It is a shame that this lady is to be deported, but it should clearly happen. Why should taxpayers support his family just because they say they suffered torture in their homeland? Who's to says they did? What's to say they would if they returned? This really isn't our responsibility.

Stephen Hughes says "Elizabeth and her two beautiful children have become valued members of the Darlington community,"

- really? valued in what sense? Bringing more to the country in taxable wages than they are taking out? Somehow I doubt it. The fact is, this family has stayed here illegally, they should go.

More fool us for believing every African sob story we here. Yet again the taxpayer picks up the pieces, when the indigenous population can't even get adequate cancer care on the NHS. I hope none of this womans' supporters or their families are denied NHS treatment because the relevant trust can't afford the right drugs.

Its not all about monetary value, people are worth more. If we only valued people in terms of what they contrubute to the economy what would be the value of infants and elderly people who need constant care and attention? In this country Elizabeth and her family may have a chance to later contribute to society.

Without knowing the entire story and what they have been through you cannot just brush it off as another "sob story".

Actually anyone who knows the full story and has some sense knows it is full of holes and questionable. She may be very popular and well liked and would love to make her home here, but unfortunately our country needs too ensure that we let in genuine cases and people who can contribute.

"valued in what sense"!
In the sense that she is a human being and we should respect her for that alone. It may interest you to know that the only reason your taxes are being used to provide for her, are because of our government! Our government, who won't allow her to work in order to make a living!

And you talk about it being a 'sob story' as though being raped and torture are something people can just conjure in their minds when needed. Do you know what it's like to be raped and tortured? Experts have been able to prove her story by examination. She is not a liar.

Why is it not our responsibility? Every country has the responsibility of helping others simply based on the fact we are all so alike. Change places and put yourself in her shoes. You would do exactly the same thing.

You do not know this lady or anything about her story yet you dare to be so quick to judge and name it a sob story.

Imigration is not the reason that the NHS is under funded. Government rules and regulation, NICE guide lines, clearly state what drugs can be given and where.

I am unsure as to what your arguement really is. Imigration or the NHS. Maybe you should only open your mouth when you actually have something factual or relevant to say!

It is very sad that some people are so quick to dismiss the distress of others as a 'sob story' or indeed lable another person as an economic burden. We do have a responsibility to protect and support people who have been, or are at risk of, torture. Elizabeth deserves a fair hearing with all the relevant evidence available. How would you feel if this was your friend, sister or neighbour?

I actually feel angry that a frightened three year old child and a baby were separated from their mum by the officials. Surely, that can't be right!

I agree we should only let people stay in the country if they can contribute to society in a posative way but also if there are circumstances in which they should stay.

Also, Abu Hamza (arested for insighting ratial hatred and terrorism acts) was kept in our prison system, costing us thousands because it was against his human rights to be sent back to his homeland.

It can easily be argued that Elizabeths human rights are being breached by sending her back to Uganda not to mention her childrens right to life being risked as they are only receiving a maleria vaccination today which will take two weeks at most to take affect in which time they could possibly contract the disease and die. Hardly fair to risk the lives of two young children and the happiness of a woman just to save ourselves a bit of money.

For me there should be cases such as this where peoples human rights should be considered above money.

Sally, interesting comment. I agree, this lady and her family should be valued as human beings, as a Catholic charity is something that I hold dear, however in this case Elizabeth has been judged by the authorities to be eligible for deportation, therefore she should go. Re the torture she has allegedly endured, if it is true then I feel heartily sorry for her. If it is proven to have occurred there is a greater case for her to stay, however the authorities we elected (I trust we're all voters?) have judged that she is not under threat were she to return, so she should go.

I talk about a 'sob story' as seemingly everyone who arrives illegally in the UK has a tale to tell. In this case the authorities found that the torture allegations were unfounded thus it can be presumed that it is in fact a sob story. It is NOT our responsibility to take in any waif and stray that arrives at our door, it is our responsibility to look after our citizens first.

My argument is clear- I pay a lot of tax, some of it supports immigrants that have no right to be here, not enough of it is spent on the NHS. While my tax is supporting this woman and her family it is not helping the NHS sort out the postcode lottery of drug allocation. Simple, do your homework.

This is part of us getting our house in order. Africa needs to do the same.

Nick's arguments are heartless and arrogant, but not uncommon. He seems to think public expenditures for asylum seekers have something to do with the state of the NHS. This, of course, is ludicrous. The two have nothing to do with one another. It's a classic scapegoating tactic to blame this woman, who has only tried to protect herself and her children from harm - like any good mother anywhere - for the ills of a whole nation's health system. Exactly how much of your tax, Nick, your direct expenditure, is going to support this woman and her children? And how do you know 'the authorities' are always right?

