icm2re logo. icm2:re (I Changed My Mind Reviewing Everything) is an 

ongoing web column edited and published by Brunella Longo

This column deals with some aspects of change management processes experienced almost in any industry impacted by the digital revolution: how to select, create, gather, manage, interpret, share data and information either because of internal and usually incremental scope - such learning, educational and re-engineering processes - or because of external forces, like mergers and acquisitions, restructuring goals, new regulations or disruptive technologies.

The title - I Changed My Mind Reviewing Everything - is a tribute to authors and scientists from different disciplinary fields that have illuminated my understanding of intentional change and decision making processes during the last thirty years, explaining how we think - or how we think about the way we think. The logo is a bit of a divertissement, from the latin divertere that means turn in separate ways.

Chronological Index | Subject Index

Is the evidence not enough?

About an application for british citizenship and a stakeholder pension

How to cite this article?
Longo, Brunella (2015). Is the evidence not enough? About an application for british citizenship and a stakeholder pension. icm2re [I Changed my Mind Reviewing Everything ISSN 2059-688X (Print)], 4.4 (April).

How to cite this article?
Longo, Brunella (2015). Is the evidence not enough? About an application for british citizenship and a stakeholder pension. icm2re [I Changed my Mind Reviewing Everything ISSN 2059-688X (Online)], 4.4 (April).
Full-text available at http://www.brunellalongo.co.uk/

London, May 25th, rev 4th Sep, updated 1st Oct 2015 - In an act that I consider quite barbaric, employees at the Home Office rejected my application for citizenship (1), just in time for not allowing me to vote at the General Election (May 2015). I paid the fee for a mandatory reconsideration (2) and I submitted notes and references to essential legal provisions. This application cannot remain without an answer. The case has enough substance for a parliamentary question as well, so that I forwarded all the papers to my MP for consideration (3).

I have been domiciled and resident in England since 2008. In order to prevent any ambiguity connected with the domicile status (relevant in respect of tax issues) I even transferred the ownership of my italian trademarks, that would have otherwise required me unsustainable legal costs for representation in the native Country, to my mother. The number of days on which I was absent from the UK in the five years before the submission of my citizenship application was of total 27 days, mostly spent in 2010 and 2011 in order to sell a property I still owned in Italy (that should provide the money to access the mortgage for a conveyance of a flat in North London that turned out "impossible" and led me, instead, to legal proceedings ended with a bankruptcy oder) and to fix other red tape problems. In fact, it turned out that it would be practically very costly and time consuming for an italian micro-business to operate in the UK without being resident (you cannot even open a bank account in the UK if you are not a council tax payer or you do not have a permanent address) so that I closed down everything I had in Italy to fully enjoy the freedom of movement.

The number of days on which I was absent from the UK in the last three years was 61 and in the period of twelve months before my application for citizenship it was zero: perhaps not surprisingly, after five years of quasi-exile, nobody but quacks apparently remember of me in Italy (and those who do still fear I could be perceived as a potential threat in the Berlusconi legal and political sagas and what remains of that toxic narratives).

The right to change: there is no dream, no monster, no ifs, no buts

My family does not exist but for myself and various cats and dogs since the mid 1980s and a - sometimes tough sometimes tender - solidarity agreement with my mother, the close physical resemblance with whom could not be more deceptive as we really are like opposite planets. But I have always felt responsible for my younger two brothers, one of which suffers from Down syndrome, and helped her as I could in growing up them, in taking some breaks and holidays. In turn, I decided when I was 11-year-old I would be childless and unmarried and I would work and live to nurture the child in me that never had a childhood. Nature helped me in this goal, until somebody decided to experiment on me new cyberstalking techniques and damage my business and professional life not only attacking my intellectual property, my assets and my identity but even turning the weak and patchy emotional ties with relatives in a weapon against me and themselves. An emotional storm, masqueraded with the most fanciest defamatory narratives through word or mouth and libel, from erotic delirium to religious conversions and jesuit procedures, could have transformed my personal identity in a mashed broth of self constructed keywords, returning the flash to the sinful single parent, for the punishment of both of us.

