Bulletguy Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 This is how UK repays former interpreters who work for our forces. Hafizzulah Husseinkhel had been scheduled to be removed within days after the Home Office handed him removal papers and sent him to a detention centre last week. He lost the sight of one eye during frontline fighting, yet continued working with British forces. Even as late as yesterday he was due to be deported from the centre he was being held at. Today two senior British Army officers attended the hearing to give witness. They were not needed in the end as eventually some sense finally prevailed. https://www.channel4.com/news/former-soldiers-defend-afghan-mans-right-to-remain-in-the-uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Pretty vague link and tells us nothing ... Got to be more to it ... Others have been sent back claiming danger to their lives but nothings happened as Im pretty sure we would have heard all about it ... Lets have a bit more info than the few lines you've posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Enough information on the interwebby thing and I have to say the actions of some desk bound bloody (un)civil servant in this case makes my blood boil. What these guys did for our armed forces in Afghan is beyond measure and when there is no question as to whether/where/who this man served with he should unquestioningly be told...."Welcome and thank you" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 8, 2017 Author Share Posted December 8, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-12-08 5:18 AM Pretty vague link and tells us nothing ... Only because you prejudge and couldn't be arsed to open the link and LISTEN. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-12-08 2:50 PM antony1969 - 2017-12-08 5:18 AM Pretty vague link and tells us nothing ... Only because you prejudge and couldn't be arsed to open the link and LISTEN. *-) I never open links from the biased Channel 4 news ... You could like I asked before you swore at me post a bit more info , quite simple and wouldn't of needed the insults Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 8, 2017 Author Share Posted December 8, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-12-08 2:57 PM Bulletguy - 2017-12-08 2:50 PM antony1969 - 2017-12-08 5:18 AM Pretty vague link and tells us nothing ... Only because you prejudge and couldn't be arsed to open the link and LISTEN. *-) I never open links from the biased Channel 4 news ... So you are implying the personal accounts of two senior British Army officers who worked with the man as 'bias'. Staggering. If you are so concerned about bias there is enough in the post alone, the mans name for a start, for you to search alternative media information about the case. Funny your concern over bias doesn't extend to the usual rag media you soak up to get your jollies off over though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 RogerC - 2017-12-08 1:33 PM Enough information on the interwebby thing and I have to say the actions of some desk bound bloody (un)civil servant in this case makes my blood boil. What these guys did for our armed forces in Afghan is beyond measure and when there is no question as to whether/where/who this man served with he should unquestioningly be told...."Welcome and thank you" It's the civil servant's job to apply guidance based on government policies. It's not clear in this instance whether the guidance is the problem or the civil servant's application of it. The government promised to review its policy but I can't find anything that says a policy has been issued that instructs decision makers to allow all previous interpreters who assisted British forces to stay. One would hope that even Dave P would see that it was necessary to provide this man, a non-UK national facing removal, with legal aid as he seems to have a reasonably good case for challenging his detention and removal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-08 3:51 PMRogerC - 2017-12-08 1:33 PMEnough information on the interwebby thing and I have to say the actions of some desk bound bloody (un)civil servant in this case makes my blood boil. What these guys did for our armed forces in Afghan is beyond measure and when there is no question as to whether/where/who this man served with he should unquestioningly be told...."Welcome and thank you"It's the civil servant's job to apply guidance based on government policies. It's not clear in this instance whether the guidance is the problem or the civil servant's application of it. The government promised to review its policy but I can't find anything that says a policy has been issued that instructs decision makers to allow all previous interpreters who assisted British forces to stay. One would hope that even Dave P would see that it was necessary to provide this man, a non-UK national facing removal, with legal aid as he seems to have a reasonably good case for challenging his detention and removal.Considering what the chap did....working for the ISAF against the Taliban one would think that which ever civil servant was looking into his case would realise the guy would be in serious danger should he be returned to Afghan. They do rather nasty things to people who have assisted the security forces over there. Therefore I maintain that the (non) civil servant handling his case is a desk bound idiot with not the slightest comprehension of the situation he/she could be placing this individual in. Rules or not someone should have the sense (balls) to do the right thing instead of blindly following rules' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 8, 2017 Author Share Posted December 8, 2017 RogerC - 2017-12-08 4:02 PM Considering what the chap did....working for the ISAF against the Taliban one would think that which ever civil