The Video Ref wrote:We have immense difficulty getting rid of foreign criminals, terrorists, or people who just come here to smash the benefits system for all it is worth. We will even fund a lawyer so they can argue their case to stay, usually over several years and at considerable expense to the tax payer. It's all about human rights, apparently.

The Video Ref wrote:Nevertheless, someone from SA, seemingly with a decent background, a genuine relationship, and a few quid in the bank can't stay.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:We live in a democracy. Over the years, Parliament has democratically enacted a number of laws relating to immigration, deportation, human rights etc. Parliament can change any of those laws whenever it decides.

Parliament also decided to buy into international Human Rights and - upon the agreed due notice - could decide to opt out.

Whilst all these things happen, people in this country simply have the law applied to them as enacted by Parliament. No application or claim or case can ever be made or brought unless it is one which exists under our due process.

I recognise that, on an individual basis, any individual law or case can never meet with each person's approval, but imperfect though democratically enacted laws may be, we don't have a better system available.

I recognise that there will be many cases which won't sit square with many's ideas of fairness or whatever but feel overwhelmingly that the fact that we can and do apply the laws we have passed equally to each person regardless of race, ethnicity etc. is one of the hallmarks that makes our system work. We call it "the rule of law" and it is better than any alternative I know.

Yes he can, if he complies with said laws and if he fits the criteria. He may be personally inconvenienced by temporarily having to return home while he does this but it is hardly the hardship of the century. What we don't and shouldn't do is ignore the law just because someone thinks this guy's a good egg.

Also, I note he isn't able to work. And that he is appealing against the decision. You know, under this ridiculous system of ours which gives even forriners rights including appeal, and as he isn't working, we taxpayers are likely paying for his appeal under the legal aid you so deprecate. How ironic, eh?