UKC

/ Home Office: malicious or just incompetent?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Bob Kemp - on 16 Apr 2018

The ongoing deportations of the children of the Windrush immigrants is one of the rare issues where almost everyone seems to agree that the Home Office has behaved appallingly. Even the Mail and Jacob Rees-Mogg have condemned it. What I thought was worth discussing was the extent to which this was a thought out policy, part of creating an environment hostile to immigrants, or simple incompetence. The more I think about it, the more I suspect it's a combination of both, but what does UKC think?

Eric9Points - on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I have second hand experience of the home office's attitude to immigrants and it is absolutely disgraceful.

 

Yes the "hostile environment" is truly hostile but one of the aspects of this is the uncaring incompetence of it all. They phuq up and you have to correct it. Generally having to resort to a lawyer who specialises in the subject.

baron - on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

It would seem that a combination of a deliberate hostile environment for migrants as part of a government policy and an inflexible approach to the rules have allowed a ridiculous situation to develop.

I used the word ridiculous but I suppose that those directly affected would have a different description.

Hopefully the government will remedy the situation asap although I believe that some people have already been deported.

(It's a worrying development for those of us who think that the government will keep its promises to EU citizens post Brexit. Sorry, don't want to hijack your thread).

Bob Kemp - on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

I thought that point would emerge as a side issue. It's relevant in that it points to a wider issue about how Home Office policy and systems run counter to other aspects of Government policy. Not only in regard to EU citizens in the UK but also in that Brexit is supposed to compensate for loss of EU trade by developing trade with the Commonwealth. This is not the way to make friends with the Commonwealth. 

captain paranoia - on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

I suspect it's just basic incompetence.

Start with a vaguely sensible policy (that immigrants have to prove they have a right to be here).

Then fail to think through the potential complications that might arise in implementing that policy.

Then award the implementation contract to mindless, bureaucratic, box-ticking, 'rules is rules', minimal effort incompetents like Crapita.

3
Billhook - on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Cold, heartless, careless and incompetent followers of policy.  But then its the civil service, so the only thing they care about is policies and their own careers.  Nothing new there.

Unless:=

(Its fine if you are a visiting illegal criminal though from abroad - we jail them, then if they've a family when they've done their time, tell them to stay here because it infringes their Human Rights!!)

16
Bob Kemp - on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to captain paranoia:

 

> Start with a vaguely sensible policy (that immigrants have to prove they have a right to be here).

It could be seen as vaguely sensible but it never stood a chance because it was embedded in a mad broth of anti-immigrant hysteria.

> Then fail to think through the potential complications that might arise in implementing that policy.

Quite. I suspect that as Eric9Points suggests, they don't even care anymore. The Home Office has been disfunctional for many years now - this was John Reid to Parliament in 2006: ""Our system is not fit for purpose. It is inadequate in terms of its scope, it is inadequate in terms of its information technology, leadership, management systems and processes," he told MPs."

- Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/may/23/immigrationpolicy.immigration1

 

 

stevieb - on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I reckon a fair bit of this is deliberate. I imagine the  home office is under massive political pressure to get the headline net immigration figure down, because that is what the government and the population say they want. 

Under this pressure they are willing to aim for a no exceptions, by the book approach to individual cases 

1
wintertree - on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

It reads like some nightmare where people even less competent than the DVLA and Capitas are put in charge of actual people instead of bits of paper. 

captain paranoia - on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> It could be seen as vaguely sensible but it never stood a chance because it was embedded in a mad broth of anti-immigrant hysteria.

I fear you are right. ''Immigrants" became a political hot potato, and, to curry favour with a section of the electorate, policies were adopted to appear 'tough on immigrants'. Once you have policy based on political expediency, you're into dangerous territory.

Timmd on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I suspect it's just basic incompetence.

> Start with a vaguely sensible policy (that immigrants have to prove they have a right to be here).

> Then fail to think through the potential complications that might arise in implementing that policy.

> Then award the implementation contract to mindless, bureaucratic, box-ticking, 'rules is rules', minimal effort incompetents like Crapita.

I think it's more than just incompetence, there's an overarching aim to create a 'hostile environment' for immigrants, like Eric9Points describes, as part of reducing immigration numbers for political reasons. An employee of a relative was thrown out of the country due to a name change for the company he worked for (due to it being bought up by a larger one), he had no opportunity to state his case, and now no longer wants to come back to work with his family despite legitimately being allowed to (it's a loss to the UK because he's very clever and there was nobody with his skills here to start with - who showed any interest at least). It's a political aim with incompetence added in, which can make things rather horrible for people. 

Everybody who dealt with him during him and his family being removed from the country acknowledged that it was an administrative error, but there was no means of halting the process once it had been started.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Windrush saga is another part of the 'hostile environment' approach, and has only been stopped due to the backlash. I think it's all part of reducing immigration numbers to make voters happier, as a part of being seen to be regaining control of immigration. With political survival seeming to partly rest on the matter of immigration, I don't suppose one should realistically expect any kindness towards immigrants where it perhaps should be. :-/

 

Post edited at 22:05
1
wercat on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to Timmd:

this affects people who had assumed they were safe in Britain because they had never had anything to worry about or had needed to show their "papers" to prove their rights to exist here.  The same fear now felt by EU residents.  My wife has been going up the wall about whether she could prove she hasn't been out of the country for any lengthy period.   Of course I think we could do it with a lot of effort but nevertheless she is worrying now and it always seems to be at the back of her mind.

Brexit and the terrible attitude of our authorities mean that people who thought they were seafely settled here face having to prove their identity or face suspicion from not too uncommon xenophobes. 

One of the people interviewed the other day who had faced deportation until papers were found had even been a British Transport Police officer.

Please tell me it's not 1789 and the work of the Committee for Public Safety

 

BASTARD FARAGE BASTARD UKIP BASTARD BREXIT, DOUBLE BASTARD TRAITOR BORIS

Post edited at 22:18
1
Irk the Purist - on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to Billhook:

 

> Cold, heartless, careless and incompetent followers of policy.  But then its the civil service, so the only thing they care about is policies and their own careers.  

Do you really believe that? Clearly they care about policies, that's like saying butchers only care about selling meat. But cold, heartless, careless and incompetent? All of them? 

 

Post edited at 22:34
5
Bellie on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I feel ashamed. So much for lauding our country as great, when its functioning bodies are behaving in such ways. People who have lived here longer than I've been alive, who have gone through all the shit of being accepted in this country in the first place, working hard when this country needed them, only to have this officicious nightmare thrust on them.  May should be held to account on this.

 

balmybaldwin - on 16 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

It is an utter disgrace.

Months ago now - it may have been before christmas I was reading about a West Indian man who had lived in London for 50 years being denied cancer treatment for a brain tumur iirc because he couldn't prove he was entitled to it and couldn't afford to pay

About 2 Months later I think it was raised in Parliament

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/theresa-may-nhs-london-cancer-treatment-pmqs-labour-corbyn-hunt-a8249536.html

I was wrong Prostate not Brain

I understand this is not an isolated case.

We've also seen letters sent to EU citizens - teachers and nurses and many others holding down jobs, paying paxes, doing their bit - warning of status issues.

And had trucks driving through immigrant areas with Government adverts saying GO HOME!

Racism and Xenophobia is being done in our name

 

Robert Durran - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Timmd:

> I wouldn't be surprised if the Windrush saga is another part of the 'hostile environment' approach, and has only been stopped due to the backlash.

Had it been deliberately malicious, the politicians would obviously not have been so stupid as to not realise there would be such a backlash. Therefore it could not have been malicious; it was clearly just gross incompetence somewhere.

8
RomTheBear on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I suspect it's just basic incompetence.

> Start with a vaguely sensible policy (that immigrants have to prove they have a right to be here).

> Then fail to think through the potential complications that might arise in implementing that policy.

> Then award the implementation contract to mindless, bureaucratic, box-ticking, 'rules is rules', minimal effort incompetents like Crapita.

Nope, nothing to do with incompetence, it was a deliberate, organised strategy devised to drive down the number by any means necessary. Because nobody can point to any obvious group of immigrants to get rid of, they target everybody.

-> Start with a policy of driving down net migration (which means, not only reducing numbers coming in but also increasing the numbers of people leaving)
-> Create a "hostile environment" policy so that even people who are here perfectly legally find life difficult, pushing them to leave.
-> Change immigration policy to make the standard of evidence and the rules arbitrarily obtuse so that a maximum number of people fall foul of the rules|
-> Put in place rules to frustrate or even completely eliminate judicial redress, giving the home office the freedom to act outside the law with minimal repercussion.

 

The Windrush cases are only the mediatised tip of a giant iceberg.
I note that despite the very muffled apologies, absolutely no change of policy or rules is being made.
Caroline Nokes even said that these people should "regularise" their situation, as if they were illegals, and said that the home office would be "sensitive", as if we were making them a favour, rather than simply applying the law.

They have nothing to regularise, they are legally in the country and not required to hold any documentation to prove it. 
It is simply a side effect of the hostile environment policy, which means that you can't have a job, access the NHS, rent a flat, have a bank account etc etc without proving you are legally in the UK.
Basically, you are guilty until you can prove you are innocent.

3
captain paranoia - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> I feel ashamed. So much for lauding our country as great, when its functioning bodies are behaving in such ways.

Indeed. I always thought the Britain I lived in was basically fair, and decent. It no longer feels that way.

I've been going through stuff I've downloaded from iPlayer recently, since there is bugger all on telly. I happened to pick this episode tonight:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05v08b7

A real mixture of emotions watching it; angry at the initial resistance to having black armed forces. Then pleased at their recollections of how they were treated by white Britons (in contrast to the American troops stationed here). Then angry at their experience post-war ('no blacks, Irish or dogs'). And humbled that they are still proud to call themselves British.

Timmd on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Had it been deliberately malicious, the politicians would obviously not have been so stupid as to not realise there would be such a backlash. Therefore it could not have been malicious; it was clearly just gross incompetence somewhere.

I never quite know how accurately I can second guess the judgement of people I've never met to be honest. It's probable I'm not expecting much kindness from the current government after the cuts and their effects on the poor and vulnerable. 

Suicides have gone up, food bank use has gone up, funding for women's refuges has been cut, mental health services have been cut......

Post edited at 02:03
Billhook - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Irk the Purist:

What else do butchers care about about other than selling meat?

 

As for the civil servants, why did they send the Windrush British residents back??  Or were they doing it for fun?

1
Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

I’ll take your comment at face value but I suspect a degree of sarcasm... I understand your logic, but the government quietly and deliberately removed a key clause from existing legislation when they updated it in the 2014 Immigration Act. That doesn’t sound like simple incompetence does it? The incompetence is in thinking they could get away with it. As for not being stupid enough to think there wouldn’t be a backlash, now I’m sure you’re being sarcastic!

(BTW - probably helps to know that the key clause gave the Windrush generation protection against deportation.)

Post edited at 08:10
Rigid Raider - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

There's an awful lot of anti-government prejudice being displayed in this thread by those who are keen to demonstrate their impeccable PC credentials in a public forum and as always the conspiracy theory is more attractive than the simple cockup theory.

The Windrush children grew up in a Britain where much was taken on trust because on the whole you could trust people but in the last few years Society has gradually woken up to the fact that as the world's population grows out of control, desperate people will resort to any trick or ruse to get themselves and their families into a safe, stable country where they won't be robbed or killed and they can earn, contribute, invest and educate their kids for the future benefit of the family. Pressure on resources means economic migration needs to be controlled and in all walks of life, Society has realised from bitter experience that you can no longer trust individuals to make important decisions so rules and procedures have had to be put in place. This has given rise to the jobsworth culture and bewildering bureaucracy. In the areas where Government interfaces with the public such as health care, Police and social services, rules and procedures are supposed to protect the public from incompetence, predators and poor decisions but of course no system is perfect and there will always be those who fall through the net.

The Windrush generation generally mistrust government, bureaucracy and social services so they see no need to subscribe to the social systems that have been put in place. The cockup is that until now these people have been allowed to live off the radar because nobody has taken charge of the problem. Blaming the present Government for the neglect of previous politicians is simply stupid; there is no conspiracy to throw them out despite what gullible conspiracists may read in the gutter press; it's just one of those loose ends that Society needs to get tied up. 

 

 

Post edited at 09:26
16
jkarran - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

It's the inevitable consequence of populist policy to 'get tough' on immigration. How they didn't foresee it would backfire when they eventually ensnared and mistreated a class of immigrant the public actually has some grudging respect for I have no idea. Malice and incompetence and May's responsibility.

jk

gravy - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

It's callous to be so incompetent - this is people's lives that are at stake, you shouldn't be putting anyone through this trauma unless you've thought it through properly.

So cock up or incompetence it might be, but, to get to this point it requires a callous disregard for what most of us think of as basic , decent, humanity.

 

Wainers44 - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

It's just the rules mate, init!

Our deep thinking and very occasionally sincere politicians continually forget that all common sense is blown away by the "rules are rules" mentality in the UK. Even if the objective was right and proper, the usual outcome here is that rules are used to penalise the innocent, while the individuals you really wanted to regulate don't give a stuff and carry on regardless. If you are a real "illegal" why would you worry about having a driving licence at all, so taking licences away is only ever likely to cause hardship to someone who should be here, but whose residency paperwork may be deficient.

It is incompetence and as I heard someone say this morning, we should all be embarrassed that our Government got this so wrong for so long.

Rigid Raider - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Wainers44:

Past Labour governments are as much to blame for overlooking the issue as past Tory governments. I've seen it happen so many times in my job in export sales; companies tolerate practices for years because nobody wants to get to grips with the knotty problem then one day the alarm sounds and everybody is looking for a scapegoat. 

2
GrahamD - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I can't wait until we have taken back control of our borders again.

5
Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> There's an awful lot of anti-government prejudice being displayed in this thread by those who are keen to demonstrate their impeccable PC credentials in a public forum and as always the conspiracy theory is more attractive than the simple cockup theory.

Why be snide about the people who've contributed to this thread? It's not prejudice - the facts speak for themselves - and it's nothing to do with PC or not - a far wider cross-section of the population than the PC brigade are condemning this appalling mess. And who's mentioned conspiracies? Only you.

> The Windrush children grew up in a Britain where much was taken on trust because on the whole you could trust people but in the last few years Society has gradually woken up to the fact that as the world's population grows out of control, desperate people will resort to any trick or ruse to get themselves and their families into a safe, stable country where they won't be robbed or killed and they can earn, contribute, invest and educate their kids for the future benefit of the family.

Like the desperate people who were born in this country who are now targets for deportation? No tricks or ruses there. What you seem to be saying is that the Windrush generation are collateral damage and don't matter because other people are using tricks and ruses.

>Pressure on resources means economic migration needs to be controlled and in all walks of life, Society has realised from bitter experience that you can no longer trust individuals to make important decisions so rules and procedures have had to be put in place.

No longer trusting individuals is a totalitarian approach.

>This has given rise to the jobsworth culture and bewildering bureaucracy. In the areas where Government interfaces with the public such as health care, Police and social services, rules and procedures are supposed to protect the public from incompetence, predators and poor decisions but of course no system is perfect and there will always be those who fall through the net.

They didn't fall through the net. They were pushed. Until the government changed the legislation they were legally entitled to stay here. 

> The Windrush generation generally mistrust government, bureaucracy and social services so they see no need to subscribe to the social systems that have been put in place.

Evidence? Although if they didn't before, they won't now. Nor will the 3m European residents of the UK.

>The cockup is that until now these people have been allowed to live off the radar because nobody has taken charge of the problem.

Evidence? I think your prejudices may be showing.

>Blaming the present Government for the neglect of previous politicians is simply stupid; there is no conspiracy to throw them out despite what gullible conspiracists may read in the gutter press; it's just one of those loose ends that Society needs to get tied up. 

The present Government are the previous politicians: May was the Home Secretary from 2010 to 2016 so she was in charge when the Immigration Act 2014 was drafted and implemented. 

These stories are not only in the gutter press: widely covered in a range of media. 

 

Post edited at 10:13
tony on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> Past Labour governments are as much to blame for overlooking the issue as past Tory governments.

Simply not true. In 2012, Theresa May said: “The aim is to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants,”

This hasn't happened by accident or by incompetence. This has all happened because of policy decisions taken by the current PM and the Home Secretary. The idea that previous Labour administrations share the blame is nonsense.

Post edited at 10:27
2
Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> Past Labour governments are as much to blame for overlooking the issue as past Tory governments.

Not true. The Labour government included a clause in the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act to specifically give legal protection to long-standing Commonwealth residents in the UK. May's 2014 Immigration Act deliberately removed this clause.

 

tony on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> The cockup is that until now these people have been allowed to live off the radar because nobody has taken charge of the problem.

Except they haven't been living off the radar. They've been going to British schools, working, paying taxes, paying National Insurance. They've been part of Britain, thoroughly on the radar, for as long as they've been here.

DancingOnRock - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

There’s two problems here. The first is when these people came here, they came from the British West Indies, as such they were and are British citizens. Then when the West Indies gained independence no one thought to update all these people’s statuses. That was 50 years ago. So blaming anyone for it is nonsensical. If you need to blame anyone, you could blame the people who never checked whether the country of their birth gaining independence affected their status. 

Then there’s the issue of jobsworth people who when dealing with any forms of paperwork, are just interested in ticking boxes. British people are good at doing that. The home office/government just pass the laws, it’s down to everyday people to interpret them and comply with them. This is making proving residence a nightmare as the paperwork has to match the tick in the box exactly.

This is a hugely complex situation with no one to blame and no one being malicious or incompetent. 

Post edited at 10:23
7
tony on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> If you need to blame anyone, you could blame the people who never checked whether the country of their birth gaining independence affected their status.

Good work! I wondered how long it would before someone blamed the victims.

Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

You possibly didn't see my post just before but I pointed out that the Labour government did think of updating the status of Commonwealth residents and their descendants. There is a very specific and deliberate act - Act! - involved here, in which their legal protections were removed.

I know what you mean about jobs-worths, and I understand that the Home Office's employees have been seem as being harsh and uncaring in their approach, but it's very hard for the ordinary workers to overturn legal process. 

baron - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

However this situation came about it shouldn't be too hard to sort it out quickly.

If you've lived here for 50 years+ then you will have proof of that.

While it might not meet the presently required documentation for the right to abode surely a national insurance number, pay slips, bank records, etc could be used.

It is too easy to look for conspiracies and to make political capital out of what must be an awful situation for those affected.

The UK's lackadaisical approach to immigration and record keeping is well known.

1
Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

The problem is that as I understand it people are being expected to provide documentary proof that they have lived in the country for every year that they've been here. I don't know if I could do that conclusively. 

Big Ger - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to tony:

> Simply not true. In 2012, Theresa May said: “The aim is to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants,”

See the word "illegal" there.....

6
baron - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I have tried to read various articles from various sources about this issue and I am struggling to see how this all came about. Obviously the 'hostile environment' created by the government has increased the need for documentation but surely the relatively few immigrants who came here pre 1970 weren't the intended target?

People from the 'Windrush generation' - there's an emotive term if ever there was one - would surely, as I understand it, have become citizens after the 1971 immigration act.

The requirement to prove you've lived in the UK for every year since you've arrived would surely be met by the person not having a passport* and therefore being unable to leave the UK.

*The possession of a UK passport being proof of the right to abode.

It's such a mess and all the worse for being forseeable and preventable. But that assumes competence on the part of the government and its departments.

 

wercat on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to gravy:

> It's callous to be so incompetent

and to allow such incompetence.

The fundamental rule for administrators should be "LIVES MATTER!"

 

wercat on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to tony:

well said - I worked in London in the late 80s and got used to generally jovial people slightly older than I was and speaking with Caribbean accents doctoring, nursing, running the Tube, driving buses, inspecting tickets, and in a host of other "glue" occupations getting on with life and helping everyone along.   I hated London but the saving grace were all the people there from other places.

Bellie on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

The Uk government has acknowledged that these people who arrived as children from the Comonwealth decades ago were now being incorrectly identified as illegal immigrants.

So therefore... Getting harsh treatment under this edict.  Having to register at immigration centres every fortnight, some spending time in detention centres, some losing jobs as a result. 

 

 

Big Ger - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> The Uk government has acknowledged that these people who arrived as children from the Comonwealth decades ago were now being incorrectly identified as illegal immigrants.

So they saw a problem and addressed  it.

> So therefore... Getting harsh treatment under this edict.  Having to register at immigration centres every fortnight, some spending time in detention centres, some losing jobs as a result. 

So they saw a problem and addressed  it.

 

16
Bellie on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

It would seem that its taken a lot of shouting by MPs and groups to make the government recognise it/ come to their senses. Only a few months ago Theresa May brushed off a question about one of the cases.

Its happened as a direct result of policies installed by this government.  No inch given, no compassion shown approach that has caused extra grief.

Big Ger - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> It would seem that its taken a lot of shouting by MPs and groups to make the government recognise it/ come to their senses. Only a few months ago Theresa May brushed off a question about one of the cases.

It takes a lot of shouting to get any legislation changed.

> Its happened as a direct result of policies installed by this government.  No inch given, no compassion shown approach that has caused extra grief.

They made an error and addressed it.

"The British home secretary has delivered an unprecedented apology for the “appalling” actions of her own department towards Windrush-era citizens, acknowledging that the Home Office had “lost sight of individuals” and become “too concerned with policy”."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/16/theresa-may-caribbean-representatives-windrush-immigration

Post edited at 12:07
10
Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> See the word "illegal" there.....

That was the aim. The method was to take a blanket approach that ran the risk of catching more than just illegal immigrants. Did the government care about that? It doesn't look like it. 

Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> They made an error and addressed it.

After first refusing to. This issue has been apparent for years. 

> "The British home secretary has delivered an unprecedented apology for the “appalling” actions of her own department towards Windrush-era citizens, acknowledging that the Home Office had “lost sight of individuals” and become “too concerned with policy”."

You'd think her department had nothing to do with her, wouldn't you? This would have been a resignation issue once. 

 

Post edited at 12:12
Yanis Nayu - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Bit of both I’d say. 

At best they are callous and indifferent, mirroring the callous government they serve.

 

neilh - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It is naturally worse in any society if you are on the wrong side of the rules, you automatically think of them as being callous and indifferent.

If you are on the right side, then you think they are great.

Then try putting this into practise with thousands/millions of people. Not easy.

 

4
Ex Poster 666 on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to neilh:

I'm on the right side of 'The Rules' (mostly) and I don't think the Govt. and CS are great.

DancingOnRock - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Yes, I did, apologies. But the Windrush people are not residents of the Commonwealth. They’re British residents of the UK. 

This is a legal loophole that they’ve fallen into, an oversight, not a deliberate act by anyone and it stems from a change that happened 50-60 years ago when the world was a simpler place. 

2
DancingOnRock - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I’m not talking about home Office employees and changing the law. I’m talking about the everyday person who works for any organisation and has to deal with official forms. There’s no room for any grey areas, there’s only black and white. 

These people are now supposed to provide evidence that they’ve been here continuously since 1988. I could do that as I’ve had a passport for that length of time. I also have NI contributions since 1996, but I’m not as old as these people. 

The problem isn’t the exsistence of the proof, it’s getting hold of the correct official proof from the people who hold it and the way that they’re being dealt with while waiting for that information to come through. 

paulcarey - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I think it was deliberate. See Bob Kemp's post from earlier today.

"The Labour government included a clause in the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act to specifically give legal protection to long-standing Commonwealth residents in the UK. May's 2014 Immigration Act deliberately removed this clause."

Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Yes, I did, apologies. But the Windrush people are not residents of the Commonwealth. They’re British residents of the UK. 

It depends which Windrush people. The original arrivals were Commonwealth citizens and had a right to reside in the UK. Their children were British citizens, or so they thought. The 1999 Act provided protections for Commonwealth citizens and their children. These were removed in 2014.  This was clearly and distinctly a deliberate act.

> This is a legal loophole that they’ve fallen into, an oversight, not a deliberate act by anyone and it stems from a change that happened 50-60 years ago when the world was a simpler place. 

As above... For the purposes of this discussion, the question is whether this was deliberate, or a mistake based on a failure to understand the existing legislation's protections (or lack of).

 

Post edited at 14:54
Robert Durran - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> As for not being stupid enough to think there wouldn’t be a backlash, now I’m sure you’re being sarcastic!

Not at all. All I'm saying is that however malicious the legislation might be, I can't believe that it was specifically intended to result in the deportation of these particular people, so, if it results in them being so, it must be entirely down to incompetence. 

 

5
krikoman - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> There's an awful lot of anti-government prejudice being displayed in this thread by those who are keen to demonstrate their impeccable PC credentials in a public forum and as always the conspiracy theory is more attractive than the simple cockup theory.