But there were savings. I used them to escape and leave the Country. My mother helped me as well. I will never return to Italy. If there is a little chance that can happen it will be in twenty or more years time and it will strongly depends on the amount of money from the over 200,000 euro lost savings that I will have recovered and returned partly into my stakeholder pension (that has in the meantime changed provider and it is now in sterlings) and partly to my mother (that is the only person to whom I owe money). In the meantime, my younger brother - who is an electric engineer and a true family man - has become a carer for my disabled one, easing our ageing but still sparkling mother's life.

I acquired the legal right to permanent residency in the UK in March 2013, more than a year before the date of my Life in the UK test and my application for citizenship. Also my National Insurance record reflects such right very clearly, documenting I have been paying NIC contributions in the UK since 2008-2009.

That means that I am equal to a British national. But what such idea of european equality really means in the UK could be a fascinating topic for sociological, philosophical or legal disputes: we, british people, do not have a written constitution and no EU rule can impose on the UK or any other EU sovereign country a duty to employ or to give public contracts to a fixed quote of EU nationals, for instance. We, european people, aspire to an integration and harmonisation of professional and business practices accordingly to common values but we have not built (nor able to enforce) the tools to strengthen and develop such values within endogenous cultures that tend, as the british one, to be ambivalent and even opportunistic towards the idea of an European single market for people.

There is no willing on the side of UK professional associations and scientific societies, for instance, to really endorse the European Qualifications Framework nor any way to force the natural predisposition of British entrepreneurs and directors to believe that a middle age woman with big boobs from a non Commonwealth country is not a midwife, nor has come here to make a paninis business.

Besides the lovely epithets (duck, mole, sneak etc.) in the constant social media innuendos of my potential peers and their friends of friends - the ones with whom I almost uselessly spent thousand of pounds for seminars, networking events and continuous professional development between 2008 and 2011 - the rejection of my citizenship application triggered a new wave of mockeries and attacks to my reputation by mostly retired acquaintances with italian ties, guessing that self deprecation publicity is what really keeps me alive.

After all, I am an extrovert and optimist and I am keen on sharing my thoughts and express myself like a comedian! If I really suffered of my diminished and dilapidated british destiny, I would stay silent and in pain as there isn't too much I can feed with my aspirations for a british career. Isn't true that real experts in cyber security and those who have anything to say on cybercrime and national security things are very well away from the internet, the twitter-sphere and the public pillories? If you stay exposed and want to engage with all sorts of people, it is clearly because you want to be a celebrity and you don't care of the menaces. The safe middle aged information management consultants do not experiment WhatsApp security threads to corporate intelligence, exposing themselves to libelous comments by Minister of Defence consultants. They do gardening in their spare time! (by the way I could not, even if I wanted to, because I now live in a property in South London that turned out to be, as the previous one, defective, where the garden was destroyed by abusive construction development without planning permission).

Such abusive, bigoted and medieval mindset applies not only to foreign women who started a consultancy business in England: it is unfortunately still very common across all social classes and the political spectrum - and to be honest it exists as far as I can say in any european country, it is very bonded to the recess part of our common judaic-christian identity and the misogynist common trait the Muslim Brotherhood shares with fundamentalists of all faiths and prejudices.

Even within the Civil Service somebody might have genuinely pondered that rejecting my application for citizenship was the best way to publicise math skills and the role of foreign nationals that have the audacity to come here and want to vote, to work and to create businesses - not just fall victim of frauds and claim benefits. Thanks but it is not. I do really want to have full citizenship where I live.

The rules and the maths

In the aftermath of the General Election the only immediate reply I received to the rejection of my application for Citizenship was the return of the £80 fee for the ceremony (but no return is possible for the £900 application fee).

Of course, I asked for a reconsideration sending in the FORM NR I was kindly provided with - because indeed even if it is not specified by the British Nationality Act 1981 under section 6(1) SCHEDULE 1, we do have a FORM for mandatory reconsideration of the decision to refuse an application for citizenship! We like to appear in any circumstance so civilised.

And as a moral satisfaction, though completely unrelated of course, I must say that I appreciated to learn that the Queen has sacked some employees (just to remind ourselves that in this country the Civil Service is a Royal crew assigned to the operations of the current Government, so that permanent employees can be made very temporary after all).

