Category: Non-EU Countries

  • Real IRA threatens more ‘executions’ of police and disrupt the Queen’s historic visit

    Real IRA threatens more ‘executions’ of police and disrupt the Queen’s historic visit

    By Rob Hastings

    A member of the Real IRA reads a statement during a 1916 Easter Rising memorial at Cregan Cemetery in Londonderry yesterday
    A member of the Real IRA reads a statement during a 1916 Easter Rising memorial at Cregan Cemetery in Londonderry yesterday

     

    The Real IRA warned yesterday that it planned to kill more police in Northern Ireland and disrupt the Queen’s historic visit to Ireland. At a rally in Londonderry to mark the anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising against British rule, a masked member of the dissident republican group told supporters that police would be considered “as liable for execution as anyone, regardless of their religion, cultural background or motivation”. In a statement, the group also branded the Queen a war criminal ahead of her first visit to the Republic from 17 to 20 May.

     

    It called on “any young nationalist who may have been sold the lie” that the Police Service of Northern Ireland had been reformed and was non-political to think again. “Those who think they are serving their community are in fact serving the occupation and will be treated as such,” the statement said.

    The rally, held by the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, came three weeks after PC Ronan Kerr, 25, was killed by a nationalist car bomb in Omagh, Co Tyrone. The masked Real IRA man formed part of a colour party of seven people, all dressed in full paramilitary uniform. Between 200 and 300 people attended the event, which was monitored by a police helicopter.

    The Real IRA statement said the Queen’s visit was an insult that should be resisted by “all self-respecting Irishmen and women”, and was an attempt to “further the selfish interests of a self-serving elite”. “The Irish people will not capitulate,” it added. “The Queen of England is wanted for war crimes in Ireland and not wanted on Irish soil. We will do our best to ensure she and the gombeen [usurer] class that act as her cheerleaders get that message.”

    Mark Durkan, the MP for Foyle and former leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), condemned the speech, saying: “The Real IRA … is morally and politically bankrupt when they are driven to attack and threaten nationalists who want to serve the community and their country.”

    Police aross the province were kept on high alert all weekend. They fear an attack is imminent and have urged the public to remain vigilant. Dissident groups are said to be keen to use the royal visit to Dublin to their advantage, invoking hatred of the monarchy as a way to stir up deep-seated resentment at political division of the island.

    Earlier, three men appeared in court in Newry, Co Down, charged with possessing guns and preparing for terrorism. Brian Sheridan, 34, Brian Cavlan, 35, and Dominic Dines, 39, were held on Friday in South Armagh. In later searches in the same area, police found explosives and bomb-making equipment.

    The İndependent

  • Royal wedding: Police probe racist attack at Middletons’ local pub party (UK)

    Royal wedding: Police probe racist attack at Middletons’ local pub party (UK)

    chasing evil logo1

    Royal wedding: Police probe racist attack at Middletons’ local pub party (UK): “A party to celebrate the royal ­wedding at the Middletons’ local pub ended in a punch-up when a drunken gatecrasher attacked three guests.

    Landlord of the Old Boot Inn John Hayley, 55, held the £15-a-head bash for 350 regulars after returning from Westminster Abbey, where he had been a wedding guest.

    But a fight broke out after a thug is said to have called an Asian ­woman a “f***ing P***” when she sat in someone else’s seat.

    The attacker then grabbed her and threw her to the floor before ­attacking her sister-in-law and a male pal outside. The Asian ­woman was left with a cut face and black eye. The thug fled before police arrived.

    The pub, in Bucklebury, Berks, is a regular haunt of Kate’s parents, Carole and Michael Middleton, who have lived nearby for the past 10 years. Kate and Wills have also popped in.

    Charlie Hewitt, 47, whose girlfriend Liza Simpson, 39, was attacked by the thug, said: “They were having a delightful day and ­really enjoying the party. When they got to the Boot it all got a bit unsavoury and some not nice things were said. It really upset her, though, and it’s a real shame to end such a lovely day like that.”

    A police spokesman said they were investigating.

    Mr Hayley organised the party months ago and he had employed bouncers to stop trouble.

    Speaking outside the Abbey after the wedding, he said: “I was sat right at the front. Kate walked so close, I could have touched her dress.”

