This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.
It is not and has never been government policy for those with indefinite leave to remain to be deported.
As successive governments have moved the obligation onto the citizen to prove their status, this has only sought to highlight those groups of people who - despite having ILR - are unable to prove it.
Quite where you think the malice lies here, the truth is that once identified firm action needs to be taken. As ever, the government is slow to realise, slow to act, and slow to grasp the extent of the problem. Plus ca change.
Stephen Bush is [unusually] overstating it: this is a one-off, but very real, problem with an older generation, given that more recent (and future) immigrants and their children will all be documented...
In the meantime, you are talking about immigrants over a period of at least four decades. This is not a small problem.
Hopefully the debate today deters May from using missiles without approval again. She's foreseen the potential uproar and sought to minimize fallout but contributions will still be analyzed closely today...
I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.
I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.
But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?
I don't think any of us are.
Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.
And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.
I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.
I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.
But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?
I don't think any of us are.
Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.
And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.
So, we are supposed to be having closer relations with the Commonwealth countries before Brexit and we are treating their descendants like criminals. Not good.
I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.
Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.
The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual.
I went to the 1968 Grosvenor Square demo and remember the small group of fanatics there who saw their aim as to incite as much violence as possible. Only then could you distinguish the true believers from the vague sympathisers who must be eliminated in the future.
Famine conditions in Vietnam spawned the rise of the Vietminh and the inevitable then happened. A small group of fanatics gained control. It seemed the same in 1917 Russia, but I speak only as an observer with a mere scientific training - thus no knowledge of false consciousness and all the other bollocks associated with sociology, a Mickey Mouse science if ever there was one.
Here's my hypothesis. Ignore anyone with a sociology or part sociology degree - they're probably bonkers. Karl should have been patted on the head and complimented on his analysis, but quietly ignored on his solution. "It won't work, Marx junior, all you'll do is invigorate a group of loons who believe that their mythical end justifies wholesale slaughter."
Is Jezza a true believer or a harmless and well-meaning amateur playing with his plant pots?
There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.
But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.
Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.
Given the clusterfuck and Mrs May's tin ear over the Windrush generation can any Tories really tell me they want the Maybot to contest the next general election? #NothingHasChanged
Doesn't paint Amber Rudd in a great light either. Step forward Jeremy Hunt...
The same Jeremy Hunt who has been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards?
I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning...
In what respect ?
You'd think the other side of the argument was that were right to deport them, instead of what it is, which is just a discussion about how best to rectify the problem...
Well it's a problem which has been going on for several years owing to policies administered by a long serving Home Secretary who is now PM. It is not something which she has just discovered; there has been a deliberate blind eye turned towards the problem up until now. The new willingness to address the problem appears to be entirely down to the recent public outcry.
I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.
Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.
The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual.
I went to the 1968 Grosvenor Square demo and remember the small group of fanatics there who saw their aim as to incite as much violence as possible. Only then could you distinguish the true believers from the vague sympathisers who must be eliminated in the future.
Famine conditions in Vietnam spawned the rise of the Vietminh and the inevitable then happened. A small group of fanatics gained control. It seemed the same in 1917 Russia, but I speak only as an observer with a mere scientific training - thus no knowledge of false consciousness and all the other bollocks associated with sociology, a Mickey Mouse science if ever there was one.
Here's my hypothesis. Ignore anyone with a sociology or part sociology degree - they're probably bonkers. Karl should have been patted on the head and complimented on his analysis, but quietly ignored on his solution. "It won't work, Marx junior, all you'll do is invigorate a group of loons who believe that their mythical end justifies wholesale slaughter."
Is Jezza a true believer or a harmless and well-meaning amateur playing with his plant pots?
There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.
But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.
Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.
Cambodia would have been a very different place for better or worse.
I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.
I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.
But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?
I don't think any of us are.
Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.
And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.
I think you can criticise Theresa May for being slow and tone deaf here, on a serious side-effect of her policy she failed to see coming, without thinking she's a neo-Nazi.
BREAKING: Immigration minister Caroline Nokes appears to admit to @itvnews@pennymitv that some Windrush immigrants have indeed been deported, but she can't give numbers.
So, we are supposed to be having closer relations with the Commonwealth countries before Brexit and we are treating their descendants like criminals. Not good.
For those who advocate Empire 2.0 and Canzuk, some Commonwealth countries are very definitely more important than others. There seems to be a litmus test, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Given the clusterfuck and Mrs May's tin ear over the Windrush generation can any Tories really tell me they want the Maybot to contest the next general election? #NothingHasChanged
The 40% the Tories are on under May in the latest Survation would still be the second highest Tory voteshare since 1992, the highest of course being achieved by May in 2017
I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.
I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.
But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?
I don't think any of us are.
Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.
And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.
I think you can criticise Theresa May for being slow and tone deaf here, on a serious side-effect of her policy she failed to see coming, without thinking she's a neo-Nazi.
