Theresa may is merciless

I think we all need to sit and take a long deep breath, and get some sense of perspective on this matter. The issue here is not about who won or who lost. If that was the case, then we all won. I dont believe any one here want Mr Muaza to die, I just think we all have a different way of achieving it. This is about the life of a man who has been kept in detention for a long period. He has committed no crime to be in detention.

His jailer knew for over 3 months that he was on hunger strike,nevertheless, they did nothing to speed up his removal, rather allowed his health to deteriorate. Now that he is at death's door, they are seeking to remove him. This cannot be right.

Muaza has the right to stand his ground. He has the right to demand his jailers set him free. He has the right to demand hospital treatment as a free man.

Imagine the indignity of being in an hospital in handcuff, under guards,;people looking at you as criminals, when you only offense is coming to the UK to seek refuge, seeking a bettet life for oneself and family.

Mr Muaza has the right to stand his ground , against being subjected to such indignity.

Seneca wrote: Now Back to Muazu, He is mental and physical ILL. He is in no position to make rational choice. Then the question is how should we treat him now, today? That question has already been decided today by relevant authorities, they have done the right thing.

Firstly - thank you for the complement - I've tried to strike a balance through a genuine interest in the case and tried to make sure my own bias does not prevent me from objectively reading the rulings and the press.

I agree completely with your statement with one exception - the fact that he wasn't in the position to make a rational choice - he was assessed multiple times and his legal team never disputed that he had the cognitive ability to understand what he was doing.

The piece I remain mystified by is what people would have had the authorities do given the stipulation he had on receiving treatment.

He was effectively blackmailing them 'I will die unless you release me because I'll refuse treatment, even in a hospital setting'. It might be unpleasant reading to see the word blackmail - but that's what it is.

The options were - and may well revert to if the JR fails - deport him, let him die or release him. And it is only those three options because of HIS choices - not because the government is not considering others (like a hospital under detention).

The problem being with release is the door it opens. It makes me wonder who we extend that basic exception to. How close to death do you have to be? Is 1 day on hunger strike sufficient or does it have to be 90? What if you're at day 89? Do we say that anyone held in detention can do the same? What about those who pose a danger to the public? What about those in prison?

I'm not saying that putting a framework in place for compassionate release would be impossible - but like the age rule in the video that was linked to - these loopholes will get exploited - and sometimes on a large scale.

'Come to the UK - it doesn't matter if you get caught - you only need to be on hunger strike for 10/20/30/60/90 days and you'll be allowed to stay'.

That'll sound pretty tempting to people willing to risk their lives crossing oceans on small boats and hiding in wheel housings of planes and breaking into trucks to sneak in.

Our courts are there for the protection of individuals and his team advanced rules surrounding the HRA - particularly articles 2 and 3 - but the team of 3 judges dismissed them given it was his choice to bring his life to the brink.

M.

Obie wrote:I think we all need to sit and take a long deep breath, and get some sense of perspective on this matter. The issue here is not about who won or who lost. If that was the case, then we all won. I dont believe any one here want Mr Muaza to die, I just think we all have a different way of achieving it. This is about the life of a man who has been kept in detention for a long period. He has committed no crime to be in detention.

His jailer knew for over 3 months that he was on hunger strike,nevertheless, they did nothing to speed up his removal, rather allowed his health to deteriorate. Now that he is at death's door, they are seeking to remove him. This cannot be right.

Muaza has the right to stand his ground. He has the right to demand his jailers set him free. He has the right to demand hospital treatment as a free man.

Imagine the indignity of being in an hospital in handcuff, under guards,;people looking at you as criminals, when you only offense is coming to the UK to seek refuge, seeking a bettet life for oneself and family.

Mr Muaza has the right to stand his ground , against being subjected to such indignity.

Well - ok ... let's remove the hyperbole from this.

He has all the rights to demand and stand his ground you've said. He's exercised them. Doesn't mean he has the right to get the outcomes he's wanting - and the court processes have clearly found that to be true.

He also - like all of us if we have sufficient mental capacity - has the right to end his life by refusing treatment.

I'm also going to pick up on your assertion that his only offence is seeking a better life.

No - he has at least two offences to his name: 1) Overstaying his visa and 2) working without authorisation. As we've already highlighted up thread - a public confession is sufficient. So he's admitted committing two offences. Crime of the century? No. But let's at least be factual about his situation.

This man has been kept in detention for around 100 days.