servant was looking into his case would realise the guy would be in serious danger should he be returned to Afghan. He wasn't going to be returned to Afghanistan. The HO were going to deport him to Austria which was pretty bloody ridiculous given the man no doubt doesn't speak any German. His linguistic expertise is Pashto, Dari, Urdu > English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-12-08 3:50 PM antony1969 - 2017-12-08 2:57 PM Bulletguy - 2017-12-08 2:50 PM antony1969 - 2017-12-08 5:18 AM Pretty vague link and tells us nothing ... Only because you prejudge and couldn't be arsed to open the link and LISTEN. *-) I never open links from the biased Channel 4 news ... So you are implying the personal accounts of two senior British Army officers who worked with the man as 'bias'. Staggering. If you are so concerned about bias there is enough in the post alone, the mans name for a start, for you to search alternative media information about the case. Funny your concern over bias doesn't extend to the usual rag media you soak up to get your jollies off over though. Gosh ... Ive neither defended or condemned the man ... All I have asked for is a little more info as you seem to know the story ... Take a second to breathe ... Just try to look beyond that its one of my posts for a second and provide like I have asked for twice I believe a little more info ... Your reply doesn't need names or swear words or even insults in it to make it more grown up , something bordering on civilised will suffice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 8, 2017 Author Share Posted December 8, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-12-08 4:37 PM Bulletguy - 2017-12-08 3:50 PM antony1969 - 2017-12-08 2:57 PM Bulletguy - 2017-12-08 2:50 PM antony1969 - 2017-12-08 5:18 AM Pretty vague link and tells us nothing ... Only because you prejudge and couldn't be arsed to open the link and LISTEN. *-) I never open links from the biased Channel 4 news ... So you are implying the personal accounts of two senior British Army officers who worked with the man as 'bias'. Staggering. If you are so concerned about bias there is enough in the post alone, the mans name for a start, for you to search alternative media information about the case. Funny your concern over bias doesn't extend to the usual rag media you soak up to get your jollies off over though. Gosh ... Ive neither defended or condemned the man ... All I have asked for is a little more info. You've just posted a Daily Mail link in another thread which shows you are capable of searching info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 RogerC - 2017-12-08 4:02 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-08 3:51 PMRogerC - 2017-12-08 1:33 PMEnough information on the interwebby thing and I have to say the actions of some desk bound bloody (un)civil servant in this case makes my blood boil. What these guys did for our armed forces in Afghan is beyond measure and when there is no question as to whether/where/who this man served with he should unquestioningly be told...."Welcome and thank you"It's the civil servant's job to apply guidance based on government policies. It's not clear in this instance whether the guidance is the problem or the civil servant's application of it. The government promised to review its policy but I can't find anything that says a policy has been issued that instructs decision makers to allow all previous interpreters who assisted British forces to stay. One would hope that even Dave P would see that it was necessary to provide this man, a non-UK national facing removal, with legal aid as he seems to have a reasonably good case for challenging his detention and removal.Considering what the chap did....working for the ISAF against the Taliban one would think that which ever civil servant was looking into his case would realise the guy would be in serious danger should he be returned to Afghan. They do rather nasty things to people who have assisted the security forces over there. Therefore I maintain that the (non) civil servant handling his case is a desk bound idiot with not the slightest comprehension of the situation he/she could be placing this individual in. Rules or not someone should have the sense (balls) to do the right thing instead of blindly following rules' There's policy guidance on dealing with asylum claims from Afghan nationals who potentially remain at risk from the Taliban and other anti-government agents (AGEs as they are known). It is silent on how interpreters should be dealt with but refers to the types of people at risk. Here it is- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576895/CPIN-Afghanistan-Fear-of-AGEs-v2-December-2016.pdf If we want our government to allow all Afghan interpreters who assisted British forces in Afghanistan to come here then we must lobby the government to make the guidance clearer so that everyone in that category must be given leave to remain even if they were found when they were in transit in another European country as this man clearly was. That he should have to make a clandestine entry rather than be the beneficiary of a right to be flown out along with our servicemen is also something we may want to lobby the government about. Veronica Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-12-08 5:24 PM antony1969 - 2017-12-08 4:37 PM Bulletguy - 2017-12-08 3:50 PM antony1969 - 2017-12-08 2:57 PM Bulletguy - 2017-12-08 2:50 PM antony1969 - 2017-12-08 5:18 AM Pretty vague link and tells us nothing ... Only because you prejudge and couldn't be arsed to open the link and LISTEN. *-) I never open links from the biased Channel 4 news ... So you are implying the personal accounts of two senior British Army officers who worked with the man as 'bias'. Staggering. If you are so concerned about bias there is enough in the post