    Chasing Evil

  • David Cameron’s Statement on the death of Usama bin Laden, and counter terrorism

    David Cameron’s Statement on the death of Usama bin Laden, and counter terrorism

    cameron2

    Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement to the House of Commons on the death of Usama bin Laden and counter-terrorism.

    Read the statement

    The death of Usama bin Laden will have important consequences for the security of our people at home and abroad and for our foreign policy, including our partnership with Pakistan, our military action in Afghanistan and the wider fight against terrorism across the world.

    Last night I chaired a meeting of COBR to begin to address some of these issues.

    The National Security Council has met this morning.

    And I wanted to come to the House this afternoon, to take the first opportunity to address these consequences directly and answer Hon Members’ questions.

    Mr Speaker, at 3am yesterday I received a call from President Obama. He informed me that US Special Forces had successfully mounted a targeted operation against a compound in Abbottabad, in Pakistan.

    Usama bin Laden had been killed, along with four others: bin Laden’s son, two others linked to him, and a female member of his family entourage. There was a ferocious firefight, and a US helicopter had to be destroyed but there was no loss of American life.

    I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating President Obama and praising the courage and skill of the American Special Forces who carried out this operation.

    It is a strike at the heart of international terrorism, and a great achievement for America and for all who have joined in the long struggle to defeat Al Qaeda.

    We should remember today in particular the brave British servicemen and women who have given their lives in the fight against terrorism across the world.

    And we should pay tribute especially to those British forces who have played their part over the last decade in the hunt for bin Laden.

    He was the man who was responsible for 9/11 – which was not only an horrific killing of Americans, but remains to this day, the largest loss of British life in any terrorist attack.

    A man who inspired further atrocities including in Bali, Madrid, Istanbul and of course, here in London on 7/7.

    …and, let us remember, a man who posed as a leader of Muslims but was actually a mass murderer of Muslims all over the world. Indeed he killed more Muslims than people of any other faith.

    Mr Speaker, nothing will bring back the loved ones who have been lost and of course no punishment at our disposal can remotely fit the many appalling crimes for which he was responsible.

    But I hope that at least for the victims’ families there is now a sense of justice being served, as a long dark chapter in their lives is finally closed.

    As the head of a family group for United Airlines Flight 93, put it – we are “raised, obviously, never to hope for someone’s death” but we are “willing to make an exception in this case … He was evil personified, and our world is a better place without him.”

    Mr Speaker, Britain was with America from the first day of the struggle to defeat Al Qaeda. Our resolve today is as strong as it was then. There can be no impunity and no safe-refuge for those who kill in the name of this poisonous ideology.

    Security

    Mr Speaker, our first focus must be our own security.

    While bin Laden is gone, the threat of Al Qaeda remains.

    Clearly there is a risk that Al Qaeda and its affiliates in places like Yemen and the Mahgreb will want to demonstrate they are able to operate effectively.

    And, of course, there is always the risk of a radicalised individual acting alone, a so-called lone-wolf attack.

    So we must be more vigilant than ever – and we must maintain that vigilance for some time to come.

    The terrorist threat level in the UK is already at Severe – which is as high as it can go without intelligence of a specific threat.

    We will keep that threat level under review – working closely with the intelligence agencies and the police.

    In terms of people travelling overseas, we have updated our advice and encourage British nationals to monitor the media carefully for local reactions, remain vigilant, exercise caution in public places and avoid demonstrations.

    And we have ordered our embassies across the world to review their security.

    Pakistan

    Mr Speaker, let me turn next to Pakistan.

    The fact that bin Laden was living in a large house in a populated area suggests that he must have had a support network in Pakistan.

    We don’t currently know the extent of that network, so it is right that we ask searching questions about it. And we will.

    But let’s start with what we do know.

    Pakistan has suffered more from terrorism than any other country in the world.

    As President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani said to me when I spoke to them yesterday, as many as 30,000 innocent civilians have been killed. And more Pakistani soldiers and security forces have died fighting extremism than international forces killed in Afghanistan.

    Usama Bin Laden was an enemy of Pakistan. He had declared war against the Pakistani people. And he had ordered attacks against them.

    President Obama said in his statement: “counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.”