Roughly 10 of those were spent sorting out initial application. You can reasonably assume that 30 more were spent sorting out his travel documents since he had none. 7 more have been since he was back in the UK. A significant number of days were spent between legal challenges. That'll account for at least 60% of his time in detention.

Is it fair he is in detention for that length of time? No ... did he help himself to shorten that length of time? No. Is it a crime to be obstructive? No. Is it a crime to put in as many legal challenges as you can? No.

As I've read more and more about this case - the more it's become apparent to me that this man, within the framework of our laws, has been treated pretty well.

He's been given his day in court. He's been offered treatment. No one has denied him any rights that he has in law. What he has been denied is his freedom.

I don't think there is any hyperbole in my post, or an attempt to wrongly invoke emotions.

If emotions are invoked as a result of my post, then rightly so. It ought to. Even people with a heart of stone, will not help but sympathise with his plight.

What UKBA is seeking to do now, could have been done 90 days ago. They choose to do nothing until Mr Mauza's health is beyond recuperation, sending him to die.

His plight is truely disheartening. No normal thinking person will not help but empathising with him.

UKBA detention camp feel more like a concentration camp these day, no one would wish it on their worst enemy.

Mr MPH80, you could be rest assured that if any nation was treating you like Mr Muaza, irrespectivr of your ethnicity , sexual irientation or religious belief, you can be rest assured,I will all in my power to bring it to an end.

We may disagree on his undocumented aspect. I am however prepared to concede that you may be right legally. However looking at the grand scheme of things, that does not carry as much weight to me, as the right to preserve ones life.

MPH80, you may well be a perfectly nice person, I have known you as a contributer for several years now, the difficulty I have with you is the inability to comprehend that the right to liberty is a very important right. It should not be withdrawn very easily.

Obie wrote: His plight is truely disheartening. No normal thinking person will not help but empathising with him.

One final time - he has brought it on himself.

Obie wrote:UKBA detention camp feel more like a concentration camp these day, no one would wish it on their worst enemy.

Ok - I'm calling Godwin's Law and I'll take a break from these forums for a while.

Well I am sure Godwin will agree with my analogy. I am not saying it just for the sake of saying it. My statement is backed by evidence.

When chattered flights are arranged, the way people are roundedup from different camps, Nationals of a particular country kept in closed place, two officers to a detainee being escorted into coaches and then flights. Prior to the transfer of these units, there is total lockdowns in these respective centres. People woken up in the dead of night, without any prior notice, taken in buses, sometimes without their belongings. People taken to Colnbrook short time holding facility, where they are locked for 22 hours a day, no association, have their food put in pigeon holes, no bathroom facility, not to mention Yarls wood.

Please dont bring Godwin law into this. I have well informed information on how these places work.

I am pleased that you may be fortunate that you were born in the right place, with all these opportunities, so I understand that you may not have an informed views of how things are done. You can be rest assured that these people's world is nothing compared to the one you live in.

Its a pity that you may never having the opportunity of visiting these facilities and seeing how they work.

People are not being killed in mass scales, and I am conscious of the fact that I did not say it is a concentration camp. I said it feel like.

Let's take a pragmatic view, aside from the Hunger strike, does this man have a valid claim to asylum and should he be allowed to stay?

I have no idea, on the basics of what I have read, he doesn't, but lets argue that point first?

Convince me.

Moral bankruptcy is the term of the week. Shame on Ms May. If Mr Muaza was supposed to be made an example the whole exercise and the use of dirty laws & a well funded legal mechanism backfired spectacularly. At least many of us agree that we are willing to break the law to preserve dignity and human lives.

Wanderer wrote:Let's take a pragmatic view, aside from the Hunger strike, does this man have a valid claim to asylum and should he be allowed to stay?

I have no idea, on the basics of what I have read, he doesn't, but lets argue that point first?

Convince me.

Well your question has been answered by the fact that permission to Judicial Review has been granted. Permission can only be granted if a case has merit,, and it is arguable.

The fact that Mr Muaza has obtained this,, indicates that there is an arguable convention breach challenge.

Obie wrote: The fact that Mr Muaza has obtained this,, indicates that there is an arguable convention breach challenge.

I don't know... This is obviously very emotional and has perhaps become very politicized.

But let's say you're right. What do you think? ILR in 6 years? Citizenship in 7? Maybe he will post on here and ask.

Anatomy of a failed rendition .

ouflak1 wrote:

Obie wrote: The fact that Mr Muaza has obtained this,, indicates that there is an arguable convention breach challenge.