I could believe the incompetence theory, if it hadn't been going on for more than five years, besides that TM openly attacked immigration and immigrants, "getting tough" isn't "being fair" and that's where we've ended up.

mick taylor - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

 

I come across multiple examples of Home Office incompetence, best highlighted by the fact that the rate of successful appeals on Home Office immigration decisions has significantly increased, yet from my day-to-day experience (supporting asylum seekers), most appeals are won on a point of law (bit like how employees used to win employment tribunals because their employer did not follow the process correctly), rather than the submission of new evidence.  This benefits no-one other than the pockets of immigration lawyers.  And I’ve met home office staff (including asylum case owners), who appeared caring yet over-worked.

If its an intentional government policy to reduce immigration and/or return people to some other country then it has pretty well failed.

 

Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Not at all. All I'm saying is that however malicious the legislation might be, I can't believe that it was specifically intended to result in the deportation of these particular people, so, if it results in them being so, it must be entirely down to incompetence. 

Possibly - overall I tend to the view that whilst the overall 'hostile environment' approach contained a malicious element, this particular act is as much a failure to think through all the consequences of the new legislation. However, it seems to be incompetence mixed at the very least with a kind of casual disregard for the human consequences.

stevieb - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Not at all. All I'm saying is that however malicious the legislation might be, I can't believe that it was specifically intended to result in the deportation of these particular people, so, if it results in them being so, it must be entirely down to incompetence. 


I agree. I think it is unlikely that the Windrush generation were the target. Deporting people who have worked in Britain for 40-50 years is not popular, and probably wouldn't even get support amongst UKIP voters. Although the change of legislation is hard to explain otherwise.

However, I think they are collateral damage of a deliberate change of policy, caught up in a move to aggressively reduce net migration.

Rigid Raider - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Absolutely spot on. There is an astonishing level of confidence being shown in this thread that HMG actually knows what it is doing. This couldn't be futher from the truth; the entire affair has happened because nobody has thought or had the will to deal with the knotty problem. The same institutional incompetence has lead to affairs like the Bradley Wiggins envelope scandal, which was caused by the BC team doctor having no clue what was going on and Sky being grossly embarrassed at their own level of ignorance and the doctor's non-existent record-keeping.   

Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider

I think the government does know what it’s doing, or more accurately what it wants to do. There is a gap between idea and execution though. Why is that? In the case of the Home Office I suspect the whole organisation is in some way broken, as in John Reid’s remarks I quoted earlier about it being not fit for purpose. 

 

Rigid Raider - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

The irony of this thread is that all the venom against the government is being poured out by people who live in one of the safest, most civilised and best-run countries in the world. Let them move to Russia, Nigeria, Pakistan or Indonesia if they don't like it here. 

19
wercat on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Not at all. All I'm saying is that however malicious the legislation might be, I can't believe that it was specifically intended to result in the deportation of these particular people, so, if it results in them being so, it must be entirely down to incompetence. 

And so can Reckless Behaviour also cause harm, far more culpably.   Pandering to the Right in fear of enfilade fire from UKIP with reckless disregard for the effect on lives - harm not directly intentional, as in reckless driving.  The law imposes a duty on a driver just as society imposes a duty on a government to protect members of society, if there is any such thing in the May Conservative concept of the world.

 

Post edited at 17:27
DancingOnRock - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

Welcome to the Socialist Republic of UKC. Where anyone right of JC is to blame for all the countries problems. 

12
Timmd on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> The irony of this thread is that all the venom against the government is being poured out by people who live in one of the safest, most civilised and best-run countries in the world. Let them move to Russia, Nigeria, Pakistan or Indonesia if they don't like it here. 

Why is that ironic - isn't one allowed to want things to be better where one sees the possibility of improvements?

Whichever way one looks at it, it's definitely a bad thing that mental health services have been cut, and the suicide rates have gone up, too, it's a part human nature, I believe, to want to improve circumstances - look at the advances in technology and medicine, and in how we live together over the past hundreds of years. 

Given the above, where is the irony?

There are 'better' countries to live in, too, when it comes to the general happiness of the population, and welfare, for example. From knowing somebody who is struggling to finish her degree due to benefits cuts (transport costs), I politely as you to go and look at the reality of how life is for this most affected (which she definitely is), before talking vaguely about irony and other countries being worse. If you struggle with the bus fare across town to university, you're hard up by any definition and can't fully realise your potential to contribute to society. Is that good enough for you just because other countries are worse?

 

Post edited at 17:49
Dave B on 17 Apr 2018
RomTheBear on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to stevieb:

> I agree. I think it is unlikely that the Windrush generation were the target. Deporting people who have worked in Britain for 40-50 years is not popular, and probably wouldn't even get support amongst UKIP voters. Although the change of legislation is hard to explain otherwise.

> However, I think they are collateral damage of a deliberate change of policy, caught up in a move to aggressively reduce net migration.

It’s not collateral damage, policy was designed to reduce numbers by any means necessary. These people were not targeted specifically, all foreigners are targeted. Their plight is by no means unique.

1
Timmd on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Yeah, because 'Brexit was about immigration', so target all immigrants and get them to (want to) leave. That (some) crops have been left to rot and farmers and fruit growers are pondering where the workers will be found, and the hospitality sector is worried, and the NHS is facing a shorting of staff too, oh well....never mind? :-/ 

Post edited at 18:01
1
wercat on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Timmd:

I think you might just as well talk to an old  boat ...

;-)

Post edited at 18:09
Rog Wilko on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Welcome to the Socialist Republic of UKC. Where anyone right of JC is to blame for all the countries problems. 

That's right. When you have no good argument just resort to pathetic name-calling. 

 

captain paranoia - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to mick taylor:

> If its an intentional government policy to reduce immigration and/or return people to some other country then it has pretty well failed.

It depends what the intention of the legislation was. If it was to make the government look like they were 'being tough on immigration', it may have been very successful... 'Being seen to be doing something' can be just as attractive to a politician as 'doing something rational'.

deepsoup - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> They made an error and addressed it.

I don't suppose that will be much comfort to Albert Thompson.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/22/theresa-may-refuses-to-intervene-over-mans-54000-nhs-cancer-bill-albert-thompson

wercat on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to captain paranoia:

Now Look, you've just gone and spoiled it all by illuminating the results of governing in the interests of the Party rather than the interests of the nation!  Just like Brexit!

Will May apologise for the destruction of the arrival paperwork of these folk if it turns out to have been under her ministerial office?  Or, more likely, will more apologists appear here for her and the Party.

Timmd on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to wercat:

> I think you might just as well talk to an old  boat ...

> ;-)

Possibly, it just needed saying really.

Post edited at 18:53
DancingOnRock - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Rog Wilko:

Lol. This place is so far left biased against the government it’s unreal. 

The fact that no one has even blinked at the thread title says it all. 

8
Timmd on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-staffer?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

It turns out that the boarding cards for the immigrants from the commonwealth, were destroyed once the aim was to make things more difficult for immigrants, and there was less 'human flexibility' allowed towards sorting things out for people wanting help.

Timmd on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

 

> Lol. This place is so far left biased against the government it’s unreal. 

> The fact that no one has even blinked at the thread title says it all. 

What makes you the objective one in this case?

I make no claims of objectivity, but I do about being bothered when I think people are treated wrongly (I don't see this as being exclusive to people of my own political leanings). 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-staffer?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Read the (admittedly left wing) news article about the destruction of the boarding cards, and the stricter following of the rules after that, and tell me what you think...

Post edited at 19:00
1
Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> The irony of this thread is that all the venom against the government is being poured out by people who live in one of the safest, most civilised and best-run countries in the world. Let them move to Russia, Nigeria, Pakistan or Indonesia if they don't like it here. 

The point is to keep it that way. To do that you need constant awareness and a capacity for criticism and protest. Too many of this government’s actions and policy are undermining the values you seem to espouse.  

 

Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Lol. This place is so far left biased against the government it’s unreal. 

> The fact that no one has even blinked at the thread title says it all. 

This is not merely a party political issue. The thread title is directed at the Home Office, not the Conservative government. Even the Daily Mail is critical- the front page today was “Fiasco that Shames Britain”

Bellie on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Timmd:

Thats not quite correct. As I read it the decision to destroy the cards was made because they had no room to store them at the new premises, despite objections that by destroying them they would lose the ability to trace disembarkment dates.  It was pointed out that at this time, case workers would work through and make considered decisions on cases.  This all changed in 2013 when they were told that they had no leeway to make judgement calls on cases. Tellingly after this date the number of cases increased after the clampdown edict was announced.

Post edited at 19:52
DancingOnRock - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Timmd:

Weren’t the boarding cards destroyed 4 years before the law change?

Timmd on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

Sorry, you're right. I don't know why I wrote it like I did.

Ridge - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> Thats not quite correct. As I read it the decision to destroy the cards was made because they had no room to store them at the new premises, despite objections that by destroying them they would lose the ability to trace disembarkment dates.  

If only there was some sort of technology available to transfer physical documents into some other format that doesn't rely on having a big basement full of boxes...

 

wercat on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

even so, that such destruction of living people's documentary evidence followed by policy changes that placed an overwhelming burden of proof on the individual to establish their status shows a series of very very serious errors of judgement at the hands of the Home Secretaries and those deciding our policies in relation to first generation immigrants and a failure to protect people's rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

wercat on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Ridge:

I know, floppy disks! Or VHS, or laserdisk, or winchester drives!

Bellie on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Ridge:

Yes, in the article the staff member suggested they digitise the records, but was told they didnt have the resources to do it.

To destroy the records when it seemed clear they werent just gathering dust but were being used as a check, looks like incompetence.

 

 

wercat on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

And then to impose a regime requiring people to need such destroyed information is worthy of Kafka but not in an entertaining way.

history has shown that digitisation simply creates further problems when the technological solution is superseded.

Post edited at 21:55
Pete Pozman - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Of course it's a part of a cold calculated strategy to get immigration numbers down. It's working in the USA where Trump and his voters have told the Mexicans we really hate you so don't come  Now trump doesn't need his stupid wall. And which sane migrant would want to settle in Hungary with fidesz and Orbán sending out their messages of hatred to the world. The only trouble with this sort of thing is that it really diminishes us as a people and a country. And it could cost us dearly in the long run  

wercat on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Just doesn't feel like my country any more

baron - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

How, as horrible as it is, would deporting those who came here 50+ years ago get the immigration numbers down?

elsewhere on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> How, as horrible as it is, would deporting those who came here 50+ years ago get the immigration numbers down?

Number coming in minus number going out (including deportees) equals net immigration

That's how the simple arithmetic of numerical targets works

Post edited at 22:10
1
baron - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

Numbers in minus numbers out equals net migration and doesn't affect the immigration numbers.

elsewhere on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

the headline figure is generally the net figure and the govt target is for the net number

Bellie on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

I think it was a case of getting dragged into the targeting of illegal immigrants, rather than being a part of reducing immigration figures. 

RomTheBear on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> How, as horrible as it is, would deporting those who came here 50+ years ago get the immigration numbers down?

It would get the net migration numbers down, which is the stated government goal.

This is critical to understand that the whole hostile environment policy was shaped by the net migration target, the aim is not only to  making it difficult for people to come , but also, and mostly, making it very hard for people already here, sometimes for decades, to stay (even if they are legally entitled to)

RomTheBear on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Very good article from the beeb:

 https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-43804308

"But it's clear that for years, there was a huge focus in government on looking for ways of cutting the levels of immigration.

And it's the drive to achieve that, not just administrative mistakes in the Home Office, that is now revealed to have caused such anxiety for so many people.

The Windrush fiasco is in part a by-product of a wider political trend that pushed policy over many years.

The government promises now that the personal injustices it's caused will come to an end - whether it calls time on the wider culture is a different question."

Unfortunately I don't have much hope for the wider culture to change under this PM. What's happening with the immigration exceptions in the DP bill is another example of a blatant attempt to make the home office even more unnacountable.

Post edited at 23:16
Bob Kemp - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Very good article from the beeb:

> The Windrush fiasco is in part a by-product of a wider political trend that pushed policy over many years.

I hate to utter the dreaded word, but it’s the same political trend that has had a huge part to play in the push for Brexit. 

baron - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

Indeed, but several posters were claiming the government had a policy of reducing immigration and that is what I was replying to.

Robert Durran - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to stevieb:

> I think they are collateral damage of a deliberate change of policy.

I think that is obvious. So the answer to the OP's question depends on whether collateral damage counts as malicious or incompetent in this context.

 

1
baron - on 17 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Do you have a problem with the government seeking out and deporting illegal immigrants?

I don't.

2
captain paranoia - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> Indeed, but several posters were claiming the government had a policy of reducing immigration and that is what I was replying to.

And has been explained repeatedly to you, the policy of 'reducing immigration' is measured by simple 'numbers in' vs 'numbers out', regardless of who leaves, or when they arrived. That's the mindless level of simplicity that the policy is reduced to.
 
 
Pan Ron - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Haven't read the rest of the thread, but on the question of malice v incompetence, I'd venture a 3rd option.  

In these sort of institutions its very easy to get caught up in doing things by the book, with the best of intentions.  That if you don't do them by the letter of the law you open yourself to litigation, claims of unequal treatment (leniency for one person that isn't reciprocated to others is the thin end of the wedge) and a risk of being in breach of your own protocols.  The argument can be made that "the rules are the rules" and officers making decisions shouldn't be tasked with subjective bending of the rules - rather the rules themselves need to be changed.  And changing those rules is probably well above the pay grade of most people making the decisions.

Of course the press will make hay with this kind of thing and its obviously rough being caught on the wrong side of a judgement.  But the individuals making the decisions aren't necessarily doing so out of spite.  And the government is quite entitled to enforce rules that are set.

The only reason these sorts of cases haven't previously come to light is that we are on the look out for such cases now and the few that do occur make front-page headlines.  Equally, previous governments had likely not put any sort of pressure on to enforce the regulations and quite possibly there was an open acknowledgement that it was better to let sleeping dogs lie.  Again, I find it hard to damn a government that simply tries to enforce its own laws.

Post edited at 00:30
1
Pan Ron - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> Past Labour governments are as much to blame for overlooking the issue as past Tory governments. I've seen it happen so many times in my job in export sales; companies tolerate practices for years because nobody wants to get to grips with the knotty problem then one day the alarm sounds and everybody is looking for a scapegoat. 

Exactly my experience too, working in the public sector.  You scratch under the surface and discover a problem has been going unreported for years...pull the string a bit and all kinds of chaos unfolds.

From bitter experience in these circumstances, what really surprised me was the degree to which people you are actually trying to help then do everything possible to undermine you and spread malice.  I can absolutely sympathise with the home office staff in this case.

3
Pan Ron - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Why be snide about the people who've contributed to this thread? It's not prejudice - the facts speak for themselves

The responses I've seen on this thread are indicative of what I've experienced.  People with no real understanding of what is happening, unlikely working anywhere near the civil service, without any shred of knowledge of the memos or directives leading up to these events, are dreaming up scenarios and jumping to easy assumptions - "they're incompetent!", "they're heartless!", "it's intentional!". 

It is a frenzy of assumption and accusation, the kind that kills morale in entire govt departments and leads to as much mental anguish for the staff having to enact these decisions as it does on those who are finding themselves on the wrong side of these judgements. 

The judgements being made are no less reactionary than those that grace the comment section of the Daily Mail.  And are most likely as incorrect.

Post edited at 00:45
3
Pan Ron - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> After first refusing to. This issue has been apparent for years. 

Unfortunately there is a lot of crying wolf here.  It doesn't surprise me the Tories natural inclination for hard-lines becomes doubly so when they are being bombarded with claims of unfair treatment for every issue under the sun.

There is a strong ideological, anti-border, movement in the UK that uses these fights as part of a far wider-ranging attack on government, and the Labour parties more strident fringes are only too willing to attack this chink in the Conservative's armour.  

Doubling down and even more dogmatic Tory policy is the unsurprising result.

 

2
captain paranoia - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> But the individuals making the decisions aren't necessarily doing so out of spite.

I think most people realise that the people at the sharp end of implementation aren't evil; they are just trying to do a job. And, in the current climate, trying to do a job under pressure, due to limited resources, and pressure from multiple levels of hierarchy to 'perform'.

And that the people at the sharp end aren't the ones who decide policy direction, write the laws, or create the implementation of those laws. The more abstracted from the sharp end you are, the easier it is to be callous, and create overly rigid systems.

RomTheBear on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> Do you have a problem with the government seeking out and deporting illegal immigrants?

> I don't.

No, I don't have a problem with that. But that's not what they are doing, what they are doing is persecuting legal migrants.

Pete Pozman - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> How, as horrible as it is, would deporting those who came here 50+ years ago get the immigration numbers down?

If you call them immigrants and they leave...

Similarly if we call foreign students immigrants and they don't come... 

There are so many creative ways we can please the old Brexit buffers snorting over their Daily Mails and Expresses 

Big Ger - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

I suppose not. But not being able to show he has lived in the UK for the past 44 years is a bit odd isn't it? 

11
deepsoup - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Ridge:

> If only there was some sort of technology available to transfer physical documents into some other format that doesn't rely on having a big basement full of boxes...

Failing that, when moving to new premises with less space, if only it were possible to store some stuff somewhere else!  Ludicrous idea probably, but in the interests of keeping the cost down perhaps even outside London?

DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

Quite. And as I wrote upthread: it’s nit just the home office. It’s the people implementing the rules; employers and landlords who have to satisfy and prove that their tennants and employees have right to remain. 

deepsoup - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

He can easily show he has lived in the UK for the past 44 years to the complete satisfaction of anyone who is allowed to apply any discretion or common sense.   He was paying PAYE tax and national insurance for most of that time, and has lived in a council flat for decades.  (Not any more though - he was recently evicted on the same grounds that he was denied the "non-urgent" radiotherapy he needs for his prostate cancer.  Better an old man dies in the gutter than, God forbid, we risk an "illegal" being allowed to live in a council flat.)

Along with compassion, discretion and common sense are no longer permitted to be applied in matters of immigration.  What he can't do is provide the copious documentary evidence that is now required.

I remember the thread discussing the NHS being put in the position of acting as a border guard, and being required to deny treatment to anyone declared "illegal" (of which one is guilty until proved innocent) when those rules came in.  You were all for it.  I hope you're f*cking proud of yourself.

 

baron - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to captain paranoia:

Patronising t**t!

Several posters were using the incorrect terms and mixing up migration and immigration.

The government does the same.

I might have been a little pedantic but your tone, if it's possible to have a tone in an internet post, Is unnecessary.

I am offended!

5
baron - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

They are making it harder for illegal immigrants to live here.

What they have also done is made it harder for a small section of legal migrants as well and that's unacceptable.

Whether that's by intent or incompetence is the debate that we're having on this thread.

2
baron - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Why would you be offended by being called an immigrant if that's what you are?

Rigid Raider - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

There's another side to the incompetence story: we have recently had the sad experience of nursing my sick MIL and now we are helping our sick elderly neighbours because we can see them dying of neglect and starvation while we know how excellent the NHS and Social Sercices can be if you know how to make them work for you. I'm not blaming the Windrush children because I expect they have grown up in the UK with a strong dislike of the Police and any government and a reluctance to be involved in anything that looks like officialdom or regulation, meaning they have lived off the radar for decades and now find themselves unintentionally caught up in events. Let's not forget that they were amongst the first visible waves of immigrants to arrive in the UK in living memory, at a time when, I'm guessing, the world's population was half what it is today and immigration was not the hot potato it has become. Rules would have been more relaxed, their entry to the UK more informal and so they were never afforded the opportunity to formalise their status, and even if they were afforded that opportunity they would have been reluctant to take those steps.  Thus, like so many elderly folk who grew up in simpler more trusting times they are bewildered by the bureaucracy that must nowadays be overcome in order to get what you need and deserve from the State. 

If you know which buttons to press ths country is still an excellent place in which to live with first class medical care and social services but it takes determination and resourcefulness. 

Post edited at 08:38
7
Bob Kemp - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

I am sure that many of the decisions that have been made about the Windrush immigrants and their children have been made according to the rules rather than out of spite, and the point of my original post was not to pillory people doing their job properly. Any malicious intent (and I am coming to the conclusion that it's more a matter of callous disregard than malicious intent, although the line between these may be hard to distinguish) is at the higher level of government policy. As you say, the rules need to be changed.

It is of course essential that the press 'make hay with this kind of thing'. What would happen otherwise? And it's not merely 'rough' being caught on the wrong side of a judgement, it can be life-destroying. 

 

 

Bob Kemp - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Exactly my experience too, working in the public sector.  You scratch under the surface and discover a problem has been going unreported for years...pull the string a bit and all kinds of chaos unfolds.

As I've said before, the Home Office has been known to be dysfunctional for a number of years. John Reid was aware of it in 2006. I'm not sure whether he tried to deal with it or not, but if he did it clearly didn't work. 

> From bitter experience in these circumstances, what really surprised me was the degree to which people you are actually trying to help then do everything possible to undermine you and spread malice.  I can absolutely sympathise with the home office staff in this case.

Is this relevant to this case? I'm not aware that any of the people affected in this case have tried to undermine the staff involved. I am not sure that deporting people who shouldn't be deported can ever be described as helping them. And I'm pretty sure that I might be a bit upset too. Wouldn't you?

 

Bob Kemp - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The responses I've seen on this thread are indicative of what I've experienced.  People with no real understanding of what is happening, unlikely working anywhere near the civil service, without any shred of knowledge of the memos or directives leading up to these events, are dreaming up scenarios and jumping to easy assumptions - "they're incompetent!", "they're heartless!", "it's intentional!". 

Of course it's intentional! You can't get much more intentional than an Act of Parliament! The fact that the Government doesn't give a toss about the Civil Service's 'poor bloody infantry' just makes them look even more heartless.

> It is a frenzy of assumption and accusation, the kind that kills morale in entire govt departments and leads to as much mental anguish for the staff having to enact these decisions as it does on those who are finding themselves on the wrong side of these judgements. 

What's the alternative then? Ignore it?

> The judgements being made are no less reactionary than those that grace the comment section of the Daily Mail.  And are most likely as incorrect.

Fact-free. 

 

cb294 - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

I am an expat, you are a highly mobile international specialist, he is a refugee, she is an economic migrant...

Cynics could suggest that these terms merely reflect a gradient of whiteness.

CB

Bob Kemp - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

What crying wolf? This is real. Perhaps the Tories could curb their natural instinct for the hard line and start looking at realities too. Try evidence-based policy, try not appeasing far-right populists, try not using empty rhetoric to justify their hard lines.

'Doubling down and even more dogmatic policy' is not the inevitable result - in this case the Tories have made a rapid hand-brake turn and have apologised.

tony on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> I'm not blaming the Windrush children because I expect they have grown up in the UK with a strong dislike of the Police and any government and a reluctance to be involved in anything that looks like officialdom or regulation, meaning they have lived off the radar for decades and now find themselves unintentionally caught up in events.

Why do you keep repeating a lie? These people didn't live off the radar. They went to school, worked, paid taxes, did things by the book. One of the women affected worked in the House of Commons - you couldn't get much more on the radar than that.

> Rules would have been more relaxed, their entry to the UK more informal and so they were never afforded the opportunity to formalise their status, and even if they were afforded that opportunity they would have been reluctant to take those steps.

Rules regarding citizenship were enshrined in the 1971 Immigration Act. This wasn't some informal bit of paper lost at the bottom on a filing cabinet, it was a piece of legislation passed by Parliament. This piece of legislation formalised their status.

baron - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to cb294:

Are you suggesting that there's a racial aspect to the Windrush Generation affair or to how the UK describes various groups?

doz generale - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

 

> If you know which buttons to press ths country is still an excellent place in which to live with first class medical care and social services but it takes determination and resourcefulness. 

Just a shame that it's full of racists

1
Jim C - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> Yes, in the article the staff member suggested they digitise the records, but was told they didnt have the resources to do it.

> To destroy the records when it seemed clear they werent just gathering dust but were being used as a check, looks like incompetence.

I'm surprised that they have ( apparently) destroyed the Windrush landing cards as this is the kind of records the likes of Ancestry genealogical companies would pay good money for.

I'm suspicious that they may not have destroyed these records, as despite their monetary value, the HO  could of course use those same records to disprove the case of those falsely claiming to be  related to the legal WindRush families.  

Post edited at 10:01
Bob Kemp - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

"I'm not blaming the Windrush children because I expect they have grown up in the UK with a strong dislike of the Police and any government and a reluctance to be involved in anything that looks like officialdom or regulation, meaning they have lived off the radar for decades"

Off the radar like Floella Benjamin or Andrea Levy I suppose? Where do you get this stuff from? The cases of people up for deportation I've seen so far have involved people who've been working for organisations like the NHS or the Peabody Trust, or just people working for a living as painters and decorators, shop assistants and the like. Paying taxes, paying National Insurance. You may have half a point in that they are often people who might not know which buttons to press, but that's a problem that many working class people face when dealing with bureaucracy.

DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim C:

In 2010, they were no longer required so they were destroyed. 

It was only in 2014 that they might have become useful as one of many means to prove the person originally entered Britain as a British citizen.

When employing someone the primary means of identification to ensure someone has right to remain is becoming the passport. 

I’m still amazed that there are 9m people in the UK without passports. 