    Continued co-operation will be just as important in the days ahead.

    I believe it is in Britain’s national interest to recognise that we share the same struggle against terrorism.

    That’s why we will continue to work with our Pakistani counterparts on intelligence gathering, tracing plots and taking action to stop them.

    It’s why we will continue to honour our aid promises – including our support for education as a critical way of helping the next generation of Pakistanis to turn their back on extremism and look forward to a brighter and more prosperous future.

    But above all, it’s why we were one of the founder members of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan. Because it is by working with the democrats in Pakistan that we can make sure the whole country shares the same determination to fight terror.

    Afghanistan

    Mr Speaker, I also spoke yesterday to President Karzai in Afghanistan.

    We both agreed that the death of bin Laden provides a new opportunity for Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together to achieve stability on both sides of the border.

    Our strategy towards Afghanistan is straightforward and has not changed.

    We want an Afghanistan capable of looking after its own security without the help of foreign forces.

    We should take this opportunity to send a clear message to the Taleban: now is the time for them to separate themselves from Al Qaeda and participate in a peaceful political process.

    Mr Speaker, the myth of Bin Laden was one of a freedom fighter, living in austerity and risking his life for the cause as he moved around in the hills and mountainous caverns of the tribal areas.

    The reality of Bin Laden was very different: a man who encouraged others to make the ultimate sacrifice while he himself hid in the comfort of a large, expensive villa in Pakistan, experiencing none of the hardship he expected his supporters to endure.

    Libya

    Mr Speaker, finally let me briefly update the House on Libya.

    In recent weeks we have stepped up our air campaign to protect the civilian population.

    Every element of Qadhafi’s war machine has been degraded.

    Over the last few days alone, NATO aircraft have struck 35 targets including tanks and armoured personnel carriers, as well as bunkers and ammunition storage facilities.

    We have also made strikes against his command and control centres which direct his operations against civilians.

    Over the weekend there were reports that in one of those strikes Colonel Qadhafi’s son, Saif al-Arab Qadhafi, was killed.

    All the targets chosen were clearly within the boundaries set by UN Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

    These Resolutions permit all necessary measures to protect civilian life – including attacks on command and control bases.

    Mr Speaker, this weekend also saw attacks on the British and Italian embassies.

    We utterly deplore this.

    The Qadhafi regime is in clear beach of the Vienna convention to protect diplomatic missions. We hold them fully to account. And we have already expelled the Libyan Ambassador from London.

    The British embassy was looted as well as destroyed.

    The World War Two Memorial was desecrated.

    And the UN have felt obliged to pull their people out for fear of attack.

    Qadhafi made much of his call for a ceasefire.

    But at the very moment Qadhafi claimed he wanted to talk, he had in fact been laying mines in Misurata harbour to stop humanitarian aid getting in and continuing his attacks on civilians, including attacks across the border in neighbouring Tunisia.

    Mr Speaker, we must continue to enforce the UN resolutions fully until such a time as they are completely complied with.

    And that means continuing the NATO mission until there is an end to all attacks on – and threats to – civilians.

    Conclusion

    Mr Speaker, bin Laden and Qadhafi were said to have hated each other. But there was a common thread running between them.

    They both feared the idea that democracy and civil rights could take hold in the Arab world.

    While we should continue to degrade, dismantle and defeat the terrorist networks a big part of the long term answer is the success of democracy in the Middle East and the conclusion of the Arab-Israeli peace process.

    For twenty years, bin Laden claimed that the future of the Muslim world would be his.

    But what Libya has shown – as Egypt and Tunisia before it – is that people are rejecting everything that bin Laden stood for.

    Instead of replacing dictatorship with his extremist totalitarianism, they are choosing democracy.

    Ten years on from the terrible tragedy of 9/11, with the end of bin Laden and the democratic awakening across the Arab world, we must seize this unique opportunity to deliver a decisive break with the forces of Al Qaeda and its poisonous ideology which has caused so much suffering for so many years.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

    The Prime Ministers Office

    Number 10

  • David Cameron’s Statement on Death of Osama Bin Laden

    David Cameron’s Statement on Death of Osama Bin Laden

    Number10door

    Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a statement on the news of the death of Osama Bin Laden.

