The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a “private and family life”, and joint ownership of a pet was evidence that he was fully settled in this country. …
The Bolivian’s identity has not been disclosed and even the name of the pet cat was blanked out in official court papers to protect its privacy.
Delivering her decision on the case, which is thought to have cost the taxpayer several thousand pounds, Judith Gleeson, a senior immigration judge, joked in the official written ruling that the cat “need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice”. …
More: Rougblog (“We are all familiar with the term “anchor baby,” but the “anchor cat” is a new concept for me.”)
4 Comments
Well, that would never happen in this country.
From the article: The Bolivian’s identity has not been disclosed and even the name of the pet cat was blanked out in official court papers to protect its privacy.
Sweet Jesus, this is the country I live in. 70 years ago the most powerful country on the planet, now we’re a complete basket case. USA, you have been warned.
Not to worry. Doubtless the U.K. government will simply deal with this by introducing a vast new regulatory regime to regulate the ownership of pets. Features will likely include the requirement to get a license to own a pet, which will only be awarded to legal residents after passing a licensing test; the requirement to show ID when buying pet food and toys; and the right of pet inspectors to enter and inspect any home in the nation, without prior warning, to ensure no one is keeping pets illegally.
I mean this as satire, but in today’s world policies move from the realm of satire to being implemented in law in about 18 months, so expect to see this by some time in 2011.
GregS, in some areas, policy is certainly heading that way..
Oh, and I forgot to give link to this story from last year. They might as well build a rubber wall around the country.