5 years for ILR rule implemented

[Hidden dragon]

Agree.
Finding a lawyer who see eye to eye with us is vital. I don't know if this Sunday's meeting would make things clearer or not. Don't hold your breath, but we'll try. See how it goes, and rise to the occasion.

[Hidden dragon]

Just to clarify the meeting time once more. It has been changed from 12 noon to 2pm. See below:

Radisson Edwardian Hampshire Hotel

31-36 LEICESTER SQUARE
(opposite to Half Price Theatre Ticket Booth)
LONDON, WC2H 7LH
44-20-78399399

SUNDAY 16th APR 2006 - 14:00PM

[likewise]

sowahat wrote
Quote

...

Without people like us, the economy of this country will halt!

.....

It maybe true, but home office doesn't think it will happen, and the public won't give a xxxx until it happens.
I only hope the MPs and businesses will be aware of it.

So I am going to start a new petition reads like followings, please advise whether it's properly prased and correct if any spelling/grammatical error
in it

<This petition is to ask the UK home office NOT TO APPLY THE 4 YRS TO 5 YRS CHANGE FOR ILR QUALIFYING PERIOD TO CURRENT WORK PERMIT/HSMP HOLDERS, who were told when they chose to enter this country, that they would be qualified for ILR after 4 yrs.

As a legal skilled immigrant in the UK, I like this country and people, I work hard and want to integrate into the society, but this sudden change make me feel my dignity has been insulted,ILR is important for me but I am not begging for it. It's not about one more year, it's about fairness,the attitude to immigrants and the credibility of the government, it's also a shame for the country.

If this rule is not to be modified in a proper way, my belief in this country will be shaken and I will question my original decision. I will consider leaving the country soon and I will explain to everybody I know about the reason why I made that decision, and to anyone who intend to move to the UK for work or investment purposes.>

[tobiashomer]

I have tried to put this into what I imagine might be a form that would be taken seriously; I am particularly convinced that to talk about our dignity will be self-defeating, we really need to be unemotional and appeal to their own interests and perhaps some residual sense of fair play. they will not care much that we are offended!



This petition is to ask the Home Office NOT TO APPLY THE 4 YRS TO 5 YRS CHANGE FOR ILR QUALIFYING PERIOD TO CURRENT WORK PERMIT/HSMP HOLDERS, who were told when they chose to enter this country that they would be qualified for ILR after 4 yrs if they satisfied all the criteria set forth. This proposed change has a number of negative effects on the practical life of people who entered under the old rules and have faithfully satisfied the stringent rules for approval of Further Leave to Remain (ability to get mortgages on residential property, children's ability to study at UK universities, etc.), but the principle involved goes far beyond the practical problems.

We are neither refugees nor asylum seekers, but business people who felt we were entering into a contract by choosing to come here under the stated conditions at the time we applied. We are shocked and dismayed that, having kept our part of the bargain, we see the more powerful party changing the rules of the game. We understand the wish to change the rules to make them more in line with European norms, and to create a more coherent long-term immigration policy; but any such changes should in fairness only apply to new applicants, people who choose to migrate to the UK knowing what the (new) rules are. Retrospective changing of the rules is unfair, in civil contracts illegal, and to our minds not in keeping with what we imagined was the British sense of fair play.

As legal skilled immigrants in the UK, we came here because we like this country and its people. Once here, we become ambassadors for the UK in our countries of origin. We work hard and want to integrate into society, but this sudden retrospective change, without anything like proper consultation, makes us have doubts about the wisdom of our choice. We are convinced that other persons having the sort of skills that the Government itself says the country needs, and especially the most qualified amongst them (who definitely have a choice as to where to go), will think twice about signing on to a programme where the rules can be changed without notice, retrospectivelyy and without appeal. To alienate us may be an acceptable side effect to a desirable policy change; to alienate thousands of potential high-quality migrants bringing badly needed entrepreneurial and other skills would seem to be bad policy indeed.

[Eugene_UK]

tobiashomer - well done, it`s good one. i`m sure our employers will sign it too. may be we can say something about buisnesses there and also have a line where we can quote name of the company and our MDs or diectors can sign. it would be great to have it ready by monday and i will get it signed by at least 6 people at work who happened to be in the same boat as me.
i think we can get 1000s signtures on it.