What's worse is we didn't need to see it *coming*.
If people have already been deported, then we could have seen it in action and still been miles quicker than we are.
A sensible move which hopefully will resolve the issue and reassure the Windrush generation
The cost to some seems to have been absolubtely massive, beyond a paperwork filing fee. The Gov't needs to recompense those swiftly and fully, or they'll have a very embarrasing court case on their hands. They probably will anyway heading forward.
I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.
Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.
The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual.
I went to the 1968 Grosvenor Square demo and remember the small group of fanatics there who saw their aim as to incite as much violence as possible. Only then could you distinguish the true believers from the vague sympathisers who must be eliminated in the future.
Famine conditions in Vietnam spawned the rise of the Vietminh and the inevitable then happened. A small group of fanatics gained control. It seemed the same in 1917 Russia, but I speak only as an observer with a mere scientific training - thus no knowledge of false consciousness and all the other bollocks associated with sociology, a Mickey Mouse science if ever there was one.
Here's my hypothesis. Ignore anyone with a sociology or part sociology degree - they're probably bonkers. Karl should have been patted on the head and complimented on his analysis, but quietly ignored on his solution. "It won't work, Marx junior, all you'll do is invigorate a group of loons who believe that their mythical end justifies wholesale slaughter."
Is Jezza a true believer or a harmless and well-meaning amateur playing with his plant pots?
There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.
But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.
Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.
Cambodia would have been a very different place for better or worse.
In general, if military action works, people will see the war as just. If it doesn't work, people will see it as unjust.
If the Vietnam war had turned out like the Korean war, then people would people today would see it as a just war.
I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.
I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.
But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?
I don't think any of us are.
Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.
And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.
I think you can criticise Theresa May for being slow and tone deaf here, on a serious side-effect of her policy she failed to see coming, without thinking she's a neo-Nazi.
What's worse is we didn't need to see it *coming*.
If people have already been deported, then we could have seen it in action and still been miles quicker than we are.
Your man is taking a beating right now and it is not a good look to be against your Country.
But on an issue that is important to you, have you seen the Government announcement that it is extending a trial scheme of 23,000 to approx 300,000 whereby those with dementia, disabled and with health issues will be paid directly for them to choose and pay direct for carers of their choice, be it family or other relatives and that payments will be authorized through their doctor to ensure no abuse of the scheme. Also gym membership, holidays and general personal counselling will be available
It is being announced as handing control directly to the patient over their own care.
Interesting at the very least
Interesting detail on the Disabled payments. Thanks for the info,
TBF Mrs BJ uses her money for the Social Care Providers of her choice already and her Carer (me) also gets Carers Allowance direct from the state already.
Not sure how the proposed scheme will impact.
The Holiday thing looks interesting as a £400 short break cost us nearly £3000 last year. End up paying for two sets of Social Carers. specialist transport, accommodation etc Its an absolute ball ache.
It does seem to be a genuine attempt to give control to the patients who know their need better than most.
It's something I know a bit about, this relates specifically to people receiving NHS funded care rather than local authority social care funding. The kind of choice BJO and family can already exercise is a rarity for people with NHS funding and this brings the same sort of arrangements into that sphere.
I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.
I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.
But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?
I don't think any of us are.
Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.
And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.
I think you can criticise Theresa May for being slow and tone deaf here, on a serious side-effect of her policy she failed to see coming, without thinking she's a neo-Nazi.
What's worse is we didn't need to see it *coming*.
If people have already been deported, then we could have seen it in action and still been miles quicker than we are.
I agree - if some people have been deported unjustly then I agree that’s outrageous. They should have that immediately reversed, receive a full apology and compensation.
So, we are supposed to be having closer relations with the Commonwealth countries before Brexit and we are treating their descendants like criminals. Not good.
For those who advocate Empire 2.0 and Canzuk, some Commonwealth countries are very definitely more important than others. There seems to be a litmus test, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.
I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.
But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?
I don't think any of us are.
Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.
And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.
I think you can criticise Theresa May for being slow and tone deaf here, on a serious side-effect of her policy she failed to see coming, without thinking she's a neo-Nazi.
I agree. But the idea that because some idiots are criticising her as a neo-Nazi (I haven't seen it but I don't doubt such people exist) - that you should ignore the legitimate grievance based on tribal loyalties - is completely wrong.
I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.
Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.
The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual...
There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.
But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.
Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.
I think there is a degree of truth in that, although the US probably 'lost' Vietnam before the war. It is notable that under Eisenhower, the US had made some efforts to address rural poverty and disease, which might have been more successful had they not picked a leader like Diem, who was both corrupt and incompetent. They had an opportunity to win the peace before they even got into the war.
Just as, perhaps, in Afghanistan, and Iraq, there were no real plans to win the peace after the conflicts. Which rightly led to both being judged disasters.
This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.
It is a bit amusing that the Daily Mail and the Sun are now so opposed to it. TM must feel a bit like they are moving the goalposts on her.