The rules and the maths behind an application for citizenship could not be clearer but also that is just... in the appearance of things. The truth is that our non written constitution and the common law culture allow the Home Office to really decide what they want, and without providing any justification whatsoever. Or, even worse, they are allowed to construct and solidify post-traumatic justifications with all sorts of expedients and references that can be presented (and then lost or destroyed and then searched for years of historical interminable parliamentary enquiries) as evidence. Of course, I came here to make a bit of order in such millennial documentary mess. I cannot expect to be welcomed without resistance!

Ten days before the General Election, civil servants with scottish accent called me to verify my postal address in a couple of occasions. They refused to discuss the substance of the application. And neither they asked me any important question in order to better understand the data I provided and the criteria of my entitlement. They could not talk about the merit of the application itself over the phone, I was told, not even when it was clear that they were referring to my application as rejected even if I had not received yet any written communication about the outcome of it. This is a nasty typical Scottish way to communicate with foreign nationals they perceive as competitors, pretending instead they are caring.

The impression was, overall, that my application was deliberately dismissed and at the right time. I felt myself very humiliated. For what reasons? Stupidity? Incompetence? A laugh? Just cruelty against the commitment of an individual who had already acquired the right of permanent residence in the Country?

Because of the information I disclosed about the abuses of public processes I experienced or witnessed in this Country, it is not far from the truth to say that I should have been considered a model according to british values, written and not written rules. And if all the EU nationals permanently living in this Country applied for citizenship, that would be a great way to start learning about management of digital identities, effective information security and document handling and borders controls.

I asked to escalate a question: how could it happen that such Mrs M Watling got it so wrong?

The Prime Minister visited the Home Office to launch his EU re-negotiations tour the day after the reconsideration form was deemed to be received.

The real issues in EU-UK relationships

In the meantime, my italian stakeholder pension seems lost in translation. I did not anything wrong when I decided to transfer it from an euro to a sterlings product.

After years of notes, letters and reminders I sent to both HMRC and the italian fiscal authority Agenzia delle Entrate - disclosing a potentially criminal scheme not just for robbing entrepreneurial european workers that move across Europe but to engineer new money laundering ideas - it seems they are now looking into the case. It turned out that the italian fiscal authority did not find all the money the italian pension provider deducted at source from my pot before making the transfer and such omission could either qualify as error or as fiscal fraud. In any case, it is very arguable they had the right to make such deduction: the instruction the same fiscal italian authorities had been dispatching for years are very clear on the point. And in which civilised country a private citizen would be required to pay taxes on the sale of his only property?

The 2012 decision of Judge Advent in the Central London Country Court to evict me from the property in North London that I was supposed to buy came after I had started the claim for damages against the false landlord and after I had sold the italian property and put the money in the pension fund. Such decisions are also under review and investigations, also in consideration of a number of following oddities I wrote about in other articles of this column. Are they all civil minutia and "unfortunate" matters?

In sum, it seems to me that on the grounds of my disastrous personal experience in the enjoyment of freedom of movement rights, Mr Cameron has indeed a case, although it may be not the one of the exploitation of the welfare system he had imagined (mostly fabricated by Scottish fantasists, UKIP and trade unionists and intertwined with solid populistic prejudices). He is right when he asks to renegotiate the UK-EU relationships on the freedom of movement, but the real issues affecting EU migrants in Europe consist in their dramatic exposure to red tapes failures, frauds, corporate crime, cybercrime, identity theft and inequalities.

There is no point in crying to change the EU existing treaties and legislation related to welfare benefits in order to sort out such loopholes and cultural gaps. Instead, new harmonised and enforceable rules are needed to prevent people from being trafficked and exploited by gangs of crooks at all levels, from creative recruitment agencies to government behavioural economists advisors and including legal and financial experts that craft articulated and sophisticated plots using all the power of deceptive technologies and diverse, often ambivalent, cultural habits and jurisdictions.

A very well documented journalistic report (Revealed: thousands of Britons on benefits across EU, The Guardian, Monday 19 January 2015) ascertained that In Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, France and Ireland the number of Britons banking unemployment cheques is almost three times as high as the nationals of those countries receiving parallel UK benefits 23,011 Britons to 8,720 nationals of those nine countries in the UK.
The findings highlight a more nuanced and complex picture across Europe than the simplistic version painted by anti-immigration and anti-EU campaigners led by Ukip and elements in the Conservative party.
About 2.5% of Britons in other EU countries are claiming unemployment benefits, the same level as the roughly 65,000 EU nationals claiming jobseeker's allowance in the UK.
Dr Roxana Barbulescu, researcher on international migration at the University of Sheffield, said the numbers claiming unemployment benefits were minuscule. Thirty thousand people, or 2.5% of all British nationals, in other EU member states means that the overwhelming majority of Brits abroad as well as European citizens in Britain are not an undue burden for the countries in which they live.