[aj77]

Well done tobiashomer

This petition is to ask the Home Office NOT TO APPLY THE 4 YRS TO 5 YRS CHANGE FOR ILR QUALIFYING PERIOD TO CURRENT WORK PERMIT/HSMP HOLDERS, who were told when they chose to enter this country that they would be qualified for ILR after 4 yrs if they satisfied all the criteria set forth. This proposed change has a number of negative effects on the practical life of people who entered under the old rules and have faithfully satisfied the stringent rules for approval of Further Leave to Remain (ability to get mortgages on residential property, children's ability to study at UK universities, etc.), but the principle involved goes far beyond the practical problems.

We are neither refugees nor asylum seekers, but business people who felt we were entering into a contract by choosing to come here under the stated conditions at the time we applied. We are shocked and dismayed that, having kept our part of the bargain, we see the more powerful party changing the rules of the game. We understand the wish to change the rules to make them more in line with European norms, and to create a more coherent long-term immigration policy; but any such changes should in fairness only apply to new applicants, people who choose to migrate to the UK knowing what the (new) rules are. Retrospective changing of the rules is unfair, in civil contracts illegal, and to our minds not in keeping with what we imagined was the British sense of fair play.

As legal skilled immigrants in the UK, we came here because we like this country and its people. Once here, we become ambassadors for the UK in our countries of origin. We work hard and want to integrate into society, but this sudden retrospective change, without anything like proper consultation, makes us have doubts about the wisdom of our choice. We are convinced that other persons having the sort of skills that the Government itself says the country needs, and especially the most qualified amongst them (who definitely have a choice as to where to go), will think twice about signing on to a programme where the rules can be changed without notice, retrospectivelyy and without appeal. To alienate us may be an acceptable side effect to a desirable policy change; to alienate thousands of potential high-quality migrants bringing badly needed entrepreneurial and other skills would seem to be bad policy indeed

I think everybody should sign this statement and these statements should be handed over to MP's once session of Parliament will start again.
We can send these statements to immigration minister and other concerned departments including media.We should advertise this statement as much as we can and it wont be bad idea if we could give this protest in newspaper under heading Appeal to Prime Minister to let the people know that we are being cheated.By this way we can get the media attraction too as it was being promised officially and it's broken now.

[nonothing]

it's a good one, well done, mate. but shall we open another petition, or what? do you think those 360ish people would sign this one again? but it's a good one to send to the MPs though.

and there will be some of our people holding a meeting this sunday. can any of you guys make it?

I have tried to put this into what I imagine might be a form that would be taken seriously; I am particularly convinced that to talk about our dignity will be self-defeating, we really need to be unemotional and appeal to their own interests and perhaps some residual sense of fair play. they will not care much that we are offended!



This petition is to ask the Home Office NOT TO APPLY THE 4 YRS TO 5 YRS CHANGE FOR ILR QUALIFYING PERIOD TO CURRENT WORK PERMIT/HSMP HOLDERS, who were told when they chose to enter this country that they would be qualified for ILR after 4 yrs if they satisfied all the criteria set forth. This proposed change has a number of negative effects on the practical life of people who entered under the old rules and have faithfully satisfied the stringent rules for approval of Further Leave to Remain (ability to get mortgages on residential property, children's ability to study at UK universities, etc.), but the principle involved goes far beyond the practical problems.

We are neither refugees nor asylum seekers, but business people who felt we were entering into a contract by choosing to come here under the stated conditions at the time we applied. We are shocked and dismayed that, having kept our part of the bargain, we see the more powerful party changing the rules of the game. We understand the wish to change the rules to make them more in line with European norms, and to create a more coherent long-term immigration policy; but any such changes should in fairness only apply to new applicants, people who choose to migrate to the UK knowing what the (new) rules are. Retrospective changing of the rules is unfair, in civil contracts illegal, and to our minds not in keeping with what we imagined was the British sense of fair play.

As legal skilled immigrants in the UK, we came here because we like this country and its people. Once here, we become ambassadors for the UK in our countries of origin. We work hard and want to integrate into society, but this sudden retrospective change, without anything like proper consultation, makes us have doubts about the wisdom of our choice. We are convinced that other persons having the sort of skills that the Government itself says the country needs, and especially the most qualified amongst them (who definitely have a choice as to where to go), will think twice about signing on to a programme where the rules can be changed without notice, retrospectivelyy and without appeal. To alienate us may be an acceptable side effect to a desirable policy change; to alienate thousands of potential high-quality migrants bringing badly needed entrepreneurial and other skills would seem to be bad policy indeed.

