• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Windrush Scandal

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
And, I expect everyone chose to ignore her because of her attitude to "Old White Englishmen"!

She has cried Wolf so many times that when, she actually comes up with a valid argument, nobody takes any notice.
As I noted right at the start, this issue was repeatedly raised by numerous parties when the policy was brought in, not just by Abbot, the Home Office & Govt dismissed the concerns out of hand.
 
Neither party emerges with any great credit from this sorry episode; it is easy to blame the CS for this but it is worth remembering that Ministers routinely fail to ask their Permanent Secretaries for advice and instead rely on their SPADs, most if whom have never had a proper job in their lives.
 
Really? Float a few examples of her crying wolf for me.


She could shit golden ingots and you’d still drip about her:mrgreen:
How about "The problem with the UK is, to many white people" or "Anybody that is anti-immigration is a racist",also passing a racist remark in Parliament, denigrating "Fat Old White Men"? If I had mentioned "Fat Old Black Men", that would be considered a racist remark and, nobody pulls her up for it, so she just keeps on going ! People per se, are getting mightily pissed off with her double standards,hypocrisy and,predictable narrative !
 
How about "The problem with the UK is, to many white people" or "Anybody that is anti-immigration is a racist",also passing a racist remark in Parliament, denigrating "Fat Old White Men"? If I had mentioned "Fat Old Black Men", that would be considered a racist remark and, nobody pulls her up for it, so she just keeps on going ! People per se, are getting mightily pissed off with her double standards,hypocrisy and,predictable narrative !
That's not crying wolf it's opinions she has that you don't like
 
As I noted right at the start, this issue was repeatedly raised by numerous parties when the policy was brought in, not just by Abbot, the Home Office & Govt dismissed the concerns out of hand.
And has been continually raised by various MPs highlighting the issue when following-up problems brought to them by their constituents.

The one thing the HO can't say is that they were unaware of the issue but instead successive ministers at the very least have chosen to stick their head in the sand and ignore it.

Two things I note about this whole incident:

1. How ineffective MPs appear to have been when pointing out this landmine to their own party, requiring a major amount of excrement from the mainstream media before moving.

2. Just how quickly the whole thing has deteriorated into a finger-pointing, point-scoring exercise from all sides.

One might think that various politicians care less about the people involved, so much as how they can be used to 'advance' their own position.
 
Neither party emerges with any great credit from this sorry episode; it is easy to blame the CS for this but it is worth remembering that Ministers routinely fail to ask their Permanent Secretaries for advice and instead rely on their SPADs, most if whom have never had a proper job in their lives.
It happens in private business. The technical guys working the job are ignored. Some "consultant" comes in offering unicorn rainbows and they will side with the consultant. Can't loose face after spending all the money.
Six months later they ask the technical guys to sort the problem out on their normal wage.
TSB will be a case in point.
 
And has been continually raised by various MPs highlighting the issue when following-up problems brought to them by their constituents.

The one thing the HO can't say is that they were unaware of the issue but instead successive ministers at the very least have chosen to stick their head in the sand and ignore it.

Two things I note about this whole incident:

1. How ineffective MPs appear to have been when pointing out this landmine to their own party, requiring a major amount of excrement from the mainstream media before moving.

2. Just how quickly the whole thing has deteriorated into a finger-pointing, point-scoring exercise from all sides.

One might think that various politicians care less about the people involved, so much as how they can be used to 'advance' their own position.
Just wonder if the old weasel Corbyn and Co were keeping this one up their sleeve for a rainy day? interesting it 'broke' in the middle of his Jewish problem and ambivalent response to CW attacks in Salisbury and Syria, also when Commonwealth heads of sheds were in London, a few weeks before London local elections, and on anniversary of Lawrence, Windrush and 50th Powell speech when emotions in one of Labours client groups were running high? or am I just a grumpy old man?
 