With the decisions I took in 2012 to transfer the savings of my whole working life from a qualified recognised pension scheme in Euro subscribed in Italy in 2001 into a qualified recognised pension scheme in Sterlings based in UK, passing through the inevitable savings bank account in Euro based in the UK and mis-sold to me as it was for stakeholder pensions purposes just before I was declared bankrupt in 2013, I did make something that can be perceived as insanely anomalous and risky. But actually, it was a decision carefully and confidently planned considered the international regime for pensions, even if within an uncertain framework as always happens with all sort of novelties.

Discharged from the handicap and stigma of the bankruptcy, that I faced without a lawyer, I could restart a business and have the freedom and legal capacity needed to complete the transfer of the stakeholder pension into a regulated scheme in sterlings, just to discover that the petitioner, the bank and one of the appointed trustees in bankruptcy had in the meantime decided that was not a stakeholder pension but just a savings account that could be transferred in the bankruptcy (the administration and account of which turned out to be inspired by cases of fraudulent company bankruptcies, something that denotes an intentional pattern to harm and rob single individuals from their savings, on the assumption they have no possibility to defend themselves). One of the appointed trustees left the firm soon after such decision. The bankruptcy closed with zero point zero money. Everything taken with absolutely inconsistent and faked up justifications. Previous articles of this column tell about other appalling abuses made by the appointed trustees and the refusal of Judge Lambert, who had made the bankruptcy order in the London Central County Court in Bankruptcy, to transfer the case for the annulment of the bankruptcy to the upper court.

But besides such evidences of an unlawful and unethical ritual that reminds of medieval practices and sharia laws, the question I asked myself was: why did I decide to go ahead with the transfer of the pension even when it was clear the prospective seller of the flat, then bankrupt petitioner, was not entitled to sell?

I trusted that the principles and rules on foreign tax credit relief (relief from double taxation), on repayment of taxes taken at source under the international pension scheme regime and tax relief on contributions to overseas pension schemes could all be in my favour in any case, because Great Britain is a Country that has built its identity and international reputation on the rule of law and recognition of skilled and innovative professional practices. And I disclosed all the matter to HMRC and the italian fiscal authority since 2011.

Above all, I trusted that even if unknown dreadful pitiful technicalities could compromise my plans, and I could not buy that flat, the money would remain in my stakeholder pension - because we have in Britain principles and values of fairness that prevail on miseries.

Nobody really wins anything if I lose the right to live, to work and to have my stakeholder pension transferred here from another European country whereas we all have to fight new, unbelievable cross party battles for equality and democracy. That starts with the right to vote where you live.


  1. Letter from Mrs Watling, Home Office, Department 73, Liverpool, dated 9 March 2015
  2. Form NR Mandatory reconsideration, 11 May 2015 (then resent with manuscript form on 3rd June to Home Office Department 1, Liverpool as required)
  3. E-mail sent to Helen Hayes, MP for Dulwich and West Norwood on 7th September 2015, with her endorsement of my application dated 30th September and further correspondence with Lambeth Council Planning Enforcement Team in relation to their prosecution of the landlord I rented my home from in 2012: see also, on this point, the video recorded interview on caution and witness statement I gave to the Metropolitan Police on 16 April 2015 in relation to harassement behaviour by the same individual and the article Rogue landlord ordered to pay over £400k in "Lambeth Talk", November 2015, p. 4. I have also provided Lambeth Council relevant evidence and insight as part of my involvement with the Safer Neighbourhood Teams of the Metropolitan Police and in response to a consultation on planning processes (see also the article: Longo, Brunella (2015). If change does not come easy, make it easier to change. About the planned revolution of planning processes. icm2re [I Changed my Mind Reviewing Everything ISSN 2059-688X (Online)], 4.3 (March). Full-text available at http://www.brunellalongo.co.uk/2015-3.html). On the 16th October 2015 Ms Hayes informed me that the Home Office Customer Service confirmed that my application is under reconsideration.