
Man with British wife told to move to Turkey despite facing imprisonment
Galip, 26, and Amber, 33, said they felt 'mentally and physically drained' after being informed by the Home Office they should move to Turkey on the basis the disruption this would cause them was 'proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining effective immigration control'.
Galip faces being imprisoned for at least six months if he returns to his home country because he did not carry out obligatory military service due to being in the UK when he reached the age of 20.
The Turkish national came to the UK on a student visa in 2006 and the pair met a year later while he was attending English classes in Norwich.
They married in December 2015 at which point Galip applied for a spouse visa, but the Home Office rejected his application on the grounds that he would be exempt from punishment in Turkey because he had been living abroad.
But the 26-year-old said he was unable to exempt himself from imprisonment because he could not prove he had been employed in Britain for three consecutive years, as his immigration status prevented him from working.
In a letter to Galip, the Home Office wrote that the refusal was also made on the grounds that he had worked without permission after his request for an extension on his student visa was refused.
Galip said: 'If I return to Turkey now they will detain me at the airport, and I'll face six months in prison, and after that I will still have to go and do 12 months of military service. I will be separated from my wife.
'For the last few years we've not been able to do anything with our life because we're so scared. We can't even travel in England. Our life is on hold, it's like being in an open prison.
'We are mentally and physically drained. Some nights I can't sleep because I'm worrying so much.'
In the refusal letter the Home Office acknowledged the 'change in culture' may make integrating into society in Turkey difficult for his wife, but that 'a significant degree of hardship does not amount to an insurmountable obstacles'.
It continued: 'Should your spouse return to Turkey with you it is acknowledged that this would involve degree of disruptions to the family and private life you have formed together in the UK. However, this is considered to be proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining effective immigration control.'
On employment prospects, the Home Office said: 'Whilst your spouse is in employment in the UK it is considered that she could seek employment in Turkey or alternatively be supported by you.'
The couple said they had spent just shy of £10,000 trying to secure their right to remain together in Britain, including Home Office application costs and solicitor fees.
Amber, a legal assistant for a law firm, who has lived in Britain all her life, said she felt she was being forced to choose between her husband and remaining in her job and staying close to her elderly parents.
'They said there's no reason for us not to live in Turkey. I've got a full-time job here, I've been working since I was 18, I'm now 33. All my life has been in England, and they're now saying that I can uproot and go and live there,' she added.
Responding to the situation, Mary Atkinson, the families together campaign officer at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), said: 'The Home Office is effectively asking Amber to choose between her husband and her parents, a choice nobody should have to make.
'We should be appalled that our government is seemingly happy to exile its own citizens if they happen to fall in love with somebody from the 'wrong' side of a national border.
'People will always travel, meet each other, fall in love and dream of a future together – the sooner we have a system that acknowledges that, the better.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Statesman
a few seconds ago
- New Statesman
Who is accountable in privatised Britain?
Illustration by Andy Carter / Ikon Images 'New, unadopted estate.' The Hitchin MP, Alistair Strathern, pointed. Then he gestured to a building site where diggers were enthusiastically getting to work. 'New estate that will be unadopted… Unadopted estate… Unadopted estate.' During the 20-minute drive from Shefford town centre to Hitchin Station, we passed at least six examples of the phenomenon Strathern had invited me to his constituency, which straddles the Bedfordshire-Hertfordshire border, to explore: new-build housing estates their councils have refused to adopt. Much has been written about leasehold, the peculiarly British 'feudal' system in which homebuyers own a property but not the land it sits on, leaving them liable for spiralling ground rent and management fees. After decades of advocacy, some improvements were made under the Conservatives in last year's Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, and Labour has promised to go further with protections for leaseholders in this parliament. But even when new-build homes are sold with the freehold, hidden costs can sneak in. Known as 'fleecehold' housing, the estates Strathern pointed out are those where the responsibility for maintaining the roads, street lighting, drainage and communal areas has not been adopted by the council, as it deems development not to have been completed to a high enough standard. Until a development is adopted, the residents must pay for the services the council would usually provide, in addition to council tax, via yearly fees paid to private management companies. The fees themselves may not sound large – £200-£300 a year. Or, at least, that's the level at which they start out. At a new estate I visited, fees had been hiked by 41 per cent in a year, with vague explanations. Calls and emails to the management company went largely unanswered; correspondence was limited to scarily worded 'final demand' letters. If owners refuse to pay, management companies can go direct to their lender to have the charges added to their mortgage, tanking the owner's credit rating. Residents I met spoke of finding it impossible to determine what they were paying for, or to hold the management company