In a just world this should be terminal for Theresa May. It won't be though, because fundamentally Conservatives just don't really care very much about this side of immigration administration.
Post-Brexit, the government has been explicitly proceeding on the basis that it's fine to treat people as pawns in discussions about immigration. This is the logical conclusion of such a line of thought.
So the rules have changed in the last two years?
This whole approach, including the approach to enforcement, comes from the top. The post-Brexit climate determines how rules are enforced. 3 million European citizens in the UK are being left in limbo while the government uses them as counters to play games with. This is the new normal.
Are you equally critical of EU governments leaving UK citizens there in limbo?
I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.
I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.
But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?
I don't think any of us are.
Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.
And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.
I think you can criticise Theresa May for being slow and tone deaf here, on a serious side-effect of her policy she failed to see coming, without thinking she's a neo-Nazi.
I agree. But the idea that because some idiots are criticising her as a neo-Nazi (I haven't seen it but I don't doubt such people exist) - that you should ignore the legitimate grievance based on tribal loyalties - is completely wrong.
I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.
Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.
The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual.
I went to the 1968 Grosvenor Square demo and remember the small group of fanatics there who saw their aim as to incite as much violence as possible. Only then could you distinguish the true believers from the vague sympathisers who must be eliminated in the future.
Famine conditions in Vietnam spawned the rise of the Vietminh and the inevitable then happened. A small group of fanatics gained control. It seemed the same in 1917 Russia, but I speak only as an observer with a mere scientific training - thus no knowledge of false consciousness and all the other bollocks associated with sociology, a Mickey Mouse science if ever there was one.
Here's my hypothesis. Ignore anyone with a sociology or part sociology degree - they're probably bonkers. Karl should have been patted on the head and complimented on his analysis, but quietly ignored on his solution. "It won't work, Marx junior, all you'll do is invigorate a group of loons who believe that their mythical end justifies wholesale slaughter."
Is Jezza a true believer or a harmless and well-meaning amateur playing with his plant pots?
There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.
But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.
Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.
Cambodia would have been a very different place for better or worse.
In general, if military action works, people will see the war as just. If it doesn't work, people will see it as unjust.
If the Vietnam war had turned out like the Korean war, then people would people today would see it as a just war.
So, we are supposed to be having closer relations with the Commonwealth countries before Brexit and we are treating their descendants like criminals. Not good.
For those who advocate Empire 2.0 and Canzuk, some Commonwealth countries are very definitely more important than others. There seems to be a litmus test, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Take a look at the comments btl on he Guido piece. I'm sure you'll be utterly appalled, but they are very much supportive of the Windrush children.
I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.
I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.
But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?
I don't think any of us are.
My impression is that most Tories see it as an injustice which should be rectified.
I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.
Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.
The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual...
There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.
But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.
Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.
I think there is a degree of truth in that, although the US probably 'lost' Vietnam before the war. It is notable that under Eisenhower, the US had made some efforts to address rural poverty and disease, which might have been more successful had they not picked a leader like Diem, who was both corrupt and incompetent. They had an opportunity to win the peace before they even got into the war.
Just as, perhaps, in Afghanistan, and Iraq, there were no real plans to win the peace after the conflicts. Which rightly led to both being judged disasters.
The key aims in Afghanistan ie removing the Taliban and killing Bin Laden and in Iraq in terms of removing Saddam were achieved, trying to make them into prosperous and liberal democracies was an aim too far
A sensible move which hopefully will resolve the issue and reassure the Windrush generation
The cost to some seems to have been absolubtely massive, beyond a paperwork filing fee. The Gov't needs to recompense those swiftly and fully, or they'll have a very embarrasing court case on their hands. They probably will anyway heading forward.
So, we are supposed to be having closer relations with the Commonwealth countries before Brexit and we are treating their descendants like criminals. Not good.
For those who advocate Empire 2.0 and Canzuk, some Commonwealth countries are very definitely more important than others. There seems to be a litmus test, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Crudely, those parts of the world that lie between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".
A wide range of decisions are now taken by people who do not have the experience, time or budget to think.
Even though cocking things up are bad for all three of those in the long run.
I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.
I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.
But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?
I don't think any of us are.
Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.
And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.
I think you can criticise Theresa May for being slow and tone deaf here, on a serious side-effect of her policy she failed to see coming, without thinking she's a neo-Nazi.
What's worse is we didn't need to see it *coming*.
If people have already been deported, then we could have seen it in action and still been miles quicker than we are.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".
Too many lawyers hovering over every aspect of public administration, often financed by the tax payer and egged on by shrill campaigning groups. If you are a middle ranking civil servant, police officer and so on why risk your career by using your initiative? We could do with more "reasonable judgement" principle based rules.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.
This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.
It is not and has never been government policy for those with indefinite leave to remain to be deported.
As successive governments have moved the obligation onto the citizen to prove their status, this has only sought to highlight those groups of people who - despite having ILR - are unable to prove it.
