Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Mena

Question. Is she not just making use of the legal avenue afforded to her? i.e., is she actually receiving any special treatment here?

I see cries of abuse, but would everyone here not also make use of all available avenues they were afforded should they be in a similar position? Or is it just that she's Nigerian?

On the face of it, and I'll be the first to admit I'm not totally up to speed here, as lets be real, it's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, it would appear to me that there's no point slagging off those using the legal process as it was designed. Instead we should be insisting that the process be streamlined, with the caveat being it's kept fair, open and transparent.

AlekSmart

Question. Is she not just making use of the legal avenue afforded to her? i.e., is she actually receiving any special treatment here?

Good question Mena.

I would agree that Pamela Izevbekhai,or more correctly her Legal Advisors, is simply making full use of the Legal Avenues,as the SC has decided to afford them to her.
This level of forebearance and understanding as granted by the Courts is now what is excising the minds of many observers.

Given that today is the deadline for the EHCR`s deliberations,and in the light of the recent relevations by the appelant herself,one could be forgiven for expecting the organs of state to withdraw the level of understanding and compassion already fully utilized by Ms Izevbekhai and her team.

I`m certainly not proposing that her nationality is a influencing factor here,but I remain suspicious that the State and Higher Courts are just being Ultra-Mindful of her status as a black person.

I am disappointed in a sense at what I take to be a low level of self-confidence in it`s own processes which is being shown by the SC in todays decision,but that is my personal belief and the SC`s members may have far more prudent reasons for this latest delay.

Either way,Ms Izevbekhai can never argue that she recieved anything less than a FULL hearing of her continuingly disintegrating case in this juristiction....It stands in stark contrast to the decision making process which the UK authorities employed in the case of her husbands refugee application and about which we have heard so little.

SWL

Mena wrote: »

Question. Is she not just making use of the legal avenue afforded to her? i.e., is she actually receiving any special treatment here?

I see cries of abuse, but would everyone here not also make use of all available avenues they were afforded should they be in a similar position? Or is it just that she's Nigerian?

On the face of it, and I'll be the first to admit I'm not totally up to speed here, as lets be real, it's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, it would appear to me that there's no point slagging off those using the legal process as it was designed. Instead we should be insisting that the process be streamlined, with the caveat being it's kept fair, open and transparent.

It’s all very well using the avenues open to you, if you are willing to pay for them. PI has openly stated she lied about documents, and for someone soon keen to stay in this country she has no problem openly stating or by her actions implying that the laws owe her, but she doesn't owe the same level of duty to a society.

I don't think it’s because she is Nigerian, she has no right in my eyes even a moral right to be here.

The system hopefully will be streamlined and lets hope not at the expense of these who require it.

She has given the two fingers to a society who by our nature is open and fair minded & understanding of hardship. Her level of contempt of Ireland laws and population are astonishing.

Her nationality only comes into because we as a country we can't fix Africa problems economic or cultural.

ateam

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Newstalk reporting that the supreme court has granted her another month to get legal represetation. FFS this has gone beyond a joke!

Unbelievable.

LostinBlanch

AlekSmart wrote: »

Good question Mena.

I would agree that Pamela Izevbekhai,or more correctly her Legal Advisors, is simply making full use of the Legal Avenues,as the SC has decided to afford them to her.
This level of forebearance and understanding as granted by the Courts is now what is excising the minds of many observers.

Given that today is the deadline for the EHCR`s deliberations,and in the light of the recent relevations by the appelant herself,one could be forgiven for expecting the organs of state to withdraw the level of understanding and compassion already fully utilized by Ms Izevbekhai and her team.

I`m certainly not proposing that her nationality is a influencing factor here,but I remain suspicious that the State and Higher Courts are just being Ultra-Mindful of her status as a black person.

I am disappointed in a sense at what I take to be a low level of self-confidence in it`s own processes which is being shown by the SC in todays decision

Well put, but the more I see of this case, the more cynical view I take of it. Though not half as cynical as someone who knowlingly supplies false documentation and who's case has been shown to be based on a non existent daughter, supposed supporting testimony from two different people claiming to be the doctor who is supposed to have treated PI in the birth of her now non proven to be non existent daughter, in two different radio interviews. One with Philip Boucher Hayes on RTE and one on local radio in Sligo. Of course the fact that the real doctor who treated her denied the existence of any "phantom daughter" (my words) led PI with no option but to admit that the documents supporting her case were forged. The fact that her original legal team chose to come off record speaks volumes. Now after being given plenty of time to come up with a new legal team the Supreme Court gives her more time to waste. Never mind the cost to the exchequer.