It's widely known that Uganda's security forces routinely torture dissidents. Even the Daily Telegraph has reported on "Uganda's appalling record on torture and human rights abuses." Violence against females is rife; the average life expectancy is 50.

Furthermore, the article clearly states that additional evidence of torture has been corroborated by an eminent physician.

Of course, none of this will cut any ice with the BNP activists who occasionally bombard this site, but thankfully the decent majority in this region has a proud history of standing up for the weak in the fight against injustice.

The bureaucrats who adjudicate on such matters are not democratically elected -- they are employed by the Home Office and put under pressure to refuse 80% of asylum claims on the flimsiest of grounds (i.e. the very slightest inconsistency in the story) regardless of all the evidence to which backs the claim.

Of more likely interest to the UK, EU and US governments than human beings like Elizabeth are Uganda's vast natural resources and exports: copper, cobalt, gold and coffee produce. A sad state of affairs, but sadly the same old story.

Why is it that every alleged torture victim,asylum seeker etc makes their way to england?People who have no ties to this country at all come here and end up contributing next to nothing to our economy.Who has been supporting her and her children since they got here-the tax payer again.Send her back to an african country for asylum preferably tomorrow.You bleeding heart liberals are destroying this country.

I don't not know Elizabeth and her children, therefore I can not comment on her individual case.
But, my understanding of seeking asylum is that you are required to seek it in the next available country. It does amaze me how they seem to miraclously miss out an entire contintent to get to the UK. We seem to have an open door policy to everybody.
As a country we need to start restricting the access to our country like both America and Austraila do with their Emigration rule. This should then allow the true asylum seekers the true support that they need.

What makes you think all asylum seekers bypass their neigbouring countries and head for the UK? As usual, no evidence whatsoever is offered to back up such a ridiculous claim.

The majority of the world's asylum seekers DO flee to neighbouring territories, which is why the biggest refugee camps are in Africa and Asia. The UK actually takes in less refugees per head of population than many industrialised countries. The asylum seekers who arrive here (and in Italy, France etc.) often do so through no choice of their own: they pay agents to get them anywhere as long it is out of the reach of the authorities from which they're fleeing. They are desperate.

There are mountains of reports by governments, charities, NGOs, Churches etc. which testify to all this. The alternative, of course, is to believe what The Sun, the Daily Mail and the fascist agitators tell you to believe, for their own political purposes...

FREE HOUSE, FREE DENTIST, FREE DOCTORS, FREE SCHOOL DINNERS, FREE CLOTHES, FREE TRANSPORT, HOUSING BENEFIT,COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT,MILK TOKENS,FREE FOOD,HUMAN RIGHTS WHAT ABOUT MY HUMAN RIGHTS WHEN I PAY TAXES AND GET SOD ALL BACK FOR IT????? SHE IS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT STOPPING SOMEODY WHO IS ENTILTED TO BE HERE GETTING HOUSING ETC, SHE SHOULD BE SENT HOME WITHOUT ANY DELAYS THIS COUNTRY DOES NOT NEED TO NOR HAS A DUTY TO CARE FOR HER OR HER FAMILY, ALL IMMIGRANTS REGARDLESS OF RACE, CREED,COLOUR,RELIGIO
N SHOULD GO BACK TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND APPLY THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS ITS ABOUT TIME THIS COUNTRY STOOD UP AND SAID NO MORE ENOUGH IS ENOUGH GET OUT

Agree with pig sick. It is about time we looked after our own and stopped spending millions on people who should not be in this country. I do feel sorry for this lady and her children but she is here illegally and should be deported, along with other illegal immigrants which the authorities are aware of but don't pursue for reasons only they know. We cannot keep accepting people who have no right to be here. Enough is enough.

Pig sick, Nick and the rest of the Echo's bigoted correspondents disgust me. I know Elizabeth, have read her most recent asylum application and know the contribution she and her children have made to the local community just by being here and being witnesses to what is good and decent and positive in our world today. I believe that Sheilagh Williamson and Stephen Hughes are providing a voice for the voiceless and have been instrumental in declaring what injustice is being cooked up by this government in all of our names.
I for one am proud that my taxes are helping the most vulnerable in society and in our world.
The offers of help and goodwill that have been pouring in for Elizabeth and her family via St. Columba's Church in Darlington are an indication that the vast majority are kind hearted, generous and sympathetic to the cause of the most vulnerable. Nick, pig sick and thick as two planks should be ashamed of themselves.

Elijah,

Just because I hold different opinions to you in no way makes me bigoted. You know absolutely nothing aout my circumstances other than my religion, and taxable status, which I have given. The fact is that I simply don't agree with you, along with many others here.