Quite where you think the malice lies here, the truth is that once identified firm action needs to be taken. As ever, the government is slow to realise, slow to act, and slow to grasp the extent of the problem. Plus ca change.
Stephen Bush is [unusually] overstating it: this is a one-off, but very real, problem with an older generation, given that more recent (and future) immigrants and their children will all be documented...
In the meantime, you are talking about immigrants over a period of at least four decades. This is not a small problem.
Wasn't the idea of making employers liable for ensuring the legality of their employees an issue that united 98% of the PB intelligentsia?
Hopefully the debate today deters May from using missiles without approval again. She's foreseen the potential uproar and sought to minimize fallout but contributions will still be analyzed closely today...
She is going to be fucked if Assad uses chemical weapons again.
Not necessarily. Many in the electorate will see that as direct provocation by a filthy dictator. The govt may well have some anti-Putin measures (non-military) in position that can be deployed possibly as a substitute for a strike. I'm not sure the World Cup would survive an Assad chemical attack. There might well have to be a further strike though.
My company blocks Twitter, was that the spit roasting tweet? The replies on that were awesomely entertaining
Yup, the spit roasting tweet.
I only saw about two replies that were about cooking. The rest were all of the 'ooh matron' type of comment. Fair okay to them for not deleting the tweet though.
This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.
It is not and has never been government policy for those with indefinite leave to remain to be deported.
As successive governments have moved the obligation onto the citizen to prove their status, this has only sought to highlight those groups of people who - despite having ILR - are unable to prove it.
Quite where you think the malice lies here, the truth is that once identified firm action needs to be taken. As ever, the government is slow to realise, slow to act, and slow to grasp the extent of the problem. Plus ca change.
Stephen Bush is [unusually] overstating it: this is a one-off, but very real, problem with an older generation, given that more recent (and future) immigrants and their children will all be documented...
In the meantime, you are talking about immigrants over a period of at least four decades. This is not a small problem.
Wasn't the idea of making employers liable for ensuring the legality of their employees an issue that united 98% of the PB intelligentsia?
Wasn't the idea of making employers liable for ensuring the legality of their employees an issue that united 98% of the PB intelligentsia?
That's the odd thing, this has been the legal position for well over a decade - it was brought in by the last Labour government. Who can forget this case?
This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.
It is not and has never been government policy for those with indefinite leave to remain to be deported.
As successive governments have moved the obligation onto the citizen to prove their status, this has only sought to highlight those groups of people who - despite having ILR - are unable to prove it.
Quite where you think the malice lies here, the truth is that once identified firm action needs to be taken. As ever, the government is slow to realise, slow to act, and slow to grasp the extent of the problem. Plus ca change.
Stephen Bush is [unusually] overstating it: this is a one-off, but very real, problem with an older generation, given that more recent (and future) immigrants and their children will all be documented...
In the meantime, you are talking about immigrants over a period of at least four decades. This is not a small problem.
Wasn't the idea of making employers liable for ensuring the legality of their employees an issue that united 98% of the PB intelligentsia?
This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.
It is not and has never been government policy for those with indefinite leave to remain to be deported.
As successive governments have moved the obligation onto the citizen to prove their status, this has only sought to highlight those groups of people who - despite having ILR - are unable to prove it.
Quite where you think the malice lies here, the truth is that once identified firm action needs to be taken. As ever, the government is slow to realise, slow to act, and slow to grasp the extent of the problem. Plus ca change.
Stephen Bush is [unusually] overstating it: this is a one-off, but very real, problem with an older generation, given that more recent (and future) immigrants and their children will all be documented...
In the meantime, you are talking about immigrants over a period of at least four decades. This is not a small problem.
Wasn't the idea of making employers liable for ensuring the legality of their employees an issue that united 98% of the PB intelligentsia?
May 2004. Let's check the archives...
I daren't mention who was one of the main advocates especially as he only recently posted the PB behaviour guide.
This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.
It is a bit amusing that the Daily Mail and the Sun are now so opposed to it. TM must feel a bit like they are moving the goalposts on her.
In a just world this should be terminal for Theresa May. It won't be though, because fundamentally Conservatives just don't really care very much about this side of immigration administration.
Post-Brexit, the government has been explicitly proceeding on the basis that it's fine to treat people as pawns in discussions about immigration. This is the logical conclusion of such a line of thought.
So the rules have changed in the last two years?
This whole approach, including the approach to enforcement, comes from the top. The post-Brexit climate determines how rules are enforced. 3 million European citizens in the UK are being left in limbo while the government uses them as counters to play games with. This is the new normal.
No they are not. The principles have been determined - see the Joint Report issued in December. The positions in that report are the indivisible foundation on which future negotiations are based. But, if that isn't enough for you, how about the 1.2 million UK citizens in Europe who are equally in limbo while the EU uses them as counters to play games with? Or how about the 4.2 million people affected who are in limbo because the EU refused the UK's offer to reach an early agreement on this subject?