accountable for the work it was – or wasn't – carrying out. Fleecehold is now the norm across the country. Whereas councils used to adopt new estates, the Competition and Markets Authority has found that 80 per cent of new homes built by the 11 largest developers in 2021-22 were sold under the fleecehold system, with £260m in estate management charges paid out in 2022 alone. There are stories of owners being assured their estate would be adopted as a formality, only to still be paying fees a decade on. Meanwhile, the government is pushing through planning reform to meet its target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this parliament. The problem may not be as visceral as the issues with build quality that owners of new-builds often face: cracked walls, dodgy plumbing, damp and mould. But the two are inextricably linked. Every owner I spoke to about fleecehold charges also had a horror story of how their 'dream home' had turned into a nightmare of construction faults that developers were reluctant to rectify. One showed me a brimming lever-arch folder of his correspondence with the developer – 200 pages in 20 months. The question is one of accountability. When things go wrong, whose job is it to fix them? What happens if they fail to do so? And how are they seemingly able to charge what they like, with no cap on costs or any obligation to show how the money is spent? Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe You might imagine the council would step in. But, as I found out in Hitchin, cash-strapped local authorities have little incentive to ensure developments are built to standard, as adopting them means adopting additional costs. The developers, meanwhile, have little incentive to come back to complete repairs once the houses have been sold. Strathern, who worked on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill committee, is hoping to change this and has introduced a debate in parliament on ensuring new estates are adopted on schedule. But it's hard to fix a problem most people don't even know exists until after they've bought their homes. Passing the accountability buck can be an art form. In Shefford, I visited Old Bridge Way: a 220m stretch of road through an industrial park connecting an estate of some 1,000 homes to the centre of town and a Morrisons. I stood there for ten minutes watching non-stop traffic navigate a maze of potholes six inches deep. Central Bedfordshire Council says this is not its responsibility, as it doesn't actually own that part of the road. Who does own it is an open question: the company responsible for it was liquidated in 2024, leaving it effectively ownerless. But I noticed double yellow lines along the kerbside. I asked the council if it was issuing parking fines for a road it claimed it had no responsibility for, but it did not offer an answer. A council that won't adopt a thoroughfare used by thousands of people is unlikely to adopt estates full of new homes. Strathern described both situations as 'hollowed-out councils retreating from the public realm'. To me, they resembled what the satirical science-fiction author Douglas Adams once termed a Somebody Else's Problem field, a way of concealing inconvenient things that utilises 'people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain'. For residents placed in fleecehold limbo the issues of rising fees and the lack of accountability are impossible to ignore. For everyone else, they are Somebody Else's Problem. [See also: GMB chief Gary Smith: 'Oil and gas is not the enemy'] Related


BBC News
a few seconds ago
- BBC News
British couple detained in Iran unhurt by Israeli prison bombing
The UK government has been urged to prioritise securing the release of a British couple detained in and Lindsay Foreman, both 52 and from East Sussex, have been charged with espionage, which they deny, after being arrested in Iran while on a round-the-world trip in Wednesday a cross-parliamentary group confirmed the couple had not been harmed in Israeli strikes last month and renewed calls for the UK government to resolve the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) said it is "deeply concerned" at the situation and is providing Mr and Mrs Foreman with consular assistance. In a letter to Foreign Secretary David Lammy, the all-parliamentary group for arbitrary detention and hostage affairs (APPG) said just three "welfare visits" had been able to take place since the couple were detained by Iranian authorities - the last being in month, Israel bombed various targets across Tehran, including Evin Prison, saying it was hitting "regime targets and agencies of government repression".The APPG said Mr and Mrs Foreman's family were relieved to now learn the couple were still being kept in prison in Kerman "and not ultimately transferred to Evin Prison" before the bombings. The group said it believed Iran was holding Mr and Mrs Foreman to use as political leverage."They are innocent British nationals falsely accused of espionage and held hostage," it said."Mistakes made in past cases, including the cases of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori, must be learnt from."More must be done to work with other countries whose foreign nationals remain in arbitrary detention in Iran, to ensure all possible solutions are being considered."The APPG said the government must also focus on supporting Mr and Mrs Foreman's family."We are concerned by reports that there has been inadequate communication with the family in the past six months of their detention, especially while they were possibly implicated in the bombing of Evin Prison," the group FCDO said it is in contact with the relevant Iranian authorities and that the welfare of British nationals detained in Iran "remains a priority"."We are deeply concerned by reports that two British nationals have been charged with espionage in Iran," a spokesperson said."We continue to raise this case directly with the Iranian authorities. We are providing them with consular assistance and remain in close contact with their family members."The FCDO advises against travel to Iran for British and British-Iranian nationals.


