Windrush Ooh Aah

[Loxely Man]

They like the Poles etc fought for world freedom, had the UK gone under the world would have followed. The PC tripe that they fought for us is pure fantasy.

Sorry wasn't Poland invaded? Did I miss the bit where Hitler just nipped over to invade Jamaica too?
Next you will be telling us that you were fighting in the war, whilst at the same time being hard done by in a factory, whilst also being a child
Cheers Steve

Some posters on here are really out of touch with reality The Poles (not wooden poles, just making it clear for some less enlightened on here) that escaped Hitler and made it to England were given the opportunity to fight against fascism as did our empire/commonwealth citizens, all were fighting fascism not fighting for England and the Isle of Man.
Be interesting to see how this will be misconstrued.

[boycott]

If a person who is NOT entitled to be in the UK what is wrong of asking them to return to their home country and assisting them to get there?
If they fail to take that offer then detain them and deport them asap!

[Jimgward]

If we used that criteria Jim then Parliament would be pretty empty. Certainly both sides of the House have many undesirables in my opinion. Hard to know which side is worse. A sad state of affairs. What is even more unpalatable is those who are seeking to make political capital from it. Very sad indeed.

Whataboutery at its best!

From the guardian.

Rudd told the home affairs select committee this week that the Home Office did not have targets for removals. She had to backtrack when it emerged there were localised targets, but she said she was unaware of them. The leak undermines her narrative.

Forced back into parliament on Thursday, she admitted there were operational targets but said she would be abandoning the policy.

Amber Rudd's 10 days of contrition for Windrush scandal
On Thursday, the home secretary told reporters she had “not approved, seen or cleared any targets for removals”, and suggested any targets that did exist were regional rather than national.

“We were gobsmacked by what she said, and that she stuck to her guns,” a Home Office source told the Guardian. “It is inconceivable that Amber Rudd did not know about the targets.”

[Jimgward]

I’m only on one side of the fence - the side that says Rudd should be dismissed. I cant stand Diane Abbot, then again, I dont know why you mention her...

Rudd has now lied twice in a week over this.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssion=true

Amber Rudd was told about migrant removal targets, leak reveals
Exclusive: Secret memo contradicts home secretary’s claim she was unaware of targets

Nick Hopkins
Fri 27 Apr 2018 16.41 BST First published on Fri 27 Apr 2018 14.39 BST

Amber Rudd’s insistence that she knew nothing of Home Office targets for immigration removals risks unravelling following the leak of a secret internal document prepared for her and other senior ministers.

The six-page memo, passed to the Guardian, says the department has set “a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017-18” and boasts that “we have exceeded our target of assisted returns”.

It adds that progress has been made on a “path towards the 10% increased performance on enforced returns, which we promised the home secretary earlier this year”.

[Jimgym]

I shall say again, anyone using the Windrush scandal, and the suffering of those affected, to make political gain or score petty points is pretty pathetic.

[Dominic]

The trouble with targets, is that they stimulate the wrong kind of activity. Rather than make people work harder, they work what they consider to be smarter. So, if unauthorised immigration is the target, it is far easier to concentrate on soft targets, which are invariably law-abiding people like the Windrush group. Even if they had got away with it, the problem of uncontrolled immigration would not have been dealt with at all. It would have been purely an exercise in data manipulation.

The same sort of thing happens when crime levels are monitored.

[Jimgward]

I shall say again, anyone using the Windrush scandal, and the suffering of those affected, to make political gain or score petty points is pretty pathetic.

Ok. Name names. Who is making political gain

[Jimgward]

Sorry. I must be a complete moron. I see the tories doing the same.

As it pertains to THIS topic, Rudd is complicit, so stop the diversion and whataboutery

[PhotoLady]

And now with the new ruling written in January this year which indicates any member telling porkies to parliament should tender their resignation is proving an interesting discussion topic...

[Jimgward]

Oooohhhhh. Don’t nsit on the fence, PhotoLady..... haha..you’ll now be accused of scoring points...

[STELIOSBWFC]

This says it all and the way these good people have been treated.

[WHL]

Im not pro Tory or Labour, in fact I think most politicians stink, but when ever I hear anything to do with May/Rudd/Boris, I think Keystone cops.

[Varky]

Fact is, at the beginning of the week Rudd denied there were targets even though a memo already existed somewhere within her department stating the contrary. A couple of days later she acknowledged that there were 'regional' targets but not national targets.Now 4 days later she is apologising and acknowledging that there were national targets. My question is what were the Home Office officials doing between the beginning of the week and Thursday when contradictory documentation was in their domain. Not only has Amber Rudd been hung out to dry by her department, but has compounded the situation by issuing misleading statements whilst not knowing the full facts and not being in control of her department.

For the reason of incompetence both Amber Rudd and some officials within her department should resign. My guess is she won't as she is running interference for her predecessor at the Home Office

[Jimgward]

I think you’re last paragraph is correct, Varky, but you’re assuming she didnt know facts and was let down... the evidence points more at her lying.

[Jimgym]

Sorry. I must be a complete moron.

Finally we agree on something!

[Jimgward]

Sorry. I must be a complete moron.

Finally we agree on something!