    Osama Bin Laden, who was responsible for some of the worst terrorist atrocities including the 9/11 attack, was killed in a US operation in Pakistan.

    Mr Cameron congratulated President Obama on the operation and said now was a time to remember all those murdered by Osama Bin Laden.

    The PM said:

    “The news that Osama Bin Laden is dead will bring great relief to people across the world. Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the worst terrorist atrocities the world has seen –  for 9/11 and for so many attacks, which have cost thousands of lives, many of them British.

    “It is a great success that he has been found and will no longer be able to pursue his campaign of global terror.  This is a time to remember all those murdered by Osama Bin Laden, and all those who lost loved ones. It is also a time too to thank all those who work round the clock to keep us safe from terrorism. Their work will continue.

    “I congratulate President Obama and those responsible for carrying out this operation.”

    Mr Cameron also spoke on television at his residence at Chequers.

    The Prime Minister said:

    “This news will be welcomed right across our country.

    “Of course, it does not mark the end of the threat we face from extremist terrorism. Indeed, we will have to be particularly vigilant in the weeks ahead.

    “But it is, I believe, a massive step forward.

    “Osama bin Laden was responsible for the death of thousands of innocent men, women and children right across the world – people of every race and religion.

    “He was also responsible for ordering the death of many, many British citizens, both here and in other parts of the world.

    “I would like to congratulate the US forces who carried out this brave action. I would like to thank President Obama for ordering this action.

    “And I think it is a moment when too we should thank all of those who work day and night, often with no recognition, to keep us safe from the threat of terror.

    “But above all today, we should think of the victims of the poisonous extremism that this man has been responsible for.

    “Of course, nothing will bring back those loved ones that families have lost to terror.

    “But at least they know the man who was responsible for these appalling acts is no more.”

     

    The Prime Ministers Office

    TheNumber 10

  • Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

    Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

    Greg Muttitt: ‘Big oil firms are still in the driving seat when it comes to the resource war’

    Secret MemosThis week, The Independent revealed how big oil firms influenced the invasion of Iraq. Greg Muttitt, who uncovered the story, exposes the lengths to which the occupying powers went to prise the country’s oil production out of the control of the Iraqi government and into the hands of international oil companies.

    Interview by Phil England

    I would say the most surprising thing about my book is that someone else hasn’t written it in the past eight years. It’s an obvious question to ask, ‘what happened to the oil?’

    Published yesterday, Greg Muttitt’s explosive new history of post-occupation Iraq has been pulled together from hundreds of documents released under the Freedom of Information act – both here and in the US – as well as from numerous first-hand interviews. Muttitt was the source of The Independent’s front-page revelations on Tuesday that both BP and Shell had meetings with government officials in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

    With more revelations inside, his book is set to turn our understanding of the war on its head. As well as documenting just how highly oil figured in the thinking of those who led what is widely thought to have been an illegal invasion, Fuel on the Fire exposes the lengths to which the occupying powers went to prise the country’s oil production out of the control of the Iraqi government, and into the hands of international oil companies, against the wishes of the Iraqi people.

    It’s an absorbing account of what is a much more complex story than many pundits might prefer. “I didn’t feel it would be helpful to just chuck ammunition to one side in a polarised debate,” he explains. “I wanted to explore how this really works. I think it’s important to understand the nature of a resource war in the 21st century.”

    For many years Muttitt worked as a researcher and campaigner on the social and environmental impacts of the oil industry as a co-director of campaign group Platform, and in recent weeks he has been appointed campaigns and policy director for War on Want. After eight years of piecing this all together, including three visits to Iraq and several visits to Jordan, Muttitt is confident about some of his core findings. “Oil was the most important strategic interest behind the war and it shaped the decisions of the occupying powers,” he tells me. “The primary strategic interest for the US and Britain is to have a low and stable oil price. A secondary interest is for their own corporations to do well.”

    Bringing international oil companies back into Iraq, after 30 years of nationalised production, would put the country at odds with neighbouring producers such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran, whose oil production has also been in the public sector since the 1970s. Part of the strategy seems to have been about changing that political culture.

