Immigrants add to the full richness of British life.

There, I’ve said it. Now you can all land on my head and not bother to read the rest of the post.

There are a plethora of articles on the Internet, joyfully linked to by each new entrant, extolling the many benefits that Britain enjoys by welcoming immigrants to its shores. Even Wikipedia joins in on the beanfeast, listing the ‘most notable’ British Bangladeshis. Every year, the ‘Britbanglas‘ host a glossy function – at the House of Lords these days – to honour the great and the good (er, presided over by Lord Ahmed, shurly shum mishtake here?) from the Bangladeshi community.

Only the dastardly BNP, it seems, ever dares to raise its head above the parapet, and so much as hint that the picture is not one of wall to wall achievement and contribution to British life. When they do, they are roundly condemned as ‘racist’, it only being racist to comment on the downside of immigration, not the upside. Upside is good.

Were I to pen an article this morning describing in detail the wonderful achievements of a single Bangladeshi family, the Guardian would happily publish it and take it to be representative of all Bangladeshis everywhere. Trouble is, I’m about to detail the horrendous cost of one single Bangladeshi family, which is not representative of all Bangladeshis everywhere, but I see no reason why the downside should be hidden from polite view, like a Victorian table-leg.

Apart from an article in the Independent, honing in on one small aspect of this Court of Protection case – the media have left it alone. Yet it is an important case. So important, that it has become one of the few cases published by the so called ‘secret court’.

I shall call her ‘Tia’. She has a husband ‘Mustapha’. We are not told by what means either of them came to be living in England, nor whether they are employed – though Tia patently can’t be, and I very much doubt, as you shall see, whether Mustapha could be either. They live in a two-bedroomed housing association flat in Tower Hamlets. They both originate from Bangladesh.

Despite the fact that they are first cousins, they married in 1999. This was also despite the fact that Tia has a mental age judged to be between 4 and 8 years old. Neither factor was a good omen for the genes, nor for the care of the ensuing children. As it proved, in the fullness of time – by 2010, Tia had given birth to four children. All four had to be taken into immediate care and were subsequently placed for adoption. The usual lengthy court cases and legal representation was legally aided.

Tia was not able to care for herself, never mind a child. Social Services found it necessary to install 24-hour, 7 day a week, 52 week a year care in that two-bedroomed flat for Tia. In order to provide 24 hour care, we are talking about a bare minimum of four full time employees on a rota, possibly more. Tia had no comprehension of the necessity to feed or wash herself, nor ‘how babies came to be in her tummy’.

Since the birth of her first child, Tia has been in the care of a clinical psychologist, and an independent social worker, in addition to the rota of full time carers and the inevitable interpreters. They confess they ‘have made no progress with her’ – she neither speaks English nor takes any interest in other people, merely lying on a sofa watching Bangla TV during the day, attended by her carers.

The number of people crowding into this small apartment appears to have been curtailing Mustapha’s sex life. He arranged for Tia’s (and his) cousin Alia, to arrive from Bangladesh on the soon to be proved worthless, assurance that she would be financially independent. She was initially refused an entry visa – but a legal challenge was mounted to this, and she moved into the crowded apartment as Mustapha’s ‘second wife’. Mustapha quickly impregnated Alia.

Alia has subsequently given birth to two more of Mustapha’s offspring. These children have not been taken into care, but are now living with their Mother in council provided bed and breakfast accommodation. It would appear that Alia’s entry visa was obtained dishonestly, and attempts have been made to deport her, each accompanied by a legally aided defence. Since she is now the Mother of two children belonging to a man legally resident in Britain, no doubt she will eventually win the right to remain, and be supported physically and financially, as she cares for them.

With Alia parked up in a bed and breakfast, Mustapha turned his attention to his first wife once more.

‘No, no, no’, cried social services – ‘she’ll be pregnant again in five minutes. We’re supporting six of his children already’, and they very smartly moved the compliant Tia to a full time care facility and out of Mustapha’s nightly forays.

Thus began the latest legal battle – reported by the Independent as ‘Man banned from taking wife out of care facility to have sex with her‘. As far as the Independent (and the Mirror) are concerned, this is merely a case of whether a man has the right to have sex with his wife. Neither paper has reported on the background to the case.

It is not – it is primarily concerned with whether Tia has ever had capacity to consent to sex, and whether it is a deprivation of her liberty to remove her from the family home and prevent her from returning. I cannot argue with Mr Justice Mostyn masterly summation of those issues, they will be of great interest to anyone exercised by similar issues. He concludes that ‘she hasn’t’ and ‘it doesn’t’.

What I am primarily concerned with here, is the cost to the taxpayer of these events.

We have two adults, possibly three if we include Mr Ouanq, fully supported by the taxpayer.

We have housing association accommodation subsidised by the tax payer.

We have six children, each fully supported in care by the taxpayer.

We have full time care via a rota of employees for Tia.

We have (I may have lost count here!) nine high court actions/family court/court of protection/immigration tribunals – each of which has been attended by a murmur of black gowned legal experts including top flight QCs.

We have a range of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, case conference attendees, and assorted council employees.

I can’t begin to compute the cost to the tax payer of that little lot, but if we are to have glossy occasions at the House of Lords to publicise the advantage to the British public of Bangladeshi immigration, I don’t think one little article illustrating the reverse of the coin is pushing the ‘racist’ boat too far out to sea….

The main stream media obviously disagree.

*Please note: the address given for this family in the case notes is false – just in case anyone was thinking of paying Mustapha Ouanq a visit – with a pair of garden shears….