[aj77]

I have seen another petition on the HSMP board with 90 signatures on it already.

http://www.petitiononline.com/aioaim/petition.html

It doesn't matter whether there would be duplication or not.We already have some petitions with number of signatures.It could be better if this petition would be signed individually by everybody and ask him/her to post at some speceific address and then someone will personally hand over all these petitions to MP's once the session will be started.

[likewise]

I have tried to put this into what I imagine might be a form that would be taken seriously; I am particularly convinced that to talk about our dignity will be self-defeating, we really need to be unemotional and appeal to their own interests and perhaps some residual sense of fair play. they will not care much that we are offended!

I do think they will care if we choose to leave, at least the employers will care.
Talking about dignity is not self-defeating, it's the truth, and it's one of the reason why we will consider leaving

[Hidden dragon]

Dear all,

I have a problem. It is about one of the weaknesses that I perceived of our campaign.

Because of the difference in the types of visa different people hold (HSMP/WP), in nationality, and in the preferred approach (lobbying/public attention/court action), We "seem" to be divided into various groups.

Is there therefore a danger that although each group run their own campaign very hard, due to the reduced scale/base, none of them succeed? Some politician might receive more than 2 letters and others receive none? Money, time and efforts input in this way are not very cost-effective.

I hope we can make effort to:
(1) unite HSMP and WP visa holders, and
(2) unite different groups from various nations
SO AS TO produce a single strategy, follow a more coordinated action plan, and speak with one voice!

I don't know if what I said is achievable, at least we should try. What do you think?

I’d like to meet people who are also keen to join force. I will come to London for the Sunday meeting, so hopefully see you there.

I think words from both likewise and tobiashomer are going to be very useful! Especially, getting employers and businesses involved into the lobbying is a good idea.

[supertiger]

I agree that we need to unite all uniteable people regardless of nationalities, visa types or whatever. That's many of us have realised. however the main problem is we need a centralised strategy and core team to cascade information and progress efficiently, I have tried several but none works... hopefully if your meeting on Sunday can define those points and make good use of the time and people's efforts...

Let's forget about leaving UK for the moment, although I am seriosly considering leaving myself but it is still too early to leave. To me it is about faith - this is a very important point I mentioned to letters to my MP and Tony Blair... I may not live here permanently but I do want my rights and I belive so do u. Meanwhile, no need to threaten by our leaving, it is not a perfect world, there are always people coming no matter it is 5 years or 7, but we came at a sort of guarantee of 4 that;s what I want. anyway let;s be positive and fight for our rights. we are all skilled people so hopefully we "managed migration" find a right strategy to get what we should get...

[timefactor]

I can't see much co-ordination, co-operation & interest other than chinese / turkish communities

[likewise]

Let's forget about leaving UK for the moment, although I am seriosly considering leaving myself but it is still too early to leave. To me it is about faith - this is a very important point I mentioned to letters to my MP and Tony Blair... I may not live here permanently but I do want my rights and I belive so do u. Meanwhile, no need to threaten by our leaving, it is not a perfect world, there are always people coming no matter it is 5 years or 7, but we came at a sort of guarantee of 4 that;s what I want. anyway let;s be positive and fight for our rights. we are all skilled people so hopefully we "managed migration" find a right strategy to get what we should get...

I am sorry but NO USE TO MENTION YOUR FAITH AND RIGHTS OR GUARANTEE, THEY DON'T CARE!MENTION SOMETHING THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE!

If the rule is not to be changed, do you still have your faith?do you still believe the guarantee? If they change it again next year, will you still say the samething?

We have to convince them, there is something more important to us than ILR, and there is something we can do to affect the economy now and in the future if we lose the faith in this country.

They can avoid that risk and restore our faith and other people's faith in the future simply by changing a small part of that rule.

[nonothing]

"centralised strategy and core team / co-ordination, co-operation"

these things are definitely among the most needed at the current stage. we need people get back and draw together under these things. let's hope the sunday meeting can work something out which we can build on.

to me, above all, another important thing is a campaign manager / coordinator. without such a person, nothing can be substantially achieved. any successful campaign needs an effective manager / coordinator. even in an election campaign, the candidate is somehow a puppet up front and the campaign manager / coordinator is the genuine brain behind.

btw, i understand ST is away. TF, can you make to the meeting on sunday. if possible, can you PM Hidden dragon please?

we need a centralised strategy and core team to cascade information and progress efficiently.

much co-ordination, co-operation & interest

[aj77]

It's encouraging to see the way Hidden Dragon , supertiger and nonothing analysed the situation logically,mentioned our weaknesses and proposed future strategy and decided to come in front to lead as we were struggling to find a Team Leader alongwith competent ,dedicated team members.Still we are missing the representation from Indian community as Indian community might be as large as Chineese community is,their representation and contribution could be of great help.Any suggesstion to let them in the streamline effectively too?

