A VICAR who helped carry out nearly 250 sham marriages, pocketing £30,000 in proceeds, was called ‘disgraceful’ and ‘greedy’ by a judge yesterday.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1r4QSjWxZ
Germ- he should have got 10 years. I hope he gets regularly bashed in jail.
He should now automatically lose his position as a Vicar
Say your prayers holy man.
An update.
I emailed Theresa May to ask what if anything they were doing about the 250 couples married illegally by this specimen. One of her staff has just written back to me enclosing the letter sent to her from Damian Green in response to my query.
There is a page and a half of flannel about the UKBA developing closer links with reg offices and dioceses and the "training and awareness" sessions they're providing plus a lot of bull about consultation proposals to Immigration Rules to tackle sham marriage etc
Anyway the 2nd para has the response to my question here it is in full
"The UKBA is reviewing cases where documentation was issued on the basis of a marriage conducted by Brian Shipsides or Elwon John ** with a view to revoking that documentation where the marriage is a sham. This is not a simple process and each case has to be investigated separately. Where necessary and appropriate, the UKBA will take enforcement action to remove the participants in these sham marriages from the UK"
** I don't know who this Elwon John is - I'd guess a dodgy African vicar
I've emailed back asking her to ask Green why he chooses to use the phrase "Where necessary and appropriate" with regard to removal of these vermin - in my book it should be automatic
All part of the usual covering your back cowardly non-committal bullcrap used by senior civil servants and all politicians when being asked for a straight answer.
Well done for making the effort anyway Dedworth.
... has the Church got its "vicars in a twist"?
Ba-Dummmmmmm......................Tshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!Originally Posted by Arthur Little
Won't the idiot be out in just over 2 years anyway?
Whilst the human rights act is in place you'll probably find most of them have spawned and fall under the right to a life ........ at least you got a reply to the letter, I was surprised to see that.
Tone
As a concerned constituent I've had a few face to face meetings over 12 years or so
You must have a lot of self-restraint Dedworth.
I've emailed back asking her to ask Green why he chooses to use the phrase "Where necessary and appropriate" with regard to removal of these vermin - in my book it should be automatic
I've had a letter back enclosing a copy of one from Damian Green :-
"..........asked for clarification of my use of the phrase "Where necessary and appropriate" which I used in my previous reply of 1 May.
The UK Border Agency is actively reviewing all cases where individuals gained the right to live in the UK as a result of a wedding at All Saints Church during the period in question. Previous experience has shown that some of the people involved in those weddings may be able to prove that they are in subsisting relationships. Therefore, removal may not be appropriate in all cases.
I can confirm that where there is evidence that leave has been granted on the basis of a sham marriage the UKBA will look to revoke that right to stay and remove the individual from the UK
'Subsisting' relationships or not, to comply with spouse visa regs as we do, the visa needs to be applied from in the applicant's home country.
Why all the mealy-mouthed nonsense ?...exactly the same buck-passing non-committal crap that has let so many ILLEGALS off the hook already.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