Don't for one moment think that this is the end of it. It isn't, wait until we hear about the search for further documentation to prove that the original documentation was actually a forged copy of the real documentation that her supposedly rich and powerful inlaws through their contacts in the Nigerian Government / Military / Illuminati etc had suppressed / deleted. This last sentence is deliberately flippant but will IMO bear about as much reality as PIs latest story will. She and her colluders are trying to waste as much court time as possible and draw this thing out for so long that eventually they hope people will just forget about it and say she can stay.

What will this prove? That lying and supplying false documentation to the courts, having a loud cohort of supporters with the collusion of some gullible media personages (I won't call them journalists) calling everyone who points out that her claim isn't valid racist/sexist/anything else you're having works. So no, it isn't about her nationality it's about continued abuse of process and sticking two fingers up to the rest of us.

The Raven.

25 people deported to Nigeria

Twenty-five people were deported from Ireland to Nigeria last night after deportation orders were issued against them.

The group of 11 men, five women and nine children was deported at around 10pm.

The group, accompanied by a number of gardaí, was flown to Lagos aboard a charter flight via Madrid where other deportees from EU states boarded the plane.

The operation is co-ordinated in Ireland by the Garda National Immigration Bureau and the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service in conjunction with Frontex.

The participating states are Ireland, the UK, Spain, Luxembourg Slovakia and Malta.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0430/deportation.html

This is just breaking news at the moment, so the information is minimal. It would be interesting to know more of the facts in these cases, and compare them to the Izevbekhai case. I wonder how long these cases took and how much they cost. Will we ever find out?

HollyB

Mena wrote: »

Question. Is she not just making use of the legal avenue afforded to her? i.e., is she actually receiving any special treatment here?

I see cries of abuse, but would everyone here not also make use of all available avenues they were afforded should they be in a similar position? Or is it just that she's Nigerian?

My guess would be that the powers that be are treading exceptionally carefully with this case, given the publicity it has generated and the fact that the ECHR has taken an interest in it. They aren't going to take the risk of doing anything that would give Pamela a chance to claim that she has been denied due process, so she'll get the extension she needs to find a new legal team, etc. This is a case where they need to be sure that justice is seen to be done, or else they'll have to contend with articles and protests about the "plight" of "poor Pamela" who is being denied a fair chance to state her case.

However, this doesn't happen for free.

Even if Pamela can find a legal team who are willing to take on this case and work for free, the State and the Supreme Court have pretty much zero chance of ever being able to recoup so much as a euro of the money that this case has cost them - or, more accurately, the taxpayers of Ireland.

It was one thing when people believed in Pamela's story about Elizabeth's death and the point being argued was whether or not the family could have availed of protections in Nigeria but the recent revelations have cast serious doubt on the existence of Elizabeth Izevbekhai and Pamela's entire story. This case has been dragging on for a long time, at considerable cost and I think that the idea that the case may have been based on a lie from the very beginning is what would make people angriest, along with the fact that it is still going on, despite the fact that Pamela has admitted that the documents she submitted as evidence were fraudulent.

I'd say that some people who might not have a problem with a truthful asylum seeker availing of due process and exploring all of the legal options available to them may feel differently if they perceive that the system is being manipulated by an asylum seeker who is lying, especially when they are paying the price for the latter's day in court.

Wheely

fraz1971 wrote: »

I just think it is lousy throwing up someones grammar and spelling. Everyone is entitled to an opinion regardless of their education. Maybe you think that only those of us with third level education are fit for debate?

No I dont think only those of us with third level education are fit for debate. And i've already said i took issue with far more than Irishjohns grammar and spelling, there was his vulgarity and shoddy reasoning. And his overt racism. Try to paint me as whatever you want. You think i was lousy? I think his rubbish posts were lousy. Of course hes entitled to his opinion, and Im entitled to take issue with it which I did. He'll be alright tho, he's got you to look after him.

fraz1971 wrote: »

The word 'racist' has been abused by loons like RAR. I oppose mass immigration, abuse of asylum laws and illegal imigration. If that defines me as 'racist' then so be it. The authorities found no basis for granting asylum in Pamela's case. This is called state racism whilst ignoring the fact that we have already opened the floodgates too widely.