Post edited at 10:10
Big Ger - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

> He can easily show he has lived in the UK for the past 44 years to the complete satisfaction of anyone who is allowed to apply any discretion or common sense.  

"Thompson, 63, is not receiving the radiotherapy treatment he needs for prostate cancer because he has been unable to provide officials with sufficient documentary evidence showing that he has lived in the UK continuously since arriving from Jamaica as a teenager in 1973."

The Guardian

> He was paying PAYE tax and national insurance for most of that time, and has lived in a council flat for decades.  (Not any more though - he was recently evicted on the same grounds that he was denied the "non-urgent" radiotherapy he needs for his prostate cancer.  Better an old man dies in the gutter than, God forbid, we risk an "illegal" being allowed to live in a council flat.)

"The Royal Marsden has repeatedly said that Thompson’s radiotherapy was not urgent."

The Guardian.

You'd better get hold of the Marsden then.

> Along with compassion, discretion and common sense are no longer permitted to be applied in matters of immigration.  What he can't do is provide the copious documentary evidence that is now required.

"Thompson – who has asked for his real name not to be used – "

The Guardian.

Not helping his own cause much there...

> I remember the thread discussing the NHS being put in the position of acting as a border guard, and being required to deny treatment to anyone declared "illegal" (of which one is guilty until proved innocent) when those rules came in.  You were all for it.  I hope you're f*cking proud of yourself.

I'm happy with myself yes, very happy. I think that anyone wanting to use NHS services should be able to prove they are entitled to them. Do you think anyone who can get into a NHS hospital should be allowed to use them?

 I don't think my views have influenced this situation though.

 

 

Post edited at 10:16
13
tony on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> In 2010, they were no longer required so they were destroyed. 

> It was only in 2014 that they might have become useful as one of many means to prove the person originally entered Britain as a British citizen.

They were being useful prior to 2010. They were considered a vital resource for finding information about someone’s arrival date in the UK from the West Indies - usually when individuals were trying to resolve immigration status issues. So we had people trying to do the right thing, to normalise their status, and the Home Office destroyed some of the essential tools.

 

Bellie on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

I disagree, if we look at the article by the ex staffer, and what it says. It relates that prior to 2013 staff were in fact able to make judgement calls and it wasnt against or bending any rules.  The article mentions a change of direction post 2013, when they were instructed to give no leeway. Whether you attribute this solely to the number of staff cuts combined with an increased workload thrust on them due to changes made by the current government to the immigration act. Or just a more hard line hostile approach to dealing with cases. Or a combination.

Its not hard to look at a timeline of events in this case. 

DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to tony:

Do you know that for sure?

Usually things get destroyed when no one had used them for ages. Which is what the Home Office are claiming. You should only keep someone’s data for as long as is necessary. If it was still necessary, why make that statement and why destroy them?

 

Post edited at 10:23
DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
elsewhere on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I’m still amazed that there are 9m people in the UK without passports. 

Why? Some people don't have the health or money for foreign travel.

 

tony on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Do you know that for sure?

From the Daily Mail:

"A former Home Office employee told the Guardian the decision [to destroy the cards] was taken despite warnings the cards might prove important in establishing citizenship. The source said: 'Because it was no longer possible to search in the archive of landing cards, people would be sent a standard letter that would state: 'We have searched our records, we can find no trace of you in our files'.'"

> Usually things get destroyed when no one had used them for ages. Which is what the Home Office are claiming. You should only keep someone’s data for as long as is necessary. If it was still necessary, why make that statement and why destroy them?

I think Mandy-Rice Davies had the answer to that one.

 

tony on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Home Office statement last year on landing Cards. 

I don't really know what relevance that has. Of course, one crucial element is that now, all entry and exit data is available digitally. None of the Windrush landing cards were digitised, so all the information carried on those cards was irretrieveably lost.

Post edited at 10:43
French Erick - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

There is a deliberate culture of doubt and disbelief  towards "bogus" migrants being actively promoted within the Home office, coming from up high. Theresa has led the foundation as Home secretary and most of this culture comes from the changes she implemented from around 2010-11.

Add to this the overzealous culture of accountability which cripples any government body and leads to a mentality within which NOONE is ready to exercise discretion.

Et voilà, you have a perfect storm.

Rob Exile Ward on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

'Do you think anyone who can get into a NHS hospital should be allowed to use them?'

FFS yes. Just as if I fell ill while visiting France or anywhere else, the decent humane and only sensible thing is to provide treatment first and quibble about payment later. What would you think if it was one of your children left to die because they couldn't prove their identity? Should police be checking the IDs of accident victims before calling ambulances?

Big Ger - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'Do you think anyone who can get into a NHS hospital should be allowed to use them?'

> FFS yes. Just as if I fell ill while visiting France or anywhere else, the decent humane and only sensible thing is to provide treatment first and quibble about payment later.

Agreed.

> What would you think if it was one of your children left to die because they couldn't prove their identity? Should police be checking the IDs of accident victims before calling ambulances?

Oh don't get so emotional. No one here is suggesting that anyone should be denied emergency treatment

 

7
DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to tony:

In that case Windrush will be the tip of the iceberg and anyone who has entered the country previous to digitisation will also not have access to their Landing Cards. 

So anyone without a passport stamp will have to find another way of proving they have British citizenship.

 

Post edited at 11:02
tony on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> In that case Windrush will be the tip of the iceberg and anyone who has entered the country previous to digitisation will also not have access to their Landing Cards.

Possibly true, but not really relevant.

 

 

Bellie on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43795077

This is a good explanation of why some have ran into problems.

 

DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to tony:

Why isn’t it relevant?

tony on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Because it doesn't say anything useful about the plight of the Windrush generation. What relevance do you think it has?

DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

Yes. As I’ve said twice on the thread now, it’s not the home office, it’s the way the banks, NHS, employers and Landlords have no way to exercise discretion. It’s the UKs obsession with jobsworths ticking boxes on forms. 

Post edited at 11:15
2
DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to tony:

Erm. We’ve been told several times that this thread is about whether the Home Office is incompetent or deliberately malicious. It has nothing to do with how the windrush generation have been treated or are feeling. 

tony on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Nope sorry, no idea what point you're trying to make.

deepsoup - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> "... unable to provide officials with sufficient documentary evidence..."

> The Guardian

Indeed, "sufficient documentary evidence".  I don't see how you think this contradicts my post.

> I'm happy with myself yes, very happy.

It was a rhetorical question.  Of course you are.

> Do you think anyone who can get into a NHS hospital should be allowed to use them?

We covered that at the time.  Yes I do.  As did Nye Bevan; it was one of the founding principles of the NHS.  Writing in 1952, Bevan said:

"One of the consequences of the universality of the British Health Service is the free treatment of foreign visitors. This has given rise to a great deal of criticism, most of it ill-informed and some of it deliberately mischievous. Why should people come to Britain and enjoy the benefits of the free Health Service when they do not subscribe to the national revenues? So the argument goes. No doubt a little of this objection is still based on the confusion about contributions to which I have referred. The fact is, of course, that visitors to Britain subscribe to the national revenues as soon as they start consuming certain commodities, drink and tobacco for example, and entertainment. They make no direct contribution to the cost of the Health Service any more than does a British citizen.

However, there are a number of more potent reasons why it would be unwise as well as mean to withhold the Free Service from the visitor to Britain. How do we distinguish a visitor from anybody else? Are British citizens to carry means of identification everywhere to prove that they are not visitors? For if the sheep are to be separated from the goats both must be classified. What began as an attempt to keep the Health Service for ourselves would end by being a nuisance to everybody. Happily, this is one of those occasions when generosity and convenience march together.

The cost of looking after the visitor who falls ill cannot amount to more than a negligible fraction of £399,000,000, the total cost of the Health Service. It is not difficult to strive at an approximate estimate. All we have to do is look up this number of visitors to Great Britain during one year and assume they would make the same use of the Health Service as a similar number of Britishers. Divide the total cost of the Service by the population and you get the answer. I had the estimate taken out and it amounted to about £200,000 a year.

Obviously this is an over-estimate because people who go for holidays are not likely to need a doctor’s attention as much as others. However, there it is for what it is worth and you will see it does not justify the fuss that has been made about it.

The whole agitation has a nasty taste. Instead of rejoicing at the opportunity to practise a civilised principle, Conservatives have tried to exploit the most disreputable emotions in this among many other attempts to discredit socialised medicine."

His last paragraph there - that's you that is.

tony on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Yes. As I’ve said twice on the thread now, it’s not the home office,

Of course it's the Home Office. Who else destroyed the useful information? Who else is resonsible for citizenship and immigration status? The fact that other organisations also stuff up at times doesn't absolve the Home Office of their responsibilities.

Bellie on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I think you'll find its the Home Office instruction that its a requirement. Laid out as such in the act. Requiring them to comply.  Its not TSB thats sending them to detention centres.

 

Post edited at 11:26
Pan Ron - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> I disagree, if we look at the article by the ex staffer, and what it says. It relates that prior to 2013 staff were in fact able to make judgement calls and it wasnt against or bending any rules.  The article mentions a change of direction post 2013, when they were instructed to give no leeway.

There is good reason for not allowing that leeway.

As soon as you let staff make judgement calls, all kinds of subjective measures come in to the equation and you end up with inequality.  One person comes in, with their kids in tow, and wells up with tears while explaining their personal hardships....and their officer is likely to be sympathetic.  An identical person, comes in on their own, stoically accepts the information given to them and receives no leeway.

This is exactly why agencies have clear protocol and requirements that you follow them to the letter.  The rules need changing, rather than more flexibility.

The irony here is that rigid regulations that are followed to the letter are in everyone's interests.  it ensures equity and predictability and means decisions aren't dependent on how much performance applicants are willing to put on.  Its a shame that people get so worked up about inequality of treatment but are then so quick to cry unfairness when the rules are applied to the letter.

1
Pan Ron - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

This is pretty widespread and normal.  Any employer that doesn't check passport details of an employee is liable for prosecution, no matter how important the employer or how "British" the employee may appear.

Likewise, there was a big push recently for universities to monitor attendance of students with non-attendance being reported to the UKBA.  This was in direct response to the number of people claiming student visas then simply not attending their courses.  The response in the university sector to the proposals was almost universal hostility with every excuse under the sun being given; not our responsibility, we can't do the UKBAs work, its unethical, its impractical, etc. etc.  There was deliberate foot dragging, refusal and all kinds of claims made that were frankly ridiculous.

The govt was simply attempting to eliminate an area of fraud.  The issues was portrayed to the public by the HE sector as a gross indecency, a violation of human rights and dignity, and one step removed from a pogrom.  Its little wonder that governments start to take complaints less seriously when this is the ideologically driven response to perfectly valid requests.

1
Rob Exile Ward on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

'Its little wonder that governments start to take complaints less seriously when this is the ideologically driven response to perfectly valid requests.'

I think you have completely the wrong end of the stick. In my experience governments have become increasingly incompetent due to reacting to media outbursts. One angry front page in the Daily Mail can result in the government overturning decades of carefully considered policy without giving any thought to potential long term consequences.

Bellie on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

I think you will find that the leeway is not down to sob stories or sympathy, but accepting evidence of a right to remain, which did not wholely fit the new criteria but was there all the same.  I'm glad that the goverment who installed this policy has admitted it wasnt correct even if you don't.

Having read the bbc article on proving status, i would not be able myself to provide 4 sets of documentary proof of the required items for each year i have been in this country since 1973.

I am happy that as of today with the additional forms of evidence introduced, i would be able to do so.   

Whilst i understand you are speaking in general terms, we are able to discuss specifics here.

 

 

Post edited at 11:44
DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

Its nothing to do with detention centres. It’s people not getting jobs or being thrown out of jobs that they’ve had for years because they now can’t prove they’re citizens, losing housing and not getting NHS treatment. 

 

Bellie on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Just add being asked to leave the country to that list.

 

jkarran - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> I'm happy with myself yes, very happy. I think that anyone wanting to use NHS services should be able to prove they are entitled to them. Do you think anyone who can get into a NHS hospital should be allowed to use them?

Yes.

>  I don't think my views have influenced this situation though.

How exactly is it you think a democracy works?

jk

Rigid Raider - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to French Erick:

> Add to this the overzealous culture of accountability which cripples any government body and leads to a mentality within which NOONE is ready to exercise discretion.

Exactly what I've been saying: successive disasters following bad judgements by people in authority (child welfare, Police, health & safety, numerous other examples) have meant that gradually power of discretion has been withdrawn from public officials and replaced by rules.  

DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

That’s an extreme case and will be down to the immigration officials. The bigger problem is as I wrote above. 

Yanis Nayu - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm surprised at the communication breaking down between May and the Mail. Theresa's annual appraisal with Paul Dacre will be interesting. It's becoming more and more evident what a nasty piece of work May is.

 

 

 

DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

1 in 6 people have never left the country? I just find that bizzarre.

Although it may go some way to explain why there’s so much xenephobia on the internet. There’s probably a large subset of those people who’ve never left their village and another subset who’ve never left their houses. 

3
Rob Exile Ward on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Funnily enough I was beginning to think she was beginning to redeem herself slightly; her reaction to the attempted Skripal assassinations, the chemical weapons and indeed, back peddling on hard brexit all seem OK to me.

She always was a nasty and incompetent home secretary though, more concerned with soundbites than the rule of law. 

tony on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Its nothing to do with detention centres.

People have been sent to detention centres as a result of this, and been within hours of deportation. Paulette Wilson used to work in the House of Commons. In October last year she was sent to the immigration removal centre at Yarl’s Wood in Bedford for a week, and then taken to Heathrow before deportation. Only a last-minute intervention from her MP and a charity prevented her deportation.

elsewhere on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> 1 in 6 people have never left the country? 

No. 1 in 6 don't have a passport ***now***.

That's easily explained if 1 in 24 is still a toddler with the parents are waiting until they're a bit older, 1 in 24 can't afford to travel and 1 in 12 is too elderly to travel much so they've not renewed the passport.

Just made up the numbers to illustrate how some possible reasons might add up.

 

 

DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to tony:

An extreme case. Are detention centres full of the Windrush people? 

2
Bob Kemp - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> In 2010, they were no longer required so they were destroyed. 

In the article I read about the landing cards it said that they were often used in response to queries. It's probably pushing it too far to see this as part of some long-term plan to persecute Windrush generation people though.  The excuse given, that they were concerned about data protection, seems bogus though - the passenger lists are still freely available for example. 

Bellie on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Thats how far it can go. It not some letter that says we cant find any record of you, sorry.  It kicks off a procedure whereby you are there and then classed as an illegal immigrant, subject to the rules and regulations placed upon illegal immigrants and threatened with deportation. Imagine the anguish these older folks are going through. When they are here legally and have been dragged unwittingly into a system which did not have the checks and balances to avoid such an event happening, and more frustratingly had such strict rules that did not allow shed loads of obvious info to be used as evidence to easily correct the mistake.

 

Imagine it happening to your parent and coming up against the brick wall of beaurocracy. 

DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

It’s ironic in an age when everyone is scared to death of having their data held by faceless organisations. 

Bob Kemp - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

How is complaining about violation of human rights and dignity ideologically driven? Human rights have been a long-time English and UK concern, from Magna Carta onwards, and are nothing to do with ideology.

DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
Bob Kemp - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

More information in this article from a couple of new whistle-blowers:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/18/whistleblowers-contradict-no-10-over-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards

“The introduction of the hostile environment policy meant the mentality was: ‘I’m going to say no, unless you can prove me wrong.’ Whereas before we’d been a lot more lenient towards the Commonwealth immigrants. We had no problem about going after everyone else, but the Commonwealth immigrants had always been a different kettle of fish,” said the official, who asked not to be named. 

“That changed about five or six years ago with the hostile environment. Some of the immigration people welcomed it. There was a ’gotcha attitude’ – some people enjoyed it; I didn’t like that.”

 

jkarran - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> ...We had no problem about going after everyone else, but the Commonwealth immigrants had always been a different kettle of fish,” said the official, who asked not to be named. 

> “That changed about five or six years ago with the hostile environment. Some of the immigration people welcomed it. There was a ’gotcha attitude’ – some people enjoyed it; I didn’t like that.”

Grim if it's a true reflection of what May's policy unleashed.

jk

tony on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> An extreme case. Are detention centres full of the Windrush people? 

Not the point. A hideous episode in the life of a woman who deserves much better. The idea that you seem to be able to swat it away is not attractive.

DancingOnRock - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to tony:

A woman who clearly had lots of friends and support. 

The real problems are as I’ve said, unseen, people losing jobs, housing and being denied healthcare. And there are many of them. 

1
wercat on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

it is ideological as respect for human rights is supposed to be part of our ideology now, but not until comparatively recently unless you were a member of the property owning/voting classes

Post edited at 14:17
tony on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> A woman who clearly had lots of friends and support. 

> The real problems are as I’ve said, unseen, people losing jobs, housing and being denied healthcare. And there are many of them. 

Thank you, but I don't need to be told that. And you don't think being taken to a detention centre and threatened with deportation is a real problem?

wercat on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

May's varied blame shifting response to this week's crisis reminds me rather of the Russian information campaign in the aftermath of the Russian poisonings

Bob Kemp - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to wercat:

My point was really that Pan Ron was claiming that complaints about human rights were based on a particular ideology (I assume he means some form of left-wing ideology), but we need to remember human rights have an older history that's based on more than just one ideology. (I'm not sure what you might mean by 'one ideology' btw. We may have some shared values, but not enough to say we have an all-embracing ideology).

Big Ger - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

> Indeed, "sufficient documentary evidence".  I don't see how you think this contradicts my post.

Well he cannot prove it to those he needs to prove it to, so your point is irrelevant.

> It was a rhetorical question.  Of course you are.

And very happy to be so,  What would be the point of being other?

> We covered that at the time.  Yes I do.  As did Nye Bevan; it was one of the founding principles of the NHS.  Writing in 1952, Bevan said:

1952, some 66 years ago, when international travel was the preserve of the very few. Do you not think things may have changed just a little since then?

> His last paragraph there - that's you that is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEQcsuXnnnc

 

4
Big Ger - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Yes.

Well those who complain that the NHS is understaffed, under-resourced and under pressure may find your idea that teh NHS should be a open to the whole world rather gauche to say the least. 

> How exactly is it you think a democracy works?

Not by hinging around the thoughts of one ageing Welshman as expressed on a climbing forum. Is that how you think it works?

 

5
deepsoup - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Well he cannot prove it to those he needs to prove it to, so your point is irrelevant.

Only because 'those he needs to prove it to' cannot apply any discretion or common sense, they can only accept prodigious amounts of documentary evidence within the narrow parameters that allow them to tick their boxes.  That was my point.

I'm sure you used to be brighter than this.  You're not *that* old, have you registered with a GP since you came back to the UK?  Maybe you should pop down there and get checked out.  Don't forget your passport.

> And very happy to be so,  What would be the point of being other?

Well in an ideal world one could only hope it might motivate you to change.

> Do you not think things may have changed just a little since then?

Many things have changed, but decent people still "rejoice in the opportunity to practise a decent principle" while others continue to "exploit the most disreputable of emotions".  The nasty taste remains the same, and the cost of treating foreigners is still a negligible fraction of the overall NHS budget.

Yes.  I was indeed quoting Baddiel and Newman at the end there.  Well done you.

deepsoup - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Well those who complain that the NHS is understaffed, under-resourced and under pressure may find your idea that teh NHS should be a open to the whole world rather gauche to say the least.

Like the 'Windrush generation' before them, many of the immigrants we are currently trying to hound out of the country are doctors, nurses and other NHS staff.  Mrs May's "hostile environment" is not protecting the precious and apparently dwindling resources of the NHS, precisely the reverse.

French Erick - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> It takes a lot of shouting to get any legislation changed.

> They made an error and addressed it.

> "The British home secretary has delivered an unprecedented apology for the “appalling” actions of her own department towards Windrush-era citizens, acknowledging that the Home Office had “lost sight of individuals” and become “too concerned with policy”."

No! They made mistakes and apologised for one!

It is a clear case of:"Sorry, I have run you over with my governmental car...you cannot do anything about it because I am the law. BTW, I am only apologising because some of the would be electorate has found out about it".

The paper chase is awful: I have lived in this country, payed NI, taxes worked, I have all paperwork to prove and the process to become British has now been over a year since I have started it! It will be at least another six months before it is finished. Will have cost, financially and emotionally, rather a lot. 

If I were independently wealthy and could dedicate my full time to it, I probably would have cut the timescale in half. But my life is not on hold whilst May and blatantly xenophobic cronies bully civil servants into submition. I have to work, pay the mortgage, the bills, see my (thankfully) British children. 

Remember that all of that was clearly and entirely UNNECESSARY before Brexit...that was one of the points of the EU, same for Brits living in Europe! 

I started the process to regularise myself after maybe 6 months of observing the current government's rhetoric- my final conclusion was then and still is: I cannot trust these people with my life, family and livelihood!

Now, it is one thing for me. I understand that I may meet some barriers- I was indeed born and raised in another country.

To think that Government would do that to people who were invited in! Some born here! It is well beyond callousness, incompetence, or even malice...it is barely covered racism and nothing more.

This story makes a mockery of the set text of the life in the UK test: https://wordery.com/life-in-the-uk-test-handbook-2018-henry-dillon-9781907389573?currency=GBP&gtrck=aU5tQkprL1pxT2hBQStzYzlNZGxFciswekJ2R2ZLMTQwRFA3SU91d2w5VG1qRERwN3hDcjdXL1RVWFZrKzdCVlJhNzlYYUNldzBBOFllWXkxSVVPMGc9PQ&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhMre843E2gIVgz8bCh28QAlqEAQYASABEgJlRfD_BwE 

It clearly states that the UK is a country in which equality, justice and rule of law is paramount in the opening pages!!

Postmanpat on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/18/whistleblowers-contradict-no-10-over-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards

  Interesting that a lot of the old school of immigration officials retired, unhappy with the manner of the imposition and execution  of the "hostile environment" policy. This left a bunch of sub thirty year olds with no understanding of the history of Commonwealth immigration and determined to follow the strict letter of the law regardless of any concept of fairness or justice.

  If May didn't know what was happening then she wasn't doing her job properly. If she did she is even more culpable.

Bob Kemp - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

It's certainly beginning to look like that. 

Big Ger - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

> Only because 'those he needs to prove it to' cannot apply any discretion or common sense, they can only accept prodigious amounts of documentary evidence within the narrow parameters that allow them to tick their boxes. 

So, they are constrained by the laws within which they work, nothing to do with an inability to use common sense.

> I'm sure you used to be brighter than this. 

I'm sure you didn't.

> You're not *that* old, have you registered with a GP since you came back to the UK?  Maybe you should pop down there and get checked out.  Don't forget your passport.

I've registered with a GP practice , and been allocated very nice lady Doctor. No passport or any other ID required, didn't even ask for my NI number. 

> Well in an ideal world one could only hope it might motivate you to change.

In your ideal world everyone would be a bland simulacrum of yourself,.

> Many things have changed, but decent people still "rejoice in the opportunity to practise a decent principle" while others continue to "exploit the most disreputable of emotions". 

All well and good, but "fine words butter no parsnips" as they say.

> The nasty taste remains the same, and the cost of treating foreigners is still a negligible fraction of the overall NHS budget.

It's a fraction. Treating people who never have, and never will contribute to the general pot, for free isn't a wise use of NHS funds. 

> Yes.  I was indeed quoting Baddiel and Newman at the end there.  Well done you.

It wasn't very funny when they did it, even less so when you do. Well done though, plagiarism is some sort of skill.

 

6
Big Ger - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

> Like the 'Windrush generation' before them, many of the immigrants we are currently trying to hound out of the country are doctors, nurses and other NHS staff. 

Your hyperbole does you no credit. How many are nurses and doctors? Where did you get this "fact" from?

There are now 500,000 people resident in the UK who were born in a Commonwealth country and arrived before 1971 - including the Windrush arrivals - according to estimates by Oxford University's Migration Observatory.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43782241

> Mrs May's "hostile environment" is not protecting the precious and apparently dwindling resources of the NHS, precisely the reverse.

Your evidence for this?

International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt said there was "absolutely no question" of the Windrush generation's right to remain. She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "People should not be concerned about this - they have the right to stay and we should be reassuring them of that." Mrs May's spokesman said the prime minister was clear that "no-one with the right to be here will be made to leave".

 

 

4
Pete Pozman - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> Why would you be offended by being called an immigrant if that's what you are?

I couldn't care less what you call me, as long as you leave me alone. My dad was an immigrant and took plenty of abuse in his time. He also died early after 31 years working down your pits . I found his naturalisation papers recently so maybe they won't come for me after all. 

baron - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I think that you might find that being in the country legaly is no guarantee of you remaining here.

2
RomTheBear on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt said there was "absolutely no question" of the Windrush generation's right to remain. She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "People should not be concerned about this - they have the right to stay and we should be reassuring them of that." Mrs May's spokesman said the prime minister was clear that "no-one with the right to be here will be made to leave".

And yet, people with the absolute legal right to be here are made to leave on a regular basis.