Just wonder if the old weasel Corbyn and Co were keeping this one up their sleeve for a rainy day? interesting it 'broke' in the middle of his Jewish problem and ambivalent response to CW attacks in Salisbury and Syria, also when Commonwealth heads of sheds were in London, a few weeks before London local elections, and on anniversary of Lawrence, Windrush and 50th Powell speech when emotions in one of Labours client groups were running high? or am I just a grumpy old man?
I don't credit 'em with that much intelligence or foresight.

After all, various media outlets had been highlighting the issue for some time; Ch4 News I think have been returning to this story for ages.

If it’s anything other than chance, I reckon having the heads of the Commonwealth in town just pushed it up the media agenda and then onto the radar of politicians.
 
What really surprised me is the HO has known about the issue for decades and apparently never got around to pulling a P&P together on how to deal with Windrush bods who had trouble with paper work.

Let's face it, old people and paper work and assumptions on one's nationality is not uncommon.

Sixth Australian MP in eligibility trouble


Undoubtedly the Windrush problem was ignored and repeatedly swept under the carpet because dealing with it would open Pandora's Box - it would highlight the unresolved/ unrecorded nationality and naturalisation issues of multiple other groups, possibly millions of people.

Its probably also the reason they won't dare have an immigration amnesty - they might get 10+ million people putting their hand up. Same reason that there'll never be an ID card issued to prove entitlement to public funds.
 
So, it turns out that the HO had regional migrant removal targets, and this after Amber Rudd saying to Parliament that they didn’t.

This from the BBC, though the story appears to across most of the media:
Immigration teams were set Home Office targets for voluntary departures of people regarded as having no right to stay in the UK, it has emerged.

Challenged by MPs investigating the problems faced by the Windrush generation, Home Secretary Amber Rudd denied targets are currently used.

An inspection report from December 2015 shows they did exist at that time.

The Home Office said it has never been policy to take decisions arbitrarily to meet a target.
That might go some way to explain why the HO were indifferent to those Windrush migrants who were having difficulty proving their citizenship.

Earlier in this thread I said that Amber Rudd had taken sufficient and prompt enough action to keep her job, however I think she’s on very thin ice now.

After all, it’s perfectly acceptable to mislead the public, but whatever you do, don’t get caught misleading Parliament.

This news (interesting timing for its release, don’t you think?) suggests that she’s either lied to Parliament, or is ignorant of her departments policies and processes.

Either one doesn’t make her look good.
 
This news (interesting timing for its release, don’t you think?) suggests that she’s either lied to Parliament, or is ignorant of her departments policies and processes.
The timing is less interesting than the confected outrage that targets existed and the somewhat manufactured link to the Windrush issue.

If - as everyone agrees - there is a large number of illegal immigrants who have no right to remain (as opposed to the relatively small number of Windrush cases) and who - as nearly everyone outside the Labour party also agrees - should be returned to their country of origin, why on earth wouldn't you have targets for removals? It's basic departmental governance.

I'm pretty sure if one dug back through all the various Home Affairs Ctte evidence sessions, you'd find some of the same people now fainting through outrage querying why the HO wasn't meeting it's targets for removals - and if the HO didn't have targets, why not?

Someone somewhere is using Windrush as a stick with which to try and claim either Rudd or Mays scalp. Question is whether it's a blond buffoon or a media crusader.

Either way, the existence of targets really ought not to be an issue. Absence of targets ought to be a far more serious issue IMO.
 
Undoubtedly the Windrush problem was ignored and repeatedly swept under the carpet because dealing with it would open Pandora's Box - it would highlight the unresolved/ unrecorded nationality and naturalisation issues of multiple other groups, possibly millions of people.

Its probably also the reason they won't dare have an immigration amnesty - they might get 10+ million people putting their hand up. Same reason that there'll never be an ID card issued to prove entitlement to public funds.
The poorly thought out knee-jerk amendments that have been put through parliament over the decades have made UK immigration and nationality law fiendishly complex, blithely ripping rugs out from under certain demographics to hastily patch up perceived loopholes elsewhere while creating new loopholes and cracks for unimagined demographics to fall through, so on and so forth.

Immigration lawyers make whole careers and sometimes keep entire firms going out of this rich seam of old-growth flustercuckery, so I doubt that the next greasy-pole wallah jockeying around for a cabinet position is going to have a sufficient grasp of the issues to deliberately handle things as you have described.