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.
Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
That is a good point, that incompetence plus (relative) incorruptibility is the worst of all possible combinations.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.
Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.
Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.
I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.
Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.
The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual...
There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.
But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.
Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.
I think there is a degree of truth in that, although the US probably 'lost' Vietnam before the war. It is notable that under Eisenhower, the US had made some efforts to address rural poverty and disease, which might have been more successful had they not picked a leader like Diem, who was both corrupt and incompetent. They had an opportunity to win the peace before they even got into the war.
Just as, perhaps, in Afghanistan, and Iraq, there were no real plans to win the peace after the conflicts. Which rightly led to both being judged disasters.
The key aims in Afghanistan ie removing the Taliban and killing Bin Laden and in Iraq in terms of removing Saddam were achieved, trying to make them into prosperous and liberal democracies was an aim too far
Taking responsibility for not allowing them to collapse into chaos ought also to have been included in those "key aims", most especially in the case of Iraq, where the case for an invasion was shaky, to say the least.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.
Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.
Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.
I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.
This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.
It is a bit amusing that the Daily Mail and the Sun are now so opposed to it. TM must feel a bit like they are moving the goalposts on her.
In a just world this should be terminal for Theresa May. It won't be though, because fundamentally Conservatives just don't really care very much about this side of immigration administration.
Post-Brexit, the government has been explicitly proceeding on the basis that it's fine to treat people as pawns in discussions about immigration. This is the logical conclusion of such a line of thought.
So the rules have changed in the last two years?
This whole approach, including the approach to enforcement, comes from the top. The post-Brexit climate determines how rules are enforced. 3 million European citizens in the UK are being left in limbo while the government uses them as counters to play games with. This is the new normal.
No they are not. The principles have been determined - see the Joint Report issued in December. The positions in that report are the indivisible foundation on which future negotiations are based. But, if that isn't enough for you, how about the 1.2 million UK citizens in Europe who are equally in limbo while the EU uses them as counters to play games with? Or how about the 4.2 million people affected who are in limbo because the EU refused the UK's offer to reach an early agreement on this subject?
I deplore the EU's approach on this subject also. The dehumanising effect of pandering to xenophobia is apparently contagious.
This is a new normal that crosses international boundaries. Leave's xenophobic campaign was one of the dominoes that fell when that new normal was being established.
The UK could and should act unilaterally to regularise the position of EU nationals in the UK. In practice is it proposing to have Windrush2 post-Brexit? If not, it should be acting now to allay the entirely justified fears of these people who are seeing yet again this week just how appallingly the British state treats longterm residents who can be otherised.
This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.
It is a bit amusing that the Daily Mail and the Sun are now so opposed to it. TM must feel a bit like they are moving the goalposts on her.
In a just world this should be terminal for Theresa May. It won't be though, because fundamentally Conservatives just don't really care very much about this side of immigration administration.
Post-Brexit, the government has been explicitly proceeding on the basis that it's fine to treat people as pawns in discussions about immigration. This is the logical conclusion of such a line of thought.
So the rules have changed in the last two years?
This whole approach, including the approach to enforcement, comes from the top. The post-Brexit climate determines how rules are enforced. 3 million European citizens in the UK are being left in limbo while the government uses them as counters to play games with. This is the new normal.
No they are not. The principles have been determined - see the Joint Report issued in December. The positions in that report are the indivisible foundation on which future negotiations are based. But, if that isn't enough for you, how about the 1.2 million UK citizens in Europe who are equally in limbo while the EU uses them as counters to play games with? Or how about the 4.2 million people affected who are in limbo because the EU refused the UK's offer to reach an early agreement on this subject?
I deplore the EU's approach on this subject also. The dehumanising effect of pandering to xenophobia is apparently contagious.
This is a new normal that crosses international boundaries. Leave's xenophobic campaign was one of the dominoes that fell when that new normal was being established.
The UK could and should act unilaterally to regularise the position of EU nationals in the UK. In practice is it proposing to have Windrush2 post-Brexit? If not, it should be acting now to allay the entirely justified fears of these people who are seeing yet again this week just how appallingly the British state treats longterm residents who can be otherised.
What would be the answer to the question,The US Government,under Trump,has become a force for evil in the world? My guess is that is probably equal and could exceed.Maybe someone should ask it.
BTW notable urofiliacs include, an American serial killer known as The Boogeyman and another boogieman called Chuck Berry. Does boogie-woogi Donald like Chuck's boogi-woogie music? Is boogie-woogi the new bunga-bunga? must go and flll the wife's bath up so she can have a nice soak.
This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.
It is a bit amusing that the Daily Mail and the Sun are now so opposed to it. TM must feel a bit like they are moving the goalposts on her.
In a just world this should be terminal for Theresa May. It won't be though, because fundamentally Conservatives just don't really care very much about this side of immigration administration.
