Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Blog numbers and reader survey


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

I just noticed that I passed 3,000 Twitter followers. That feels like a lot, although nothing compared to legal Twitter titans @nearlylegal (5,435), @AdamWagner1 (13,277) and @JackofKent (46,106!).

So I thought it was time for a periodic general stats and numbers check, particularly as I keep forgetting blog birthdays, the traditional time for self congratulationintrospection.

  • 2,533,689 page views total since it all began in 2007
  • 2,350 email subscribers
  • 39,581 visits in the last month, of whom 20,939 were unique visitors (others were repeat visitors)
  • 79,210 page views in the last month

The blog is using a lot more bandwidth than it used to and the page load time is gradually decreasing over time as the archives grow and grow. I’ll be moving the whole site to a new hosting provider in the next couple of weeks with the help of The Small Axe, which will be costlier at my end but will provide a better and more stable service at your end.

I’m also now planning to upgrade the forum software to bring in better email alert functionality, which I hope will happen in the next couple of weeks.

The way the blog has developed now and in the past has been based on guesswork and it would be very useful to me to get some proper feedback. To that end I’ve devised a short survey of only 12 questions, several of which can be skipped so it will only take a couple of minutes. I’d be grateful if you could take the time to complete it:

Thanks for reading!

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Colin Yeo

Colin Yeo

Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.


3 Responses

  1. Hi Colin – Can we have an article about the rights of natural born British Citizens when it comes to non-EEA spouses?

    1. It’s a tricky subject! The problem is that everyone wants to know how long they have to work abroad for before they can apply, and there is no definitive answer to that question. Perhaps even a more detailed post explaining that might be useful, though. I’ll give the subject some thought.

  2. Survey completed! Hope many do and the results are useful to you Colin.

    James, if you mean Reg 9 (ECJ Singh) it used to be 6 months till the HO “noticed” that there was no basis for that. Now it is essentially up to ECOs, or EEA casework if couple have already entered. Normally 3 months should suffice, less can if you want to risk the 55 quid EEAFP fee. Residence docs for the host EEA country should be granted to help prove residence there. Refusals based on time limit can be appealed. But best to apply there for EEAFP before move back to UK in case of issues, you retain the option to apply later. Under EU law “genuine and effective residence”, not a set time (as yet), is decisive, HO publishes nothing on that. An article by an expert like Colin would indeed be interesting.

    In other cases, matters entirely inside the UK, EU law does not assist non-EEA spouses unless you can make ECJ Carpenter apply (provision of services by Brit Cit in other EEA countries as well as in UK. Again HO silent on this)

    Since the HO began to apply ECJ McCarthy they have not distinguished between Brit Cits by birth in UK (ie. other than by descent) or those by descent or naturalisation/registration. Experiences may vary however due to lack of guidance on the specific point, but don’t count on it.