

Usually because it is deemed to violate their human rights to deport them as their home country is somewhat ropey or they've lived here long enough to produce a child.