Windrush Generation

I can't see that it does - the fact that someone is here illegally ie knowingly violating the laws of the land is surely proof in itself?

But you don't know if they are illegal until it has been proven. Do you not understand the concept of innocent until proved guilty?

If you wish to hold to Baggs' analogy the 'punishment' for being here illegally is deportation. Under British law you cannot be 'punished' until your guilt has been proved.

I see. So basically you think the current Tory government is corrupt to the core?

No. Heads did roll in the past Baggs Now they don't. I think the philosophy is it will be a 9 days wonder and if you can ride it out it won't matter.

I'm sure there have been ministerial resignations in governments before, and then administrations getting voted out at next elections because of government misjudgments, cock ups andnwhat voters felt have been lies.

Are you saying heads haven't rolled in the past?

If they had Baggs, in the past heads would have rolled. Now not only do we have government by reaction, we have government without responsibility.

Cases like this are why the importance of a free press is so paramount.

Anyway, thank goodness for investigative journalism.

suspect

I susoect that there isn't and hasn't been a government ever that hasn't used that being found out principle, t.

The word hostile does mean those things, elo, but it also means something less than your definitions when used to 'encourage' people not to break the law.

That I am hostile to crumbs being left on the kitchen table by other members of my family doesn't mean I'm aggressive about it. I think you are reading far too much into the word hostile as used about illegal immigration and attempts to stop it, just as you would be if you thought I was aggressive (and all those other things) about kitchen crumbs.

If someone is here having been invited by the Government and is then caught up in legislation and rules designed to deport those who are illegally in this country then that should be put right immediately
But the point is Jalima1108 that it wasn't put right immediately and that people with a perfect right to be here have suffered. And it took a sustained media campaign by the Guardian to get things changed. So what we have is a government working on the basis that if you get found out you have to do something.

Can you supply evidence of the deport first, ask later policy that you mention, maiz, or is that an assumption on your part?

Theresa May's strategy of 'deport first, ask questions later' violates that principle and renders your analogy completely invalid, Baggs

I can't see that it does - the fact that someone is here illegally ie knowingly violating the laws of the land is surely proof in itself?

If someone is here having been invited by the Government and is then caught up in legislation and rules designed to deport those who are illegally in this country then that should be put right immediately.

How does that explain ignoring the warnings of the civil service?

It is the case that this country cannot allow entry to every person who wishes to come here but whipping up fears and resentment for political point scoring (whether done by Labour, Conservative or any other party) is, I think, a very dishonourable tactic. The word "hostile" means: antagonistic · aggressive · confrontational · belligerent · bellicose · pugnacious · militant · truculent · combative · warlike · unfriendly · unkind · bitter · unsympathetic · malevolent. In my view, illegal immigrants need to be removed from the country but they do not deserve such aggressive feelings directed at them. More to the point, this unpleasant use of language reinforces the prejudices of quite a lot of people who do not seem to understand that non-white people are, in the main, British citizens or people who have the right to remain here.

It is true these laws can affect any Commonwealth citizen - black or white - but non-white people are more noticeable and more likely to be perceived as immigrants. The "illegal" bit of the equation is often overlooked and all immigrants suffer because of the aggressive language used.

We do indeed have laws which make the environment hostile to wrong doers. But our law works on the principle of 'innocent until proved guilty'. Theresa May's strategy of 'deport first, ask questions later' violates that principle and renders your analogy completely invalid, Baggs

Eloethan

I'm not defending the government nor am I blaming anybody else.

The fact is some have been making specific references, using them to apportion blame, such as the Landing Cards and use of the term ' Hostile Environment ' and it has bit them on the bum some what as the story when given time to be appraised produced factual evidence through a time line which shows it was under a previous government..

I think the time line also shows the transition from one government to another in 2010 had something to do with those two points and I can see how it happened.

I am not excusing anybody I think there have obviously been some terrible decisions made hence I posted on the thread " both sides of the house accepted the way the 'Windrush Children' have been treated in some cases has been disgraceful and I hope Amber Rudd having taken full responsibility gets this right."