    “In some of the documents I got hold of for the book it becomes quite clear,” says Muttitt. “The British government talks about using Iraq as a strong exemplar for the region and the International Tax and Investment Centre – the oil companies’ lobbying organisation – even described it as a beach-head for broader expansion of the oil companies into the Middle East.”

    One of the great achievements of Muttitt’s book is to have restored an Iraqi voice to a narrative from which it had largely been erased. The fact that the Iraqi people held a strong view that oil production should stay in their hands did not deter the occupying powers and international oil companies from pursuing their privatisation agenda relentlessly. But at some point it all had to come unstuck. At the heart of Fuel on the Fire is the story of the Iraqi peoples’ fight against the Oil Law – a law which would have removed the need for parliamentary approval of contracts with oil companies.

    It was a fight in which Muttitt himself played a role. At a meeting with Iraqi unions in Amman in Jordan in 2006, following his work on a report called Crude Designs, he helped make the law’s implications accessible. Although initiated by the unions, the two-year campaign which followed was joined by oil experts, religious and civil society groups, intellectuals and professionals.

    Iraq’s own oil experts, who had worked in the industry for decades, made the case against foreign investment. As Muttitt notes: “The industry was at its most effective in the 1970s immediately after nationalisation and before Saddam took the country into a series of wars.”

    Despite all the pressure brought to bear on the Iraqi government from outside the country – including aid and debt relief being made conditional on passing an oil law, direct briefings by oil companies, linking the surge strategy to passage of the oil law, and a threat to remove Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from office – the campaign proved too popular for parliament to pass the law.

    You might think that was enough to force a rethink, but the Iraqi government went ahead and auctioned off 60 per cent of the country’s proven reserves anyway, under contracts of dubious legality, to companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon. In what was the biggest sell-off in the history of oil, some analysts believe the financial returns for the oil companies will be 20 per cent or more.

    Iraqi MP Shatha al-Musawi attempted to bring a legal case against the first contract: BP’s joint deal with the China National Petroleum Corporation for the Rumaila field. But the Supreme Court said this would cost her $250,000. Her fellow parliamentarians were supportive and promised to help raise the money, but that commitment fell apart as parties jostled for position after the March 2010 elections. After she decided not to re-stand for election, al-Musawi told Muttitt: “Most of the governing institutions are working without law and violating the constitution every day because they decided not to have an effective parliament. We really have a dictatorship.”

    Muttitt worries about the lack of effective political oversight at a time of massive outside investment in Iraq’s oil resources. Studies of the “resource curse”, including the World Bank’s Extractive Industries Review show that effective governance is needed before you bring in tens of millions of dollars. “Unless you manage it effectively you get a distortion of the economy, you get corruption and you get investors that don’t serve national interests.”

    The Iraqi street worries about it, too. On 25 February people across the country protested against corruption and for better services in a “day of rage” where a number of people were killed by security forces. The slogans included: “The people’s oil is for the people not the thieves.” Sami Ramadani, a London-based Iraqi exile who writes regularly about the occupation, told me: “The general feeling is that Iraq’s oil is being given away and whatever is being retained in terms of income is being squandered by the regime. In terms of services, wherever you turn there is a very sharp deterioration – health, education, employment, clean water and so on.”

    The legitimacy of the post-Saddam regime is coming increasingly into question. After a “million person march” against the occupation led by the Sadrists on 9 April in Baghdad (Ramadani estimates the turnout was in the hundreds of thousands), a new military order was issued that decrees that demonstrations can only take place within designated football fields. One demonstrator who defied the ban one week later quipped: “Are we going to play a football match with the police?”

    Last week oil minister Abdul-Karim al-Luaibi announced another auction, this time for 12 “exploration and production” contracts, which are expected to go under the hammer in November. “Iraq has the greatest unexplored potential of any country in the world,” says Muttitt. “Most geologists reckon there’s about as much still to be found as currently exists in proven reserves. So this would tie up another chunk of Iraq’s future economic potential for 20-30 years.”

    This is on top of the massive planned increase in production from 2.5 million barrels per day to 12 million bpd, already implied by the existing contracts. Even the small number of Iraqi oil experts who supported privatisation are now arguing that such a rapid increase is not in Iraq’s interest as it will likely lead to a crash of the oil price.