Ireland has taken in refugees before without any objections. This is different. Our laws and liberal attitudes are being abused.

Just because the Dail wastes money it does not mean that all government departments must follow. I pay enough taxes to have a say on where my money goes, and I choose Irish people first. Like it or lump it. If the citizenship referendum is anything to go by 80% of our people agree with me.

Maybe the word racist is being abused, but not by me. I dont know "RAR the loon", if he posted earlier I didnt read it cos I havent read the thread. I did say that in my first post, i wasnt commenting on the substantive issue being discussed, merely responding to what I perceived to be a narrow-minded, badly thought out, racist post. Oppose what you want, I dont know or care whether or not that defines you as a racist, Im sure that definition is open to many different interpretations.

One or two things though. You oppose illegal immigration, abuse of asylum laws AND mass immigration. So the latter you disagree with regardless of whether or not its legal, illegal or an abuse of process, am I right?

The following two points are merely opinions of mine
I wouldn't necessarily say we have liberal attitudes in this country
and for my money, I think the Citizenship Referendum was unnecessary.

blueythebear

AlekSmart wrote: »

Good question Mena.

I would agree that Pamela Izevbekhai,or more correctly her Legal Advisors, is simply making full use of the Legal Avenues,as the SC has decided to afford them to her.
This level of forebearance and understanding as granted by the Courts is now what is excising the minds of many observers.

Given that today is the deadline for the EHCR`s deliberations,and in the light of the recent relevations by the appelant herself,one could be forgiven for expecting the organs of state to withdraw the level of understanding and compassion already fully utilized by Ms Izevbekhai and her team.

I`m certainly not proposing that her nationality is a influencing factor here,but I remain suspicious that the State and Higher Courts are just being Ultra-Mindful of her status as a black person.

I am disappointed in a sense at what I take to be a low level of self-confidence in it`s own processes which is being shown by the SC in todays decision,but that is my personal belief and the SC`s members may have far more prudent reasons for this latest delay.

Either way,Ms Izevbekhai can never argue that she recieved anything less than a FULL hearing of her continuingly disintegrating case in this juristiction....It stands in stark contrast to the decision making process which the UK authorities employed in the case of her husbands refugee application and about which we have heard so little.

I disagree that she's being given any special treatment. Her old solicitors are still on record and they want to make an application to come off record for her. The adjournment is for her to engage a new legal team, who would need time to peruse the whole file and brief new counsel. It's par for the course for an adjournment where a new solicitor is coming on board, even where the old solicitors seem to be moving at snail's pace in putting their application to come off record in to the SC Office.

The issue of her race I don't think is as relevant here as the level of publicity is. I would imagine that hte Supreme Court are anxious to have this one play out by the numbers so nobody can cry foul later on. And rightly so when you consider the scrutiny this case is under...

LostinBlanch

blueythebear wrote: »

I disagree that she's being given any special treatment. Her old solicitors are still on record and they want to make an application to come off record for her. The adjournment is for her to engage a new legal team, who would need time to peruse the whole file and brief new counsel. It's par for the course for an adjournment where a new solicitor is coming on board, even where the old solicitors seem to be moving at snail's pace in putting their application to come off record in to the SC Office.

The issue of her race I don't think is as relevant here as the level of publicity is. I would imagine that hte Supreme Court are anxious to have this one play out by the numbers so nobody can cry foul later on. And rightly so when you consider the scrutiny this case is under...

I thought that her old solicitors had come off record as reported in the media. At the rate this is going this case will still be dragging on for the next couple of years. Which will be a disgrace IMO.

JonathanAnon

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Newstalk reporting that the supreme court has granted her another month to get legal represetation. FFS this has gone beyond a joke!

Absolute disgrace, the bodies of the state would never indulge an ordinary decent Irish tax payer like. The longer they let her stay here under false pretenses, the more difficult it will be for her to integrate back into her own country when she returns (well, not that I believe that it will ever happen). This woman is cynical and manipulative and is being rewarded for her efforts.

blueythebear

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I thought that her old solicitors had come off record as reported in the media. At the rate this is going this case will still be dragging on for the next couple of years. Which will be a disgrace IMO.