Post-Brexit, the government has been explicitly proceeding on the basis that it's fine to treat people as pawns in discussions about immigration. This is the logical conclusion of such a line of thought.
So the rules have changed in the last two years?
This whole approach, including the approach to enforcement, comes from the top. The post-Brexit climate determines how rules are enforced. 3 million European citizens in the UK are being left in limbo while the government uses them as counters to play games with. This is the new normal.
No they are not. The principles have been determined - see the Joint Report issued in December. The positions in that report are the indivisible foundation on which future negotiations are based. But, if that isn't enough for you, how about the 1.2 million UK citizens in Europe who are equally in limbo while the EU uses them as counters to play games with? Or how about the 4.2 million people affected who are in limbo because the EU refused the UK's offer to reach an early agreement on this subject?
I deplore the EU's approach on this subject also. The dehumanising effect of pandering to xenophobia is apparently contagious.
This is a new normal that crosses international boundaries. Leave's xenophobic campaign was one of the dominoes that fell when that new normal was being established.
The UK could and should act unilaterally to regularise the position of EU nationals in the UK. In practice is it proposing to have Windrush2 post-Brexit? If not, it should be acting now to allay the entirely justified fears of these people who are seeing yet again this week just how appallingly the British state treats longterm residents who can be otherised.
I would support that if we did. Do you think the EU reciprocate, or would they bank that concession and demand full access to our fishing waters, or whatever, in return for securing the rights of Brits in Europe?
So, we are supposed to be having closer relations with the Commonwealth countries before Brexit and we are treating their descendants like criminals. Not good.
For those who advocate Empire 2.0 and Canzuk, some Commonwealth countries are very definitely more important than others. There seems to be a litmus test, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Something to do with Anglo Saxon values and the deep feelings engendered by the English countryside ain't it? #askDanHannan
13:31 Bookmaker Betway has suspended betting on the next governor of the Bank of England after a flurry of bets on Andrew Bailey. The next governor, who will succeed Mark Carney in June 2019, is expected to be announced towards the end of the year.
Bailey, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority had been relatively unfancied at 9/1, but the online bookie received a sudden influx of bets on him succeeding Carney and has suspended betting as a result.
13:31 Bookmaker Betway has suspended betting on the next governor of the Bank of England after a flurry of bets on Andrew Bailey. The next governor, who will succeed Mark Carney in June 2019, is expected to be announced towards the end of the year.
Bailey, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority had been relatively unfancied at 9/1, but the online bookie received a sudden influx of bets on him succeeding Carney and has suspended betting as a result.
What would be the answer to the question,The US Government,under Trump,has become a force for evil in the world? My guess is that is probably equal and could exceed.Maybe someone should ask it.
BTW notable urofiliacs include, an American serial killer known as The Boogeyman and another boogieman called Chuck Berry. Does boogie-woogi Donald like Chuck's boogi-woogie music? Is boogie-woogi the new bunga-bunga? must go and flll the wife's bath up so she can have a nice soak.
No the US is manifestly not a force for evil. Hypocrisy yes, evil no.
And as to your wife's bath it's hardly frolicking naked in Epping Forest, now, is it?
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.
Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.
Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.
I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.
And it was considerably easier many moons ago. My wife applied for and achieved citizenship last year - after being resident here for over three decades - as she no longer trusted the Home Office to maintain her (already granted) permanent residence status.
Their ability to lose passports sent to them by recorded delivery is remarkable.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".
Too many lawyers hovering over every aspect of public administration, often financed by the tax payer and egged on by shrill campaigning groups. If you are a middle ranking civil servant, police officer and so on why risk your career by using your initiative? We could do with more "reasonable judgement" principle based rules.
One problem is that the Home Office regularly don't follow their own rules.
"often financed by the taxpayer..." What proportion of immigration cases are financed by the taxpayer (if you don't count the Home Office paying their own lawyers...) ?
Incidentally, this is the sort of thing Theresa May should be screaming from the rooftops. People say Putin doesn't care about what people say, but if that were true, why would journalists investigating these issues be being thrown from roofs? Let her ask about Russian mercenaries dying in Syria from the biggest stage she can find. Ask whether they deserve military funerals in Russia. Make it as politically painful as possible.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".
Too many lawyers hovering over every aspect of public administration, often financed by the tax payer and egged on by shrill campaigning groups. If you are a middle ranking civil servant, police officer and so on why risk your career by using your initiative? We could do with more "reasonable judgement" principle based rules.
Onel problem is that the Home Office regularly don't follow their own rules.
I think Amber Rudd's job is on the line. And quite right too. Totally wrong and unforgiveable
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.
Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.
Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.
I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.
And it was considerably easier many moons ago. My wife applied for and achieved citizenship last year - after being resident here for over three decades - as she no longer trusted the Home Office to maintain her (already granted) permanent residence status.
Their ability to lose passports sent to them by recorded delivery is remarkable.
