vikingsail

I agree and urge all to read the decision. It appears that we were all had! I'm not suggesting that the final outcome was wrong in allowing leave to remain but it does seem that the approach taken by the 92 year and family was arrogant and displayed entitlement and disregard for the law in my opinion and at risk of inflaming a moot point again.

There is and was a way to resolve this properly they just did not want to be bovered, Innit! Something that is oft aimed at the young but clearly is alive and well at all segments of society.

Applying the law as was had to be done to stem the flow of immigrants so often complained about on here. A discretionary decision to stay is just that discretionary.

BritInParis

'Widely reported' but likely incorrect. If we presume that the daughter was born in SA and lost her SA citizenship by naturalising as a British citizen at a later point then she would still have the right to permanent residency in SA.

teejaydee

Here is the latest move in this case:

Myrtle Cothill deportation petition handed to Number 10 - BBC News

SanDiegogirl

I like this sentence:

Along with the petition, Mrs Cothill handed over a letter from her lawyer to Home Secretary Theresa May, which said there were "wider human rights implications for British citizens... wishing to look after vulnerable relatives".

If British citizens took full responsibility for their aged, non Brit vulnerable relatives when they entered the UK there would be no need for these dependent adult immigration rules to be in place.

However, even though Mrs Cothill sold her South African property prior to going to the UK, she used the NHS throughout her stay; even though as a visitor she was not eligible to do so. Presumably her family are using said money to support her now?

There have been several posts on this forum lately about British citizens returning to the UK after a lifetime of being away. The first thing that is asked is "what benefits can they expect"?

While one is sympathetic to aged folk with little resources should they automatically expect that the UK takes them in and provides for them?

They left the UK when it suited them to take opportunities abroad, and are only now returning because the UK can provide more in resources than their adopted countries can.

rebeccajo

I say good for Myrtle and family getting the petition to Number 10.

I can remember a time on BritishExpats (not that long ago) when expats returning from abroad were given big 'congrats' and 'welcome homes". A particular case comes to mind of a man and his wife returning specifically because the wife's health was failing. BE members were writing in the thread saying it was smart to return home to the arms of the motherland, where they wouldn't have to worry. BE members were saying they would do the same if they were in his position.

Now members write things like "they left the UK when it suited them to take opportunities abroad, and are only now returning because the UK can provide more in resources than their adopted countries can."

*shrugs* When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

spouse of scouse

If a British citizen is moving back to the UK, I think it's pretty understandable that they wish to get a clear understanding of all such a move entails, including what their legal entitlement is to any form of financial/health/housing assistance.

Sorry SanDiegoGirl, but I see a dichotomy between being censorious of Mrs Cothill for not adhering to immigration legislation, and also being censorious of people who are legitimately entering the UK and are simply trying to ascertain their legal entitlements.

If we consider as sacrosanct legislation that governs people entering the UK, then should we really be having a go at people who are actually adhering to this legislation?

SanDiegogirl

I did not express myself very well......I am being censorious of all people who enter the UK (whether returning Brits or not) who do so wanting to know what their legal entitlement is for financial/health/housing assistance - regardless, many times, of them living whole lifetimes in other countries and "to coin a well known phrase", not paying into the system.

From reading several posts on this forum the only reason some are returning is because the UK will provide them with state assistance whereas their adoptive country won't.

I don't see why anyone who has lived abroad all their lives should be "legally entitled" to anything. More fool the British taxpayer.

rebeccajo

If they are a British citizen, then I think the UK Supreme Court might disagree with you.

DigitalGhost

That actually disgusts me. When I read the headline I hoped that it was going to be a petition demanding her deportation for being a criminal. I should have obviously known better where this ridiculous country is concerned.

Madness. Absolute madness.

vikingsail

I think what upsets me about this case is the the obfuscation it creates between who is and who is not entitled or more specifically who should be entitled. Myrtle Cothill is trading on goodwill, namely ours as expats. She is not a Brit citizen and had a perfectly viable option to pursue to settle in the UK, she just did not want to use the appropriate method and forum, instead thinking she could just do it her way, having lost her appeal. Now she has essentially leaned on discretionary decision making with the 'poor me' routine, and it 'lumps' us all as expats in together. Thus we become the enemy to those in the UK. I think anyone who is a British citizen should be entitled to all the rights and benefits that contains, not to be selectively reduced or expanded dependent on public opinion. Thankfully as quoted in this thread the highest court in the land still agrees with that.

scot47

On another forum I have seen a discussion with posters suggesting that this woman should be allowed to remain because of her ethnicity. White folks should be allowed in - "Our Kith and Kin" yada-yada-yada




It seems that openly racist discourse is now permissible !

Pulaski

It is possible, in deed likely, that the court of public opinion trumps the Supreme Court.
I agree, but from the point of view of the welfare state, they are no different from life-long UK residents who deliberately spend their savings shortly after they retire so that they qualify for income support and subsidized housing.

BristolUK

If that is the reason they no longer have the savings, they can be deemed as still having the savings. Once upon a time it might at least have been difficult to know the savings existed in the first place.

Not anymore. It's almost routine these days.

That aside, you'd have to be pretty dim to put yourself in a position where you are dependent upon benefits these days.

formula

That won't fly. The response was clear on the website that the government set up in 2010, that nobody wants to see their elderly parents/grandparents having to compete for NHS resourses with older immigrants who have given little or nothing to the UK. In 2012 the rules were changed to stop some of this abuse.

The doctors complaints about the abuse of their A&E rooms being full of people who don't want to pay to use the NHS and who didn't bother to get health insurance, has been listened to; in England at least. From reading the consultation, they plan to bill these people for the use of an ambulance too.

Now the doctors are complaining to the government about having to use their budget on the retirees who abuse the NHS: who they say are those who live in countries where they pay lower taxes and who then move to the UK later in their life for free NHS. That must be happening a lot for them to notice and they said Brits and Americans are these worst offenders. They also complained about having to use their budget on elderly europeans who come to get expensive healthcare for free as they can't get that for free in their own country: for this group of abusers they said it is mainly eastern euporeans. Perhaps the NHS will have to be changed to be contribution based for free use?

spouse of scouse

I'm not going to try to change anyone's opinion on what returning BCs should/should not be eligible for - I wouldn't be so high handed as to think someone's opinion is invalid just because it's different to mine.

Just a couple of thoughts though, regarding older BCs who return -

Benefits - if they haven't paid their full whack of NIS contributions, they aren't going to get a full State pension. If they've lived abroad for most of their lives, they're likely to receive no State pension at all, and there's no catching up for people past retirement age.
NHS - for the period they weren't contributing to the NHS, whether through income tax, VAT or by whatever means, they also weren't utilising the NHS.
For the period they weren't paying Council tax, they weren't utilising local resources such as schooling, infrastructure, health.

When they return, they recommence contributing, and they recommence utilizing.

Aside from those comments, which were intended to perhaps provide a little balance to the 'older British expat bludger' stuff, I'm done