The Independent
2 minutes ago
- The Independent
False online rumours spark protests outside Canary Wharf hotel earmarked for migrants
Protesters surrounded an empty hotel in London's finance district after false rumours online suggested it was being used for migrants from another hotel, where riots have broken out. The Home Office has earmarked more than 400 beds at the Britannia Hotel in the Canary Wharf, which it says it will use to house migrants at a cost of £81 per night per person. Protesters gathered at the site on Tuesday after social media posts claimed migrants were being moved there from the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, which has been the scene of violent protests over the past few days. So far, 10 people have been arrested in connection with that disorder, which was sparked when an asylum seeker was charged with sexual assault this month. Tommy Robinson, the far-right activist, is among those who claimed online that migrants were being transferred to the London hotel from Epping. The rumours sparked protests and counter-protests, with police drafted to the scene on Tuesday, despite the hotel currently sitting empty. Demonstrators had also seized on online claims that migrants were being housed at £400 a night, when the rooms infact cost £81 per night and the government will not be charged until migrants move in. 'Asylum seekers are not being removed from The Bell Hotel in Epping,' a Home Office spokesman said. Reform MP Lee Anderson was accused of further stoking division by attending the protest outside the Canary Wharf hotel and warning of 'an influx of illegal migrants'. 'What are we playing at?' he asked on social media. He posted a clip in which he said he is 'absolutely furious' and that families across the UK would not be able to afford a night's stay in the hotel. Care4Calais head of advocacy Charlotte Khan hit out at Mr Anderson for his video. She said: 'The truth is, MPs should be more responsible than to sow division and hatred in our communities.' She added: 'MPs... who spread misinformation and hate that dehumanises refugees should be held accountable for their role in encouraging violence and racism on our streets.' Nathan Phillips, head of campaigns at Asylum Matters, hit out at the demonstrations which he said had 'morphed into yet more racist violence'. 'In that context, it's clear how disgracefully dangerous and utterly irresponsible it is for an MP to use his platform to identify a site where people are about to be housed and encourage his followers to 'protest' against it. 'It's appalling that there's no accountability for an elected official who actively encourages the exact same sort of 'protests' that have led to violence and arrests in Epping this week.' In Essex, local Conservative MP Dr Neil Hudson warned that the riots were a 'crisis that has reached boiling point'. Essex Police have made 10 arrests, which saw more than 500 gather outside the hotel, with rioters attacking police vans and injuring a police officer. On Sunday night, two security guards working at the Bell Hotel were also attacked at a bus stop, and are recovering in hospital. Giving an update to the media in Chelmsford on Wednesday, Chief Constable Ben-Julian Harrington said: "I want to thank the people of Epping, I want to thank the people of Essex. "I also want to thank all those who have turned up to protest and express their views peacefully and lawfully, because there have been many of those. "What has been unacceptable has been the people who have come to Epping and committed violence, who have attacked people who work at the hotel, who have attacked officers, who have damaged property and who have caused fear and disruption to the people of Epping. "That is not tolerable, it will not be tolerated, and to that end, we have made 10 arrests." He appealed to the people of Essex to 'help us to do our job and make sure everyone can express their rights and their views safely and peacefully'. The latest demonstrations come a day after Angela Rayner issued an ultimatum to Sir Keir Starmer, warning that the UK faces a repeat of last year's summer riots unless 'the government shows it can address people's concerns'. The deputy prime minister said economic insecurity, immigration, the increasing time people spend online, and declining trust in institutions were having a 'profound impact on society'. And, amid fears this summer could see riots similar to those in the wake of the Southport murders last year, Ms Rayner said it is urgent Sir Keir delivers tangible improvements to living standards. Of the 18 places hit with the worst rioting last summer, Ms Rayner noted that 17 are among the country's most deprived areas. Michael Gove on Wednesday branded the comments about a repeat of last summer's violence 'a big mistake' which could 'tacitly encourage' fresh riots. The Tory ex-minister said she was right to acknowledge concern across the country about immigration and living standards and encourage the government to prove it can deliver. But Mr Gove told ITV: 'I think this is a mistake on Labour, to brief this out, I think it is a big mistake, it reminds me of what happened in the 1970s when [former US president] Jimmy Carter when America was going through difficult times said 'this country is in the grip of a malaise'. 'You do not, if you are the government, accentuate the negative in this way and you certainly don't suggest to people that violence might be about to break out in this way.' A spokesman for Tower Hamlets Council, the authority which is responsible for Canary Wharf, called on the government to ensure 'that there is a full package of support for those staying at the hotel'. 'We are working with the Home Office and partners to make sure that all necessary safety and safeguarding arrangements are in place,' the spokesman added.