I once wrote to my then MP about an immigration issue in my family that has since been fixed by the Immigration Act 2014. In his reply he said words to the effect of "I asked my colleague Damian Green who is in charge of immigration at the moment, about this matter and this is what Damian says about your issue..." and Damian missed the rather simple point so spectacularly and lazily that I wonder if he read my letter while being fellated in a moving taxi by an expense and penned the reply with whatever energy he had left after blowing his load.

I think that most of them are just ordinary bellthronks who, having compensated their rather average business acumen with somewhat better politicking skills, have found a nice earner via Westminster.

In short, I think you give them too much credit.
 
Last edited:
Its probably also the reason they won't dare have an immigration amnesty - they might get 10+ million people putting their hand up. Same reason that there'll never be an ID card issued to prove entitlement to public funds.[/QUOTE]

Several observations on the 'Boris Amnesty', 1. no criminal record, if they have ever been arrested or come to the attention of plod why have they not been deported? 2. if they arrived illegally how will they prove they have been here 10 years plus, am sure an illegal will not keep records and a paper trail, many even destroy their previous passports and ID 3. as an illegal assume they have not been paying income tax and NI living cash in hand? you are now legal can we now have the 10 years or so arrears in NI and income tax!

Looks as if this is becoming an effort to derail all our immigration legislation? we know Jeremy want's to open the flood gates.
 
The timing is less interesting than the confected outrage that targets existed and the somewhat manufactured link to the Windrush issue.

If - as everyone agrees - there is a large number of illegal immigrants who have no right to remain (as opposed to the relatively small number of Windrush cases) and who - as nearly everyone outside the Labour party also agrees - should be returned to their country of origin, why on earth wouldn't you have targets for removals? It's basic departmental governance.

I'm pretty sure if one dug back through all the various Home Affairs Ctte evidence sessions, you'd find some of the same people now fainting through outrage querying why the HO wasn't meeting it's targets for removals - and if the HO didn't have targets, why not?

Someone somewhere is using Windrush as a stick with which to try and claim either Rudd or Mays scalp. Question is whether it's a blond buffoon or a media crusader.

Either way, the existence of targets really ought not to be an issue. Absence of targets ought to be a far more serious issue IMO.
Well, indeed, targets themselves aren’t necessarily bad, though they can become problematic if unrealistic and come with a penalty if not achieved.

IIRC this became a problem for the police a few years back when they were given crime reduction targets, which was all well and good, but skewed police time to the easy crimes to clear up at the expense of those crimes that would take longer.

Besides, I think the key aspect of this little spat between ministers is that Rudd appears not to have been aware of any targets, or at least told parliament that they didn’t exist, which of course is going to be played for all it’s worth by the opposition.

As an aside, I wonder if this leak came from a senior CS as a warning to ministers not to dis the CS, as Rudd tried to do when she first came to the House to answer questions, for which she was quite heavily criticised at the time, even by her own side.
 
The Windrush was also used as a Troopship, my old man sailed on her to Hong Kong back in the day
I found a photo recently of my dad on it either going to of from Libya in the 50s. If you look at the pictures on the BBC news they also show troops waiting to get on or off, a bit of excellent work by some young researcher, unfortunately they did not know what they were looking at.
 
Either way, the existence of targets really ought not to be an issue. Absence of targets ought to be a far more serious issue IMO.
The existence of arbitrary targets for what ought to be the outcome of due process only is a fairly serious issue. It's only a matter of time before that standard gets applied to others who also should be solely subject to due process.

It's basic separation of powers stuff.
 
Its probably also the reason they won't dare have an immigration amnesty - they might get 10+ million people putting their hand up. Same reason that there'll never be an ID card issued to prove entitlement to public funds.

Several observations on the 'Boris Amnesty', 1. no criminal record, if they have ever been arrested or come to the attention of plod why have they not been deported?
Because being arrested or coming to the attention of plod doesn't necessarily mean you have a criminal record.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top