Times are tough and taxpayers are beginning to find it hard to stomach their wages being used to fund people who have been found to have no right to be here, while continuing to face higher taxation food and utility bills. The thing that really sticks in the throat is that this woman has actually CHOSEN to have another child here that she clearly expects us to fund! Honestly, you really couldn't be taken for a ride any more - no wonder Elizabeth has made a contribution to the local community, she has children, a house and upkeep paid for by us! She must be delighted to be here! i wish I had more time on my hands to contribute to the community more, but unfortunately I work, what a shame.

Elijah, your charitable sentiments are fine, however this charity should not be to the detriment of those of us who have a right to be here. Neither should your charity extend to interfering with the immigration process. If you have looked at the assylum application then I question either

a) whether you helped the application in any way, and the subsequent validity of it, and

b)why you mention this - if it were in a professional capacity you are not acting professionally discussing it.

Conclusion is that you have a vested interest in this woman's right to stay, possibly you are the father of her child or you yourself were not born here. Either way I have nothing to be ashamed of.

I said bigoted because I believe your comments, Nick, to be based on intolerance and prejudice. My evidence?
You have said that only people who contribute economically can have value in society. You have said that taxes are high, utility bills are growing and that it's between us and them. You advocate helping "our own".

You say a Catholic charity is something you hold dear yet at the core of Catholic social teaching is the upholding of human dignity. Nick, we are all made in God's image-- even Elizabeth and yes, even you.
All I'm saying is that I know Elizabeth and her situation. She has a genuine case for asylum. I have no vested interest aside from my pursuit of justice and the common good.

Interesting to read in today’s paper that the UK Border Agency says that removals are “always carried out in the most sensitive way possible.” Consider this in the light of a recent report – see below.
Nick – you said, “It is NOT our responsibility to take in any waif and stray that arrives at our door, it is our responsibility to look after our citizens first.” Why?
You claim to be a Catholic. Remember that Jesus said, “Love thy neighbour,” and what he said when someone asked him, “Who is my neighbour?”
Seems to me that Jesus was exhorting us to “love our neighbour” regardless of race, class, wealth, nationality or religion – “I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”
I dunno, I’m an atheist, but I’m surprised by your lack of compassion. And I have no doubt that Elizabeth would be delighted to be in a position to pay as much tax as you do.