I sent my passport off to the Home Office for some other matter. They claimed they sent it back to me but it never arrived. Eventually I had to pay through the nose for an expedited new one as I had travel booked. The original turned up in the post five months later.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.
Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.
Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.
I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.
And it was considerably easier many moons ago. My wife applied for and achieved citizenship last year - after being resident here for over three decades - as she no longer trusted the Home Office to maintain her (already granted) permanent residence status.
Their ability to lose passports sent to them by recorded delivery is remarkable.
I sent my passport off to the Home Office for some other matter. They claimed they sent it back to me but it never arrived. Eventually I had to pay through the nose for an expedited new one as I had travel booked. The original turned up in the post five months later.
Back in the day when the passport itself had the permanent residence stamp... Not good.
Incidentally, this is the sort of thing Theresa May should be screaming from the rooftops. People say Putin doesn't care about what people say, but if that were true, why would journalists investigating these issues be being thrown from roofs? Let her ask about Russian mercenaries dying in Syria from the biggest stage she can find. Ask whether they deserve military funerals in Russia. Make it as politically painful as possible.
I wonder if this highly laudable effort will extend effectively to the Russian state...
Twitter is predictably losing its shit over this, but the booklet seems to offer practical advice to those who have been deported, as provided by on-the-ground charities, organisations and the Jamaican government.
Conflating the justified moral outrage at the possibility (see below!) of deportations in error with hypersensitivity over a practical document to help those who are correctly deported is not very helpful.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".
Too many lawyers hovering over every aspect of public administration, often financed by the tax payer and egged on by shrill campaigning groups. If you are a middle ranking civil servant, police officer and so on why risk your career by using your initiative? We could do with more "reasonable judgement" principle based rules.
Onel problem is that the Home Office regularly don't follow their own rules.
I think Amber Rudd's job is on the line. And quite right too. Totally wrong and unforgiveable
Taking a bullet for Theresa... That would be novel.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".
Too many lawyers hovering over every aspect of public administration, often financed by the tax payer and egged on by shrill campaigning groups. If you are a middle ranking civil servant, police officer and so on why risk your career by using your initiative? We could do with more "reasonable judgement" principle based rules.
Onel problem is that the Home Office regularly don't follow their own rules.
I think Amber Rudd's job is on the line. And quite right too. Totally wrong and unforgiveable
Taking a bullet for Theresa... That would be novel.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".
Too many lawyers hovering over every aspect of public administration, often financed by the tax payer and egged on by shrill campaigning groups. If you are a middle ranking civil servant, police officer and so on why risk your career by using your initiative? We could do with more "reasonable judgement" principle based rules.
Onel problem is that the Home Office regularly don't follow their own rules.
I think Amber Rudd's job is on the line. And quite right too. Totally wrong and unforgiveable
Taking a bullet for Theresa... That would be novel.
Amber Rudd is home secretary and she should have dealt with it on her watch.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.
Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.
Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.
I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.
And it was considerably easier many moons ago. My wife applied for and achieved citizenship last year - after being resident here for over three decades - as she no longer trusted the Home Office to maintain her (already granted) permanent residence status.
Their ability to lose passports sent to them by recorded delivery is remarkable.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.
Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.
Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.
I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.
Oh, indeed. She was in a very lucky position to be able to afford it. A friend of hers had been through the process, and the one bit of advice he gave her was to go with a company if she could afford it, as the process was somewhat ramshackle.
From memory, the company asked her for all the details, very precisely detailing exactly what was wanted and held her hand through the process. Then again, she had everything in order - it might have been more complex if hers had been a difficult or unusual case. It also helped that she speaks and writes English very well (better than I do, as it happens).
She is not a risk to the security of our Nation - for that we have Corbyn
Yes. But the tory party would be bonkers to let her lead another GE, she clearly has learnt nothing from the last year or so, she will never change. MayBot for ever............
I wonder if Her Maj got on the blower to May with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting starting today and told her to sort out the Windrush mess. Also, I cannot see it helping Charlie boy's chances of being head of the Commonwealth in the future.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.
Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.
Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.
I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.
Oh, indeed. She was in a very lucky position to be able to afford it. A friend of hers had been through the process, and the one bit of advice he gave her was to go with a company if she could afford it, as the process was somewhat ramshackle.
From memory, the company asked her for all the details, very precisely detailing exactly what was wanted and held her hand through the process. Then again, she had everything in order - it might have been more complex if hers had been a difficult or unusual case. It also helped that she speaks and writes English very well (better than I do, as it happens).
Having an intelligent, organised spouse is a good thing.
Mr. 43, if people want to bleat about international law, perhaps they'd like to focus on the tyrant gassing people with chemical weaponry, rather than the democratic nation states blowing up chemical weapons factories?
Slightly reminds me of police top brass being shit-hot on protecting the tributes to a career criminal and rather less enthusiastic about protecting children from gang rape because it might not be 'culturally sensitive'.
Edited extra bit: perhaps a shade intemperate of me. My apologies.
