REMOVAL OF 7 YEAR CHILD CONCESSSION

[jei2]

The 7 year child concession has been removed from 9 December 2008.

http://www.publicpolitics.net/modules.p ... sid=134062

[vinny]

See also NF (Ghana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 906 (30 July 2008)- clarification on 7year child policy.

Seven year children policy withdrawn

Policy DP/069/99 now covers the position with greater clarity than the first policy 5/96.

Although DP5/96 has been withdrawn, what about DP/069/99?

[Frontier Mole]

No one in the HO refers to Policy DP/069/99 as it states - it is generally known as 5/96 no matter the content and context follows 069/99.

Take it as read 5/96 is dead as is the zombie policy 069/99.

Jei2 - remember the discussion about rounding up 7 year kiddy claims before it all stops???? The truth is always out there.

[thsths]

The 7 year child concession has been removed from 9 December 2008.

http://www.publicpolitics.net/modules.p ... sid=134062

I do not get it. If this concession was both a result of a compromise with the house of lords, and an implementation of ECHR, how can the following statement be true?

"Any decision to remove a family from the UK will continue to be made in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Immigration Rules."

It seems like the UKBA is again subject to wishful thinking, completely ignoring the legal reality out there. Can we please have somebody with a minimum amount of common sense take charge?

[jei2]

Can we please have somebody with a minimum amount of common sense take charge?

Unfortunately, I think we just have.

FM, any hope that Woolly might soon go the way of Woolies?

[jei2]

No one in the HO refers to Policy DP/069/99 as it states - it is generally known as 5/96 no matter the content and context follows 069/99.

Take it as read 5/96 is dead as is the zombie policy 069/99.

Jei2 - remember the discussion about rounding up 7 year kiddy claims before it all stops???? The truth is always out there.

I do indeed. Forewarned and all that thank you.

But I take it that the Madness of King Phil is not going to be retrospective? And will Huang, Chikwamba etc widen the goalposts from their respective interpretations to allow more succesful Article 8 applications? How indeed will the UK meet its obligations under the ECHR?

Actually.. I'm now wondering if this isn't a positive disguised as a negative since there's no longer a 7 year requirement to meet. Lemons to lemonade perhaps? Backlog? What backlog? Amnesty? What Amnesty?

Is Phil being smarter/softer than we think?.. Ok, going to take my little pills now...

[bebe2]

i read a few stuff about this and it doesnt seem so bad, the seven year thing wasnt always successful anyway.if you think you have a compelling human right case no need to wait seven years apply now.

[thsths]

Can we please have somebody with a minimum amount of common sense take charge?

Unfortunately, I think we just have.

Now you are talking semantics. I ask for the minimum necessary for the position, and you offer the minimum imaginable

How indeed will the UK meet its obligations under the ECHR?

That is the big question. Without incorporating the ECHR, cases would only pass as an exception, or in appeal. That is clearly not in the spirit of the ECHR, and it would not help the legal system either.

I'm now wondering if this isn't a positive disguised as a negative since there's no longer a 7 year requirement to meet. Lemons to lemonade perhaps?

Maybe, but I am not so sure. You are right: with the 7 year concession the UKBA could always say that 6 years are not enough, and off you got. Now you have to wait for the court to decide. But it also means you have to be very careful if you want to pull this off, the slightest mistake could ruin everything.