[Rita Sherry]

When I was a public servant anyone leaking documents of any description to anyone not entitled to see them were in serious trouble and, in several cases, found themselves no longer employed. I understand that is still the position today. Governments make policy and Civil servants are expected to carry out the wishes of the Government of the day irrespective of whether they agree or disagree with it. Likewise if it is suspected that some irregularity has occurred at some stage there are methods whereby these can be brought to light and it is not feeding the press with confidential and sensitive material to use as they wish

Jim this topic is about the Windrush people whereas the Guardian article, statement etc is in regard to the Government's policy on reducing immigration i.e. illegal immigrants. That policy was determined by the Conservative Party prior to the 2010 election and everyone was/is aware of it.

You now suggest that Amber Rudd has deliberately lied to Parliament on the matter which is a very serious offence if true. However the lady has said she will make a statement to the House on Monday and for my part I await that statement with interest before making judgment. I can only repeat what I have said earlier and that is the whole sorry saga of the Windrush people is one giant fiasco but at least an attempt is being made to right the wrongs occasioned by those caught up in the sorry mess. I would add one caveat here and that is dont be surprised if amongst those claiming a right to remain there are not some who have no entitlement to be in the UK in the first place but will attempt to jump on the bandwagon- it has ever been thus.

Varky has hit on a very valid point when he refers to officials etc within the organisation and I would point out that the Minister for Immigration is Caroline Hokes who sits in Cabinet to assist Amber Rudd etc. albeit only since January 2018 and I am therefore curious myself as to why the information the Guardian has obtained was not available, if that be the case, to her. It could be that something of this nature will be included in the statement on Monday and this is why I myself am prepared to wait until that is issued before I accuse someone of deliberately lying - we do not have the full story.

The Home Office is a very large department and I find it incredible that you and others should think it feasible that the Secretary of State of whatever party sees every single piece of paper which passes through that department. Yes she/he is the head and as such assumes responsibility of the whole but please get it in perspective.

Some years ago I was in court on an immigration matter involving someone who had been convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence to be followed by deportation. An excellent journalist from the Guardian asked me a question outside the court room "why does the Home Office not deport those guilty of an offence immediately rather than imprisoning them for years" I gave him a reasoned response (big mistake) and the very next day in banner headlines the Guardian reported "Home Office policy not to deport criminals" - from that day on I never again spoke to the press on any matter and it is my belief that if one says it is daylight outside it will appear in the newspapers as "it is night time".

Rita

[Varky]

I think you’re last paragraph is correct, Varky, but you’re assuming she didnt know facts and was let down... the evidence points more at her lying.

Whether she knew the facts, in which case she is lying or she didn't because she is incompetent, the end result is the same.......she should resign.

[Varky]

However the lady has said she will make a statement to the House on Monday and for my part I await that statement with interest before making judgement. I can only repeat what I have said earlier and that is the whole sorry saga of the Windrush people is one giant fiasco but at least an attempt is being made to right the wrongs occasioned by those caught up in the sorry mess.
Rita

I may stand to be corrected, but don't expect anything other than an attempt to 'fog' the issue (as politicians of all sides tend to do). Regarding making an attempt to right the wrongs occasioned I do not have much confidence that this will be done honourably. As an exampleof this is the case of a man who, 35 years ago, returned to the W. Indies for a family visit but was denied re-entry albeit after an extended period. He has now been offered 'paperwork' to allow him to return to the UK. He should at least be offered citizenship and a British passport.

[Rita Sherry]

Varky

There is a misunderstanding regarding the status of "indefinite leave to remain" by most people. Conditions attach to that status one of which is - if a person granted indefinite leave leaves the country and remains outside of it for more than four years then there is no entitlement to return so the person in question is obliged to apply again. This has been the criteria by governments of all persuasions for many years and is clearly stated in the rules and explained to all who receive this status. There are several such people amongst the Windrush personnel which was, I presume, why their cases were to be investigated where they were unable to produce documentation showing when they first came to the UK etc, when they left and how long they have remained outside the UK. As it is the decision has now been made to waive any requirements, grant free citizenship etc to those entitled.

There is an example of an 81 year old lady who came to the UK with the first arrivals from Jamaica when she was a child, had lived and worked for over 50 years, paid her taxes etc. At the time she was included on her father's passport (in fact all the people concerned if wives or children were included on the head of the family's passport single people, of course, having their own). She claims her passport was stolen in 2006 but she wished to travel to Jamaica whereupon she was informed by the authorities that she would require a visa to return as no documentation could be found. In the event she went to Jamaica and remained there until 2010 (ten years ago and four after the loss of her passport) when she tried to return without success. She asserts the authorities here in the UK informed her she would have to apply in person with the documentation in the UK. It is alleged the lady has family in the UK and I am at a loss why they were unable to provide details such as her National Insurance Number, her rent agreement or details of purchase of her home, pension details etc to verify her claim. It was cases such as this the authorities were compelled to investigate as to their legitimacy as I am sure you will appreciate - the UK either has a controlled immigration policy or a free for all with all the problems that will raise.

MPs of all persuasions know this to be fact and if they dont should, in my opinion, jolly well research it before raising issues concerning it.

Rita