You can have all the legal right you want if there is no effective judicial recourse, there is nothing you can do. The fact that this had to go to the press before anyone did anything illustrates the problem.

1
Bob Kemp - on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I read somewhere that the only thing that was working for individual cases was getting MPs involved. Dismal. 

RomTheBear on 18 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> I read somewhere that the only thing that was working for individual cases was getting MPs involved. Dismal. 

Yes I know many people who had to go down that route when applying for ILR but it didnt make any difference. The problem is that MPs are swamped with these, they have a back channel to the home office but since so many people use it it's become useless.

1
Pete Pozman - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> I think that you might find that being in the country legaly is no guarantee of you remaining here.

Well, you know what, it's feeling less and less like my country anyway. I'm still here but my country has gone . 

1
RomTheBear on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Interesting that a lot of the old school of immigration officials retired, unhappy with the manner of the imposition and execution  of the "hostile environment" policy. This left a bunch of sub thirty year olds with no understanding of the history of Commonwealth immigration and determined to follow the strict letter of the law regardless of any concept of fairness or justice.

>   If May didn't know what was happening then she wasn't doing her job properly. If she did she is even more culpable.

It was bleeding obvious that setting up a "hostile environment" where you have to prove your immigration status to do anything  (especially if you are not white and/or do not have an English accent) in a country with no mandatory, central ID management, was going to create these incredible situations. 

Let's be clear the windrush "scandal" really isn't new, similar or worse situations have been rife. I've been ranting about it enough on these forums for the past few years...

But as long as the mail didn't report it, it didn't matter.

DancingOnRock - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

“Your Country”?

Get used to it, things move on, if you don’t adapt then you stagnate and get left behind. I worry that there are large numbers of people in this country who want to turn the clock back to a time when they were young and naive and everything was roses. Well, that time never exsisted. 

This is a minor blip affecting a few hundred, maybe thousand people. It’s being blown out of all proportion by the hand wringers. Won’t someone think of the children...

10
baron - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Your sentiments are shared by many people who've seen their communites change beyond all recognition over the last decades.

Some of those changes have been for the better but many haven't.

Plenty of the changes were brought about by government policies which often paid scant regard for the wishes of the people affected.

Being told that it's for the best doesn't always alleviate the pain.

2
jkarran - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> It's a fraction. Treating people who never have, and never will contribute to the general pot, for free isn't a wise use of NHS funds.

It can be. From a purely pragmatic perspective vaccination for example doesn't just benefit the vaccinated. Likewise if the cost of administering the system of checks exceeds the cost of treating the 'undeserving' the motive for excluding people is no longer financial.

jk

Post edited at 09:39
jkarran - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> “Your Country”?

> Get used to it, things move on, if you don’t adapt then you stagnate and get left behind. I worry that there are large numbers of people in this country who want to turn the clock back to a time when they were young and naive and everything was roses. Well, that time never exsisted. 

Irony?

> This is a minor blip affecting a few hundred, maybe thousand people. It’s being blown out of all proportion by the hand wringers. Won’t someone think of the children...

Yeah, apparently they will once even the Mail has turned against the policies it has howled for. EU citizens next though and there's millions of them.

jk

Big Ger - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

 

> It can be. From a purely pragmatic perspective vaccination for example doesn't just benefit the vaccinated. Likewise if the cost of administering the system of checks exceeds the cost of treating the 'undeserving' the motive for excluding people is no longer financial.

So we should advise every third world country that they can send their sick and disabled people over here for free treatment?

 

 

8
jkarran - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Yet again, you asked about and we are discussing treating people who arrive at the door of the health service, people who are already here. We're not talking about importing people wholesale for free treatment but don't let that stop you moving the goalposts once someone engages with you.

We should and do contribute to the eradication of infectious diseases around the world because we can and we benefit.

jk

Post edited at 10:05
Big Ger - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Yet again, you asked about and we are discussing treating people who arrive at the door of the health service, people who are already here.

So we should only treat for free anyone capable of making it to the UK?

> We're not talking about importing people wholesale for free treatment but don't let that stop you moving the goalposts once someone engages with you.

The goalpost of how wide this "come one and all, and use the NHS for free" policy of yours had not been defined, so they remove unmoved. If you answer my question above we can start thinking about where the goalposts lie.

> We should and do contribute to the eradication of infectious disease around the world because we can and we benefit.

Now who is  moving the goalposts? We were talking about receiving treatment under the NHS in the UK?

 

6
Bellie on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Thread drift? ; )

DancingOnRock - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Irony?

I don’t see why this will affect any EU citizens. All their data is now electronic isn’t it?

jkarran - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> So we should only treat for free anyone capable of making it to the UK?

I think people arriving at the doors of the NHS should be treated free at the point of need. I don't care if a few people from elsewhere get treated as a result. It's not a difficult idea, I just don't care that a minuscule fraction of my taxes might be going toward that, I value the principal of a free and open society that doesn't challenge everyone's right to healthcare at every turn over the few quid a year maximum it might cost me. A cost which is far from certain anyway as administering checks will come with a significant direct and unknown indirect costs.

jk

jkarran - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Irony?

You're accusing someone opposed to brexit, our attempt to turn the clock back 40 years of misty eyed nostalgia, the irony can't have been missed on you.

> I don’t see why this will affect any EU citizens. All their data is now electronic isn’t it?

No, they'll be filling out forms, providing evidence of continual residency employment etc and there'll be no end of the cases where people can't and lives are disrupted. I couldn't evidence my residency adequately, I know because I've had to try in the past.

jk

Big Ger - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> I think people arriving at the doors of the NHS should be treated free at the point of need.

So do I. However, if they are not British nationals, and have not contributed to the funding of the NHS, then, following treatment, a reasonable charge should be levied.

We should also discourage people with pre-existing illnesses or disabilities from travelling to the UK in the hope of getting free treatment. Knowing a charge will be levied may help this..

 

 

 

4
French Erick - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Irony?

> I don’t see why this will affect any EU citizens. All their data is now electronic isn’t it?

I am not sure they are, almost everything I have done was not online except for booking my life in the UK test. 

Take passports for example, you have to send your passport to the home office (incidentally they admit that they cannot guarantee to give it back to you within at best 6 months). They (thankfully) offer an alternative to that which is to present yourself to defined registrar office with yours, they make photocopies of it, not scans. Then I had my all permanent residency files put into an envelop and sent. The cards they gave me for this is a paper, 3 folded one which harks back to the 80s. I very much doubt that any of that process has been digitised. And if so, who by? Home office must be absolutely swamped by this.

I have little trust in digitisation at the best of time, but in the hands of an "hostile environment" I just shudder to think about what can happen.

richnoggan - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

It's not the home office, it's the people in charge of it. That said, sure there's a bit of incompetence and some nasty people. Probably more than normal because - it's over worked and nice people typically won't want t be involved. But this isn't the real issue. The real issue is that the Tories really are nasty, and have nasty policies.

 

 

Postmanpat on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/18/windrush-scandal-heartbreaking-should-not-used-excuse-stop-sensible/

An interesting take in this article, which quotes Jack Straw as essentially saying that the Home Office is so big and unwieldy that the Home Secretary cannot keep abreast of all the cock ups going on. Hmm, maybe that's why it takes the DM to point them out but I find it hard to believe that May didn't know..

 

Two other points about the opposition to the "hostile environment " policy.

"Their first reason is political: Labour want to blame Tory “callousness”. The trouble with this explanation is that the approach began under Labour Home Secretaries. In 2007, John Reid said “living and working here illegally” should become “ever more uncomfortable and constrained”. Under Alan Johnson, the Border Agency said it would “make the UK a hostile environment” for illegal immigrants.

The second reason is many campaigners oppose controlling and reducing immigration. Partisan academics, immigration lawyers, Labour lefties and even liberal Tories find the very idea of immigration control distasteful. Unable to win the argument for mass immigration, they adopt the tactic of cynical obfuscation."

 

   The trouble with the whole thing is that since for decades the UK had little idea who was entering let alone leaving the country, any attempt to reduce the number of immigrants was going to be dependent on attacking the "low hanging fruit", which is what they did , and that helped meet artificial "targets" but was deeply unfair and missed the real problems.

 

Post edited at 11:46
2
RomTheBear on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> So do I. However, if they are not British nationals, and have not contributed to the funding of the NHS, then, following treatment, a reasonable charge should be levied.

> We should also discourage people with pre-existing illnesses or disabilities from travelling to the UK in the hope of getting free treatment. Knowing a charge will be levied may help this..

Absolutely fine and reasonable. But to do that properly you need a centralised, mandatory, ID system for everybody who lives in the country (as they do in most of continental Europe).

Otherwise you end up with the current situation: people present themselves to the NHS and if they "look" foreign we ask them for ID/ proof they do not have and are more required, by law, to have.

 

RomTheBear on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Irony?

> I don’t see why this will affect any EU citizens. All their data is now electronic isn’t it?

Yes it's all electronic the problem is that it's broken ;-)

They are planning to use DWP/HMRC data automatically to check that people are entitled to settled status.

But guess what, this data, like any dataset,  is full of blanks and inaccuracies, so it is pretty much guaranteed that many will be rejected by mistake, causing them to fall accidentally, and wrongfully, in the "hostile environment", losing driving license, jobs, frozen bank account, detention, deportation, etc etc. 

Plus many people are not on DWP/HMRC database but have been on the country legally for decades nevertheless, and they may not have kept evidence of their stay, given that they didn't need to.

Of course the only way the home office can ensure that none of the potentially 3 millions + applications gets wrongly rejected would be to use discretion to pretty much always issue settled status without too many questions, in which case fraudsters/ scammers/ illegal immigrants will inevitably abuse the scheme.

And now, in the light of that, you realise that freedom of movement is actually a pretty great system.

Post edited at 12:12
Bob Kemp - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

It's all a bit confused isn't it? Theresa was on holiday when the 'go home' van was authorised... it was all Labour's idea to make life difficult for immigrants, not us at all... but then again ministers are right to make life difficult for immigrants... Of course he was pretty closely involved in developing the hostile environment policy, so there's more than a little self-interest here. 

Your point about low-hanging fruit rings true in the context of Home Office failings. The normal systems of controlling illegal immigrants appear to have broken down, so the hostile environment becomes an easy way of achieving some measure of control - or at least appearing to have some measure of control. 

Bob Kemp - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> This is a minor blip affecting a few hundred, maybe thousand people. It’s being blown out of all proportion by the hand wringers. Won’t someone think of the children...

Using the term 'hand-wringer' in this largely civilised discussion suggests you feel you have lost the argument - why else resort to invective and insult? (I'm surprised you didn't go for the full monty: how about 'politically correct snowflake hand wringer'?)

 

Rigid Raider - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Topically there was an interview on R4 this morning at about 7.40, which I wish I knew how to link on here. The BBC interviewed a retired employee of the old UK Immigration Service who confirmed that yes, Immigration officers were considered sufficiently experienced and would often be involved in detailed interviews with non-UK citizens either at ports of entry or in places of residence following which, they were allowed to make judgement calls. With the disbanding of UK Immigration, eventually replaced by UK Visas and Immigration, older more expeienced officers were replaced by others with no experience who were not allowed to exercise discretion. He also said that the story about the landing cards was a red herring as they would have been filled in by hand, sometimes in illegible writing with plenty of inaccuracies and mis-spellings of names and hence useless. 

wbo - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:as a point of curiosity how does it work for people from Australia or who have spent most of their working life there?

 

To Dancing on rock : if decrying 'hand wringing' is what we get then maybe youre heading to a country not really worth having.  

 

DancingOnRock - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Make up your mind, is it an argument or a discussion?

DancingOnRock - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to wbo:

The problem is we don’t have a government or a media with a measured response to anything. 

As soon as there is a perceived problem you have a media that go on the offensive, whip up the population into a frenzy and demand that something is done.

Then the government panic and carry out knee jerk reactions and bad policies. 

 

Post edited at 14:14
DancingOnRock - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

Yes. There are still a few people around who speak reasonable sense. 

Bob Kemp - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Make up your mind, is it an argument or a discussion?

I'm talking about an argument within the larger discussion. 

Postmanpat on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> It's all a bit confused isn't it? Theresa was on holiday when the 'go home' van was authorised... it was all Labour's idea to make life difficult for immigrants, not us at all... but then again ministers are right to make life difficult for immigrants... Of course he was pretty closely involved in developing the hostile environment policy, so there's more than a little self-interest here. 

>

  Clearly he is not a disinterested observer but nor are most of the critics. A lot of sounds of axes being ground. And it's confused because it is confused I guess, both the facts and their interpretation.

  The point is that when you announce a "hostile environment" you need to know exactly what you mean, who is being targetted and how it is executed. It seems that neither party's government did these basic things.

Big Ger - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to wbo:

> as a point of curiosity how does it work for people from Australia or who have spent most of their working life there?

How does what work?

 

1
Bob Kemp - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Clearly he is not a disinterested observer but nor are most of the critics. A lot of sounds of axes being ground. And it's confused because it is confused I guess, both the facts and their interpretation.

>   The point is that when you announce a "hostile environment" you need to know exactly what you mean, who is being targetted and how it is executed. It seems that neither party's government did these basic things.

That's clear. Ill thought through strategies, no regard for unforeseen consequences - on both sides. That quote about the Home Office is interesting - it was also in yesterday's Guardian live blog. I can't remember who first said it, but the Home Office is often described as the graveyard of political ambition - I'd say it's a minefield too.

Bellie on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

My understanding is that the current government has taken responsibility. The timeline clearly shows when the problems started to occur and Amber Rudd has acknowledged a policy failing in this case. so I'm not sure why people are trying to reverse back to a time when the immigration act was different and the policy on processing cases wasnt the same.

I've no problem in a strong approach to enforcing a policy, if it is flexible enough to allow the correction of obvious faults. Computer says no, should never be the default.

 

Post edited at 15:06
Bob Kemp - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

A skewering of that Nick Timothy Telegraph piece you posted earlier - 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/04/19-questions-nick-timothy-about-his-defence-his-former-boss-theresa-may

"19. Have you spoken to the prime minister recently, to check that she thinks you are helping?"

elsewhere on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

wbo: "> as a point of curiosity how does it work for people from Australia or who have spent most of their working life there?"

> How does what work?

You may not be covered by the NHS.  My expat siblings aren't. I don't know the time limit after you leave UK or how long you have to be back resident in the UK to regain NHS cover.

You might have to pay, get insurance, hope nobody asks or hope there is an arrangement for Oz . 

 

Post edited at 15:17
tom_in_edinburgh - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The govt was simply attempting to eliminate an area of fraud.  The issues was portrayed to the public by the HE sector as a gross indecency, a violation of human rights and dignity, and one step removed from a pogrom.  Its little wonder that governments start to take complaints less seriously when this is the ideologically driven response to perfectly valid requests.

It was a typical small minded Tory bollocks rule.  My wife teaches in a Russell group Uni and it is f*cking ridiculous the way they are made to keep tabs on students.  University isn't school and it isn't a job: you are supposed to be studying because you want to learn and you are supposed to have freedom to manage your time.   Independence is part of what they are learning.  Academics are supposed to be academics i.e. specialists who spend as much time as possible on research to advance their subject not glorified school teachers taking registers and checking when post grads go on holiday.

They only need this kind of sh*t because of Theresa May's stupid targets and because they let everyone and their brother call themselves a University.  The actual Universities are hard enough to get into there isn't a problem but to be 'fair' they apply the same rules to Edinburgh or Oxford as some two year old 'private University' and waste a lot of intelligent people's time.

Post edited at 16:11
1
Big Ger - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

> You may not be covered by the NHS.  My expat siblings aren't. I don't know the time limit after you leave UK or how long you have to be back resident in the UK to regain NHS cover.

I've fully paid up NI contributions, and have registered with a GP and received great service.

> You might have to pay, get insurance, hope nobody asks or hope there is an arrangement for Oz . 

Even if the above were not the case;

Many Australians travellers who are covered by Medicare in Australia, may be unaware that they are entitled to reciprocal health care from a GP in the UK on the NHS.  You are entitled to be treated by a doctor as an NHS patient & the cost of the consultation & prescription medicine prescribed by the doctor will be covered by the NHS the same as if you are a UK Resident. The Australian Medicare website now confirms this reciprocal health care agreement information very clearly.

 

1
elsewhere on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Let's hope you don't get checked and denied despite your eligibility then.

Pan Ron - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It was a typical small minded Tory bollocks rule. 

That's one view.  The other is that taking a class register is the bare minimum that could be expected and currently exercised to account for people on student visas.  Otherwise there is zero oversight.  The class register issue has value above simple visa requirements - there are pastoral issues too.

What else would you propose?  That we simply allow anyone who gets a student visa to come to the UK and do anything they want?  That helps no-one and privileges those who can get here and apply.

The argument that you can simply not bother turning up to any classes is a joke.  Well, actually, it isn't - I think lectures are pointless.  But university lecturers can't have it both ways; on one hand claiming their delivery of lectures has value and should be paid for, and then claim students do not need to attend any of them. The "not glorified school teachers" argument, that they are above taking class registers, or having their holiday allowance monitored is the height of arrogance.  The whole argument struck me as academics looking for reasons to oppose the demand as it backed up their anti-Tory ideology.

There are an estimated 1 million illegals in the UK with 70-80k new illegals arriving every year.  The solution seems to be to do nothing because someone will get inconvenienced/hurt in the process. 

 

2
Bellie on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

Id say being refused cancer treatment is more than just an inconvenience. Especially when youve paid ni for every year you have been in the country legally,

Do something, but do it right, and with enough staff to cope with the job in the first place. 

 

Pan Ron - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

It most certainly is.  But you are dealing with a huge bureaucratic structure that deals with millions of people and an influx of tens of thousands of blatantly illegal migrants.  There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater; some kind of hard line is needed to stem that and it seems a series of individual cases (in this instance someone denied what was apparently "non-urgent" treatment) is being used to damn an entire system.

If we aren't going to have a "hostile environment" towards illegals, what do we have instead? What do you propose?  How many staff do you need to ensure these cases don't happen? 

Its all very well saying we must do things better, but doing it better, or indeed doing it well, would mean 70 to 80 thousand extra deportations.  What would be the Guardian's response to that?

 

Bellie on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

It doesnt need to be done better, just right. If you look at the additions to the criteria that have now been added to the list of evidence, it wasnt that hard to do. 

And heres a thought, if as the government say, it was never intended to target the legal 'Windrush' generation, then an amendment in parliament to the immigration bill... You know the bit they removed the other year would do it.

And again you miss the point, the outcry is not against the deportation of illegal immigrants, its the attempt to deport legally settled residents of this country.

 

 

Post edited at 18:09
Pete Pozman - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> “Your Country”?

> Get used to it, things move on, if you don’t adapt then you stagnate and get left behind. I worry that there are large numbers of people in this country who want to turn the clock back to a time when they were young and naive and everything was roses. Well, that time never exsisted. 

> This is a minor blip affecting a few hundred, maybe thousand people. It’s being blown out of all proportion by the hand wringers. Won’t someone think of the children...

You know what? That's exactly what I would say about Brexiters. Let's get back to the time when passports were blue, there were proper Imperial weights and measures and  £ s and d, to when you didn't have to listen to people speaking Polish on street corners and could say Kraut and Frog and everybody laughed, to when you could refuse lodgings to Black and Irish people and we had an Empire that had to buy our stuff.

I don't want roses,I want wisdom and tolerance, strong alliances with our neighbours and the feeling of being part of something progressive and a force for peace. It feels like this country is being left behind. Like we've pulled the cord and forced the train to stop at a redundant station so we can all get off and wave the future goodbye.

Give it some thought Dancing on Rock

 

Big Ger - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

> Let's hope you don't get checked and denied despite your eligibility then.

It's highly unlikely isn't it?

1
Big Ger - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> You know what? That's exactly what I would say about Brexiters. Let's get back to the time when passports were blue, there were proper Imperial weights and measures and  £ s and d, to when you didn't have to listen to people speaking Polish on street corners and could say Kraut and Frog and everybody laughed, to when you could refuse lodgings to Black and Irish people and we had an Empire that had to buy our stuff.

You have a wonderful fantasy life don't you? Childlike in its innocence and lack of worldliness, Do you think all these imaginary people have unicorns too?

> I don't want roses,I want wisdom and tolerance, strong alliances with our neighbours and the feeling of being part of something progressive and a force for peace. It feels like this country is being left behind. Like we've pulled the cord and forced the train to stop at a redundant station so we can all get off and wave the future goodbye.

Maybe if you gave up fantasising about others and their views in such a such strange and silly way as you've posted above, you may make some leeway.

 

Post edited at 18:48
9
RomTheBear on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> There are an estimated 1 million illegals in the UK with 70-80k new illegals arriving every year.  The solution seems to be to do nothing because someone will get inconvenienced/hurt in the process. 

No, the solution is to introduce mandatory IDs for everybody, then you know who is who and whether they are entitled, or just don't have the hostile environment. But one without the other doesn't work for obvious practical reason.

In the current system you can be a British citizen and still get deported/ detained/ refused treatment etc etc just because you look foreign and can't prove your status. That's not an "inconvenience", it's pretty much as serious as it gets.

Post edited at 18:49
Pan Ron - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

The deportations or denial of services to existing citizens are rare events, nothing more than blips. 

Passports are IDs but it seems some people don't want them.  IDs are already a requirement for student visa holders, and probably many other visa holders.  But the last time we tried to institute IDs more broadly it didn't seem too popular with the bleeding hearts, and the students can have IDs coming out of their ears - it doesn't make much difference if we don't actually check if they are even attending classes (a legal requirement of their visa).  

Someone above said the issue here is the specific treatment of the "Windrush" group.  I don't think that's the case.  It feels like their case is being used, escalated out of all proportion, to hit the Tories where it hurts (the heartless party).  I say that as a vehement opponent of the Conservatives.  There is political opportunism here.  The Labour party is probably lucky in this regard; they will never do anything about illegal immigration and only too happy to have the expanded voter base.  Very easy to point the finger at others who are having to mop up a mess you don't want to deal with.

3
wercat on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> And heres a thought, if as the government say, it was never intended to target the legal 'Windrush' generation,

There simply isn't any excuse for this.   The only way actually to admit responsibility for this shambles involves doing what honourable politicians do when they've caused monumental harm to people.

Those days have gone, replaced by interesting times

Post edited at 19:32
Ridge - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> It's highly unlikely isn't it?

Why? There are British citizens who have been in this country longer than you have, who have NI and NHS numbers, who have paid taxes for 40 odd years, and who are being deported.

All in needs is a bit of retrospective legislation to stop those parasitic ex-pats who are returning to the UK to bleed the NHS dry in their dotage...

Bellie on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

Well its not the case for you as you insist on mentioning anything but.

It does you no credit to call ordinary folk out for getting upset when - and I'm on repeat here, they get pissed at their government for labelling legally settled citizens of this country as illegal immigrants and subject them to control and possible deportation.

 

Ridge - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, the solution is to introduce mandatory IDs for everybody, then you know who is who and whether they are entitled, or just don't have the hostile environment. But one without the other doesn't work for obvious practical reason.

> In the current system you can be a British citizen and still get deported/ detained/ refused treatment etc etc just because you look foreign and can't prove your status. That's not an "inconvenience", it's pretty much as serious as it gets.

Never thought I'd be in total and complete agreement with you, Rom!

Pete Pozman - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> You have a wonderful fantasy life don't you? Childlike in its innocence and lack of worldliness, Do you think all these imaginary people have unicorns too?

> Maybe if you gave up fantasising about others and their views in such a such strange and silly way as you've posted above, you may make some leeway.

That's not like you Big. You're usually more controlled . I often express myself in figurative language. Don't you remember ? 

RomTheBear on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The deportations or denial of services to existing citizens are rare events, nothing more than blips. 

I can tell you with absolute certainty that you are completely mistaken. This happens every single day, for many people. MPs and charities deal with cases like that all the time, this isn't new at all. It just seems to hit the media now.

> Someone above said the issue here is the specific treatment of the "Windrush" group.  I don't think that's the case.  It feels like their case is being used, escalated out of all proportion, to hit the Tories where it hurts (the heartless party).  I say that as a vehement opponent of the Conservatives.  There is political opportunism here.  The Labour party is probably lucky in this regard; they will never do anything about illegal immigration and only too happy to have the expanded voter base.  Very easy to point the finger at others who are having to mop up a mess you don't want to deal with.

You are right on one thing the Windrush case is being used politically, probably because this slightly condescending faux empathy for citizens of the "good old empire" plays well with the daily mail sensitivity and suddenly this becomes a public issue, but this is only the tip of the iceberg, such issues have been rife for years for many people, of diverse nationalities, most of the time voiceless and forgotten. Look at my previous posts on UKC I've been barking about the explosion of such problem for years... 

Post edited at 22:00
DancingOnRock - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I didn’t realise you were posting about Brexit earlier. 

