From Local Blog:
http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html
Q&A: the Irene Clennell deportation case
I have been pretty frustrated with the reporting of the Irene Clennell case so far because I happen to know the case pretty well, but it has been hijacked and badly misrepresented in the press by some unscrupulous journalists who have their own left wing agenda. Look, I'm not right wing at all, I hate Trump, I voted for the UK to remain in the EU, I am an openly gay and liberal. I also happen to be an immigrant who went through the entire process of naturalizing as a British citizen. Trump's recent ban on refugees and travelers from 7 Muslim countries has made many people think that the British government is deporting a woman simply because she wasn't born in this country - nothing could be further from the truth. So let me do a Q&A to clear up some of the bullshit that has been shared on social media.
Q: Is it true that Irene Clennell has lived in the UK for 30 years as reported in Buzzfeed?
A:
No, it isn't! Here are the facts. Irene lived in the UK from 1988 to 1992 (4 years) before the whole family moved to Singapore from 1992 to 1998. She then stayed on in Singapore whilst her husband returned to the UK with their two children - the reason why she stayed on was because her elderly parents were in poor health and needed caring for. The returned to the UK from 2003 to 2005 (a further 2 years), but then she returns to Singapore after that. She then returns to the UK in 2013 and she stayed here until she was deported a few days ago (a further 4 years). So let's do the maths kids: what is 4 + 4 + 2 = ? That makes 10. Can you count? She lived in the UK for 10 years, not 30.
Q: So where did this figure of 30 years come from if Irene has only lived 10 years in the UK?
A:
It can be traced back to Irene's sister-in-law Angela Clennell who made that claim. Angela wrote on her Go Fund Me page (to raise funds to help Irene), "For 30 years, my sister-in-law Irene has lived in Britain after arriving here from Singapore. She has a British husband, two wonderful British children and a granddaughter she dotes upon. She has worked hard for those 30 years raising her family and being an important and beloved member of the local community." That's a total lie. Even if Irene did not leave the UK after arriving in 1998, do the maths. She arrived in the UK 29 years ago in 1998 as it is 2017 this year. That figure of 30 years was conveniently rounded up by Angela for dramatic effect (or maybe she's yet another one who can't do basic maths). But the fact is Irene had at most lived in the UK for 10 years, not 29, not 30. By all means raise funds to help Irene, but don't lie about the facts and figures. If I could do the maths and work this out, I am surprised Emily Duggan and so many other journalists have not done so.
It is so important to understand the terms of your visa!
Q: Is this an example of 'fake news' as talked about by president Trump?
A: Either the Buzzfeed journalist Emily Duggan can't do simple maths or she is so shit at journalism she didn't bother checking her facts. Either way, the basic facts of that article are plain wrong. At least the BBC article did bother checking the facts and getting it right. Websites like Buzzfeed unfortunately give the impression that they have an extreme left-wing agenda to discredit the UK Conservative government and I have no idea how someone like Emily Duggan can make such a terrible mistake - there's plenty of emotional punch in the story anyway about tearing a family apart and you could also draw upon the part whereby Irene was in Singapore not to work in corporate finance or as an investment banker but to take care for her sick parents. Getting your maths wrong makes the journalist look plain stupid. There's fake news, then there are incompetent journalists who do not even check their facts.
Q: So is Angela - Irene's sister-in-law, a scammer? Is she breaking the law by raising money by cooking up a version of the story that isn't true at all, by claiming that Irene had lived in the country for 30 years when Irene had spent less than 10 years in the UK? How can she do that - lie to the public like that? Isn't that downright illegal?
A: It is clear that Angela has lied and that she has succeeded in swaying public sympathy on the basis of a lie - if she had been truthful, then I doubt the public reaction would be one of sympathy. It would have been more like, "well, this woman made a grave mistake and needs to take responsibility for her error." But now, Angela has made it look like Irene is an innocent victim but the story doesn't add up at all.
There are glaring holes in the story Angela Clennell has presented: she didn't once mention how Irene willfully flouted the terms and conditions of her visa, she didn't once mention how Irene had overstayed her visitor's visa. She didn't mention anything about the time that
Irene had chosen to live in Singapore (11 years at the longest stretch from 1992 to 2003) - did the details of the case conveniently slip her mind or did she deliberately lie? Oh I don't doubt that Angela Clennell is a big fat liar and the story that she presented on the GoFundMe page is nothing short of a piece of fiction. This woman isn't an intelligent fraudster at all.
When does exaggeration become fraud?
Q: Wait, if Angela is obtaining money through dishonest means, by deceiving the public, why are people falling for it if they can obtain the facts of the case through other news sites, like the BBC then? Shouldn't the police be asked to investigate if there is a crime being committed by Angela? Like isn't this just plain, old fraud?