Failed asylum-seekers are abused by private security companies, says report
By Robert Verkaik and Chris Green
Monday, 14 July 2008
Britain is responsible for the abuse of hundreds of failed asylum-seekers at the hands of private security guards during their forced removal from this country, a report into the treatment of refugees alleges today.
The findings, based on nearly 300 cases of alleged physical assault and racial abuse, follows a four-year investigation into concerns about the control and use of private security firms in the deportation process.
Many of the allegations were first published in The Independent in October last year when ministers then dismissed the cases as being unsubstantiated and requested more evidence.
Last week the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, was given the names and details of 48 of the claimants who want the Government to order fresh investigations into their cases.
Lord David Ramsbotham, a former chief inspector of prisons who sent the report to ministers, described the dossier of cases as "disturbing" and today calls on the Government to "recognise that our national reputation is not something to be treated lightly or wantonly, and that, if even one of the cases is substantiated, that amounts to something of a preventable national disgrace."
Diane Abbott, MP, said the report was one of the most shocking she had read in the 20 years she has served as an MP: "This report is distressing and upsetting for anyone to read. But for ministers it is a damning verdict on their inability to inject even a shred of humanity into a failing immigration system," she said.
A disturbing feature of the report is that many of the allegations of abuse are made by refugees who came to this country because they claim to have been tortured or persecuted in their own country.
Many of the refugees' injuries, often corroborated by doctors' reports, suggest that resistance to removal is often met with overwhelming force, including beatings and kickings as well as victims being violently dragged around by their handcuffs. Several of the accounts are given by children as either victims themselves or as witnesses to assaults on their parents.
The report's authors – the law firm Birnberg Peirce, Medical Justice and the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns – conclude: "We have found an alarming and unacceptable number of injuries have been sustained by those subject to forced removals. This dossier provides evidence of widespread and seemingly systemic abuse of one of the most vulnerable communities of people in our society, who have fled their own countries seeking safety and refuge."
The report, Outsourcing Abuse, says the Government's removal policy is driven by apparently arbitrary targets on deportation and has announced a near doubling of detention centre capacity.
It warns: "Mass deportations may follow if the Government puts into effect its announcement to deal with 450,000 unresolved asylum cases within five years or less. The increased use of detention and target-driven deportations may lead to further injuries and assault allegations."
All the allegations contained in the report have been made in the past four years to immigration workers, doctors and lawyers by asylum-seekers who claim to have been abused inside immigration detention camps and security transport, at airports, or on board aircraft. The authors say many of the alleged victims can no longer be contacted as they have been deported or are too frightened to put in claims in case it has an adverse effect on their applications.
Cases include that of Amos Alajaibo, a Nigerian who says he was beaten unconscious by guards after admitting he had talked to the media during a protest, and an Algerian man who was allegedly assaulted while in a wheelchair.
Suren Khachatryan, an Armenian, suffered a punctured lung after allegedly being stamped on by his immigration escorts in the back of a security van. Another detainee said he was "bound up like a parcel" by officials trying to force him on to a deportation flight.
A 39-year-old Ugandan, Noreen Nafuna, says she was bundled on to a flight wearing only her underwear and later punched in the face by an escort, and a 21-year-old woman from Cameroon claims that she was assaulted in front of her young daughter.
In another case, HM, a 16-year-old girl from Rwanda, who claimed asylum after coming to Britain as a sex-trafficking victim, says she was assaulted by guards who removed her from a shower unit in a detention centre. She says she suffered bruising when she was handcuffed from behind in a semi-naked state and taken to a holding cell. Her claim was investigated and dismissed by the Home Office, although there was criticism of the way the guards had handled a near-naked teenager.
It is understood that the UK Borders Agency has received 89 complaints since October 2006, of which three were substantiated. Another 10 were partly upheld, relating to issues such as rudeness or inefficiency.
A spokesperson for the agency said: "We have been asking for this information for at least nine months. We are glad that something has finally arrived. We will review it and where necessary will refer it to the police."
Group4Securicor has told The Independent that it investigates all allegations properly and instructs its escort teams to treat all asylum-seekers with respect. Other firms have declined to comment on similar allegations.
'I was beaten and kicked by guards': RH, asylum-seeker from Burundi
The story of Mr RH highlights the alleged abuse suffered by asylum-seekers at the hands of British security guards. He fled to the UK in 2007 after being tortured in his home country of Burundi. His application for asylum was rejected by the Home Office, and he was taken to an immigration removal centre to await deportation.
In July last year, Mr RH was taken from his room by immigration escorts. He was handcuffed, and his legs were crossed at the ankle before being tied together with tape. After struggling on his way to the van, which was bound for Heathrow, he says he was beaten and kicked by the escorts before being dragged half-naked into the plane. During the alleged assault, his handcuffs caused him to incur severe injuries to his wrists which were clearly visible. The pilot came to investigate, and told the escorts he would not fly Mr RH out of the country in his state at the time.
After being returned, RH was examined by a medical officer. However, a later examination by an independent doctor revealed that this officer had only made limited notes about some of Mr RH's injuries, while others were not documented. Although he has since been released from detention and has recovered, Mr RH's case still hangs in the balance and he remains threatened with removal.

Elijah, you believe I am bigoted based on prejudice and intolerance. This is not true - in no way am I prejudiced based on colour, creed, nationality, religion or sexuality. I am however intolerant of people who don't financially contribute to society through choice. This goes for the hundreds of thousands of British born people who choose not to work/scam benefits etc. We have created a culture where the rights of the working people are secondary to those who are supported by the state. How crazy is that? Try and regster with a doctor or dentist if you're not in receipt of some sort of benefit if you don't believe me. I advocate helping our own before helping those from countries that won't help themselves.

Pete, I have utmost compassion, as an aetheist I don't see how you can quote teachings from my religion to me. By admitting to being an aetheist you are admitting you don't believe the Gospels, therefore you are quoting something you don't understand. In Elizabeth's case we have loved our neighbour, provided food, shelter and social care. It has been found that she has no right to be here, and should now go.

Nick – I was brought up a Catholic, and still have the greatest admiration for Jesus as a man, though I do not believe in his divinity. Being an atheist means that for me, morality is a matter of responsibility to my fellow humans rather than to God.

You said previously that we need to “get our house in order” and that Africa “needs to do the same.” Part of getting our house in order means accepting that political decisions we make affect people across the globe. Britain has a self-interested interventionist foreign policy, and is one of the worlds biggest international arms dealers. Do we not have a responsibility for the victims of the wars and conflicts we fuel? We are part of a global capitalist system which perpetuates extreme poverty as a consequence of unfair trade practices (For example, the “developed” nations spend about $350 billion subsidising their own farmers – around seven times what the y give to poor countries in aid. The world’s three riches men earn more than the GDP of the world’s 48 poorest countries and their 600 million people. Do we have a responsibility for the victims of this injustice?