I’m bored with Brexit now. I just want them to get on with it and move on. I have no interest in turning the clock back to a time before we had freedom of movement. I want to move forward to a time where we have freedom of movement and services but aren’t told which people and services we must accept by people we haven’t elected. 

11
Bob Kemp - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The deportations or denial of services to existing citizens are rare events, nothing more than blips. 

So are you saying these events can be ignored simply because they are rare? What's your threshold for caring about events that ruin lives then? When do they become more than blips? 

Bob Kemp - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I want to move forward to a time where we have freedom of movement and services but aren’t told which people and services we must accept by people we haven’t elected. 

What freedom of movement? Not after Brexit.

 

Bob Kemp - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

 

> Its all very well saying we must do things better, but doing it better, or indeed doing it well, would mean 70 to 80 thousand extra deportations.  

Source please. There's no credibility for this point without one

 

aln - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> That's not like you Big. You're usually more controlled .

You think? Maybe you don't know his posting history. 

tom_in_edinburgh - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> What else would you propose?  That we simply allow anyone who gets a student visa to come to the UK and do anything they want?  That helps no-one and privileges those who can get here and apply.

Yes.  If someone gets an offer from a good University then let them come and don't waste effort checking on them.   It may be hard to believe but people with an acceptance from Cambridge don't generally see it as passport to a low paid job.

The immigration problem is way down at the bottom end of the market and dodgy new private Universities.  You don't need to police the institutions which don't have a problem 'to make it fair' to those that do.

> The argument that you can simply not bother turning up to any classes is a joke.  Well, actually, it isn't - I think lectures are pointless.  But university lecturers can't have it both ways; on one hand claiming their delivery of lectures has value and should be paid for, and then claim students do not need to attend any of them. 

The lectures and access to lecturers are provided to help students learn: the exams and practicals are there to determine if the student has learned.   You don't get a degree for showing up, you get a degree for passing the assessment.   There's no reason to check where the student is all the time: it is up to them if they make use of the learning opportunities they have paid for.   Having lots of freedom and deciding how best to use their time is one of the skills they should be learning.

> There are an estimated 1 million illegals in the UK with 70-80k new illegals arriving every year.  The solution seems to be to do nothing because someone will get inconvenienced/hurt in the process. 

Are you saying students at Russell group Universities are some kind of economic threat to the country?  We are bloody lucky to have them paying us for their education and if they stay so much the better.  

 

DancingOnRock - on 19 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

There will be. Don’t you worry about that. 

2
neilh - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

 What you are saying is that you are elite and you should be exempt from these guidelines which apply to everyone else. Crazy.

made me laugh on what is a serious issue.

Big Ger - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Ridge:

> Why? There are British citizens who have been in this country longer than you have, who have NI and NHS numbers, who have paid taxes for 40 odd years, and who are being deported.

Are there? Or are there people who cannot prove their status, awho are under threat of being deported. Have you actually followed this news or are you just showing us your prejudices?

> All in needs is a bit of retrospective legislation to stop those parasitic ex-pats who are returning to the UK to bleed the NHS dry in their dotage...

Best of luck with that. You truly are of the left, you'd happily exclude anyone who thinks or believes differently to you,  Hang about, aren't you lot supposed to be against excluding people from other countries? Somewhat hypocritical of you to say the least.

Post edited at 07:25
9
Big Ger - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> That's not like you Big. You're usually more controlled . I often express myself in figurative language. Don't you remember ? 

The trouble is your "figurative language", (in this case,) was so silly it sounded like a parody of a remainer's accusations.

2
Bellie on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

To be fair Big G, I'm never quite sure how much of what you write is what you believe, or a finger prod wind-up of those lefties you hold in disdain. Coupled with the umpteen copy and paste quotes often included, sometimes makes for a bit of deciphering

Not a dig fella, just an observation. 

 

krikoman - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Are there? Or are there people who cannot prove their status, awho are under threat of being deported. Have you actually followed this news or are you just showing us your prejudices?

There are people who have been paying tax and NI for over 40 years, but this wasn't considered good enough evidence. So let's stop them working, and let's stop their access to health benefits, and let's keep them in a worried state for a long time while we "sort" this out.

TM 22nd Oct 2013 " “Secondly, we will extend the number of non-suspensive appeals so that, where there is no risk of serious and irreversible harm, we can deport first and hear appeals later."

 

Bellie on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

Worth adding that once asked to prove. It was down to the individual to produce 160 pieces of evidence. 4 for each year since 1973. Which didnt include work history, or ni. You know, the things that the home office could access.  Its no wonder these folk got in a state. 

We show peices on news sites how oaps get stressed and upset when a utility company sends a hige bill out by mistake, and takes years to admit the computer error.  I cant imagine the frustration at trying to deal with an official batting you off time and time again, including your family, when you are able to show and prove your legal status, but now in the system, get told to include it in that wad of 160+ documents.

 

 

French Erick - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> The problem is we don’t have a government or a media with a measured response to anything. 

> As soon as there is a perceived problem you have a media that go on the offensive, whip up the population into a frenzy and demand that something is done.

> Then the government panic and carry out knee jerk reactions and bad policies. 

I agree to a certain extent with this in that it is difficult to promote openness if you know you will be shot in flame no matter what... however, that is only valid if you want change and were not malicious in the first place.

There "may" exist a need to limit/control migration (and by the way emigration too) but trying to create an administrative "hostile environment" is not OK by the standards we hold dear in this country and thus they deserve to be shot in flames. That they do kneejerking or not is completely irrelevant to me. Looking at the Government and its doings (BTW I also felt betrayed by Labour when they started that for electorate opportunism) this is the closest I have ever been to thinking that we had white supremacists in places of influence...not a happy thought. Remember I come from France where the FN has managed disgraceful levels of following.

Big Ger - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> To be fair Big G, I'm never quite sure how much of what you write is what you believe, or a finger prod wind-up of those lefties you hold in disdain. Coupled with the umpteen copy and paste quotes often included, sometimes makes for a bit of deciphering

To tell would be to break the mystery...

> Not a dig fella, just an observation. 

No worries....

 

1
Big Ger - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> There are people who have been paying tax and NI for over 40 years, but this wasn't considered good enough evidence. So let's stop them working, and let's stop their access to health benefits, and let's keep them in a worried state for a long time while we "sort" this out.

There is one example of where this may have happened. But seeing as the gentleman involved does not want his real name published it's a bit hard to fathom.

A spokesperson for the Royal Marsden hospital said: “Mr Thompson’s cancer specialist is arranging for Mr Thompson to come into the clinic for the next stage of his NHS treatment.”

> TM 22nd Oct 2013 " “Secondly, we will extend the number of non-suspensive appeals so that, where there is no risk of serious and irreversible harm, we can deport first and hear appeals later."

Yes, and?

 

Post edited at 09:49
2
tom_in_edinburgh - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to neilh:

>  What you are saying is that you are elite and you should be exempt from these guidelines which apply to everyone else. Crazy.

Universities ran perfectly happily for hundreds of years without these bullsh*t guidelines.  They understand how to get the best from highly motivated and intelligent people and one of the attractions of working for a University or being a student is freedom to manage your time and not be checked up on.   What is the benefit in making University life less attractive and Universities less efficient?    

Of course different people and careers should have different guidelines applied to them.  You don't manage Stephen Hawking the same way as a cook in a restaurant.  It is just common sense.

1
krikoman - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> There is one example of where this may have happened. But seeing as the gentleman involved does not want his real name published it's a bit hard to fathom.

> A spokesperson for the Royal Marsden hospital said: “Mr Thompson’s cancer specialist is arranging for Mr Thompson to come into the clinic for the next stage of his NHS treatment.”

Your example is from a man who was refused treatment, but how many more have been affected by this but not needed any treatment from the NHS, even though they've been paying tax and NI for a number of years?

> Yes, and?

Yes, and hardly compassionate and caring is it? "Yes, and!!" WTF!

 

1
jkarran - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The deportations or denial of services to existing citizens are rare events, nothing more than blips. 

Sure in the same way that if somebody shot you in the face it'd be a rare event, nothing but a blip in the crime statistics.

> Passports are IDs but it seems some people don't want them.

Some people: don't need them, can't afford them, cant get them despite eligibility

> Someone above said the issue here is the specific treatment of the "Windrush" group.  I don't think that's the case.  It feels like their case is being used, escalated out of all proportion, to hit the Tories where it hurts (the heartless party).

They've hardly made it difficult. I'm just surprised its Caribbean immigrants the press and the public have finally united behind, we've heard enough ridiculous stories of valuable productive people being deported on silly technicalities over the years I do wonder why it's this one that has gathered momentum. Whatever, it's long overdue.

jk

1
Bob Kemp - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> There will be. Don’t you worry about that. 

That's a pointless response. I asked you for a source, that's all. There's no need for redundant rhetoric. 

DancingOnRock - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

No you didn’t. 

Bob Kemp - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> There is one example of where this may have happened. But seeing as the gentleman involved does not want his real name published it's a bit hard to fathom.

There isn't just one example of people being stopped from working. There are a number of cases reported - eg. here - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/15/why-the-children-of-windrush-demand-an-immigration-amnesty

The Home Office hasn't issued any authoritative statistics as to how many cases there are, which would be useful. 

 

1
Bob Kemp - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Sorry, getting you mixed up with Pan Ron. It's not clear which of my posts you were replying to.

Ridge - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Are there? Or are there people who cannot prove their status, awho are under threat of being deported. Have you actually followed this news or are you just showing us your prejudices?

Could you prove your status to the level of proof required of these 'people'? I suspect I couldn't easily round up 4 pieces of documentary evidence for each of the last 40 years, especially if I'm simultaneously trying to get hospital treatment and avoid deportation.

This is about double standards. The prejudice is that dusky-hued people apparently need to prove their status to a far higher standard of proof than the rest of the population, who, like me, are automatically assumed to be British when they turn up at A&E.

> Best of luck with that. You truly are of the left, you'd happily exclude anyone who thinks or believes differently to you,  Hang about, aren't you lot supposed to be against excluding people from other countries? Somewhat hypocritical of you to say the least.

I'm actually probably more to the right than you are, (my solution to the Hither Green situation would be to hang the burglars body from a lampost on some derelict industrial estate where the relatives could pile up stolen flowers to their hearts content without bothering decent people..).

It's interesting you've chucked your teddy out of the pram about a hypothetical scenario where you're on the receiving end of the sort of treatment you dream of being imposed on everyone else, and is actually happening to fellow citizens as we speak. Now that's hypocrisy.

Post edited at 12:42
1
Eric9Points - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

Yes, utterly utterly vindictive. To think that a British government could effectively deny access to health care to a British citizen is shocking and shameful. I struggle to understand the mentality of the turd who thought up a set of near impossible hurdles in order to screw to screw up the lives of their fellow citizens. It can't be rooted in anything other than naked racism.

In charge of this deliberately vindictive policy was Teresa May. Weak, ineffective and incompetent. She has to go.

1
neilh - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Everytime I take on a new employee I have to go through the same procedure as University's do.

Scrap the rules for all, its just common sense.Do not be elitist based on some paragon of virtue that you have not had to do it for hundred's of years with no issues.

Come to think of it scrap all the other checks/guidelines as well.

Tongue in cheek.

 

2
Big Ger - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> Your example is from a man who was refused treatment, but how many more have been affected by this but not needed any treatment from the NHS, even though they've been paying tax and NI for a number of years?

I don't know, do you?

> Yes, and hardly compassionate and caring is it? "Yes, and!!" WTF!

Well I'm sure we can all pull random things to be outraged at out of the ether, but do try and stay on topic.

 

3
Big Ger - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> There isn't just one example of people being stopped from working. There are a number of cases reported - eg. here - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/15/why-the-children-of-windrush-demand-an-immigration-amnesty

"A growing number of people who were born in the Caribbean and came to the UK as children during the 1950s and 60s have been experiencing severe problems with their immigration status because they have never formally naturalised or applied for a British passport"

It would seem that all of the people in that article have had their status verified .

> The Home Office hasn't issued any authoritative statistics as to how many cases there are, which would be useful. 

Yes it would.

 

Big Ger - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Ridge:

> Could you prove your status to the level of proof required of these 'people'? I suspect I couldn't easily round up 4 pieces of documentary evidence for each of the last 40 years, especially if I'm simultaneously trying to get hospital treatment and avoid deportation.

I have a British passport.

> This is about double standards. The prejudice is that dusky-hued people apparently need to prove their status to a far higher standard of proof than the rest of the population, who, like me, are automatically assumed to be British when they turn up at A&E.

The prejudice is against people who cannot prove, to the current standards, that they are entitled to benefits. Oh, and and one example of a person who has been turned down for cancer treatment by the Marseden hospital as they do not believe he is at the point where he requires it.

 

 

> It's interesting you've chucked your teddy out of the pram about a hypothetical scenario where you're on the receiving end of the sort of treatment you dream of being imposed on everyone else, and is actually happening to fellow citizens as we speak. Now that's hypocrisy.

Oh grow up, where I have I "chucked my (your) teddy out of the pram" FFS?

 

6
subtle on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> I have a British passport.

Good, what colour is it? What colour will it be when you renew it?

> The prejudice is against people who cannot prove, to the current standards, that they are entitled to benefits. 

Are you on benefits?

 

 

1
Bellie on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

According to his statement they told him it would cost him £54k, so I would say that he'd been shafted, given that he had paid NI contributions every year.

And lets be clear I think if everyone had the burden for proof shoved on them to the same degree, most would not be able to provide it either.

As for benefits, sometimes it was as simple as applying for a new bank account that triggered the interest.

 

DancingOnRock - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

NI has nothing to do with the NHS. 

Bellie on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Fair enough, stands corrected.  

I'll amend my point to read that as he states the NHS were seeking to charge him £54k for treatment, it wasnt a case of him being entitled, but not yet needing it. Thats whats been stated to my understanding.

 

 

Bob Kemp - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> "A growing number of people who were born in the Caribbean and came to the UK as children during the 1950s and 60s have been experiencing severe problems with their immigration status because they have never formally naturalised or applied for a British passport"

> It would seem that all of the people in that article have had their status verified .

After their 'harrowing experience', involving being stopped from working, incarcerated in immigration centres, rendered homeless etc.. 

 

1
elsewhere on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

By excluding tax & pension records it's almost as if they were making it deliberately difficult by making sure there were no easy cases resolved by tax records showing decades of employment.

It would be pretty unusual to have payslips, utility bills or bank statements going back 50 years.

Below is from BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43795077

The Home Office has put the onus on the individual to provide evidence.

It has not been using central tax and pension records, which could prove someone has been working, to support people's applications. Instead, the current system relies on people having kept their own documentation including payslips and bank statements.

Guidance published this week has softened the requirements, saying any evidence will be considered that helps to build a picture of someone's life in the UK including:

  • where you went to school
  • where you might have studied
  • where you have worked
  • whether you have family here
  • where you have lived while in the UK

 

Post edited at 15:01
1
Bob Kemp - on 20 Apr 2018

 In reply to elsewhere:

I wonder why they didn't want to use central records? (I know this may seem naive to some, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for now. Maybe there were perfectly good operational reasons - given the general tendencies of Government IT initiatives I wouldn't be surprised.)

Rob Exile Ward on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

How come I can enter my NI number and be told my pension eligibility, but some of the Windrush victims - who presumably have also been paying NI - can't use that as proof?

krikoman - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> NI has nothing to do with the NHS. 


Fair enough , except that if the country is willing to deduct money from you salary for 40+ years and then say you don't proof that you belong here, there seems to be something a little amiss.

Bellie on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/20/theresa-may-windrush-equality

Interesting article here.  Mentions how in fact most Labour MPs supported the 2014 act. Apart from folk like David Lammy, Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell. I do hope that those that did arent throwing too many stones.

 

Ridge - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> I have a British passport.

There's no legal requirement to have a passport. Plus there must be lots of people who have been able to fraudulently obtain British passports and birth certificates in the past when checks were more lax.

Perhaps we should introduce (hypothetical) retrospective legislation to remove birth certificates and passports issued prior to some arbitrary date from the "current standards" for proving entitlement to residency or access to services?

> The prejudice is against people who cannot prove, to the current standards, that they are entitled to benefits. 

Our (hypothetical) "current standards" have now changed, reckon you can meet them?

> Oh grow up, where I have I "chucked my (your) teddy out of the pram" FFS?

By frothing about imaginary 'lefties', and getting all"FFS", although I suspect your online persona is one big wind up.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> According to his statement they told him it would cost him £54k, so I would say that he'd been shafted, given that he had paid NI contributions every year.

I wonder if there is scope for a class action lawsuit seeking damages against the Home Office.  A lawsuit or public enquiry could get all the documents and e-mails from the responsible people inside the Home Office into the open.  

There is clearly a policy of trying to scare the sh*t out of immigrants (whether legal or not) so as many as possible leave and the headline immigration numbers get closer to Theresa May's target.   The incompetence and intransigence of staff and inefficiency of processes have been fostered by management because they want people to give up in despair and leave without actually being deported.

Because of this I'm not sure that anything less that UK citizenship will be enough to protect EU citizens in the UK against similar malicious actions by future Tory governments.

 

wercat on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Ridge:

you really shouldn't indulge it with your attention - with such totalitarian attitudes to the individual suffering at the hands of the state and his love of Brexit I think it likely that he is an "information troop"

Pete Pozman - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> The trouble is your "figurative language", (in this case,) was so silly it sounded like a parody of a remainer's accusations.

Brexiteers are often accused of believing in Unicorns. This is a cartoonish way of indicating their unrealistic expectations of the thing they voted for; whatever benefits they hope for will be as illusory as a zoo that has Unicorns in it  

I, on the other hand , am a snowflake which I take to indicate my hand wringing softness. Because snow is soft?

By the way, I have met plenty of people who voted Brexit precisely because they wanted to stick it to the foreigners. You're probably not like that. I hope . 

The Windrush shambles reveals that the UK is little better than Hungary. The Tories and, increasingly it seems, Labour , seem to see their best chance of securing power through blatantly treating "immigrants" badly. They use the Brexit vote to confirm that. 

rocksol - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

The act was against illegal immigration and pure stupidity created the current mayhem People should be compensated and fast tracked to U.K. Citizenship I don't believe at all that Windrush were calculatingly targeted Lets remember UK is most culturally diverse population in Europe and following Brexit if their services are required people can move here from anywhere in the World which is currently difficult and subject to EU law

2
Bob Kemp - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to rocksol:

> and following Brexit if their services are required people can move here from anywhere in the World which is currently difficult and subject to EU law

Are you saying that one point of Brexit was to make it easier for people anywhere in the world to move here. Including Europe, or not Europe but the rest of the world instead? And what was the problem with EU law and people from outside Europe moving here to work? 

tom_in_edinburgh - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to neilh:

> Everytime I take on a new employee I have to go through the same procedure as University's do.

It isn't about the paperwork to take on a new employee or student. 

It is about 'clocking in and out' style timekeeping with register taken for every class and every meeting booked on a computer because the Home Office wants record keeping to show that highly qualified non-UK students and staff are attending and haven't pissed off to take a job in Tesco.

Pete Pozman - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Every school I go into has a "British Values" display. It seemed sinister when the government started to insist on it a few years ago. In the context of "Windrush" it seems even more as if this country is very much going in the wrong direction.

If this is "British Values" they can stick 'em. Of course I can say what I like because I'm retired. A person in employment has much less freedom to speak...

French Erick - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Governments, here and anywhere in western society do not have any issues with quatari millionaires and other oligarchs. They don't ask them any proof for them to stay because they are rich. In fact, the kidology of it all is that it is not where you come from but are you rich enough to be amongst us.

Sean Kelly - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

It's taken a while to respond to this topic but the problem has been ongoing for a lot longer than people think. Most press reporting is going back to 2009 and the coalition government's decision to 'burn' the original boarding cards for migrants to this country. However in 1981 my father had been invited to travel over to Canada to see his sister for the first time in 60 years. It was considered interesting enough to feature on Canadian TV. The only fly in the ointment was the Passport Office. He arrived from Ireland  in 1919 to go to board at a prestigious British public school in Kent, (the rest of his family had emigrated to Canada). After school he joined the British Army and stayed for 21 years. This included the WW2. Upon discharge he moved to Birmingham and shortly afterwards was closely involved in the Cadet Corp for another 20 years, rising to a WO1 instructor. Throughout his time  outside the Army he was in continuous employment as a highly skilled jeweller working in precious metals (silver and gold). The bottom line was that the British government wouldn't grant him a British Passport to visit his sister in Canada. He had been a resident over here for 60+ years. Ireland didn't gain independence from Britain until 1921. He didn't feel bitter about the way he was treated but I certainly did! 

Eric9Points - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

 

> Interesting article here.  Mentions how in fact most Labour MPs supported the 2014 act. Apart from folk like David Lammy, Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell. I do hope that those that did arent throwing too many stones.

In fact they were whipped to abstain

If you don't mind I'll do a cut and paste which explains what happened as it's a bit complicated.

"...For example during Committee Stage we were successful in amending the bill to include important measures, such as greater capacity to challenge sham marriages, better protection for tenancies for those subject to immigration proceedings, and many other items.

We attempted to amend a range of other issues but were not successful. The government of the day also chose to bring in a huge range of amendments at Report Stage, which is highly unusual, and there was insufficient time for proper parliamentary scrutiny of these changes.

Very few bills are 100% bad or 100% good. Often we can say a bill is good enough to receive our support, or bad enough to receive our opposition, but sometimes it is neither. And abstention in that final case is a perfectly logical choice.

The Immigration Act 2014 was far more than the single clause which stripped Windrush immigrants of their rights. Pretending that it was, and pretending that only those who voted against the whole bill were actually opposed to that provision, is unfair and unreasonable."

The MPs who voted against were: Diane Abbott Jonathan Edwards Mark Lazarowicz John Leech Elfyn Llwyd Caroline Lucas Angus Brendan MacNeil Fiona Mactaggart John McDonnell Angus Robertson Dennis Skinner Sarah Teather David Ward Mike Weir Eilidh Whiteford Pete Wishart, 

 

It's not really the point though. The Bill did not include details of how vindictive the behaviour of the Home Office would be. It was only during the implementation of the bill that officials and ministers decided exactly how they would behave and as it turned they devised a policy of vindictive awkwardness that has brought misery to many many British citizens. That policy must have been signed off by the Home secretary, the Rt Hon Teresa May.

That's why she should resign.

Pan Ron - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

"Britain has an illegal immigration problem. It has been overshadowed by arguments about historically high levels of legal immigration. But there are probably close to 1 million people living in the UK illegally and they are being added to at the rate of 70,000 or 80,000 a year – a combination of visa over-stayers (40,000 to 50,000), people smuggled in on lorries (10,000) and people refused asylum who nevertheless stay (about 20,000)."

David Goodhardt: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/17/home-office-incompetence-windrush-no-reason-end-hostile-environment/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

Pan Ron - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I can assure you the-non attendance of classes and using university as an excuse to get in to the country and then overstay is not limited to lower-order universities.  

You seem to be implying that nothing should be done about people intentionally defrauding the system.  So long as you can get a student visa, and are therefore not turned away at Heathrow when you arrive with 2 suitcases of life belongings, it is ok?  How does that hold up against all the people who would equally love to come here and abide by their visa terms but do not have the option?

1
Pan Ron - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to neilh:

And academics protesting about pensions are surprised that folk don't give them more support.  They really do seem to feel they are in a class of their own, normal rules that everyone else can abide by don't apply to them...because its all too onerous.

4
Eric9Points - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> You seem to be implying that nothing should be done about people intentionally defrauding the system.  So long as you can get a student visa, and are therefore not turned away at Heathrow when you arrive with 2 suitcases of life belongings, it is ok?  How does that hold up against all the people who would equally love to come here and abide by their visa terms but do not have the option?

If it comes to a choice between allowing a few "students" to squander a few years of their lives in Britain and seriously screwing up the lives of British citizens then I'll let the students in.

What is really so terrible about a limited number of people living in this country without permission. can you spell it out to me because I can't figure it out myself.

Bob Kemp - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> "Britain has an illegal immigration problem. It has been overshadowed by arguments about historically high levels of legal immigration. But there are probably close to 1 million people living in the UK illegally and they are being added to at the rate of 70,000 or 80,000 a year – a combination of visa over-stayers (40,000 to 50,000), people smuggled in on lorries (10,000) and people refused asylum who nevertheless stay (about 20,000)."

> Its all very well saying we must do things better, but doing it better, or indeed doing it well, would mean 70 to 80 thousand extra deportations.  

Thanks - I see, what you're doing is extrapolating from the estimated number of illegal immigrants per year to claim that deportations will run at the same rate. I don't think it would work quite like that. There's a technical point here about what counts as a deportation for one thing, (which I don't think has been mentioned in this discussion), which is that deportations are not the same thing as voluntary removals - which would be like visa over-stayers being found and then leaving of their own accord. Also some of those refused asylum may appeal, which would distort things, so one way or another your figure isn't likely to be accurate. 