Somebody posted here that they were in the SC t'other day and that PI's solicitors asked for an adjournment to get papers in to the SC to come off record so they haven't done so yet. I imagine the month is for them to come off record, for her to engage new solicitors and for them to study the file.

That's a fair enough reason for an adjournment. The case can't be struck out until PI has had a chance to respond to the State's affidavits (the ones suggesting fake documents and that Elizabeth never existed) and she can't do so without a legal team.

If PI can prove the existence of her daughter (i.e. in an affidavit responding to the State's recent evidence) the Supreme Court case can be heard as normal. She'll probably fail in this case anyway and will then be deported after as she has no further applications to remain in the country to be made. Given the publicity, all of these processes will be fast-tracked I'd imagine so she'll probably be back in Nigeria before the end of 2009, barring some miracle. I'd like to reiterate that this is not a good thing for her children or her I'm sure, but it would seem to be the fact that she broke the rules and if she did, then she should not be allowed to remain.

fraz1971

One or two things though. You oppose illegal immigration, abuse of asylum laws AND mass immigration. So the latter you disagree with regardless of whether or not its legal, illegal or an abuse of process, am I right?

The following two points are merely opinions of mine
I wouldn't necessarily say we have liberal attitudes in this country
and for my money, I think the Citizenship Referendum was unnecessary.

Firstly I do disagree with mass immigration. Before mass immigration into Ireland we didn't have the facilities for our own people. Hospitals are substandard. In my opinion all children should be entitled free healthcare and medicines. When mass immigration began we saw immigrants complaining about "racism" because they had to be transported to emergency schools. We have not got the facilities in place to expand our population with immigrants.

Immigration is fine in an expanding economy and for those with much needed skills. I am against MASS immigration. Which I consider to be a destructive force which creates a negative impact on society. I have no doubt that we let in many Nigerians whom we knew were not genuine asylum seekers in order to expand the workforce. All this would be fine if we were certain that the good times were here for good. We were only one of three EU states who allowed the free movement of those from the new EU states. That seems reasonable, but when so many people move it at once it has a negative impact on Ireland and state of origin. As eg Poland has shown us. If you open your borders people will move to greener pastures en masse. If the same numbers flowed the other way then this would not be such a problem.

It is a fact that many Polish workers stay in the state just long enough to be able to claim their tax back. Whilst they are here they claim childrens allowance. Big business gets a cheap workforce, but what do we get? If we had child benefit flow from Poland at the same rate then things would be different. Open border has always worked in the EU because of people flowing in both directions. If all EU states had allowed the movement of labour at the same then the movement could have been absorbed collectively.

People (usually highly paid people) will say that the Irish workers were greedy and out priced themselves. How can we compete with Polish wages? If the EU were not a tool of big business we would have a common minimum wage policy. We also damaged our competitiveness with the EMU and the subsequent strengthening of the Euro. We have damaged our ability to compete with Poland for exports.

If opening our borders caused such a flood from Poland, what do you think it would be like if we were soft with non EU immigrants? We must control our borders. The economy is in tatters and we must react to the new circumstances. If we allow Pamela to stay we are opening up a can of worms when it comes to immigration. Every African family with a daughter will be allowed to come here and claim refugee status.

The citizenship referendum would not have been necessary if the system had not been abused. A good friend of mine met a woman in Peru and married her. He was put through hell with immigration trying to ensure it wasn't a marriage of convenience. He did however understand that it was due to abuses of the system and never once felt the need to use the word 'racism'. You don't need that word if you are genuine.

If I offended you with my last comment I apologise, but if you feel like picking apart every comment I make then please keep it to yourself. I have a feeling you were getting ready to use the word 'xenophobia'. FYO I travel the world over with my work and am anything but. The reason being that there is a worldwide shortage of people who do my job. I have many friends in Africa and South America whom I work with regularly.

By the way. RAR= Residents Against Racism. The very use of the word 'Racism' suggests that every deportation is racist, and the use of 'residents' suggests they have more support than they actually have.

Wheely

fraz1971 wrote: »

The citizenship referendum would not have been necessary if the system had not been abused. A good friend of mine met a woman in Peru and married her. He was put through hell with immigration trying to ensure it wasn't a marriage of convenience. He did however understand that it was due to abuses of the system and never once felt the need to use the word 'racism'. You don't need that word if you are genuine.