A: I'm afraid this is a reflection of the British public today. Many people are too stupid and believe what they want to believe - it is called confirmation bias. Dig a bit deeper into the Irene Clennell case and you'll see there's a clear reason why she was deported - her case was considered and rejected because she didn't follow the rules. There's nothing insensitive or unfair about the government's decision. But no, there are people out there who hate the current Tory government and are looking for any story that makes the government look like the enemy of the people. So if someone presents Irene as the innocent grandmother who gets deported without even a change of clothes, then anyone who already hates the government is going to lap up the story and share it on social media without checking if the story is true. It is internet click-bait and to obtain money through deceit or false pretenses in the UK is in fact a crime: now am I evil enough to make a police report? Angela Clennell will do what her sister-in-law did, plead ignorance and stupidity, claim that she exaggerated the details under stress to try to raise the money and promise to give the money back and I'll be made public enemy number by a public who doesn't understand the case.
I'll give you another example - a much more high profile one. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farrage lied to the British public that once the UK leaves the EU, the NHS will receive £350m a week that would have otherwise been sent to the EU. The Brexit voters were dumb enough to believe a claim that was so obviously untrue - yet because it concurred with the version of events that they want to believe in, they gladly voted for Brexit on the basis of a claim that was totally false. I'd love to see Johnson and Farrage thrown in jail and I'll personally toss the keys to their cells into the Thames so these two bastards will never get out for having lied like that - but instead they got away with it and still have commanding roles in British politics today. It is sickening - so if high profile politicians can lie to the public, then Angela Clennell probably thought, the public are too fucking stupid and will donate without verifying the facts. I have no incentive to poke this hornet's nest - Irene Clennell may appeal but her chances of reversing her deportation are poor. The public are free to give money to Angela Clennell if they are dumb enough to part with their hard earned money like that - the onus should really be on the donor to check the cause they are donating to before parting with their money. If they're really dumb enough not to check the facts before donating, then they deserve to lose their money.
Q: In the Buzzfeed article, it was claimed that "She is the latest victim of the government’s spousal visa system, which requires the British partner to prove earnings of at least £18,600". Is this assertion true or false?
A: False. Completely false because the Buzzfeed journalist clearly doesn't have a clue how immigration works - okay, I get it, British people who are born British don't have to contend with complex immigration laws as it doesn't affect them but having emigrated from Singapore to the UK, I have been through the system so I know precisely how the rules work. Emily Duggan has confused the two issues in such a ridiculous way! Firstly, Irene was first granted indefinite leave to remain way back in 1992 - that was a good 22 years before this £18,600 rule was introduced in 2014. This rule is controversial I grant you that, but Irene had so many opportunities in that 22 year period to make arrangements to naturalize as a British citizen in the period between 1992 and 2014 but for some reason, she chose not to do so. If Irene had been smart enough to have picked up the phone and talked to an immigration consultant or lawyer, she could have easily naturalized as a British citizen back in the mid-1990s, a long time before this new rule was introduced. Duh. This new rule simply isn't relevant in Irene's case - again, this is very poor journalism.
Q: How did Irene mess this up so badly?
A: Irene made an assumption and in her own words, "Initially when I applied for indefinite leave to remain I got it no problem at all. So I thought when you're married down here, you're entitled to be here." She made an assumption about her right to live in the UK just because she was married to a British man. But the rules of her indefinite leave to remain clearly state that you cannot spend more than 2 years away from the UK when on this visa. If you stay away for more than 2 years, then it automatically invalidates your visa regardless of how many family members (husband, children, grandchildren etc) you may have in the UK. Irene left the UK in 1992 and only tried to return in 2003 after having spent 11 years away. Now is the number 11 bigger or smaller than 2? That's right, she violated the terms and conditions of her indefinite leave to remain visa by staying away from the UK for long 11 years. Now you can debate till the cows come home about whether 2 years is too short a grace period for someone in that position to spend away from the UK and retain that visa, but I'm not here to debate the relative merits of those rules - I'm just here to point out to you where Irene has messed up. She made an assumption rather than verifying what the rules were. Duh.
Irene made a huge error of judgement by holding onto her Singapore passport.
Q: What should she have done instead?