[nonothing]

a few people have decided to come to the sunday (TOMORROW) meeting. about 4-5 so far, most of them are from the chinese community, i believe. we desperately need representatives from other communities, idian, turkish, american (both north and south) and african. without solidarity we'll achieve nothing. against the govt, we're in a very weak position already. please step up and don't make our position even weaker.

Still we are missing the representation from Indian community as Indian community might be as large as Chineese community is,their representation and contribution could be of great help. Any suggesstion to let them in the streamline effectively too?

[rooi_ding]

I posted this in the South African forum http://www.greattrek.co.uk/showthread.p ... 5#post1295


1) The law can be changed by an act of parliament in fact the MP for great Grimsby Austin Mitchell has put forward EDM1912 asking that MP's vote against the changes to the Immigration Rules (HC 974). Although an EDM in itself does not bring about a change in the law it is a platform to gain support and to canvas other MP's to support them. The law you are referring to with regards to marriages was passed in parliament and was never challenged therefore it had to be legally challenged and had a positive result. Immigration law (HC974) can still be challenged in the House of Commons, I do feel however that Mr. Mitchell is a bit misguided, I believe that most people have no issue with the law change from 4 to 5 years the problem is the retrospective aspect.

2) Yes the laws were announced about a year ago but there was no consultation with businesses and with communities with regards the impact it would have, there was also no mention of the retrospective aspect, in fact the British legal system is based on not implementing retrospective laws. When we all applied for our HSMP's Work Permits and Ancestral Visa's we all were lead to believe that we would qualify for ILR after 4 years, therefore the Home Office has now gone back on its promise and are now hoping for the apathy that we are now displaying will continue and they will be able to bulldozer us into a quite little box were they can manipulate every situation.

We came to this country because we have skills and knowledge that the UK require yes we are allowed to stay here under the rules of the UK but we should not be forced into accepting rule changes that affect us in an unfair way. I am not trying to preach from a soap box but as South Africans we are so apathetic to the powers that be. How do you think we all allowed apartheid to fiesta for 60 years, without having the courage of convictions to say something, now look at the wound we have to heal. Maybe back in SA we would have been threatened with death if we said anything during the apartheid years but this is the UK there is a forum (the house of commons) were rules are presented which are either rejected or accepted.

All I am proposing is that we get off our nice padded seats and started writing to out MP’s of our constituency (yes we belong to the commonwealth and therefore can vote in local elections) they will listen because that is what politicians do and if you shout loud enough or speak to them in the right way and convince them that the retrospective rule is unfair then they will intern take our plight in the house in commons were the retrospective element cane be changed, the more MP’s we have on our side the better. There is no better time then now to get MP’s to Challenge anything that Mr. Blair and his government propose as they would all like to see the back of him.

Tomorrow I am meeting people from different nations each person has there own situation but each one wants to challenge the retrospective aspect of this law. I would therefore encourage everyone who wants the same as us to write to there MP or to email me r_j49@hotmail.com and we will help propose what you can possible write. WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?



If there are any South Africans who use this forum and agree with what I have just said then I would encourage you to get our fellow South Africans off their padded seats and do something............

[Hidden dragon]

Well Said. Well Done!

I posted this in the South African forum http://www.greattrek.co.uk/showthread.p ... 5#post1295


1) The law can be changed by an act of parliament in fact the MP for great Grimsby Austin Mitchell has put forward EDM1912 asking that MP's vote against the changes to the Immigration Rules (HC 974). Although an EDM in itself does not bring about a change in the law it is a platform to gain support and to canvas other MP's to support them. The law you are referring to with regards to marriages was passed in parliament and was never challenged therefore it had to be legally challenged and had a positive result. Immigration law (HC974) can still be challenged in the House of Commons, I do feel however that Mr. Mitchell is a bit misguided, I believe that most people have no issue with the law change from 4 to 5 years the problem is the retrospective aspect.

2) Yes the laws were announced about a year ago but there was no consultation with businesses and with communities with regards the impact it would have, there was also no mention of the retrospective aspect, in fact the British legal system is based on not implementing retrospective laws. When we all applied for our HSMP's Work Permits and Ancestral Visa's we all were lead to believe that we would qualify for ILR after 4 years, therefore the Home Office has now gone back on its promise and are now hoping for the apathy that we are now displaying will continue and they will be able to bulldozer us into a quite little box were they can manipulate every situation.