alone, the mans name for a start, for you to search alternative media information about the case. Funny your concern over bias doesn't extend to the usual rag media you soak up to get your jollies off over though. Gosh ... Ive neither defended or condemned the man ... All I have asked for is a little more info. You've just posted a Daily Mail link in another thread which shows you are capable of searching info. Never be as good as you ... You get folks addresses remember ... Looking like a big fat fail then ... That is after all what you call The Mail ... Shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 8, 2017 Author Share Posted December 8, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-08 5:56 PM RogerC - 2017-12-08 4:02 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-08 3:51 PMRogerC - 2017-12-08 1:33 PMEnough information on the interwebby thing and I have to say the actions of some desk bound bloody (un)civil servant in this case makes my blood boil. What these guys did for our armed forces in Afghan is beyond measure and when there is no question as to whether/where/who this man served with he should unquestioningly be told...."Welcome and thank you"It's the civil servant's job to apply guidance based on government policies. It's not clear in this instance whether the guidance is the problem or the civil servant's application of it. The government promised to review its policy but I can't find anything that says a policy has been issued that instructs decision makers to allow all previous interpreters who assisted British forces to stay. One would hope that even Dave P would see that it was necessary to provide this man, a non-UK national facing removal, with legal aid as he seems to have a reasonably good case for challenging his detention and removal.Considering what the chap did....working for the ISAF against the Taliban one would think that which ever civil servant was looking into his case would realise the guy would be in serious danger should he be returned to Afghan. They do rather nasty things to people who have assisted the security forces over there. Therefore I maintain that the (non) civil servant handling his case is a desk bound idiot with not the slightest comprehension of the situation he/she could be placing this individual in. Rules or not someone should have the sense (balls) to do the right thing instead of blindly following rules' There's policy guidance on dealing with asylum claims from Afghan nationals who potentially remain at risk from the Taliban and other anti-government agents (AGEs as they are known). It is silent on how interpreters should be dealt with but refers to the types of people at risk. Here it is- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576895/CPIN-Afghanistan-Fear-of-AGEs-v2-December-2016.pdf If we want our government to allow all Afghan interpreters who assisted British forces in Afghanistan to come here then we must lobby the government to make the guidance clearer so that everyone in that category must be given leave to remain even if they were found when they were in transit in another European country as this man clearly was. That he should have to make a clandestine entry rather than be the beneficiary of a right to be flown out along with our servicemen is also something we may want to lobby the government about. Veronica It's not as though they are isolated cases Veronica. British forces used them in Iraq too and here is one who was working with them as far back as 2009, not just as interpreter but also intelligence work listening in to Taliban radio comms. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/07/afghan-interpreter-british-army-refused-uk-asylum and another; Life as an Iraqi interpreter for the British Army: Seen as a traitor with no security. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3280445/Life-as-an-Iraqi-interpreter-for-the-British-Army-Seen-as-a-traitor-with-no-security.html and another from Afghanistan; Britain’s refusal to give asylum to Afghan interpreters who served alongside frontline troops is inexplicable, inhumane and shameful, the Lords has heard. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/05/britain-inhumane-and-shameful-over-ayslum-for-afghan-interpreter/ There are many more and their treatment is quite shameful as that article says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-12-08 6:03 PM............................Never be as good as you ... You get folks addresses remember ... Looking like a big fat fail then ... That is after all what you call The Mail ... Shame Come off it Antony! That's the equivalent of putting on a blindfold and then saying you can't see! I know the bloke's (presumably) a Muslim, but that shouldn't persuade you to reach for your blindfold so that you don't have to risk gaining an informed opinion. Come out of your comfort zone, it won't hurt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-12-09 1:27 PM antony1969 - 2017-12-08 6:03 PM............................Never be as good as you ... You get folks addresses remember ... Looking like a big fat fail then ... That is after all what you call The Mail ... Shame Come off it Antony! That's the equivalent of putting on a blindfold and then saying you can't see! I know the bloke's (presumably) a Muslim, but that shouldn't persuade you to reach for your blindfold so that you don't have to risk gaining an informed opinion. Come out of your comfort zone, it won't hurt! Hes a Muslim ??? ... I had no idea ... Given I don't judge people purely on their religion or sect I don't see what relevance that has on the discussion ... All I have done Brian is to ask for a little more info from a member who enjoys finding more info ... He provides , which is usually not a problem then I can make a much more informed comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.