Do I think as some it was 'racist ' on the part of May and Rudd , No. So I will stand up for them on that point .

Exactly, Baggs.

Computer systems at that time, especially those enormous main frames in big organisations, were prone to error. I worked for a large insurance company at the time and some of the cockups were potentially disastrous. Some poor bods could well have spent hours posting all those cards onto the system and then the whole lot unwittingly lost along with other stuff and then covered up. We’ll probably never know.

Some of us aren't defending anyone or anything. What we are criticising is incompetence wherever it arises (in this case incompetence or wrong decision-making in two government administrations) whilst also acknowledging that all politicians, and civil servants who carry out politicians' orders, are human. We all know how humans can balls up anything without even meaning to.

What, essentially, is wrong with a hostile environment for dealing with illegal immigrants? or illegal anything come to that? We have laws making the legal environment 'hostile' for thieves and dangerous drivers. Nobody seems to mind about that.

The legally hostile environment in question went wrong because of incompetence. The incompetence is going to be dealt with and wrongs are going to be righted.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there are still people on here who defend the Conservatives' behaviour in this matter.

I had to laugh at the pained expression of indignation and concern on Amber Rudd's face as she attempted to present herself as an outraged onlooker, accusing ~"the State" of causing all the problems.

The Civil Service website states:

"Lord Kerslake, the former head of the civil service, has said that officials raised concerns with Theresa May about the potential impact of changes to immigration rules that have left some of the so-called Windrush generation unable to prove their status.

"Kerslake, who was head of the civil service from 2012 to 2015 as well as head of then Department for Communities and Local Government for five years to 2015, said civil servants “would have said that there is a risk [that tougher immigration rules will mean] you take action against people who are actually lawfully here because they don’t have the information”.

Since the usual Conservative-supporting posters are continually "castigating", and sneering at, Labour and Corbyn on every possible occasion, it seems a bit rich that they now object to other posters taking a similarly robust stance in relation to the Conservative government's woeful performance, the latest and worst in a long line of scandalous policies that have served to impoverish and disempower so many people - and diminish our reputation in the world.

I would not describe people who have lived and worked here for 40 or more years being told they are "illegal", losing their jobs, in some cases being placed in detention centres, and living with the constant fear of being deported as a "hoo ha".

All the hoo- ha over the Boarding Cards and the use of the term ' Hostile Environment ' took a twist though did it not?.

I thought Alan Johnson speaking on This Week made the most sense out of all of them.

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

On BBC One's This Week, Mr Johnson - home secretary from June 2009 until May 2010 - said the UK Border Agency had taken the "administrative decision" to destroy the landing cards in 2009, although he was unaware of it.

"It wasn't just the Windrush landing cards it was this mass of paperwork that had built up over 50 years.

"And you have to remember, we were introducing a biometric identity card, compulsory, for anyone coming in from outside the European Union, so Windrush weren't involved in any of that, there was no threat to the Windrush generation.

So it was an administrative decision, just at it was a year later, when Theresa May was home secretary - as my successor - and they were destroyed."
----
Emily Thornberry on Andrew Marr Show acknowledging Labour used the term ' Hostile Environment ' before Tories.


www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0651kq9

I think it’s entirely possible Baggs and in fact most who came over called the WG have had no problems, but a few
( considering there are what? 20 thousand?) have had problems, under a hundred, about 48 cases being looked at.
It shouldn't have happened, but it did, and is being dealt with quickly now.
This will not please posters who planned on happily castigating the government for the next six months.

If the order to civil servants was to transfer the info on the cards to digital (which sounds normal and proper), then why didn't civil servants do that? Or did they? And if so there shouldn't really be a problem at all.

There must always be an overhang of work directed by the previous government to be done when there is a change of administration. It's hard to believe civil servants just drop everything and start as it were from scratch.

The whole story is very baffling and I'm beginning to wonder if it has been blown out of proportion.

I'm another who doesn't understand why School records, National Insurance records, tax records, etc. don't demonstrate that these people have been living and working here for years.

Sorry I haven't read every post, but has someone been able to explain this?

Channel 4 doing a special report on it now, if anyone interested