To get back to your original point, what would the Guardian think? Well, I don't know about now, but in 2014 their position was this:

"There is instead a dilemma, admittedly a truly difficult one, which most destination countries have failed to fully address. For all kinds of reasons, both political and economic, developed societies cannot take in as many migrants as would come were there no impediment. Nor, if they could, would that be a good solution for the sending societies, which would risk being hollowed out in certain age and skill categories."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/04/guardian-view-rising-illegal-immigration

So  they might not be quite as opposed to deportations as you seem to think. They would be more concerned about fair play and justice, of which there has been a conspicuous lack in the Windrush case. 

 

tom_in_edinburgh - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I can assure you the-non attendance of classes and using university as an excuse to get in to the country and then overstay is not limited to lower-order universities.  

Why in the name of f*ck would someone smart work their arse off for years at school to get the exam results to get into a top University and then pay (in the case of Edinburgh) at least £18,800 in fees for the first year because they wanted to sneak in the UK and get a sh*tty non-graduate job.   

They wouldn't: there are an awful lot easier ways of sneaking in to the UK, like coming as a tourist and overstaying.  They are very determined and motivated people who go to that amount of effort and expense because they want the education and the degree and the career that comes from having the degree.

The anti-immigration lobby need to extract their head from their ar*e and realise that we are bl**dy lucky to attract people like that and if we make their life difficult there are plenty of other countries that would like their money and skills.

wercat on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

What you don't know is they are British values, from the time when only the rich could vote, people were transported, husbands and wives falling into poverty were separated in the workhouse and all of a married women's property became the husband's on marriage

Pan Ron - on 20 Apr 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

Its not an issue of students squandering years.  It is a case of them coming here, sometimes with no intention of studying but using the student visa as a means to access the country when they would otherwise be turned away.

You might not care about people jumping queues, about the morality of rewarding those who cheat the system.  But if you don't care about the "few", at what point do you start caring?  When do you start to consider that there must be a limit - are you ok with just a little cheating?  How many thousand illegal student visas do you deem acceptable?  Your laissez fair attitude to the enforcement of regulations implicitly requires masses of would-be illegal migrants to do the honest thing, to stay at home, and to not reap the benefits that the illegals you tolerate gain.  That is despite incentivising the later group by saying the law has no meaning.  The moment you decide that laws are not enforced, and that so long as someone is willing to "try it on" then good on them, you really are breaking a social contract between the state and all the people who feel they are doing the right thing by jumping the regulatory hoops.

1
Pan Ron - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Why in the name of f*ck would someone smart work their arse off for years at school to get the exam results to get into a top University and then pay (in the case of Edinburgh) at least £18,800 in fees for the first year because they wanted to sneak in the UK and get a sh*tty non-graduate job.   

I don't know why you keep raising "top" unviersities as your example.  Its hardly going to be an issue at top tier institutions. But you seem to feel that they should therefore be exempt and only the scummy ones we think are prone to visa abuse should be put through the hell of taking class registers.  There's an argument for that for sure.  Its the same argument made for police only enforcing laws in poor areas, for arresting the black coke users and not the white ones. 

> They wouldn't: there are an awful lot easier ways of sneaking in to the UK, like coming as a tourist and overstaying.  They are very determined and motivated people who go to that amount of effort and expense because they want the education and the degree and the career that comes from having the degree.

So if you can get in to a sociology or gender studies course at Roehampton then in your mind that's a license to stay in the country for 3 years, with no intention of going to university, work cash-in-hand full-time for the duration, and potentially overstay?

> The anti-immigration lobby need to extract their head from their ar*e and realise that we are bl**dy lucky to attract people like that and if we make their life difficult there are plenty of other countries that would like their money and skills.

The anti-immigration lobby may need to get their heads out of their arses.  Then again, I don't think anyone is anti-immigration.  They may however have justifiable views on a massive and unprecedented demographic change since the early 1990s, which has now reached up to a quarter of a million net additions to the country every year. That's a shift between 1991 and 2016 from 47 million inhabitants to 54 million, or 3.5 million to 8.4 million non-UK born inhabitants. If best you can say to people with concerns about this is that they need to pull their heads out of their arses then you might just have hit on why people think "screw your socially liberal, holier-than-thou, viewpoint" and vote for Theresa May.

Post edited at 00:29
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I don't know why you keep raising "top" unviersities as your example.  Its hardly going to be an issue at top tier institutions.

Because my wife works at one, this pisses her off.  She became an academic to do research and to teach not to waste her time doing pointless busy work to placate the home office and as someone who works far more hours than she's paid for she doesn't like getting tracked like someone that can't be trusted to show up.

> But you seem to feel that they should therefore be exempt and only the scummy ones we think are prone to visa abuse should be put through the hell of taking class registers.  There's an argument for that for sure.  Its the same argument made for police only enforcing laws in poor areas, for arresting the black coke users and not the white ones. 

No it is just common sense.  If there isn't a problem then don't waste people's time with unnecessary measures to control the non-existent problem.   

The other approach is like searching the 80 year old white granny in case she is an Islamic terrorist or doing stop and search for knives and guns in a posh suburb rather than the inner city area where four people got stabbed last week.   Really 'fair' and really stupid.

> So if you can get in to a sociology or gender studies course at Roehampton then in your mind that's a license to stay in the country for 3 years, with no intention of going to university, work cash-in-hand full-time for the duration, and potentially overstay?

This mythical person who got a student visa because they wanted a cash in hand job in the UK is going to fork out 10 grand a year in fees to a University for three years off the top of their massive earnings?    And they are going to pass all the exams and hand all the coursework they need to stay on the course for those three years even though they are only interested in working at Tesco?   

If they aren't interested you will find out in a couple of months when they stop paying the fees or fail the exams: at which point the Uni will kick them out and immigration can cancel their visa.   There isn't any point in taking a register for every class.

> The anti-immigration lobby may need to get their heads out of their arses.  Then again, I don't think anyone is anti-immigration.  They may however have justifiable views on a massive and unprecedented demographic change since the early 1990s, which has now reached up to a quarter of a million net additions to the country every year. That's a shift between 1991 and 2016 from 47 million inhabitants to 54 million, or 3.5 million to 8.4 million non-UK born inhabitants. If best you can say to people with concerns about this is that they need to pull their heads out of their arses then you might just have hit on why people think "screw your socially liberal, holier-than-thou, viewpoint" and vote for Theresa May.

Hassling staff and students in Universities is not going to address that at all.  It might make angry  people feel a bit happier but the main consequence is going to be skilled people leaving the UK and using their talents elsewhere.

The big problem in the UK is the way that London and the South East has been allowed to grow economically disproportionately to the rest of the country.  The result is overcrowding and an overheated region which attracts people from the rest of Europe and beyond.   Meanwhile many other regions of the UK are losing population or struggling to maintain it.   As usual Westminster then imposes their favourite solution for London's problems on the rest of the country.   

 

DancingOnRock - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

“There isn't any point in taking a register for every class.”

There are lots of reasons for taking registers. When we do courses for work, we always have to enter our names into a register, that’s mainly so that they know we attend the course, but we also have to sign in when we enter a building or our passes are logged by the entry system. 

If a student fails the course and then claims the lecturing was sub standard, then the university can then work out how many lectures the student attended. 

 

1
Big Ger - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> According to his statement they told him it would cost him £54k, so I would say that he'd been shafted, given that he had paid NI contributions every year.

Do you think the hospital has acted unfairly?

> And lets be clear I think if everyone had the burden for proof shoved on them to the same degree, most would not be able to provide it either.

I think most would.

> As for benefits, sometimes it was as simple as applying for a new bank account that triggered the interest.

Do you think there should be no checks on anyone claiming benefits?

 

1
Big Ger - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> After their 'harrowing experience', involving being stopped from working, incarcerated in immigration centres, rendered homeless etc.. 

How many people has this happened to?

Big Ger - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Ridge:

> There's no legal requirement to have a passport. Plus there must be lots of people who have been able to fraudulently obtain British passports and birth certificates in the past when checks were more lax.

I didn't claim there was a legal requirement.

> Perhaps we should introduce (hypothetical) retrospective legislation to remove birth certificates and passports issued prior to some arbitrary date from the "current standards" for proving entitlement to residency or access to services?

That would be a very silly thing to do.

> Our (hypothetical) "current standards" have now changed, reckon you can meet them?

Yes.

> By frothing about imaginary 'lefties', and getting all"FFS", although I suspect your online persona is one big wind up.

By choosing to insult rather than debate I suspect your online persona is one big wind up.

By your being unable to offer a quote to substantiate your childish accusation that  I "threw your (my)  toys out of the pram" I 'l take it you have just resorted to lying about me. 

 

French Erick - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Its not an issue of students squandering years.  It is a case of them coming here, sometimes with no intention of studying but using the student visa as a means to access the country when they would otherwise be turned away.

> You might not care about people jumping queues, about the morality of rewarding those who cheat the system.  But if you don't care about the "few", at what point do you start caring?  When do you start to consider that there must be a limit - are you ok with just a little cheating?  How many thousand illegal student visas do you deem acceptable?  Your laissez fair attitude to the enforcement of regulations implicitly requires masses of would-be illegal migrants to do the honest thing, to stay at home, and to not reap the benefits that the illegals you tolerate gain.  That is despite incentivising the later group by saying the law has no meaning.  The moment you decide that laws are not enforced, and that so long as someone is willing to "try it on" then good on them, you really are breaking a social contract between the state and all the people who feel they are doing the right thing by jumping the regulatory hoops.

Therein lies the problem. You make, as you have the right to but not knowing your circumstances I cannot understand why, the assumption that migration is necessary bad. You quote papers and sources that are known to be anti-immigration. I, being a migrant myself, blatantly are for immigration as I believe that I bring a set of skills and willingness to make things work to this country. I will, like others tend to quote from pro-immigration sources. WE write to each other but we fail to truly communicate.

Let's for a while abandon the details, and I know that often the devil is in it. The hair splitting draws us away from the principles. This is not an attack, more at the very least a clarification, in the best case scenario a better understanding of your viewpoint...to this point I want to dismiss you as prejudiced against non-British. Why are you so set against immigration? Why do anti-immigration people always come back to this blanket picture of a bogus conniving malignant parasitic being come here for benefits? 

When I come back tonight after climbing (superb morning, I am off), I will attempt to explain why I see myself and fellow immigrant as a positive, value added, society beneficiary. I do accept that they are always some bad eggs but that I would pose that overall, looking at the mass of migrants,  what we bring of positives far outweigh the negative. I would pose that migrants are often easy scapegoats for endemic problems that certain families of politicians are all too happy to use as distractions for other of their dealings or as easy picking for their political laziness.

Bob Kemp - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> How many people has this happened to?

We don’t know yet, and may never know for certain. People are wary of coming forward in case they end up being targeted later after media interest moves on. Why are you asking me anyway?

Big Ger - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

You made the statement; "After their 'harrowing experience', involving being stopped from working, incarcerated in immigration centres, rendered homeless etc.. " so I presumed you knew.

Bellie on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

A quick reply before off. 

Point 1. I make no claims against the Marsden. 

Point 2. You think yes, I think no.  I think that the government realise it was a hard proposition so have introduced straightforward additions to the list.  

Point 3. Irrelevant to this argument.

Bob Kemp - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> You made the statement; "After their 'harrowing experience', involving being stopped from working, incarcerated in immigration centres, rendered homeless etc.. " so I presumed you knew.

I knew there were some cases already made public. Why would that lead you to expect that I knew the total numbers? The government doesn’t seem to. There have been a number of cases in the press and apparently 232 people have already contacted the government helpline they’ve set up. That’s not definitive, obviously. 

Big Ger - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> A quick reply before off. 

> Point 1. I make no claims against the Marsden. 

But it was them, not the government, who insist that Mr No Name wasn't eligible for treatment.

> Point 2. You think yes, I think no.  I think that the government realise it was a hard proposition so have introduced straightforward additions to the list.  

Then that's that problem sorted.

> Point 3. Irrelevant to this argument.

Of course it's relevant.

 

Big Ger - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Oh I agree Bob. One of the main problems in this whole debate is the lack of facts and statistics.

2
wercat on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I saw two sisters interviewed, one had worked for the NHS for decades and another was a retired British transport police officer.   Both told to leave the country.   At the point of broadcast by the BBC one of the sisters had managed to find the required evidence but the other's fate was still undecided.

This is criminal, the people putting this in train deserve custodial sentences

wercat on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Sean Kelly:

I'm sure the BigG agent will be along shortly as an apologist to say that your father's plight happened for sound reasons, possibly his neglect.  All said from the comfort of an expensive sofa with the comfort of a big pension

wercat on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

The British values will be those of the early 20th century when large numbers of men who didn't even have the vote were sent by their betters to kill Germans and Turks.  My 2 great uncles and their brother, the only one to survive, would have fallen into this category till 1918 when they got the vote.

Till very recently British people were referred to as subjects.  At least that was honest - now they call us citizens even though the automatic right to pass on UK citizenship to your children has ended for all of us even if we have never left the UK!

 

BTW here is an example of how it took publicity and public  anger to prevent a deportation of a couple being academics at Durham University as a result of doing research overseas!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/durham-university-academics-deportation-home-office-mexico-petition-a8263901.html

I'm getting increasingly angry with Apologists for this kind of CRAP!

Post edited at 13:32
DancingOnRock - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to French Erick:

You are spot on. 

Migration is being used by some very small minded people as a major problem. Even the Kings Fund reaseach into the ‘drain on the NHS’ comes to the conclusion that health tourism actually turns a profit for the NHS. 

Maybe we should deport the long term unemployed, the zero hour contracted and the obese British people. They’re actually the real drain that needs addressing. 

wercat on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to French Erick:

Tell you what, we'd have been in a poor state in 1940 without squadrons of Polish and Czech fighters taking part in the Battle of Britain.  Or all of those horrible scandinavians we could send back to make trouble for the occupation forces!  ;-)

This current deportation horror makes me think of the terrible case of the Russian Cossacks, enemies of the Soviets, who ended up in captivity in Britain only to be sent back to their deaths in Russia, despite pleas for mercy falling on the deaf ears of Anthony Eden. This book synopsis makes chilling reading.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v1/v1n4p371_lutton.html

Something similar happened to Yugoslavs repatriated too.

Post edited at 13:50
Bellie on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> But it was them, not the government, who insist that Mr No Name wasn't eligible for treatment.

His name is Albert Thompson. The Marsden applying rules set out by the Home Office.

> Of course it's relevant.

It was yourself who mentioned up thread that this was about peoples entitlement to benefits. You have then asked me about where i think there should be benefit checks.  Whatever I think about benefit checks is not relevant to the people who lost jobs, have been refused access to public services, or refused re entry back into the UK. None of which it seems is about claiming benefits. But is all about a beaurocratic cock up. One that as the days go by seems like it was warned about by MPs, heads of Commonwealth, and staff at the Home Office, but wasnt sorted out.

Maybe it was a handy way of getting by with staff cuts, instead of having a load of cases on their desk to deal with, simply throw the entire burden of proof onto the subject. Meaning you wont have to do any more work until they can either come up with their 160 page dossier, or you get a call from a government solicitor to rubber stamp it as its been in the press and the local MP has lodged a complaint. 

 

 

Big Ger - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> His name is Albert Thompson. The Marsden applying rules set out by the Home Office.

Not it isn't Albert Thompson.

"Thompson (not his real name) received a brief call on Wednesday night from a consultant at the Royal Marsden"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/19/windrush-albert-thompson-cancer-treatment-theresa-may

The Marsden are not following rules laid out by the home office, they refused him treatment based on clinical assessment.

"The Royal Marsden has repeatedly said that Thompson’s radiotherapy was not urgent."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/22/theresa-may-refuses-to-intervene-over-mans-54000-nhs-cancer-bill-albert-thompson

> It was yourself who mentioned up thread that this was about peoples entitlement to benefits.

No it was Krikoman; " So let's stop them working, and let's stop their access to health benefits, and let's keep them in a worried state for a long time while we "sort" this out."

> You have then asked me about where i think there should be benefit checks.  Whatever I think about benefit checks is not relevant to the people who lost jobs, have been refused access to public services, or refused re entry back into the UK.

But you blame the checks when people are denied benefits, so therefore you must have an opinion on whether the checks are valid or not?

> But is all about a beaurocratic cock up.

Agreed.

> Maybe it was a handy way of getting by with staff cuts, instead of having a load of cases on their desk to deal with, simply throw the entire burden of proof onto the subject. Meaning you wont have to do any more work until they can either come up with their 160 page dossier, or you get a call from a government solicitor to rubber stamp it as its been in the press and the local MP has lodged a complaint. 

That is possible, but we may never know.

 

Post edited at 14:59
2
Pan Ron - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to French Erick:

> Therein lies the problem. You make, as you have the right to but not knowing your circumstances I cannot understand why, the assumption that migration is necessary bad. You quote papers and sources that are known to be anti-immigration. I, being a migrant myself, blatantly are for immigration as I believe that I bring a set of skills and willingness to make things work to this country. I will, like others tend to quote from pro-immigration sources. WE write to each other but we fail to truly communicate.

I'm not saying migration is necessarily bad at all.  Its an unfortunate situation that anyone making a point more nuanced than migration is good or bad is automatically assumed to come down on one side or the other.  I have personally benefitted, on balance, as a result of migration.  I am surrounded by migrants and am one myself.

But I'm not blind to the fact there are negatives to it as well.  You mention that my sources are "anti-immigrant".  They aren't.  They simply address the fact that there are negatives.  Something the Guardian and its ilk will NEVER do.  There is a wealth of research out there that backs this up and if you chose to read wider than the media that ignores this, presumably out of fear that presenting any sort of nuance is to side with bigots, then you will see this.

I am fortunate that my primary experience of migration has been in the midst of an extremely selective environment - you could say one with very stringent borders.  That is, the workplace and university.  I can be pretty sure that those I come in to contact with, broadly share my values.  That isn't the case for areas of the UK that are least well positioned to adapt to such massive demographic shifts, who experience it warts-and-all, and for whom the experience can be profoundly negative.  Culture and identity is important to people.  We accept that for minorities.  Why can't we accept it of all people? 

The reality of multi-culturalism for many people is different to mine.  Assuming they are all ill-educated bigots for feeling this that, and that their professed experience is in some way false, is extremely arrogant.  This is the crux of the Trump phenomena, the Brexit phenomena, and the anti-immigrant phenomena - all of which I oppose, but I can see exactly why people cast their vote in that direction.  And they tell us as much themselves.

I make no apologies for believing in a social contract.  For believing that a migrant who flaunts the rules from even before they step foot in the country, who comes here with the intention of doing so, is not someone I wish to have come here.  No matter how good at bio-engineering they might be (and lets face it, the vast majority of migrants really are no professionally better or worse than the average born-and-bred Brit).  If we are to turn a blind eye to that, because we feel sorry for migrants, then you might as well open the door to hundreds of millions of others who would just as willingly come here if they had the means.  There are rules and they are there for a reason.  All rules will have negative consequences for some people.  But the alternative, of non- or selective-enforcement is not one I am keen on.  It is fundamentally unfair on other migrants, on residents, and is dishonest by failing to acknowledge where such an approach leads.  

It really is sad that the debate must be either pro- or anti- immigrant.

1
baron - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to wercat:

I suspect but obviously don't know that the Poles and Czechs in the RAF were fighting as much to liberate their own countries and for revenge against the Germans as they were to defend the UK.

Post war hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals were allowed to settle in the UK.

The return of the the Cossacks at the end of WW2 will forever be a stain on the UK but there's surely no comparison between those terrible events and the Windrush fiasco, either in terms of scale or severity.

Bellie on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Ok, Albert not his real name Thompson. Surely it is not the refusal of treatment, but the fact that he has been told he will have to pay for treatment unless he can prove he is here legally. An example of the policy under discussion. Which is what he has said all along. Some confusion is arising over the go ahead of treatment, but the fact remains as someone who has worked and put money into the system and according to his actual legal status should not be paying.

And, so to lead onto your point about checks. I will leave benefits out of this, because I havent raised benefit assessment, but if you ask my opinion about checks on anything, then there should be measures in place to allow for obvious errors. In these cases, the people have actually been able to evidence their status in a number of other ways.. Familial, tax, NI, but sadly because of the hardnose policy, despite being here legally, were dragged down a path they shouldnt have been put on in the first place.

You have people through no fault of their own being put in these positions and finding it hard if not impossible to make the Home Office see any sense. Sense which if applied would have sorted these issues much quicker.

 

 

 

 

Post edited at 15:43
Bellie on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

In my case I would say I'm not arguing the case for or against immigration, but more political and beurocratic pig headed-ness that has created a situation where the innocent get labelled wrongly and have difficulty setting the record straight.

I remember a time having a stand off with my old bank over a serious financial matter, and no matter what I wrote they refused to listen or budge. Even more frustrating that at branch level when I went through and evidenced the complaint they admitted it was clear as day, but couldnt override head office.  I am sure everyone has cases of banging their heads against a brick wall of officioussness. But mine didnt have an endgame of deportation.

My emotional response of anger was personal.

I think Ron, someone popped a link up from the Guardian which was regarding immigration, and dispelling your opinion thst its never under discussion.

 

Post edited at 15:59
Bob Kemp - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

>Something the Guardian and its ilk will NEVER do. 

Your arguments would be stronger without statements like this. It just makes you look like you’ve got a chip on your shoulder. Somewhere up this thread I posted a link to a Guardian viewpoint piece that made it quite clear they are perfectly capable of nuanced thinking about immigration. 

Edit - I see Bellie has just pointed this out too. 

Post edited at 16:51
Eric9Points - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

A civil servant's view: https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2018/apr/20/officials-home-office-anti-migrant

Fairly damning for the Prime minister.

RomTheBear on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to French Erick:

> When I come back tonight after climbing (superb morning, I am off), I will attempt to explain why I see myself and fellow immigrant as a positive, value-added society beneficiary. 

One of the problems is that Britain has been very good at attracting a very high proportion of the "best" migrants, but we still had very strong public opinion in favor of drastically reducing net immigration.

That means, inevitably, deterring and pushing out a large number of people who, taken individually, most people would agree we should, of course, allow staying.

You end up with this stupid situation where the same people who have been moaning about too many immigrants and kept asking for the government to do something about it are now blaming the government for the mind-boggling persecutions the Windrush generation have had to endure. But really, it's too convenient to blame this situation on an incompetent home office, or incompetent government, at the end of the day, they did what the public wanted them to do.

Put bluntly, the Tories were elected on a manifesto of reducing net migration to the ten of thousands, and nobody with a minimum of common sense can honestly pretend that this is possible without completely ruining the lives of tens of thousands of decent, hard-working, law-abiding people.

1
baron - on 21 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I'd hazard a guess that most people want to see net immigration - not migration - down.

Unless you think that the present level of immigration is sustainable without completely altering some areas of the UK.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I make no apologies for believing in a social contract.  For believing that a migrant who flaunts the rules from even before they step foot in the country, who comes here with the intention of doing so, is not someone I wish to have come here. 

And who are these migrants who flaunt the rules before they even set foot in the country?  Clearly not the Windrush migrants or the EU citizens who the Brexiters and government are hassling at the moment since they have a clear legal right to be here.   They have had the rules changed after they were already here to their disadvantage and are now being asked for records which at the time there was no legal reason for them to keep.

>No matter how good at bio-engineering they might be (and lets face it, the vast majority of migrants really are no professionally better or worse than the average born-and-bred Brit). 

The average born and bred Brit is pretty sh*t at bio-engineering.  So is the average person from Poland or China or any other country.  Only a tiny percentage of the population is capable of that work.  If your country is attractive to skilled migrants you get all your own bio-engineers plus some of the bio-engineers from many other nations.   If you attract enough of them you may have enough bio-engineers that bio-engineering companies think the UK is a good place to locate to access that talent.  Just like silicon valley pulled in enough skilled engineers from other parts of the US, Europe, India and China to be the hub for electronics and IT.   Without the immigrants it would never reach critical mass.

Also, my guess is that migrants, in general, are better than average at their jobs.   Being willing to leave your own country and live somewhere else to pursue your career requires a degree of risk taking, ambition and determination which is above average.  Migrants are also generally young working-age adults: it is also selecting for the most productive age groups.

>If we are to turn a blind eye to that, because we feel sorry for migrants, then you might as well open the door to hundreds of millions of others who would just as willingly come here if they had the means. 

So if we let in a few hundred rule breaking bio-engineers from the EU we may as well let in half the population of North Africa and Afghanistan?

> There are rules and they are there for a reason.  All rules will have negative consequences for some people.  But the alternative, of non- or selective-enforcement is not one I am keen on.  It is fundamentally unfair on other migrants, on residents, and is dishonest by failing to acknowledge where such an approach leads.  

Where the approach of treating highly skilled workers like they were potential criminals leads is that they p*ss off somewhere where they will be treated with respect and they will take the industry with them because they are the scarce resource.

 

 

RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> I'd hazard a guess that most people want to see net immigration - not migration - down.

?? Can you explain what is "net immigration" ? By definition immigration cannot be "net" since it's only an inflow.

