“……….It is profoundly unsatisfactory that a set of provisions which was intended to provide clear guidelines to limit the scope for judicial evaluation should have led to such disagreement among some of the most experienced Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal judges. Rather than attempt a detailed analysis of all these impressive but conflicting judgments, I hope I will be forgiven for attempting a simpler and more direct approach. I start with the expectation that the purpose is to produce a straightforward set of rules, and in particular to narrow rather than widen the residual area of discretionary judgment for the court to take account of public interest or other factors not directly reflected in the wording of the statute. I also start from the presumption, in the absence of clear language to the contrary, that the provisions are intended to be consistent with the general principles relating to the “best interests” of children, including the principle that “a child must not be blamed for matters for which he or she is not responsible, such as the conduct of a parent” (see Zoumbas v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 74,  1 WLR 3690, para 10 per Lord Hodge)”.
Apparently, what migrants are currently paying to the UK Government in order to have their entry clearance or leave to remain applications processed is simply not enough: they need to pay more and quickly.
“It is a matter of personal choice, where having gone through all that legal training and acquired a bit of valuable practical experience, whether interested solicitors/lawyers have the gumption to undertake legal blogging in their own right. That is, with a view to appropriately expressing themselves, set up a blog site in their own personal capacity.