A: Well for starters, she should have picked up the phone and spoken to an immigration lawyer who would have told her not to violate the rules of visa! She had several options, she could have immediately applied for a British passport there and then (and it would be granted on the basis of her marriage). Those who are not married to a British national would have to wait 12 months before they could do that. She could still then live in Singapore as a British expatriate - Singapore is such an expatriate friendly country and if she or her husband could find work there, they would have no problem getting the right visas to enable them to live and work there. Either that, or she should have broken up her stay in Singapore into tranches under 2 years - so each time she got close to that 2 year mark, she should return to the UK for at least a few months so as not to violate the terms of her visa. The moment she willfully broken the rules, she had put herself on the wrong side of the law. Please, never ever put yourself in that position!
Q: But this woman just wants to be with her family, the UK government is being very cruel to split up a family like that - can compassion be shown to Irene even if she did break some of the immigration rules? Can mercy be shown?
A:
Irene chose to spend time away from her husband and family from the period of 1998 to 2003. She was in Singapore caring for her sick mother whilst her husband had returned to the UK with their children then. That is 5 years apart. For a woman who claimed to want to be with her family, you can look back at the period of their 27 year marriage and say, "hang on - you've only actually lived together for the period of 1990 to 1998 (8 years), then 2003 to 2005 (2 years) and then 2013 to 2017 (4 years). That makes a total of just 14 years out of a 27 year marriage - you were living together for barely half the time. How many married couples actually spend half the time they are married living 8 time zones apart? The fact that her husband John did live in Singapore from the period 1992 to 1998 shows that it wasn't impossible for John to live in Singapore and be with his wife that way. The statistics show a couple who aren't close at all, so for her to claim that she just wants to be with her family after spending half her marriage practically estranged from her husband, you can see why she has at best, a weak case as the evidence is reveals.
How many couples choose to live 8 time zones apart?
Irene has two children who are now grown up, but we know that she spent 5 years apart from her family from 1998 to 2003 - given that she was married in 1990, her children must have been very young then. Oh you can wax lyrical about the filial daughter taking care of her sick, elderly parents, but what kind of terrible mother abandons her young children for five years when they need their mother the most? Sure she may be a good daughter on one hand, but having spent that much time away from her children by failing to make practical arrangements to bring up her own children - goodness me, that makes her a terrible mother by that token.
You can see why the Home Office has rejected her case because she has demonstrated little interest in being with her own children - they can't just bend over and say, "oh she's had a change of heart and now she wants to be near her children despite abandoning them when they were young". I am seeing both sides of the story - maybe she has had a change of heart, that's possible - but the evidence (or rather, the absence) of family life works against her in this case.
Q: But Irene claimed, "I don’t have anything in Singapore. I don’t have a house to go to, I don’t have a job. I feel closer to my mother-in-law and sister-in-law than my family in Singapore. My parents are both dead and I only have one sister there and we’re not that close. I’m British. When I’m here I feel at home. If I go to Singapore nobody will accept me there because they see me as a British woman. I wear Western clothes and my whole culture is here."
A:
I'm sorry to be a bitch but Irene did spend more of her life in Singapore than the UK. Her accent is totally Singaporean - she doesn't sound British at all. She is 53 years old and lived at best 10 years in the UK, 43 years in Singapore. It seems ironic that she wants to live in the UK so badly now but that seems to contradict her actions in the past, when she passed up the chance to live in the UK and went out of her way to spend extended periods in Singapore. And it is utter bullshit that nobody will accept her as a British woman - that's fucking racist. Singapore is a big, modern, metropolis with 5.5 million people. Nobody is asking you to run for public office in Singapore or win some kind of popularity contest - you just have to settle in, find a job, find new friends like all other adults. And it's not like we're sending you to a country you know nothing about - you spent 43 years there, may I remind you Irene and by that token, you know Singapore a lot better than you'll ever know the UK where you've spent just 10 years. The remark about western clothes just takes the piss - look my mother is as Singaporean as they come and I've never ever seen her in a Cheong Sam, Sarong Kebaya or Sari. Where did she think she was being deported to - Riyadh? Tehran?
Singapore - where Irene has lived for 43 years.
In any case, let me remind you that Irene spent 43 years of her life in Singapore and she's 53 years old today. How on earth can you live 43 years old in Singapore and not have any friends at all? No ex-classmates? Former neighbours? No former colleagues? No relatives at all? Really? What did this woman do in 43 years, was she in solitary confinement, spending her time on the internet watching movies? Heck, I have spent a two short stints in working in Berlin last year and if I were to go back to Berlin tomorrow, I'd know exactly whom I'd stay with, whom I'd be catching up with and whom I'd be partying with. And my German isn't even that fluent but hey, I know how to make friends. But like her sister in law Angela, Irene is lying through her teeth again as it is simply inconceivable that she has nothing and no one in Singapore. I've lived in the UK for 20 years (that's double what Irene's time in the UK) and I still have loads of friends in Singapore whenever I return to visit. This woman is a deceitful liar - she is exaggerating because she's desperate for public sympathy, thinking that it would help her case. But she's hardly a convincing liar, no.