Rubbish. Doesn't even make sense. Only people who are not genuine use the word racism. Rubbish.

fraz1971 wrote: »

I have a feeling you were getting ready to use the word 'xenophobia'.

Well I wasn't. Maybe your feelings are off the mark at times.....

fraz1971 wrote: »

FYO I travel the world over with my work and am anything but. The reason being that there is a worldwide shortage of people who do my job. I have many friends in Africa and South America whom I work with regularly.

Yeah, thanks for clearing that up, i was wondering about the shortage of people that do your work and whether or not you had foreign friends.

fraz1971 wrote: »

By the way. RAR= Residents Against Racism. The very use of the word 'Racism' suggests that every deportation is racist, and the use of 'residents' suggests they have more support than they actually have.

Jeez thanks again, now I know what the words "racism" and eh, "residents" are suggestive of. I'll make sure to update my lexicon.

fraz1971 wrote: »

If I offended you with my last comment I apologise, but if you feel like picking apart every comment I make then please keep it to yourself.

Fine sorry, I won't pick apart the rest of your post.............?

PapaQuebec

It was me that posted that I had attended the SC 3 weeks ago.

One of the points raised by the Chief Justice (justifiably in my view but then who am I to second-guess the Chief Justice) was that despite it being widely reported in the media (for lack of a better word) that PI's solicitors were coming off-record the necessary documents had not yet been lodged with the SC office. It was MY understanding at the time ( and surely that of all present) that the adjournment grudgingly granted to PI was solely for the purpose of engaging new solicitors!!

fraz1971

Whatever wheely. No need to be obnoxious when someone takes the time to answer you. Maybe you need a week to cool off.

cabinteelytom

Most citizens, who have had little experience of being on the wrong side of the law, would assume that a person bringing publicly funded legal actions against the State, when exposed as relying upon falsehoods, would have her legal aid entitlement from the State immediately withdrawn, and would be obliged, if she chose to continue her legal actions, to fund them from her own purse, or from charitable donations, or from the 'good works' of the legal profession (freely given, without hope of reward, so as to enjoy the greatest possible level of respect).

Is there a political party out there, which will put such a reform on the statute book-a citizen's initiative to challenge legal aid awards to mischevous or vexatious appellants?

oscarBravo

This thread isn't about immigration, so no more discussion of it, please. Also, stop the bickering or I'll start banging heads together.

opo

Mena wrote: »

Question. Is she not just making use of the legal avenue afforded to her? i.e., is she actually receiving any special treatment here?

I see cries of abuse, but would everyone here not also make use of all available avenues they were afforded should they be in a similar position? Or is it just that she's Nigerian?

On the face of it, and I'll be the first to admit I'm not totally up to speed here, as lets be real, it's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, it would appear to me that there's no point slagging off those using the legal process as it was designed. Instead we should be insisting that the process be streamlined, with the caveat being it's kept fair, open and transparent.

I very much doubt that the asylum or legal system was in any way specifically designed to engineer anything like the obscene, 23 and counting high court appearances for one asylum case. Never mind one that has been systematically constructed on lies and forgeries.

slippy wicket

If an irish person abused and made a mockery of what passed as a legal system in this poor abused country they would be broken on the wheel.
As you may guess i am not overly sympathetic to people who lie and lie and lie again.

The Orb

Under the constitution there is a right of access to the High Court, hence all of the judicial reviews by PI. Now this right is clearly abused throughout all stages of the asylum process by applicants and certain firms of solicitors. The only way to stop this abuse is to remove the constitutional right, which can only be done by referendum. Now somebody tell me how this can be done without accusations of apartheid-like racism being thrown about. No government would have the stomach for it. That constitutional right is there for everybody and until now hadn't been abused in such a way. As long as that right exists it wll continue to be abused in this fashion. There is no way around it.

AlekSmart

One of the points raised by the Chief Justice (justifiably in my view but then who am I to second-guess the Chief Justice) was that despite it being widely reported in the media (for lack of a better word) that PI's solicitors were coming off-record the necessary documents had not yet been lodged with the SC office. It was MY understanding at the time ( and surely that of all present) that the adjournment grudgingly granted to PI was solely for the purpose of engaging new solicitors!!