It's a problem and one that no-one including the UK government is able or willing to change. The UN can never be an effective arbiter because governments promote their national or diplomatic interest at the forum. One of the accomplices is a SC veto holder. But absent a supranational arbiter, there's a free for all where nation states can attack each other at will. International law bans that food good reason. There is a specific issue for the UK here with a promise to the British military that they should never be required to take action that is illegal. This action probably was illegal, although perhaps still justified in non legal terms.
This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.
During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.
Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!
Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.
Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.
Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.
I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.
Oh, indeed. She was in a very lucky position to be able to afford it. A friend of hers had been through the process, and the one bit of advice he gave her was to go with a company if she could afford it, as the process was somewhat ramshackle.
From memory, the company asked her for all the details, very precisely detailing exactly what was wanted and held her hand through the process. Then again, she had everything in order - it might have been more complex if hers had been a difficult or unusual case. It also helped that she speaks and writes English very well (better than I do, as it happens).
Having an intelligent, organised spouse is a good thing.
She is not a risk to the security of our Nation - for that we have Corbyn
Yes. But the tory party would be bonkers to let her lead another GE, she clearly has learnt nothing from the last year or so, she will never change. MayBot for ever............
Comments
And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.
Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.
It is not something which she has just discovered; there has been a deliberate blind eye turned towards the problem up until now. The new willingness to address the problem appears to be entirely down to the recent public outcry.
(OK, so John Noakes is spelled differently)
If people have already been deported, then we could have seen it in action and still been miles quicker than we are.
If the Vietnam war had turned out like the Korean war, then people would people today would see it as a just war.
https://order-order.com/2018/04/16/yet-another-home-office-clusterfk
But the idea that because some idiots are criticising her as a neo-Nazi (I haven't seen it but I don't doubt such people exist) - that you should ignore the legitimate grievance based on tribal loyalties - is completely wrong.
They had an opportunity to win the peace before they even got into the war.
Just as, perhaps, in Afghanistan, and Iraq, there were no real plans to win the peace after the conflicts. Which rightly led to both being judged disasters.
Is it possible if you were a child to come to the UK from the EU (or EEC) and be in the same position potentially?
https://twitter.com/begumnadiya/status/985521482662137858?s=21
The replies on that were awesomely entertaining
Even though cocking things up are bad for all three of those in the long run.
The rest were all of the 'ooh matron' type of comment.
Fair okay to them for not deleting the tweet though.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/22/lady-scotland-illegal-immigrant-brown
So it's odd that it has come up as an issue (in relation to the 'Windrush children') only now.
oh...
Consider it another positive consequence of Brexit.
This is a new normal that crosses international boundaries. Leave's xenophobic campaign was one of the dominoes that fell when that new normal was being established.
The UK could and should act unilaterally to regularise the position of EU nationals in the UK. In practice is it proposing to have Windrush2 post-Brexit? If not, it should be acting now to allay the entirely justified fears of these people who are seeing yet again this week just how appallingly the British state treats longterm residents who can be otherised.
BTW notable urofiliacs include, an American serial killer known as The Boogeyman and another boogieman called Chuck Berry.
Does boogie-woogi Donald like Chuck's boogi-woogie music? Is boogie-woogi the new bunga-bunga?
must go and flll the wife's bath up so she can have a nice soak.
Do you think the EU reciprocate, or would they bank that concession and demand full access to our fishing waters, or whatever, in return for securing the rights of Brits in Europe?
Bailey, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority had been relatively unfancied at 9/1, but the online bookie received a sudden influx of bets on him succeeding Carney and has suspended betting as a result.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/apr/16/european-stock-markets-oil-falls-syria-fears-fade-business-live
And as to your wife's bath it's hardly frolicking naked in Epping Forest, now, is it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43781351
My wife applied for and achieved citizenship last year - after being resident here for over three decades - as she no longer trusted the Home Office to maintain her (already granted) permanent residence status.
Their ability to lose passports sent to them by recorded delivery is remarkable.
"often financed by the taxpayer..." What proportion of immigration cases are financed by the taxpayer (if you don't count the Home Office paying their own lawyers...) ?
Not good.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/16/reporter-murdered-daphne-caruana-galizia-malta
Conflating the justified moral outrage at the possibility (see below!) of deportations in error with hypersensitivity over a practical document to help those who are correctly deported is not very helpful.
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/985867684893089793
That would be novel.
Lets see if she survives
Mr. F, cheers for your The Last Wish suggestion. Finished it a week or two ago, and put the review up here: https://thewayfarersrest.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/review-last-wish-by-andrzej-sapkowski.html
From memory, the company asked her for all the details, very precisely detailing exactly what was wanted and held her hand through the process. Then again, she had everything in order - it might have been more complex if hers had been a difficult or unusual case. It also helped that she speaks and writes English very well (better than I do, as it happens).
Also
Ant McPartlin been fined £86,000 and banned from driving for 20 months