Q: They deported her with just £12 (S$20) in her pocket - how do they expect her to survive in Singapore?
A: Irene is not being completely honest here - she is trying to portray herself as this poor grandmother being deported, yet in the BBC interview, she admitted that, "Mrs Clennell did not apply for a British passport because Singapore does not allow dual nationality, and she needed to remain a Singapore national to live in a government flat there." So that suggests that Irene does have a HDB flat in Singapore (or at least had one in the past). Could Irene have rented a HDB flat in Singapore? That is highly unlikely as there are very strict rules to qualify for the HDB Public Rental Scheme - currently, the income ceiling is S$1500 per month, per household. And that's the 2017 income ceiling, in the 1990s, it would have been around £1000. Did she and her husband get by with less than $1000 a month in Singapore, bringing up two children? No, that seems implausible - leaving the only reason why Irene wanted to hold on to her Singaporean passport was to purchase a HDB flat. Now even back in the 1990s, those flats weren't cheap at all and some of the nicer HDB flats today can cost as over S$1 million.
This suggests that Irene isn't the pitiful, penniless grandmother as suggested, but someone trying to make a property investment in Singapore in the 1990s, it was for that nice HDB flat.
Irene could have come to Singapore as a British expat.
Q: You almost sound spiteful and glad that she got deported, you bloody evil bastard.
A: Believe it or not, you can take the boy out of Singapore but not Singapore out of the boy. Singaporeans are extremely law abiding and we follow the rules. I followed the rules when it came to migrating to the UK, I checked all the boxes, I fulfilled all the requirements, I was ever so careful with my paperwork. When I received my UK passport, I dutifully renounced my Singaporean citizenship - I followed every single rule and regulation and guess what? The British system treated me very fairly and I had no problems whatsoever. Irene thinks that she can break the rules, plead ignorance and then have her sister-in-law Angela run a campaign based on a bunch of total lies to get public support? Hell no. I think Irene is playing fast and loose with the law - even if I don't hold her responsible for her sister-in-law's ridiculous lies, she had every opportunity to follow the law and try to get back to the UK legally. You can't break the rules, have your visa revoked and then plead ignorance. No, stupidity or ignorance is not a valid excuse.
Q: Was it merely a question of paperwork, if she had applied for a different visa everything would be okay?
A: No. After her indefinite leave to remain had lapsed, her only hope would have been to apply for a returning resident visa. For that she had to demonstrate "strong family ties to the UK", evidence that they have "lived in the UK most of their life, their current circumstances and why they have lived outside the UK". Now she ticks two out of three boxes: she is married to a British man and there was a compelling reason why she was obliged to live in Singapore for so many years to care for her parents. But where she fails is the number of years she had lived in the UK. Her initial stint in the UK was only 4 years long and the moment she was granted indefinite leave to remain, what did she do? Did she naturalize as a British citizen? Hell no, she couldn't wait to get on the next flight out of Heathrow to Singapore. That is the opposite of what a "returning resident" would have done. I have no idea why she was so fixated on a HDB flat when there are plenty of opportunities to invest in property in the UK in any case - it's not as if she had a nice condo in River Valley in any case, she wanted a HDB flat, go figure. She had really messed up, there was no way back now.
Not too bad a place to live, Irene...
Q: What will happen next?
A: They have 28 days to file an appeal from her deportation. It is now Tuesday, so they have 26 days left. It will in all probably fail again - all her previous applications have failed, so a high profile deportation along with some nasty lies told by Irene and Angela isn't going to change the minds of the people at the Home Office. If anything, the lies they have told are simply going to hurt her case. The case will be rejected and Irene will have to rebuild her life in Singapore where she has spent 43 years of her life - she currently has a 10 year ban on her entering the UK after the deportation which will apply should her appeal fail. Some lawyer in England will make a lot of money from this case thanks to the very generous but misguided donations by the public and sadly, It is one thing to start one of those online petitions for a cause you care deeply about, but to ask the public to give you money for your cause - now that takes it into a whole new territory. I fear this will only encourage others with criminal intentions to exploit this method to ask the public to donate to their dubious causes given that the British public has proven itself to be very gullible indeed.
So there you go, it was a straight forward case until I came across the lies her sister-in-law told and I was appalled by how many terrible, incompetent journalists reported those lies as fake news without verifying their facts. I hope I have been able to introduce some truth back into the debate. What do you make of the Irene Clennell case then? If you have any questions about the case, then let's talk about it here, leave a comment below. Many thanks for reading.