    Muttitt says the government has been very effective in breaking organised opposition to the oil law. “The oil workers trade union still exists [although, like all trade unions in Iraq, is illegal] but has come under enormous pressure. The large group of oil experts that opposed the oil law, meanwhile, have been co-opted and broken apart. A lot of them have been offered very lucrative roles with multinationals and so on.”

    Nevertheless, he still has faith in ordinary Iraqis to deal with their problems. After all, it was civil society that won the fight against the oil law and it was a coalition of civil society groups that forced Iraq’s politicians to finally form a government after five months of post-election wrangling last December. “This struggle is not over and there is hope for the future. If Iraqi civil society is given the chance and the right kind of international support, these issues are still up for being contested. In spite of the politicians, there is cause for hope in Iraq.”

    “Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq” by Greg Muttitt is published by The Bodley Head

    www.independent.co.uk, 22 April 2011
     

    comments

    Sort by

    Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS

    • John Hawkins 4 days ago
      Oil is the primary resource in the world today, those who complain about oil company actions would soon change their tune if they could not fill their car tanks every week.
    • tomfrom66 3 days ago in reply to John Hawkins
      They would also complain if there was no artificial fertilizer – Haber Bosch process – to put food on their tables, and no plastics. 

      They might also – if the facts were put in front of them – be very afraid of what life is going to be like when oil becomes to so prohibitively expensive it cannot ‘fund’ all three aspects of the economy.

      Oil is not some self-replicating substance, John.

    • John Hawkins 3 days ago in reply to tomfrom66
      “Oil is not some self-replicating substance” 

      I agree Tom and did not intend to suggest oil could be used profligately, just that it is the ultimate essential to our present lifestyle.

      For good or bad, bad in my view, we have put ourselves in the hands of oil producers and bankers.

     

  • British Expats in Turkey

    British Expats in Turkey

    Following the bilateral consular meeting that was held back in December with the Turkish authorities, the Turkish Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have confirmed that there will be permit fees for British Nationals in Turkey, it has been agreed with the British Ambassador’s request to reduce the permit fee to $80/60 Euros a year as from the first of April, the fees will be charged as followed, the first month will be charged at $25 and then $5 for each month subsequent after.

    Further information can be obtained from the Alien’s dept. in your local area. The Turkish Government have been thanked for listening to concerns and its hope that British nationals will take advantage of the reduced rate and continue to regularise their stay in Turkey.

    Turkish Visa System

    The British Embassy have continued to ask for an expiry date to be placed on visa stickers and have pointed out how confusing British Nationals find it to receive visa stickers that state they are valid for 90/180 days which are actually just for 90 days. They have continued to ask for a notification period of 3 months in advance, Turkish authorities have not set a date for the implementation of this 90/180 day visa.

    The British Embassy would like to make it clear to all Brits travelling to Turkey and gaining a holiday visa that you should be sure to leave within 90 days of the date of first issue. If you leave within 90 days and then re-enter Turkey and your stay will exceed the 90 days from the date it was issued you must buy a new visa, If you don’t you are at risk of overstaying and may be given a fine or even a ban from re-entering Turkey in the future.

    The British Embassy will be having further meetings with the health authorities to clarify their position in regards to the confusion as to whether the Universal Healthcare Scheme is compulsory for British Residents. For the meantime they advise all British Nationals living overseas to obtain healthcare that covers their needs or have access to funds to cover medical care should they need it.

    Property The Ministry of Foreign affairs has assured the British Embassy that the Turkish Government are working towards making buying in Turkey more secure for British Nationals and are reviewing the systematic issues that have affected British Nationals and to have been taken these matters very seriously.

    The British Embassy recognise that they cannot get involved in individual disputes but are continuing to do all they can and work with the Turkish Authorities on these matters. Conclusion The British Embassy’s conclusion/feedback states that its clear the Turkish Authorities value the contributions of the British Residents and visitors that make the economy and they are willing to tackle the problems if they can.

    This has been proven by the reduction of the Residence Permit Fee and the British Embassy that they are grateful to the community for identifying problems and possible solutions and will continue to meet with the Turkish Authorities and follow up the issues raised and any further issues that affect British Nationals in Turkey. You can find more information regarding this update on offical British Home Office website by visiting , if you like.

    Didim Today