 

 

DancingOnRock - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Migration is a total of immigration plus emigration. ie the numbers of people moving around. Doesn’t tell you whether the population is increasing or decreasing.

Net immigration is immigration - emigration. A positive number means an increasing population.

Net emigration is emigration - immigration. A positive number means a decreasing population. 

summo on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Where the approach of treating highly skilled workers like they were potential criminals leads is that they p*ss off somewhere where they will be treated with respect and they will take the industry with them because they are the scarce resource.

You think the current system is flawed? Where you can have free flow from the eu, but visa applications from beyond. It is selection based on nationality, not ability.

Sweden has similar problems, especially with people who have studied at PhD level, then wish to change their visa status and work full time. In some instances they need to return to their homeland to apply, as you don't have a right to be in sweden without the correct permit etc.. even if it is extremely likely some person will be accepted, given that they might have lived, studied and work here already under an educational visa for many years. 

 

Post edited at 06:41
1
baron - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

We had the discussion about the use of the words migration and immigration a while back.

I should have simply written immigration, not net immigration.

As in people want to see the numbers of people coming into the country reduced in order to have sustainable population growth.

Unless, of course, there's a huge increase in emigration which would allow there to be large scale immigration but with less affect.

What you are arguing is that the government wants to remove people in order to get the 'net migration' numbers down. God knows what net migration is either.

Given that the immigration numbers are in the hundreds of thousands there'll have to be deportations on an industrial scale if the government wants fo meet its target.

Sending home all of the Windrush generation who don't have the necessary paperwork would barely scratch the surface of the problem. 

Big Ger - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> Ok, Albert not his real name Thompson. Surely it is not the refusal of treatment, but the fact that he has been told he will have to pay for treatment unless he can prove he is here legally.

Well he wasn't refused treatment for a start, he was told he was not a high priority. Doctors make that sort of decision every day.

> An example of the policy under discussion. Which is what he has said all along. Some confusion is arising over the go ahead of treatment, but the fact remains as someone who has worked and put money into the system and according to his actual legal status should not be paying.

Conversely, someone who hasn't worked or paid into the system should be paying, the tests were to find out which he was. If he was able to show he was entitled, then he should get the treatment free. This mystery around him not wanting to give his real name may be one of the reasons clouding that decision.

> And, so to lead onto your point about checks. I will leave benefits out of this, because I havent raised benefit assessment, but if you ask my opinion about checks on anything, then there should be measures in place to allow for obvious errors.

Agreed.

> In these cases, the people have actually been able to evidence their status in a number of other ways.. Familial, tax, NI, but sadly because of the hardnose policy, despite being here legally, were dragged down a path they shouldnt have been put on in the first place.

We'll agree to differ on that I think.

> You have people through no fault of their own being put in these positions and finding it hard if not impossible to make the Home Office see any sense. Sense which if applied would have sorted these issues much quicker.

I agree that the home office has been less than clear and efficient in this. 

 

4
RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018

1>In reply to baron:

> What you are arguing is that the government wants to remove people in order to get the 'net migration' numbers down.

Again you are completely missing the point. You seem to have this oversimplistic idea that you need to forcefully remove people out of the country. Only a few people end up being forcefully removed because the vast majority just leave well before it reaches that point, those who end up being deported are just the tip of the iceberg.

The strategy of the government was very clear, the first thing was to weaken the link between residency and settlement, and then introduce new, ridiculously high standard of proof in order to establish a settlement. On top of that, they then created a hostile environment so that anybody unable to meet those standards of proof (Even if they had done everything right) would find life in Britain impossible and would return.


 

> Given that the immigration numbers are in the hundreds of thousands there'll have to be deportations on an industrial scale if the government wants fo meet its target.

> Sending home all of the Windrush generation who don't have the necessary paperwork would barely scratch the surface of the problem. 

The problem is that you don't seem to understand this is not about deportation. The number of actual deportation is small, even in Windrush cases,
However, the number of people who end up leaving the UK simply because they can't legally keep living in the UK, even if they have done so for decades, or even, are British, that is significant.
 

RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Migration is a total of immigration plus emigration. ie the numbers of people moving around. Doesn’t tell you whether the population is increasing or decreasing.

Agree.

> Net immigration is immigration - emigration. A positive number means an increasing population.

So exactly the same definition as "net migration", people coming in minus people coming out. But Baron seem to say that this means something different than "net migration", hence my point.

RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> We had the discussion about the use of the words migration and immigration a while back.

Yes and apparently you still didn't get it!

> I should have simply written immigration, not net immigration.

Yes.

> As in people want to see the numbers of people coming into the country reduced in order to have sustainable population growth.

It is the number of people coming in, minus the number of people coming out, otherwise known as net migration that is causing population increase.

The basic problem is that it is usually easier to make people leave the country than it is to prevent people from entering the country.

In any case, the government has pushed hard on both side of the equation and still failed, despite causing massive, unacceptable, collateral damage.

 

 

Post edited at 10:10
baron - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I await your solution to the large numbers of immigrants which is not sustainable without significant alteration to some areas of the UK.

Unless you don't see such large scale immigration as a problem.

1
RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> I await your solution to the large numbers of immigrants which is not sustainable without significant alteration to some areas of the UK.

I'd argue a large reduction in net migration is going to cause bigger problems.

> Unless you don't see such large-scale immigration as a problem.

I don't see it as a problem, I see it as a time-limited opportunity that we should make the most of whilst it lasts.   

Weirdly, more people from within the UK move to london and the SE than people from outside the UK, yet nobody is saying that freedom of movement within the UK is unsustainable.

Post edited at 10:52
1
Bellie on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

 

> Conversely, someone who hasn't worked or paid into the system should be paying, the tests were to find out which he was. If he was able to show he was entitled, then he should get the treatment free. This mystery around him not wanting to give his real name may be one of the reasons clouding that decision.

Initial consultation is free to all, secondary care... ie the treatment is only free to people living lawfully in the UK. Which is why he got asked to prove his status. I have no axe to grind re NHS treatment rules. But the fact that the Home Office system he then found himself in was set up in such a way that he struggled to prove his actual status.

Incidentally I havent been asked for my passport when having any treatment. I wonder if anyone else has. Actual question.. As you dont have to have a foreign name or look foreign to be in this country illegally.

I would hazard a guess that his non de plume was simply on the media side of things! Given the level of open racism on some of the newspaper comments sections, it is no wonder.

 

Edited for clarity

 

Post edited at 11:05
RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> Incidentally I havent been asked for my passport when having any treatment. I wonder if anyone else has. Actual question.. As you dont have to have a foreign name or look foreign to be in this country illegally.

Well that's the problem with the "hostile environment" if you've got a british accent and white face nobody will ask you to prove that you are entitled to NHS treatment.

 

Big Ger - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> Initial consultation is free to all, secondary care... ie the treatment is only free to people living lawfully in the UK. Which is why he got asked to prove his status. I have no axe to grind re NHS treatment rules. But the fact that the Home Office system he then found himself in was set up in such a way that he struggled to prove his actual status.

Fair point, well made.

> Incidentally I havent been asked for my passport when having any treatment. I wonder if anyone else has. Actual question.. As you dont have to have a foreign name or look foreign to be in this country illegally.

Me neither, I registered with a GP the other day, and wasn't even asked for my NI number.

> I would hazard a guess that his non de plume was simply on the media side of things! Given the level of open racism on some of the newspaper comments sections, it is no wonder.

That's the Guardian for you...

 

Eric9Points - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well that's the problem with the "hostile environment" if you've got a british accent and white face nobody will ask you to prove that you are entitled to NHS treatment.

No, if there's a problem then the problem is the converse.

summo on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Me neither, I registered with a GP the other day, and wasn't even asked for my NI number.

In the nasty state of sweden on arriving at the doctors the first thing they ask for is your ID, the second will be the fee of £12ish. 

As an eu migrant you won't even get an ID unless you prove you have the means to support yourself, or take out private health insurance. People complain about how harsh the UK is, but much of Europe is the same, if not tougher. 

Big Ger - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

Same in Aus mate, and $80 each and every time you see your GP.

RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

> No, if there's a problem then the problem is the converse.

I agree, but then that means everybody has to have a passport, and de facto, we have introduced mandatory identification in the UK.

Which is probably the sensible thing to do at thus point.

RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> In the nasty state of sweden on arriving at the doctors the first thing they ask for is your ID, the second will be the fee of £12ish. 

> As an eu migrant you won't even get an ID unless you prove you have the means to support yourself, or take out private health insurance. People complain about how harsh the UK is, but much of Europe is the same, if not tougher. 

I agree, but then we have to ask everybody to prove that they are entitled to NHS treatment, not only those with colored skin or an accent.

I suspect that many of those who rant about immigrants scrounging off the NHS would be the same who would be ranting if they were refused NHS treatment if they dont have an ID/passeport and proof of residence.

As usual people want tough checks except when it applies to them...

tom_in_edinburgh - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> As an eu migrant you won't even get an ID unless you prove you have the means to support yourself, or take out private health insurance. People complain about how harsh the UK is, but much of Europe is the same, if not tougher. 

So why do we have to leave the EU to get control of immigration?

summo on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> So why do we have to leave the EU to get control of immigration?

Never said the UK did. I'm pro migration. 

But, the UK can't favour the talent you talk about, that industry needs, when it has to have an open door to 27 other countries. It's running 2 different systems, with different priorities side by side and it doesn't work. And that's before you factor in asylum and refugee applications. 

summo on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Of course. It will be those who complain about say benefit fraud, who are anti id cards etc.. certainly here, the id card is rolled into the driving licence. So extra administration is limited. 

Eric9Points - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Nonsense. That's exactly what you don't need to do.

If you're born in this country then you'll be known to the NHS from day one and registered with a GP. As you change GPs through your life all you need to do is tell the new practice the details of your old practice and they get your records transferred.

If you're not born in this country but have the necessary pre requisites then you register once and again your records will follow you.

I suppose it would be possible to impersonate someone else if you were not registered but that does sound like an extremely hazardous course of action.

But anyway, this is all a bit tangential to discussing the utter uncaring incompetence of of the Home office and the Prime Minister's resignation over her outrageous behaviour.

RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Nonsense. That's exactly what you don't need to do.

> If you're born in this country then you'll be known to the NHS from day one and registered with a GP. As you change GPs through your life all you need to do is tell the new practice the details of your old practice and they get your records transferred.

> If you're not born in this country but have the necessary pre requisites then you register once and again your records will follow you.

Lol, you just got back to square one, at the end of the day the NHS needs to register you at some point, which requires knowing whether you are british or not, which in turns, requires an ID and entitlement check.

> But anyway, this is all a bit tangential to discussing the utter uncaring incompetence of of the Home office and the Prime Minister's resignation over her outrageous behaviour.

I don’t think it is, it is absolutely central to the argument, all the problems windrush generation experienced are the direct result of trying to enforce a “hostile environment” policy in a country where there is no central and mandatory ID management system. 

Again, this scandal is not the result of incompetence, it is the result of deliberate policy, there is absolutely zero doubt about that, and it was supported by the majority of the population.

Post edited at 17:13
RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> Never said the UK did. I'm pro migration. 

> But, the UK can't favour the talent you talk about, that industry needs, when it has to have an open door to 27 other countries. It's running 2 different systems, with different priorities side by side and it doesn't work. And that's before you factor in asylum and refugee applications. 

The U.K. was running only one immigration system, there was no “immigration system” for EU citizens simply because they have free movement, as you do have free movement between say, Scotland and England.

The irony is that when EU citizens fall under the immigration system this will just make it harder to recruit non-EUs, as a large chunk of the quotas that was previously dedicated fully to non-EU citizens will now go to EU citizens.

Post edited at 17:17
1
wercat on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

I wasn't registered with a GP for 13 years or so from the age of 21 and when I did register my records were missing believed destroyed after a long period of searching by the system.

DancingOnRock - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

And EU citizens who are already here will not be sent home. That has been made perfectly clear. 

Furthermore, large numbers of businesses will fail if the current freedom of goods and services is affected too much. The government will not allow this to happen. 

There’s lots of scaremongering and doom laden waffle spouted about the EU exit. 

3
Bob Kemp - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> And EU citizens who are already here will not be sent home. That has been made perfectly clear. 

Of course they'll be perfectly happy to trust the government after all this won't they?

> Furthermore, large numbers of businesses will fail if the current freedom of goods and services is affected too much. The government will not allow this to happen. 

Are you sure? You have a touching faith in their capacities.

> There’s lots of scaremongering and doom laden waffle spouted about the EU exit. 

You can't say if it's scaremongering until we see what happens after the exit. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. And there are a huge number of things that could go wrong - have a look at this: https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/long-list-little-things/

 

Eric9Points - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I don't believe for a moment that the public were aware of what was going on or what the consequences of May's despicable policy were.

 

RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I don't believe for a moment that the public were aware of what was going on or what the consequences of May's despicable policy were.

They knew, because

1) it’s bleeding obvious and I don’t believe people are that thick

2) many people had warned publicly that this would happen before, and when it did happen it was widely reported.

But people have been completely indifferent to it up to the point that the right wing press found an angle to report on this.

1
summo on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The U.K. was running only one immigration system, there was no “immigration system” for EU citizens simply because they have free movement, as you do have free movement between say, Scotland and England.

Not true. The eu is a migration for employment agreement. Rights to stay beyond 90 days vary around the nations, reciprocal rights to benefits and healthcare care vary and so on. Registration with local tax and migration agencies vary.

The Uk's member nations(e,s,w,ni) all fall under one central government and all rights exist in all 4 countries. This is true free movement.

The means and rigidness the individual eu nations administer what is a travel for employment (not jobseekers) agreement varies vastly.

 

Post edited at 18:28
Bellie on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I did wonder about GPs and checks but apparently it is helpful but not a requirement to show ID to register with a GP and they cant refuse on the basis of not showing for example a passport. I would guess that anyone registered for any length of time would not have had to do so anyway.  Which answered my question as to why the hospital would need proof if they had been referred by a GP with NHS number etc.

 

RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> And EU citizens who are already here will not be sent home. That has been made perfectly clear. 

Actually no it’s not perfectly clear at all who will be allowed and who won’t be allowed or under which criteria or evidence.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that there will be many people wrongly made to leave. It’s unavoidable.

> Furthermore, large numbers of businesses will fail if the current freedom of goods and services is affected too much. The government will not allow this to happen. 

Wishful thinking. I’ve seen many good engineers that were absolutely critical to businesses being kicked out of the country.

 

RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> I did wonder about GPs and checks but apparently it is helpful but not a requirement to show ID to register with a GP and they cant refuse on the basis of not showing for example a passport. 

and now you understand that the system is completely broken, we are asking the NHS to check the immigration status of people but at the same time are not supposed to refuse registering someone if they have no ID.

When I had to re-register with a GP practice (after 10 years without seeing a GP they had taken me off their system !). I had to show my passport and asked me for payslips as soon as they saw that I had a foreign name. I frankly doubt that they ask people with a white face, an English name and an English accent to do the same.

 

Post edited at 18:48
Bellie on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Although, it does state that primary health care is free to all and is not dependant on being a lawful UK resident, whereas NHS hospital treatment.. Classed as secondary care is. 

I was trying to ascertain for myself when and why the checks were flagged up. Rather than believe it was down to looking foreign. Maybe it was on their NHS file that ID hadnt been verified, once it became a requirement when moving onto hospital care.

 

RomTheBear on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> Although, it does state that primary health care is free to all and is not dependant on being a lawful UK resident, whereas NHS hospital treatment.. Classed as secondary care is. 

> I was trying to ascertain for myself when and why the checks were flagged up. Rather than believe it was down to looking foreign. Maybe it was on their NHS file that ID hadnt been verified, once it became a requirement when moving onto hospital care.

There is simply no proper process, GP practice apply the policy differently and inconsistently. That’s what I have observed in Scotland anyway don’t know how it was in England.

baron - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

So you think that the UK can continue to absorb hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year?

Until when?

At what point do UK communities change so much that they become unrecognisable to their original inhabitants.

There hasn't been a reasoned, logical debate about immigration in my lifetime.

The British people have had the feeling of having had a succession of immigration policies foisted upon them since the days of Enoch Powell. He's often vilified today but had huge support at the time.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your view, the government of the day wasn't so keen to enact the will of the people.

The 'All immigration is good, anybody who is anti immigration is a racist' mantra has helped lead us to the political situation we find ourselves in today and has often had negative effects on both the British people and the immigrants.

You can have your idealistic opinions but the reality of multicultural Britain is often a negative experience for all concerned.

4
DancingOnRock - on 22 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

It’s not negative to me. 

The immigrants I work with are hard working and conscientious unlike the lazy entitled British workers who work alongside them. 

British people need to raise their game.

The right kind of immigration is good for Britain.  We have a falling birth rate and an ageing population. 

Post edited at 22:59
2
tom_in_edinburgh - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> Never said the UK did. I'm pro migration. 

> But, the UK can't favour the talent you talk about, that industry needs, when it has to have an open door to 27 other countries. It's running 2 different systems, with different priorities side by side and it doesn't work. And that's before you factor in asylum and refugee applications. 

Sure it can.  Just like California attracts talent from outside the US even though it needs to have an open door to the other US states.

Most of the EU states have a similar or better standard of living to the UK.  Migration to countries like France and Germany is going to largely balance and there's no need for controls.    When the EU expanded east that balance was broken and there were large waves of immigration but the first wave is over and the second is well past its peak.   There isn't going to be a third wave because of Russia.   The time for policies to address migration from the new EU states was when they acceded but the UK deliberately chose not to do so.

 

summo on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Sure it can.  Just like California attracts talent from outside the US even though it needs to have an open door to the other US states.

I don't see how you can compare different states within one country under a central government, and the eu's 27 different countries. 

The problem is it is much tougher, more costly and takes longer to employ non eu talent, than someone from the eu. The eu migration for employment is perfect if you just want someone to mop floors or pick carrots though. 

 

RomTheBear on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> You can have your idealistic opinions but the reality of multicultural Britain is often a negative experience for all concerned.

I don’t “want” mass immigration or multiculturalism, what I want is maximum freedom to move.

It’s not idealistic, and it works very well. Visibly, reciprocal freedom of movement works a lot better than the immigration system.

Post edited at 06:06
RomTheBear on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> I don't see how you can compare different states within one country under a central government, and the eu's 27 different countries.

I don’t see how you can’t compare it.

> The problem is it is much tougher, more costly and takes longer to employ non eu talent, than someone from the eu.

So ? Nothing preventing us to make this easier.

> The eu migration for employment is perfect if you just want someone to mop floors or pick carrots though. 

Unbelievable. You know that EU migrants are more educated and more skilled than natives ? Do you now that only 15% work in elementary occupations ? The vast majority of EU migrants are working in skilled occupations.

frankly with these types of daily mail stereotypes still being peddled it’s no surprise people are against free movement...

summo on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Unbelievable. You know that EU migrants are more educated and more skilled than natives ? 

In some instances yes and in other cases no. Many sources will claim the UK will be disadvantaged because it could lose workers in low skilled agri, tourism jobs, now you claim they are all filling high skilled posts.

> frankly with these types of daily mail stereotypes still being peddled it’s no surprise people are against free movement...

No. It is much easier to employ an eu migrant than non eu, as employer which line do you take? The one of least resistance? It is employment based on nationality, not qualifications or ability.

I should clarify I'm not against migration at all, I think many countries in Europe need to do their fair share of rehoming migrants and the UK is certainly not pulling it's weight etc.. but as far as migration for employment goes, the system is all over the place. 

Post edited at 07:21
RomTheBear on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> In some instances yes and in other cases no. Many sources will claim the UK will be disadvantaged because it could lose workers in low skilled agri, tourism jobs, now you claim they are all filling high skilled posts.

No, they do both. The vast majority fill skilled jobs and a minority fills low skills jobs. It doesn’t contradict the fact that they may represent a higher proportion of workers in low skill jobs.

> No. It is much easier to employ an eu migrant than non eu, as employer which line do you take? The one of least resistance? It is employment based on nationality, not qualifications or ability.

You are perfectly correct I am completely against employement based on nationality. 

I have always said that it should be as easy for businesss to hire british and non british and it shouldn’t be the job of the government to tell businesses who they can and can’t hire.

however with the “british jobs for british workers” mood in the country I’m afraid it doesn’t look great.

> I should clarify I'm not against migration at all, I think many countries in Europe need to do their fair share of rehoming migrants and the UK is certainly not pulling it's weight etc.. but as far as migration for employment goes, the system is all over the place. 

I agree, as I said above, when it comes to employement businesses should be allowed to hire who they want on merit,  and there shouldn’t be discrimination on nationality or origin.

Post edited at 08:00
summo on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, they do both. The vast majority fill skilled jobs and a minority fills low skills jobs. It doesn’t contradict the fact that they may represent a higher proportion of workers in low skill jobs.

I disagree, there is the option of us both being correct, eu migrants might be highly educated, but many are doing unskilled or low level jobs, simply because relative to their homeland it is still good money. But where migrants do differ from an average native in any country is motivation, simply by virtue of the fact they've bothered moving and will try to make a go of things, you've automatically filtered out some less desirable attributes. 

 

 

DancingOnRock - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

I think you’ll find that immigrants do all sorts of jobs right across the board. 

You’re probably just more aware of the low skilled ones due to recent press coverage. 

RomTheBear on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> I disagree, there is the option of us both being correct, eu migrants might be highly educated, but many are doing unskilled or low level jobs, simply because relative to their homeland it is still good money.

Again, too simplistic. The reality is that only a minority do unskilled jobs. It is true that many skilled migrants start with unskilled jobs in their first two years as they have, at first, specific barriers to overcome (cultural, language, no professional network).

the evidence shows that after two years in the country on average it normalises and they end up pretty much where they should be relative to their skills.

jkarran - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> I don't see how you can compare different states within one country under a central government, and the eu's 27 different countries. 

I don't see how you can't! The differences between the many US states are as acute if not more so than between the nations of the EU.

jk

 

jkarran - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> I should clarify I'm not against migration at all, I think many countries in Europe need to do their fair share of rehoming migrants and the UK is certainly not pulling it's weight etc.. but as far as migration for employment goes, the system is all over the place. 

You seem to be conflating the issue of economic migrants (you and me) and refugees. I'm still not sure how you think getting the UK out of the EU will help persuade the eastern bloc EU nations to improve their refugee services or the UK to take more refugees?

jk

summo on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> You seem to be conflating the issue of economic migrants (you and me) and refugees. I'm still not sure how you think getting the UK out of the EU will help persuade the eastern bloc EU nations to improve their refugee services or the UK to take more refugees?

Don't think I've ever said anything related to the above. I'm talking about running different migration systems for eu and non eu, but also said I think many countries should help refugees more too. I never said leaving the eu would improve how eastern block nations deal with their asylum seekers did I? 

summo on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> I don't see how you can't! The differences between the many US states are as acute if not more so than between the nations of the EU.

 but you get a visa to the USA it is not state specific? If you have green card it's for the USA, not a state etc etc.  

If you have a work permit for one eu country it doesn't automatically give you permanent residency in all the others. You have to apply etc.. 

 

jkarran - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> Don't think I've ever said anything related to the above. I'm talking about running different migration systems for eu and non eu, but also said I think many countries should help refugees more too. I never said leaving the eu would improve how eastern block nations deal with their asylum seekers did I? 

You said in the text I quoted " I think many countries in Europe need to do their fair share of rehoming migrants", if that isn't referring to refugees it makes no sense at all. Do you need 'rehoming'? I don't.

jk

jkarran - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

>  but you get a visa to the USA it is not state specific? If you have green card it's for the USA, not a state etc etc.  If you have a work permit for one eu country it doesn't automatically give you permanent residency in all the others. You have to apply etc.. 

So what? That doesn't change the fact regions with high demand for skilled workers can and do attract them from abroad despite tight immigration restrictions and free movement of workers from a large pool in other states. Same as in most of the Nations of the EU, the only difference is it's messier for those workers to then move within the EU should they choose or need to but that's a consequence of each nation choosing to control its borders, something you voted for more of.

jk

summo on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> So what?

It means you can't compared USA states, with eu countries, that is what. 

> Same as in most of the Nations of the EU, the only difference is it's messier for those workers to then move within the EU should they choose or need to but that's a consequence of each nation choosing to control its borders

The problem is the eu allowing varied interpretations of what is migration for workers legislation. Border control is irrelevant, show a passport and you are in, but how you join the workforce or society differs. It is the nations means of registering arrivals, timescales, wage levels, benefits, access to healthcare etc that varies. 

 

Post edited at 10:59
neilh - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

Considering the USA/ Trump is imposing a limit of 45,000 a year on migrants, there is alot of wishful think on migration to USA. To get a visa to work there is not exactly very easy., even for a UK citizen.

I see France is about to impose new stringent rules on immigration under Macron.

The days of so called free movement globally appear to  slowly closing down irrespective of the benefits of multiculturalism and economics.

Not exactly easy to get into Australia anymore etc etc.

Times are changing.

RomTheBear on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> It means you can't compared USA states, with eu countries, that is what. 

