Windrush Ooh Aah

[Rita Sherry]

Varky and anyone else interested

I should add that where "indefinite leave to remain" is granted it is for the individual concerned and his immediate family, if married, it does not include siblings, cousins, aunts uncles or grandparents etc.

Rita

[Jimgward]

Amber Rudd wa asked to appear before the select committee. At the very least, even if unaware of all facts, she would have asked her senior civil servant to brief her prior to the meeting. She then appeared and ended any policy on targets.
When this was revealed the document on local targets was ‘found’ and she then denied national targets. When that was ‘found’ she denied knowledge.

So, she had 3 opportunities to avail herself of all facts. Either she is incompetent as varky says, or her civil servants lied to her, or never briefed her, or she lied.

I’m sure Rita would know the chances of her not knowing full facts for 3 separate meetings.

[Varky]

Rita,
Sounds as if you qualify to be a politician with Hudswell running pass interference for you.

[STELIOSBWFC]

[quote="Rita Sherry" post_id=57193 time=1524923919 user_id=97]
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
Great post Rita.

[Varky]

I should add that where "indefinite leave to remain" is granted it is for the individual concerned and his immediate family, if married, it does not include siblings, cousins, aunts uncles or grandparents etc.
Rita

Does 'indefinite leave to remain" allow the individual to leave and re-enter the UK? Would this also allow the remainer (sorry for that) to access the NHS and be able legally to be in employment.

[PhotoLady]

Well someone has been leading us all up the garden path whether by denials, misleading or downright lies...
Those deportation targets were given in 2015 so let's work backwards. Who was previously in the position which Amber Rudd now holds?

[Devil]

Wouldn't trust May or Rudd on...

...anything!

[Rita Sherry]

I should add that where "indefinite leave to remain" is granted it is for the individual concerned and his immediate family, if married, it does not include siblings, cousins, aunts uncles or grandparents etc.
Rita

Does 'indefinite leave to remain" allow the individual to leave and re-enter the UK? Would this also allow the remainer (sorry for that) to access the NHS and be able legally to be in employment.

Varky

Indefinite leave to remain entitles the holder (and that would include his immediate family if any) to work, utilise the health, education etc facilities available to a British National. It also allows travel outside of the UK but and this is a salient but anyone remaining outside the UK for more than four years is not entitled to return it being deemed they have previously left the UK permanently. What was required from the lady I gave as an example in my earlier post was a "Residents Returning Visa" but if, as was alleged she had spent some 10 years out of the UK, I would suggest without evidence to the contrary she fell in the category of those who were deemed to have left permanently as was the gentleman you referred to in your earlier post. It is also very pertinent that this particular leave was granted to those arriving prior to 1st January 1973.

Jimgward

I do not wish to become embroiled in a point scoring exercise regarding this particular topic and I am sure you do not wish that either - the Windrush saga is too important for that. However I would just point out that Amber Rudd appeared before the Select Committee on Wednesday 27th April the meeting commenced at 3.37pm and concluded at 6.22pm (other witnesses gave evidence too during this period). It does appear from the evidence that she gave statements which are now being questionned and appeared in the House of Commons the following day to clarify certain matters. She has not appeared three times before the Select Committee but the Chairman of that Committee (Yvette Cooper MP) has written to Mrs Rudd (Friday 27th April) requesting answers to various questions by Wednesday 2nd May - the letter is two and a bit A4 sized paper. As you are aware Mrs Rudd has said she will give a statement to the House of Commons this coming Monday (30th April). Do not take my word for this but see for yourself via the Parliamentary web site and the video covering the select committee meeting. As I said earlier I personally will await these developments before deciding what my view is save to reiterate the whole saga is a sorry mess and I cannot see how this helps the Windrush people one iota.

Photolady (Jules)
You wish to turn the clock back to Mrs Rudd's predecessor. Will you please permit me to turn the clock back to 2013 when Yvette Cooper criticised Mrs May with the words ""The backlog in finding failed asylum seekers has gone up. The number of illegal immigrants deported has gone down.. this is a growing catalogue of failure yet illegal immigration is deeply damaging". One could argue this is a glaring piece of opportunism but actually,in my view, she was acting under instructions from the UK population and demonstrates how the political class and the public are dangerously out of step with the situation. The majority of the public consider the Windrush people have been treated unfairly (rightly so in my view) but that sense does not replace their belief that immigration - and in particular illegal immigration - must be curbed and have decided if the way of doing that is a hostile environment for illegal immigrants then so be it particularly so if they are faced with crisis in the NHS, housing, schools etc. When this particular saga fades from the front pages the status quo will doubtless be resumed and the public will demand action on the perceived problem of illegal immigration. The term "hostile environment" was first used by Alan Johnson when Labour Secretary of State for Home Affairs (quite a good one too)

As a footnote the Windrush hotline has to date received 3,800 calls, 1,364 are identified as potential Windrush cases, 600 call backs have been made, 91 appointments made, 25 appointments taken place and 23 cases resolved and documents issued.

Rita

[Loxely Man]

I heard 1400 girls in Rotherham are going to sue the government for what happened to them.

[WHL]

I heard 1400 girls in Rotherham are going to sue the government for what happened to them.

[Dominic]

I heard 1400 girls in Rotherham are going to sue the government for what happened to them.

You are showing your true colours now. It would have been a lot easier if you had just cut to the chase at the start.

[PaphosAL]

I heard 1400 girls in Rotherham are going to sue the government for what happened to them.

Is what you 'heard' simply urban myth, or do you have hard supporting evidence to present?

And what does your theory have to do with Windrush, may I ask?

[Varky]

Rita,
Thanks for the info on 'indefinite leave to remain'.

Regarding the actions now being taken to correct the 'wrongs', the words 'stable door' and 'bolted' come to mind. The situation should never have come to what has happened.

[Jimgward]

It took her so long, as Theresa May wanted her remain as a buffer.,

Rita, you seem always as an apologist for the Tory mistakes. Not impartial as I would perhaps admire more, from a civil servant.

I happen to be non political, more anti-party and although more left leaning, not happy with any of what I see presented before me.

Government is becoming more symptomatic of a general lowering of general standard in society.

[PhotoLady]

She should have just come clean in the first place and none of this would have been necessary....

[WHL]

She should have just come clean in the first place and none of this would have been necessary....

When has a Politician ever come clean?

[WHL]

Keystone cops R us

[Varky]

Rita, you seem always as an apologist for the Tory mistakes. Not impartial as I would perhaps admire more, from a civil servant.

That is totally wrong and in my opinion grossly insulting. Without comment I have followed this theme very closely and have been highly impressed with Rita's postings, factual by someone who knows what she is talking about but without making judgement. She clearly stated, on more than one occasion, that she will await the statement (today) before making her mind up.
I think you owe her an apology!

I think she made her statement last night. Is TM now Rudderless or has she always been.

[William Morris]

Rudd's resignation still does not help the people threatened with deportation.

Instead of looking for a scapegoat, the should be looking for a solution.

[WHL]

Rudd's resignation still does not help the people threatened with deportation.

Instead of looking for a scapegoat, the should be looking for a solution.

I wouldnt call Rudd a Scapegoat? she was in charge No?