We came to this country because we have skills and knowledge that the UK require yes we are allowed to stay here under the rules of the UK but we should not be forced into accepting rule changes that affect us in an unfair way. I am not trying to preach from a soap box but as South Africans we are so apathetic to the powers that be. How do you think we all allowed apartheid to fiesta for 60 years, without having the courage of convictions to say something, now look at the wound we have to heal. Maybe back in SA we would have been threatened with death if we said anything during the apartheid years but this is the UK there is a forum (the house of commons) were rules are presented which are either rejected or accepted.

All I am proposing is that we get off our nice padded seats and started writing to out MP’s of our constituency (yes we belong to the commonwealth and therefore can vote in local elections) they will listen because that is what politicians do and if you shout loud enough or speak to them in the right way and convince them that the retrospective rule is unfair then they will intern take our plight in the house in commons were the retrospective element cane be changed, the more MP’s we have on our side the better. There is no better time then now to get MP’s to Challenge anything that Mr. Blair and his government propose as they would all like to see the back of him.

Tomorrow I am meeting people from different nations each person has there own situation but each one wants to challenge the retrospective aspect of this law. I would therefore encourage everyone who wants the same as us to write to there MP or to email me r_j49@hotmail.com and we will help propose what you can possible write. WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?



If there are any South Africans who use this forum and agree with what I have just said then I would encourage you to get our fellow South Africans off their padded seats and do something............

[timefactor]

PM'ed, not sure i'm late or not

"centralised strategy and core team / co-ordination, co-operation"

btw, i understand ST is away. TF, can you make to the meeting on sunday. if possible, can you PM Hidden dragon please?

we need a centralised strategy and core team to cascade information and progress efficiently.

much co-ordination, co-operation & interest

[nonothing]

Hidden dragon is on his way to london. are you in london? if so, could you please PM me your number, so i can let him call you when he's in london? cheers.

alternatively you can go to the meeting at 2.00pm directly.

Radisson Edwardian Hampshire Hotel

31-36 LEICESTER SQUARE
(opposite to Half Price Theatre Ticket Booth)
LONDON, WC2H 7LH
44-20-78399399

SUNDAY 16th APR 2006 - 14:00PM

PM'ed, not sure i'm late or not

"centralised strategy and core team / co-ordination, co-operation"

btw, i understand ST is away. TF, can you make to the meeting on sunday. if possible, can you PM Hidden dragon please?

we need a centralised strategy and core team to cascade information and progress efficiently.

much co-ordination, co-operation & interest

[aj77]

I found the details of my MP from the following link:

http://www.locata.co.uk/commons

I sent the following email to my MP

Constituency...........
Nameof MP...........
Party.................

Subject: Objection about retrospective implementation of 4-5 year rule change in immigration policy

Respected Sir,

As you would be aware that Parliament has passed the changes in Immigration rules(HC 1016)on 30/03/06.According to this all immigrants related to work related catagories i.e HSMP/Work permit holders etc can apply for ILR after 5 years now instead of 4 years.The implementation on this policy has been started from 03/04/06 retrospectively.

I don t have any objection on this policy as it might be in best interest of UK, my only objection is about it's retrospective implementation.

As we were told when we chose to enter this country that we would be qualified for ILR after 4 yrs if we satisfied all the criteria set forth. The retrospective implementation of this proposed change has a number of negative effects on the practical life of people who entered under the old rules and have faithfully satisfied the stringent rules for approval of Further Leave to Remain (ability to get mortgages on residential property, children's ability to study at UK universities, etc.), but the principle involved goes far beyond the practical problems.

We are neither refugees nor asylum seekers, but Highly Skilled people who felt we were entering into a contract by choosing to come here under the stated conditions at the time we applied. We are shocked and dismayed that, having kept our part of the bargain, we see the more powerful party changing the rules of the game. We understand the wish to change the rules to make you more in line with European norms, and to create a more coherent long-term immigration policy; but any such changes should in fairness only apply to new applicants, people who choose to migrate to the UK knowing what the (new) rules are. Retrospective changing of the rules is unfair, in civil contracts illegal, and to our minds not in keeping with what we imagined was the British sense of fair play.