> The problem is the eu allowing varied interpretations of what is migration for workers legislation. Border control is irrelevant, show a passport and you are in, but how you join the workforce or society differs. It is the nations means of registering arrivals, timescales, wage levels, benefits, access to healthcare etc that varies. 

Actually the rule is the same for everybody: there shouldn’t be any discrimination against EU citizens. So you can have as many restrictions as you want as long as the same apply to home nationals.

Which basically is what you say you want : there should be no discrimination on nationality.

French Erick - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> So you think that the UK can continue to absorb hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year?

> Until when?

> At what point do UK communities change so much that they become unrecognisable to their original inhabitants.

You probably would be unrecognisable to the "original" inhabitants depending on which era you speak of. Original Celts who not recognise you, neither would Saxons, Post Cromwell Britain would not recognise you, Victorians, Edwardians, You would probably hardly recognise yourself if your whatever years old self of today was presented to your 10 years old self of back in the day. 

The point being that all cultures and countries evolve over fairly short time.

However, you are quite right to point out that there are limits to numbers a society can sustain. I disagree with you on the point that we reached it or passed it...but that may depend hugely geographically. Brits simply do not have enough children to be sustainable without immigration. IMHO close the borders strictly (Korean style) and in a matter of 2 decades the country would crumble.

 

DancingOnRock - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to neilh:

It’s always been the way when resources become scarce. People will want to go to where there are plenty of resources. 

There’s pretty much a global austerity going on so there’s nowhere that has lots of resource. 

That will mean that not only do people want to go where there are more resources, but the people with the resources are also less willing to share as their resources dwindle. 

As the global economy recovers you’ll see a relaxing in migration rules. 

wercat on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to French Erick:

> , You would probably hardly recognise yourself if your whatever years old self of today was presented to your 10 years old self of back in the day. 

Whoever is that strange old man wearing my clothes? - there's something familiar about him but I've never seen him before ...

 

Post edited at 13:49
jkarran - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> As the global economy recovers you’ll see a relaxing in migration rules. 

The global economy is in an almost unprecedented boom, historically there's usually been at least one major region in the doldrums.

jk

baron - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to French Erick:

It is true that all societies change.

Sometimes slowly other times rapidly.

Some change is natural some is forced.

Certain parts of the UK have seen a large and rapid influx of migrants and they are the areas most affected. Had the influx been either smaller or over a longer time scale then the change might have been less. When the change is perceived to have been a forced one then that just adds to the problem.

And in the same way that all societies change so do all societies resist that change.

 

Using immigration as a way of keeping your society going brings its own problems as the immigrants themselves grow old.Hence the Windrush generation encouraged here to fill a labour shortage are now mostly retired and part of the aging population problem.

RomTheBear on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

I suspect that your obsession with restricting the freedom of others stops to the point where it starts impacting you.

Would you happily accept not having the right to live, move, work, anywhere you want in the UK ?

Post edited at 21:19
2
baron - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I should have the right to move wherever I want to in my home country.

Whether or not I can travel to and within another country should be down to the country that I wish to visit.

 

3
RomTheBear on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> I should have the right to move wherever I want to in my home country.

And I think I should have the the right to move wherever I want in the EU.

So you see, you are after quite happy with this idea that as individual you should have unrestricted freedom of movement within a defined geographical area, regardless of the pressure this may impose on others.

This highlight the inconsistency in your argument, it's not really pressures or the  speed of chang that you care about, after all population increases in London and the SE for example is mostly due to migration from other parts of the UK.

What you care about, really, is identity, and you choose to definite it narrowly as "british". And that is fine, you can do what you want, just don't impose it on others who may feel otherwise.

> Whether or not I can travel to and within another country should be down to the country that I wish to visit.

Ok, next time you come to scotland or wales, don't forget to ask for permission !

 

Post edited at 22:14
3
baron - on 23 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

People moving within the U.K. might create pressures on services, etc but they haven't changed British society.

If you want to discuss the issues around immigration then identity should be one of those issues.

Unfortunately that debate was lost the moment that anyone raising the issue could be branded a racist. Multiculturalism rules.

As for traveling to Scotland I sneaked in yesterday along with my Welsh friends.

That's one of the problems with trying to restrict movement when you don't have a hard border.

 

Post edited at 22:25
4
RomTheBear on 24 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> People moving within the U.K. might create pressures on services, etc but they haven't changed British society.

Scottish people moving to England  have probably "changed" England more than say, Belgian people moving to England.

As you can see even using thbjdas criteria doesn't really work.

> If you want to discuss the issues around immigration then identity should be one of those issues.

> Unfortunately that debate was lost the moment that anyone raising the issue could be branded a racist. Multiculturalism rules.

You should have the intellectual honesty and courage to make an identity based argument instead of making an argument based on falsehoods and myths

 

 

1
Glug on 24 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Why do you want to restrict free movement to the EU? Why not have free movement worldwide if it's such a great thing.

Bob Kemp - on 24 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> People moving within the U.K. might create pressures on services, etc but they haven't changed British society.

That’s not correct. The shift of population in the U.K. from country to city since the Industrial Revolution has created vast changes in British society. At a more local level, as a Welsh resident you must be very familiar with the impact of young people leaving rural communities. 

 

Doug on 24 Apr 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> At a more local level, as a Welsh resident you must be very familiar with the impact of young people leaving rural communities. 

or the impact of English speaking  'immigrants' into Welsh speaking communities

RomTheBear on 24 Apr 2018
In reply to Glug:

> Why do you want to restrict free movement to the EU? Why not have free movement worldwide if it's such a great thing.

I am very much up for it, in fact this is the ultimate prize, but I am perfectly aware that this needs to happen slowly and step by step and probably will take another century. Let's not forget that this doesn’t depend on us only, these things need reciprocity.

What I don’t want, though, is to go backwards, and restrict our freedoms, instead we should seek to extend them.

Instead of restricting free mouvement we should have sought to expand it, for example with countries such as Canada, Australia, NZ for a starter, the populations are up for it.

Post edited at 19:31
1
Ex Poster 666 on 24 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Instead of restricting free mouvement we should have sought to expand it, for example with countries such as Canada, Australia, NZ for a starter, the populations are up for it.

 

I notice you've omitted places like Africa and Asia of your generous list. Just stick to wealthy Western type countries, eh?

Post edited at 20:14
1
RomTheBear on 24 Apr 2018
In reply to Lusk:

> I notice you've omitted places like Africa and Asia of your generous list. Just stick to wealthy Western type countries, eh?

No. On the contrary. You should take the time to read properly.

Post edited at 20:45
summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> , for example with countries such as Canada, Australia, NZ for a starter, the populations are up for it.

Is that their politicians or the populations view?

1
RomTheBear on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> Is that their politicians or the populations view?

The populations. The politicians for the most part don’t want any of it. Although BoJo is a big supporter.

70% for Australians, 75% of Canadians, 82% for New Zealanders, and 58% of Britons polled support free mobility in each other’s nations, according to a yougov poll.

 

Post edited at 06:28
Dr.S at work - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

And what did the Australians think of free movement with Bulgaria?

 

RomTheBear on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> And what did the Australians think of free movement with Bulgaria?

I don’t know, you’d have to ask them.

Dr.S at work - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Ah, I thought you had the stats at your finger tips! 

I wonder what the precise question asked in that survey you quote was, as it could be seen as quite a “white commonwealth” position, probably popular with the blue rinse brigade in the Tory party.....

summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> 70% for Australians, ....... polled support free mobility in each other’s nations, according to a yougov poll.

Who did they ask Aussies working in London bars? 

Big Ger - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to Lusk:

> I notice you've omitted places like Africa and Asia of your generous list. Just stick to wealthy Western type countries, eh?

Of course the UK should welcome the whole of the 1,216 billion people living in Africa into the UK. They can come along with the 4, 436 billion people living in Asia. 

We'll just have to shove up a bit to make room for them.

1
neilh - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

You do seem to advocate free movement between so called  developed Western economies but not places such as India or South Africa which you could equally argue have as much historical Empire right here in the UK.

Any reason for that?

jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> People moving within the U.K. might create pressures on services, etc but they haven't changed British society.

Of course they do! Look at old folk retiring to coastal towns or second homers buying up property in the national parks or the middle class professionals 'gentrifying' rapidly working class boroughs of London for example. Change happens.

> If you want to discuss the issues around immigration then identity should be one of those issues.

Someone else's identity doesn't diminish mine.

jk

jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to neilh:

> You do seem to advocate free movement between so called  developed Western economies but not places such as India or South Africa which you could equally argue have as much historical Empire right here in the UK.

> Any reason for that?

I thought he'd been quite clear, he advocates free movement but accepts it's a long term goal, there has to be a process of bringing social and economic conditions broadly into balance across the border to be opened before it works properly (that or the host nation has a serious labour/population deficit). That's not currently a significant problem with Aus'/NZ/Can' and the UK. I'd argue it's barely a problem and one that was being well addressed within Europe. There is clearly much work to do in Africa and Asia before the opportunity offered by migration is similar in both directions.

jk

Post edited at 09:29
summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> I thought he'd been quite clear, he advocates free movement but accepts it's a long term goal, there has to be a process of bringing social and economic conditions broadly into balance across the border to be opened before it works properly (that or the host nation has a serious labour/population deficit)......I'd argue it's barely a problem and one that was being well addressed within Europe. 

It was not dealt with in Europe, if it had been then the flow of workers would be equal between countries, and the flow of development grant funds wouldn't be on-going after borders were opened. 

When a degree educated eastern European can make more money pulling carrots in the UK, than using their skills or qualifications in their homeland you know their respective economies are still massively different.

 

baron - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I suggest that different cultures, beliefs and religions have had far greater effects over a much larger section of society than your examples.

It's not an individual's identity that is affected but society as a whole.

1
jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to baron:

> I suggest that different cultures, beliefs and religions have had far greater effects over a much larger section of society than your examples.

I disagree. For example I have a Mormon church (?) at the end of my road, I'm an atheist, I frequently meet them out and about. It causes me no problem, I cause them no problem. Obviously if there's a large influx of identifiably other people into an area the look and feel of that area changes but so to do the areas people from the first area move into, this is life. We don't and shouldn't live preserved in aspic but if you wish to there are plenty of places you can still go where change occurs slowly (though of course by moving there you accelerate that rate).

> It's not an individual's identity that is affected but society as a whole.

There's no such thing, it's patchy and changing all the time, it always has been, we're mongrals.

jk

jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> It was not dealt with in Europe, if it had been then the flow of workers would be equal between countries, and the flow of development grant funds wouldn't be on-going after borders were opened.

It's near as damnit dealt with already and the situation is improving. The flows of people have been pretty modest in the grand scheme of things, generally beneficial and often transient.

> When a degree educated eastern European can make more money pulling carrots in the UK, than using their skills or qualifications in their homeland you know their respective economies are still massively different.

But they don't, they come and they use their degrees, they work hard in professional jobs.

jk

summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> It's near as damnit dealt with already and the situation is improving. 

If as you claim the economies of say Romania and Bulgaria were on a par with France or the uk when the borders opened there is nothing to improve on?

 

jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> If as you claim the economies of say Romania and Bulgaria were on a par with France or the uk when the borders opened there is nothing to improve on?

I'm not claiming they're on a par, I'm saying they're relatively similar (by comparison with developing world economies and equalising fast with the help of the EU). The difference between GDP per capita for Britain and Bulgaria isn't radically different to that between Britain and the Netherlands/Sweden/Germany. I don't understand the 'nothing to improve on' bit. Being free to move, to seek opportunity and a life elsewhere is the improvement in and of itself. You know this as an immigrant who's exploited this opportunity.

jk

Post edited at 10:33
Postmanpat on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> I'm not claiming they're on a par, I'm saying they're relatively similar (by comparison with developing world economies and equalising fast with the help of the EU). The difference between GDP per capita for Britain and Bulgaria isn't radically different to that between Britain and the Netherlands/Sweden/Germany. 

>

  Er, can you quote the figures to demonstrate this?!!!

Post edited at 10:51
jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
neilh - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Well it clearly is an issue to the resident population if it is not perceived as " controlled"( whatever that means.

I do not consider that NZ or Canada are as open to migration even from the UK . For certain skills- yes- but to a general free for all- no. Times have changed.

 

summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> I'm not claiming they're on a par, I'm saying they're relatively similar (by comparison with developing world economies and equalising fast with the help of the EU).

Oh..  I hear some goal posts moving. Firstly they were the same, then you said almost, then improving, now you need to bring in relative to a 3rd world nation.... what next?

> The difference between GDP per capita for Britain and Bulgaria isn't radically different to that between Britain and the Netherlands/Sweden/Germany. 

Is it? Data? Average wage per hour? Living costs? Etc. Any links?

> You know this as an immigrant who's exploited this opportunity.

UK to Sweden isn't really the same as between some other countries is it? It's hardly exploiting, as an eu migrant has to able to support themselves in sweden etc.. no benefits, healthcare.. nothing if you can't. 

summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Yes

> jk

Oh look. All of eastern Europe is a different colour!!! 

1
Postmanpat on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Rounds ng the numbers the gdp per capita of the Uk is $41k pa. france is the 42 Germany is 45

  Bulgaria and Romania  are 8 and 10 respectively

So clearly the differentials are not remotely equivalent.

Thats based on Trading Economics Dec ‘16 data but WB amd IMF figures tell a sumilar story  

Post edited at 12:00
jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> Oh..  I hear some goal posts moving. Firstly they were the same, then you said almost, then improving, now you need to bring in relative to a 3rd world nation.... what next?

I *never* said the same, I said there was 'barely a problem' in the compatibility between the economies of the EU nations as an explanation for why free movement works there but won't yet between the EU and developing nations, the thing we were discussing so it's hardly like I've slipped in the developing nations to diminish the differences between say Sweden and Britain.

> Is it? Data? Average wage per hour? Living costs? Etc. Any links?

Link above provided for PmP. Oh I see you've seen it, looked at the pictures and missed the point, probably deliberately.

> UK to Sweden isn't really the same as between some other countries is it? It's hardly exploiting, as an eu migrant has to able to support themselves in sweden etc.. no benefits, healthcare.. nothing if you can't. 

Swedes are $10k PA better off than Brits who are $20k better off than Bulgarians (broad brush numbers, 3 sources in wiki link differ slightly). Not a huge difference. If Bulgarians are a parasitic menace (they're not) then so are you.

jk

jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Rounds ng the numbers the gdp per capita of the Uk is $41k pa. france is the 42 Germany is 45, Bulgaria and Romania  are 8 and 10 respectively.

Again rounding: Sweden $51k, Germany 50k, Australia 49k, UK 43k,  NZ 39k, Romania is 24k, Bulgaria 21k. Different but not very and the differences are split by Britain, we're not the irresistible magnet waiting to drown in a tide of European humanity people make us out to be.

By comparison: Nigeria $6k, India 7k, South Africa 13k

> So clearly the differentials are not remotely equivalent.

Not sure what numbers you're looking at but anyone who wants to check mine and the sources can look at the link provided.

jk

Post edited at 12:09
Postmanpat on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Even using your numbers-and the basic sources are usually the IMF or world bank, your point is invalid

The UK is about 14% lower than germany . Romania is about 45% lower than the UK and Bulgaria lower still.

The latter are on a par with Latin America

Ps. My initial numbers were not PPP adjusted so we can go with yours

Post edited at 12:17
summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Again rounding: Sweden $51k, Germany 50k, Australia 49k, UK 43k,  NZ 39k, Romania is 24k, Bulgaria 21k. Different but not ...

Bulgaria is half of the UK? That's more than a rounding up or down margin. Or if you stood in Bulgaria you can say UK is double. 

> By comparison: Nigeria $6k, India 7k, South Africa 13k

But, let's reset your goal posts. You said all the countries in the eu were broadly similar. We were talking about migration for employment within the eu, what does Nigeria have to do with it?

 

 

Post edited at 12:16
jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Even using your numbers-and the basic sources are usually the IMF or world bank, your point is invalid

What do you mean 'even' using my numbers, do you mean the numbers drawn from linked sources, indeed the same linked sources you suggest I should use rather than apparently made up numbers?

> The UK is about 14% lower than germany . Romania is about 45% lower than the UK and Bulgaria lower still.

My point is not that there are no differences but that the differences between even say Germany and Bulgaria are relatively modest compared to the differences between Bulgaria and Nigeria for example let alone Germany and Nigeria. People don't just move for money of course and free movement within the EU hasn't been catastrophic by any stretch of the imagination.

jk

summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:.

> Swedes are $10k PA better off than Brits who are $20k better off than Bulgarians (broad brush numbers, 3 sources in wiki link differ slightly). Not a huge difference. If Bulgarians are a parasitic menace (they're not) then so are you.

Average wages in the UK and sweden are roughly the same, but taxation, housing costs and living costs differ massively. The only thing cheaper in sweden might be buying a house depending on location. Everything else costs more, vat 5% higher helps with that too. But what differs most is outlook and lifestyle etc..  that's the prize that most people think is worth paying for. So not really parasitic, unless you can explain how?

 

Post edited at 12:23
jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> But, let's reset your goal posts. You said all the countries in the eu were broadly similar. We were talking about migration for employment within the eu, what does Nigeria have to do with it?

This bit of the discussion started with my point in defence of Rom who was being criticised for allegedly ignoring Africa and Asia that he had been clear he supports free movement as a long term goal but that worldwide free movement is not currently practical. You challenged that so now we're discussing it. The world includes countries like Nigeria as well as those of the EU. Free movement of people within the EU with its *relatively* modest differences in its nations' economies has worked, it has resulted in modest flows of people largely to our benefit. Throwing the borders wide open to the whole world in one go wouldn't currently.

jk

jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> Average wages in the UK and sweden are roughly the same, but taxation, housing costs and living costs differ massively. The only thing cheaper in sweden might be buying a house depending on location. Everything else costs more, vat 5% higher helps with that too. But what differs most is outlook and lifestyle etc..  that's the prize that most people think is worth paying for. So not really parasitic, unless you can explain how?

Explain why you think Bulgarians are a problem in the UK and I'll quote it right back at you. I don't think you or they are.

jk

summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> People don't just move for money of course and free movement within the EU hasn't been catastrophic by any stretch of the imagination.

https://www.reinisfischer.com/average-salary-european-union-2018

I'm sure salary is irrelevant. ;)

I didn't move for money, it was lifestyle. I don't think that applies to everyone though. 

summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Explain why you think Bulgarians are a problem in the UK and I'll quote it right back at you. I don't think you or they are.

I didn't say they were.

You claimed that countries in the eu had equal economies when the borders opened. I disagreed and still do. I gave you examples of countries that are still far behind the eu average. You then moved the goal posts to Africa etc..

 

Postmanpat on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Ive explained the sources and why they differ and that PPP adjusted are better.

Your claim was that “The difference between GDP per capita for Britain and Bulgaria isn't radically different to that between Britain and the  etherlands/sweden/Germany.”

That is a demonstrably false claim. In the context of the pull factors for migration the differences are big.

 

Postmanpat on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Ive explained the sources and why they differ and that PPP adjusted are better.

Your claim was that “The difference between GDP per capita for Britain and Bulgaria isn't radically different to that between Britain and the  etherlands/sweden/Germany.”

That is a demonstrably false claim. In the context of the pull factors for migration the differences are big.

 

Postmanpat on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Ive explained the sources and why they differ and agree that PPP adjusted are better.

Your claim was that “The difference between GDP per capita for Britain and Bulgaria isn't radically different to that between Britain and the  etherlands/sweden/Germany.”

That is a demonstrably false claim. In the context of the pull factors for migration the differences are big.

 

Post edited at 12:35
jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> I didn't move for money, it was lifestyle. I don't think that applies to everyone though. 

No, I'm sure you're very special.

jk

1
summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> ..... social and economic conditions broadly into balance across the border ...... I'd argue it's barely a problem and one that was being well addressed within Europe. 

Back to your original point, is the UK and eastern Europe equal, or even close in economic terms? 

summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> No, I'm sure you're very special.

Sorry if you aren't able to back up your claim that I'm some how a parasite, and are starting to get derogatory I will exit this discussion now. 

jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Ive explained the sources and why they differ and that PPP adjusted are better.

The numbers I gave you are PPP adjusted! From the wiki page "The gross domestic product (GDP) per capita figures on this page are derived from PPP calculations". Did you even look at the link?

You said 'standard sources' are IMF and World bank, the sources I used which give radically different numbers to those you provided.

> Your claim was that “The difference between GDP per capita for Britain and Bulgaria isn't radically different to that between Britain and the  etherlands/sweden/Germany.”

> That is a demonstrably false claim. In the context of the pull factors for migration the differences are big.

I don't agree but there we go.

jk

jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> Sorry if you aren't able to back up your claim that I'm some how a parasite, and are starting to get derogatory I will exit this discussion now. 

I've said I don't think you are but that if you think Bulgarians are because some of them move to a richer nation then by the same token you are. I don't think that, it's you arguing Bulgarians moving to the UK is a problem.

Your statement explicitly marks you out as being somehow special, different from other migrants, it's of the type: I'm an expat, he's an economic immigrant.

jk

Post edited at 12:43
Postmanpat on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Read my fxxking posts. I said yours were ppp adjusted and mine werent and gave  my source and said  ppp were better! Almost certainly the Trading economicsnumbers are WB or IMF but unadjusted, not “made up” as you so provocatively put it.

i was in a queque at the airport hence using unadjusted by mistake.

 

jesus wept

Post edited at 12:48
jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> Back to your original point, is the UK and eastern Europe equal, or even close in economic terms? 

Equal: No. I challenge you to quote me saying they are.

Relatively similar by comparison with much of the rest of the world: Yes. I provided stats to back that admittedly debatable opinion up, you looked at the pictures at the top of the page and missed my point. They're more similar than they're different and those differences are diminishing within the framework of the EU.

jk

jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Read my fxxking posts.

You're not making as much sense as you think you are and I think you edited to add the source of your numbers after I replied.

jk

Post edited at 12:50
Postmanpat on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> You're not making as much sense as you think you are and I think you edited to add the source of your numbers after I replied.

> jk

Im making perfect sense. You are just not reading. I added my source (TE) before you replied and acknowledged the explanation for the difference and that PPP adjusted are better as soon as I worked it out, which you can then completely misread.

 

But given you think that 14% and 100% are not very different I can see why you might not have got it

 

Post edited at 13:15
Big Ger - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Equal: No. I challenge you to quote me saying they are.

This is what you said which is confusing people;

 

Summo; "It ( a process of bringing social and economic conditions broadly into balance )was not dealt with in Europe, if it had been then the flow of workers would be equal between countries, and the flow of development grant funds wouldn't be on-going after borders were opened."

JK; "It's near as damnit dealt with already and the situation is improving." 

So, do you think the  "process of bringing social and economic conditions broadly into balance"  is as near as dammit dealt with already?

No need to thank me.

Post edited at 14:11
summo on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> I've said I don't think you are but that if you think Bulgarians are because some of them move to a richer nation then by the same token you are. I don't think that, it's you arguing Bulgarians moving to the UK is a problem.

I didn't say anyone was a problem, for the umpteenth time I am disputing your claim that European countries are near equal economically etc..

> Your statement explicitly marks you out as being somehow special, different from other migrants, it's of the type: I'm an expat, he's an economic immigrant.

No I am an eu migrant worker. But it doesn't change the fact Europe is not equal, even the euro nations have big differences economically.

I give up. 

 

jkarran - on 25 Apr 2018
In reply to summo:

> I didn't say anyone was a problem, for the umpteenth time I am disputing your claim that European countries are near equal economically etc..

They are near enough economically that free movement just about works practically, they are near to each other relative to many other economies, this is relevant to the thing we were initially discussing today: worldwide free movement of labour.

> No I am an eu migrant worker. But it doesn't change the fact Europe is not equal, even the euro nations have big differences economically.

I'm not saying they're equal, I've said that they're not several times as clearly as I possibly can. I'm saying they're similar enough and getting more so.

jk

tom_in_edinburgh - on 25 Apr 2018

Every day it gets clearer the Home Office is both malicious and incompetent towards non-citizens and are being encouraged to be so by the Tory government because they want to scare people they have no right to deport into leaving:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/24/canadian-woman-told-to-leave-uk-margaret-obrien

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/challenge-operation-nexus/?utm_medium=Facebook&utm_content=case_page_below_amounts&utm_campaign=challenge-operation-nexus&utm_source=case_page_social

"Our challenge is based on two grounds; 

  • If you are an EEA citizen and arrested or ‘encountered’ by the police in England and Wales, you will be subject to automatic verification about whether you are exercising EU Treaty Rights. This is irrespective of any ‘reasonable doubt’. We think that this wrong and inappropriate as well as an oppressive misuse of police powers. Help us change it.
  • If you are interviewed by the police under Operation Nexus then you will not have the right to a lawyer (or the any of the other usual protections available under PACE). We believe that this is draconian and unlawful."

When it comes to non-citizens these people are basically fascists.

 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.