The Windrush fiasco

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Post Reply
mercalia
Posts: 14630
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

The Windrush fiasco

Post by mercalia »

compare the BBC treatment of mps in a slanging match

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43806710

with the Guardians insightful treatment

"The former Home Office employee, who worked in a team of around 50 in the data protection unit, said staff had wanted to offer the landing card files to public archives, but were told there was no interest.

He said he asked managers at the time what would happen in the case of a dispute. He said he was told the majority of people on the landing cards were in their 70s and 80s and most of their cases would have been resolved, and the office did “not have the resources to keep them”. "


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-staffer?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=271764&subid=7646217&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
mercalia
Posts: 14630
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by mercalia »

according to alan johnson ( labour home sec to may 2010 ) it was the admins who decided to destroy the landing cards together woth 50 years of other paperwork , in 2009 but was done in 2010 under the Torys. nice guy alan johnson? cleared up the slanging match we have been hearing about on the front benches?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43835664
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by Ben@Forest »

mercalia wrote:according to alan johnson ( labour home sec to may 2010 ) it was the admins who decided to destroy the landing cards together woth 50 years of other paperwork , in 2009 but was done in 2010 under the Torys. nice guy alan johnson? cleared up the slanging match we have been hearing about on the front benches?]


Not sure about a slanging match - at PMQs Corbyn asked a question he thought would nail May to the door and was so unprepared for the reply he had to carry on with the same series of comments that made much less sense in light of the facts that 1) it was a process started under Labour and 2) no Home Secretary was actually involved in the decision.

Unlike his early appearances at PMQs where he acted as a conduit for 'Laura from Leicester' or 'Barry from Bristol' he was looking to make as much political capital as possible, and didn't do well when his crucifying question was a dud.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by Vorpal »

I posted this on the Enoch Powell thread as well, but I thought David Lammy spoke powerfully:

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/the ... grotesque/

TBH I think it's *¤%&* that people who came to the UK as *citizens* are now being told that they have to provide evidence of the right to live in the UK, and some are being 'given leave to remain' as if they didn't already have it. Complete and utter *¤&*.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by Psamathe »

My impression (from news reports) is that May achieved what (as Home Secretary) she set out to achieve - her culture of hostility to immigrants. I see the landing card issue as a trivial detail as without that hostile "prove you are innocent" culture they would have far less importance.

And in the Conservative Party's drive to reduce immigrant numbers I suspect their "culture of hostility" will work (to a degree) - just look at how the NHS seems no longer able to recruit nurses, Drs, etc. from other EU states now the UK has sent a strong message about its attitude to the EU. Hostility does discourage people (mostly discouraging the people you actually want ...).

Ian
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by Ben@Forest »

Vorpal wrote:TBH I think it's *¤%&* that people who came to the UK as *citizens* are now being told that they have to provide evidence of the right to live in the UK, and some are being 'given leave to remain' as if they didn't already have it. Complete and utter *¤&*.


Though the whole situation is somewhere between farcical and shameful it has to be said that so far the number of active cases being looked at is just over 100 according to the government, though some news outlets are suggesting 200 cases. Though it's no solace to those concerned (especially those who came as children) it appears that they've fallen through the cracks because they (or their parents) did not register as they were told they must - that was according to a former senior civil servant on R4 earlier today - the fact that thousands or tens of thousands are NOT in this situation shows the vast majority did go through the registration process. We all hate bureaucracy but it is there to ensure people's rights.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by pete75 »

Ben@Forest wrote:
mercalia wrote:according to alan johnson ( labour home sec to may 2010 ) it was the admins who decided to destroy the landing cards together woth 50 years of other paperwork , in 2009 but was done in 2010 under the Torys. nice guy alan johnson? cleared up the slanging match we have been hearing about on the front benches?]


Not sure about a slanging match - at PMQs Corbyn asked a question he thought would nail May to the door and was so unprepared for the reply he had to carry on with the same series of comments that made much less sense in light of the facts that 1) it was a process started under Labour and 2) no Home Secretary was actually involved in the decision.

Unlike his early appearances at PMQs where he acted as a conduit for 'Laura from Leicester' or 'Barry from Bristol' he was looking to make as much political capital as possible, and didn't do well when his crucifying question was a dud.