As legal skilled immigrants in the UK, we came here because we like this country and its people. Once here, we become ambassadors for the UK in our countries of origin. We work hard and want to integrate into society, but this sudden retrospective change, without anything like proper consultation, makes us have doubts about the wisdom of our choice. We are convinced that other persons having the sort of skills that the Government itself says the country needs, and especially the most qualified amongst them (who definitely have a choice as to where to go), will think twice about signing on to a programme where the rules can be changed without notice, retrospectivelyy and without appeal. To alienate us may be an acceptable side effect to a desirable policy change; to alienate thousands of potential high-quality migrants bringing badly needed entrepreneurial and other skills would seem to be bad policy indeed.

For your convenience and to remind you Government assured us in old policy of HSMP that future changes wont affect us.Here are some extracts of old HSMP policy under which I applied and got HSMP visa.

24.9 Q: What if the scheme changes?

A: As with any immigration scheme we reserve the right to adapt some of the criteria or documentation associated
with the scheme and will inform you via our websites of any such changes. All applications will be treated on the
basis of the HSMP provisions at the time that they were submitted.

24.10 Q: I have already applied successfully under HSMP. How does the revised HSMP affect me?

A: Not at all. It is important to note that once you have entered under the programme you are in a category that has
an avenue to settlement. Those who have already entered under HSMP will be allowed to stay and apply for
settlement after four years qualifying residence regardless of these revisions to HSMP



26.5 Q: How long can I stay in the UK if I enter as a skilled migrant?

A: You will initially be given 12 months stay. If you want to remain in the UK under the HSMP, you should apply for
an extension of your stay in the last month before the expiry of your permission to stay in the UK. For further
information, please see “Extension of stay in the United Kingdom” section. You will be able to amalgamate leave
in other categories that lead to settlement for example, please see “Extension of stay in the United Kingdom
section.” towards the end of that period you can apply to remain in the same capacity for a further period of up
to three years.
After four years in the UK as a highly skilled migrant you can apply for settlement. The main criteria for
settlement will be that you have spent a continuous period of four years in the UK (except for trips abroad of
three months or less, totalling less than six months in the four year period) in a category leading to settlement
and that you continue to be economically active in the UK as a highly skilled migrant.

I hope you would agree with my concerns about retrospective implementation of these changes and will discuss this issue with your fellow Parliamentarians and immigration Minister and will try to convince them about side effects of retrospective implementation so that changes should be implemented to those who know at the time of entering in the UK about these changes.

I look forward for your reply.Thank you

Regards

Anybody who want to send email to his MP can find the details from above link and can make necessary changes in the above letter.

It will take maximum 10 minutes to send an email to your MP.If we could send this sort of email to every MP,it might make some impact on them.Atleast everybody should have a try.

[RobinLondon]

I just wanted to provide a mini update of where I am with this whole process. As I've mentioned previously, I've been following this issue for over a year now and have had interactions with both my MP (Tessa Jowell) and with Charles Clarke. After my most recent e-mail to Ms Jowell and a meeting with her staff, I received a rather formulaic letter from the Home Secretary essentially restating what we all know now as the Ministry's standard reply: This is not a big deal in real life...No one ever voiced any such concerns during the consultation process...Retroactive effects aren't a significant problem. Basically, the message to those affected is just to take it on the chin. In her cover letter back to me, Ms Jowell wrote that she was surprised that Mr Clarke totally avoided addressing the earlier correspondence in which I pointedly raised the issue back in February 2005. She said that she will specifically follow up with him on that matter and get back to me.

I must say that this is all very disheartening. I think we must come to terms with the very clear possibility that this issue is dead.

[a11]

I think we must come to terms with the very clear possibility that this issue is dead.

oh well, that's what those big guys want us to believe, isn't it?
i mean, this might bloody well be true, but at least we need to show that legal immigrants are quite a force to consider - perhaps at least this would discourage them from behaving in a similar way when changing, say, naturalisation laws or something.

btw, RobinLondon, did you get in touch with this journalist from the Guardian who got kinda interested in your story with Mr Clarke's lies?

[rooi_ding]

RobinLondon and a11

The issue might be not as dead as we previously perceived yesterday a few of us from this forum attended a meeting together with the BTCD and Christine Lee's team which was quite successful. The outcome is to be posted today by Hidden Dragon

RobinLondon you could hold off any contact with Journalists right as this would benefit the long term strategy, but the time might come at a later stage to start using the "big guns"

THERE IS A PLAN

WATCH THIS SPACE

[Hidden dragon]

Does anybody know who initiated the two online petition?
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/aioaim/petition.html
and
http://www.petitiononline.com/ILR45/