I don't know... This is obviously very emotional and has perhaps become very politicized.

But let's say you're right. What do you think? ILR in 6 years? Citizenship in 7? Maybe he will post on here and ask.

An arguable case does not mean a bound to succeed case. It simply mean their are substance in the case, something that merits a court time and resources.

It does not mean an automatic success, and I was never suggesting that.

Obie wrote: An arguable case does not mean a bound to succeed case. It simply mean their are substance in the case, something that merits a court time and resources.

It does not mean an automatic success, and I was never suggesting that.

Even if he fails, he is not going anywhere. All he has to do is not eat, and the UK has to keep him. It's the 'humane' thing to do, right? If they wait a couple of years and try again to deport him, he'll just starve himself again and that will be the end of those proceedings. It will just be a matter of time before he qualifies for some type of stay and eventually ILR and citizenship.

So what do you think the timeline is?

The above is purely of your making. I never suggested any of the above, so I cannot think of any answer to it, neither am I oblidged to answer it.

Obie wrote:The above is purely of your making.

Not if the JR overturns his previous rulings on Asylum and it's granted. Even if they don't approve it this time, all he has to do is keep starving himself anytime deportation looms, maybe get another JR, or claim some kind of exceptional private life due to longevity in the UK, or whatever. I honestly don't see why he can't keep that up indefinitely as long as he's willing to go the hunger strike route.

Ayyubi72 wrote:Not about this particular case, but generally about majority of asylum seekers, I wonder how many so called people fleeing persecution utilise the international catapult in their countries. These catapults are capable of launching these people into sky and delivering them straight into United Kindgdom thousands of miles. Well not many people utilise these catapults.

They go to Iran, then to Turkey, then Enter an EU country called Greece. But guess what, after saving their life from persecution they do not feel relieved. They carry on to the next country to the next to the next until they end up in France. Now you see even in France their lives are not safe. In France their are death squads that go hunting for these people, and shoot them dead on sight.

So these poor guys "fleeing persecution" jump onto trucks bound for UK. These people know that in UK, lunatic left wing do gooders army is ready and waiting to fight for them and ensure they are not returned to the countries they left because of "persecution".

PS: This is one of the typical routes. There are other routes these poor people take. Thailand, bad quality passport to and EU country, France - UK, and many other combinations.

What are you trying to achieve Ayyubi72 ???? your comments are really repellant and make me feel sick , we've come to this forum seeking help and advice , not to receive such loathsome comments
Moderator, please stop this infantile attitude

ouflak1 wrote:. I honestly don't see why he can't keep that up indefinitely as long as he's willing to go the hunger strike route.

Hunger strike is not easy option, you might die in the process or the process of hunger striking might affect your health forever.

British Judiciary system has been around close to 800 years. Dealing with all sorts of cases. It would have not be around for such a long time and held to such high esteem and copied to many countries of the world if it was not not fit for purpose and being robust enough to weeds out chances from genuine case.

If he somehow qualify through longevity, after 20 years of struggles i will say fair play to me. But the odds are against him, and people who qualify in this kind of process (longevity) are less than 1% of those who apply
( now is 20 years in order to qualify for long residence). The odds of him granted on this process is lower than him being removed or being dead.

Seneca wrote: Hunger strike is not easy option, you might die in the process or the process of hunger striking might affect your health forever.

If he somehow qualify through longevity, after 20 years of struggles i will say fair play to me.

I agree completely. Anybody who is willing to starve themselves for 20 years to avoid deportation is ok by me to stay in the UK for the rest of their life and become a citizen!

It would appear the final twist is this tale is a complete refusal and a fast deportation this evening.

MPH80 wrote:It would appear the final twist is this tale is a complete refusal and a fast deportation this evening.

Yep, just noticed that!

Seems he was never on hunger strike anyway....

Consultant psychiatrist Dr David Bell said Mr Muazu's "self-starvation" arose from "disturbed beliefs" that formed part of his mental disorder.

The doctor, who was instructed by the Nigerian's lawyers, said it should not be described as a "hunger strike".

Apparently the final-final appeal has failed too:

Isa Muazu case refused by Court of Appeal. That's it. No avenues left. He'll be deported tonight.

Looking at this from an academic point of view - it would be interesting to follow up with him in 6 months to see how his life is.

I would also be very interested in reading the judgement from today.

It's sad it's taken this long and with this much emotional anguish to get here today - but then both sides could have eased the process forward.

Any more news? Is he in Nigeria now or again been turned back to UK?

Nigeria.