The decison was taken in 2010 after May became Home Secretary. She says she wasn't involved in the decision. That doesn't mean she wasn't - the woman is hardly a beacon of honesty.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by Ben@Forest »

pete75 wrote:
Ben@Forest wrote:
mercalia wrote:according to alan johnson ( labour home sec to may 2010 ) it was the admins who decided to destroy the landing cards together woth 50 years of other paperwork , in 2009 but was done in 2010 under the Torys. nice guy alan johnson? cleared up the slanging match we have been hearing about on the front benches?]


Not sure about a slanging match - at PMQs Corbyn asked a question he thought would nail May to the door and was so unprepared for the reply he had to carry on with the same series of comments that made much less sense in light of the facts that 1) it was a process started under Labour and 2) no Home Secretary was actually involved in the decision.

Unlike his early appearances at PMQs where he acted as a conduit for 'Laura from Leicester' or 'Barry from Bristol' he was looking to make as much political capital as possible, and didn't do well when his crucifying question was a dud.


The decison was taken in 2010 after May became Home Secretary. She says she wasn't involved in the decision. That doesn't mean she wasn't - the woman is hardly a beacon of honesty.


Because of the way all documents are noted for being briefed to and in Cabinet ministers' red boxes I think we can be pretty sure that this was a process started in 2009 and without recourse to Jacqui Smith, or then Alan Johnson or then Theresa May. It seems unclear if it may have gone to an immigration minister (NOT the Home Secretary) but I think if that was known a civil servant would have said as much by now.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by thirdcrank »

However this is dressed up, the culmination has given a lot of insight into Teresa May. In no particular order: had this been some political triumph, I think we can be certain she'd have been there preening at the Dispatch Box instead of sending a subordinate to make the apology; it's reported that in in less than a week, she did one of the dreaded U turns in first refusing to meet the heads of government from the countries involved to then leaving a Parliamentary debate not only to listen to their concerns but to apologise; so desperate has she been to kill this off that she's made such broad concessions that people who've not been remotely involved will be trying to slip in through the gap potentially created. Above all, in spite of a lot of background rumbling, she lacked the wit to see this coming.

If these cases are so trivially few, it's arguably so much worse that they were not properly dealt with at the time.
Mike Sales
Posts: 7883
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by Mike Sales »

Psamathe wrote:My impression (from news reports) is that May achieved what (as Home Secretary) she set out to achieve - her culture of hostility to immigrants. I see the landing card issue as a trivial detail as without that hostile "prove you are innocent" culture they would have far less importance.

And in the Conservative Party's drive to reduce immigrant numbers I suspect their "culture of hostility" will work (to a degree) - just look at how the NHS seems no longer able to recruit nurses, Drs, etc. from other EU states now the UK has sent a strong message about its attitude to the EU. Hostility does discourage people (mostly discouraging the people you actually want ...).

Ian


I read that when the 2014 Immigration Act which established this "hostile environment" was passed, only eighteen MPs voted against it. They included Jeremy Corbin, David Lammy, John McDonnell and Diane Abbot. This was when UKIP was doing well in polls.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by Cunobelin »

mercalia wrote:according to alan johnson ( labour home sec to may 2010 ) it was the admins who decided to destroy the landing cards together woth 50 years of other paperwork , in 2009 but was done in 2010 under the Torys. nice guy alan johnson? cleared up the slanging match we have been hearing about on the front benches?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43835664


To me, this is one of the main points about this. It is a problem that has been brewing for many years and trying to blame the present Government, or Labour in 2009, or the Government in power in 1948 for not getting it right then (allegedly there were stowaways who were not "Legal as well"

It also covers all the others who fought or performed other services during the war, and stayed

If half the effort that has been put into the infighting name calling and petty squabbling had ben applied to the real issues of the individuals involved, we could have sorted the issue quickly
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by Cunobelin »

One of the real issues that has comeacrsoss was the reason that so many of this generation failed to act and follow the system through was teh complexity and cost

One woman interviewed stated that their family had never done so because the cost was prohibitive if you were in a low paid job (as many were)

If we learn anything form this, lets make it easier for individuals like this to gain their rights and remove the financial barrier at least
mercalia
Posts: 14630
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: The Windrush fiasco

Post by mercalia »

Cunobelin wrote:One of the real issues that has comeacrsoss was the reason that so many of this generation failed to act and follow the system through was teh complexity and cost

One woman interviewed stated that their family had never done so because the cost was prohibitive if you were in a low paid job (as many were)

If we learn anything form this, lets make it easier for individuals like this to gain their rights and remove the financial barrier at least



dont rely on any govt agency/the state for anything is what I take from this. If things go well then fine, lucky you.
Post Reply