PapaQuebec is to be commended for the front line reportage.

Am I misunderstanding this or is there something a bit unusual in the tardiness of the changeover process in this instance ?
Am I wrong in expecting a Supreme Court process to demand a somewhat elevated level of preparedness and application than one in a lower court.

Apologies in advance,but the way this case is now progressing does cause me to question many of my previously held notions of the "Majesty of The Law".

Now the Orb posts.....

Under the constitution there is a right of access to the High Court, hence all of the judicial reviews by PI. Now this right is clearly abused throughout all stages of the asylum process by applicants and certain firms of solicitors.

Hmmmm is there a thread here worth pulling at,as many prople are somewhat belatedly beginning to look away from Ms Izevbekhai and study those who stand one step behind the lady....

PapaQuebec

Thanks Alek - rarely heard that when I was just that - A front-line reporter!

Mushera

The case is due for "mention" again on 28th May. This probably means more or less the same antics. I believe that this woman should and will be deported but the state must operate strictly by the book. It is evident that interest and support in this case is gone, given the very limited coverage of yesterdays proceeding, and rightly so. At this stage I think the best thing to do is to stop giving this woman any media coverage at all. The next time I want to see her picture on any paper is when she is at the Airport. She has attempted to make us a laughing stock and abuse the welcome and support she has received from our country. The state will not lose its case. This much is certain. I agree with BlueytheBear that she will be gone before the end of the year. The only thing I would hope is that the route into this country by claiming FGM will be closed to bogus asylum seekers in the future. If this case has done anything it has highlighted the lengths that certain individuals will go to in order to attain residency within the EU. By hook or by crook this lady wanted to stay here. Certain factors played in her favour at the beginning but the crookery is going against her in the end. Right must win out!!!!

rkeane

I have no doubt that she will be deported, but not until she has dragged this out for another few months. I hope to god that our stupid government hurry up with the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill..this is the only way to stop bogus cases like this.

blueythebear

PapaQuebec wrote: »

It was me that posted that I had attended the SC 3 weeks ago.

One of the points raised by the Chief Justice (justifiably in my view but then who am I to second-guess the Chief Justice) was that despite it being widely reported in the media (for lack of a better word) that PI's solicitors were coming off-record the necessary documents had not yet been lodged with the SC office. It was MY understanding at the time ( and surely that of all present) that the adjournment grudgingly granted to PI was solely for the purpose of engaging new solicitors!!

I stand corrected. Thought you were referring to this weeks' hearing. Anyhoo, it would seem that she's been given until the 28th May 2009 to get a new solicitor and file replying affidavits. So it looks like the State's application to have it struck out will be dealt with on that date so at least on May 28th we should have something relatively newsworthy then! Finally, there's an end in sight.

AlekSmart

Whilst not quite up Pamela Izevbekhai`s street,this piece from today`s Indo does indicate that somebody in authority has awoken to the fact of the sums not adding up.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-to-crack-down-on-overstayers-with-new-control-system-1727871.html

However It would perhaps be interesting to hear Tony Izevbekhai`s opinions on the proposed tightening of monitoring processess and particularly in the area of Ireland / UK system sharing and co-operation ?

seancoistine

The liberal view-point is espoused by people who whould never do anything demanding like giving their personal time and money, but wax indignant at the rest of us for being so reactionary.

It is mainly the creature of the comfortable middle class, whose children do'nt want any old ordingary careers, but want to build up thier CV's in 'human rights'

Wheely

seancoistine wrote: »

The liberal view-point is espoused by people who whould never do anything demanding like giving their personal time and money, but wax indignant at the rest of us for being so reactionary.

It is mainly the creature of the comfortable middle class, whose children do'nt want any old ordingary careers, but want to build up thier CV's in 'human rights'

I'm sorry, but generalisations like this aren't really fair. Obviously a lot of people DO give up their time and money WORKING to espouse a liberal view-point, so it seems ridiculous to say that THAT view-point is ONLY espoused by those who give up and personal time or money?

Also the middle class aren't that comfortable at the moment.

Also ANYONE who "builds up their CV in human rights" has also given up some personal time in doing so. Unless their lying.........?:rolleyes:

Just to clarify-what exactly constitutes "any old career"?

goldenbrown

yes