Windrush crisis

robert88

FishFish wrote:

So then what is the great crime that the then home secretary has committed. There is a policy of returning illegal immigrants and there are targets. Both are agreed by the government and are pretty acceptable to society.
The system was defective (in removing unregistered Caribbean immigrants and other 'low hanging fruit') because to make it a zero defect policy would require an audit of each situation which would be horrendously expensive (My calc of the present value being £250M at least).

So some stupid immigration officers playing games with the rules on targets. All of the returned immigrants Caribbean or not did not have the right to stay because they had not gone through the application procedures. There is no process for waiving the application process or fees.

Tell you what, let us make the NHS zero defect too.

Well clearly she presided over a system that was defective (in removing unregistered Caribbean immigrants and other 'low hanging fruit*').


* Southern trees bear strange fruit
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees
Pastoral scene of the gallant south
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh
Here is fruit for the crows to pluck
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop
Here is a strange and bitter crop

rick_chasey

FishFish wrote:

So then what is the great crime that the then home secretary has committed. There is a policy of returning illegal immigrants and there are targets. Both are agreed by the government and are pretty acceptable to society.
The system was defective (in removing unregistered Caribbean immigrants and other 'low hanging fruit') because to make it a zero defect policy would require an audit of each situation which would be horrendously expensive (My calc of the present value being £250M at least).

So some stupid immigration officers playing games with the rules on targets. All of the returned immigrants Caribbean or not did not have the right to stay because they had not gone through the application procedures. There is no process for waiving the application process or fees.

Tell you what, let us make the NHS zero defect too.

Did mummy not tell you to share your toys with people?

It must be sad having that outlook. If you don’t show empathy you don’t tend to receive much either.



That moment when you’re helpless and in dire need and someone says “tough sh!t”. Maybe you’ve never had it. Let’s hope you won’t need to.

TheBigBean

Rick - you would be an easy fish to catch.

rick_chasey

Ah it satisfies an itch.

It's only 10-15% worse than what I hear people say in RL, only I'm not in a position to respond then.

rjsterry

Trolling or not, we've covered this more than once before. The decision to require landlords, employers and others to demand specific documentary proof of a right of residency was May's. It was well known at the introduction of the policy that a large section of the population could not provide such proof despite having a right of residency, and that wrongful withdrawal of employment, housing and benefits, and subsequent deportation would result. May chose to ignore this. It has very little to do with immigration officers, stupid or not.

pblakeney

See my earlier post about May’s stance on this. She cares not a whit. She is banking on the general public sharing her opinion. Unfortunately, some do.

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

See my earlier post about May’s stance on this. She cares not a whit. She is banking on the general public sharing her opinion. Unfortunately, some do.

Some do of course, but she and others have clearly misjudged this, or this wouldn't have resulted in the proxy resignation of the Home Secretary.

Jez mon

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Labour has tabled a motion that the government should publish all its internal Windrush discussions over the last 8 years. This has forced May to three line whip all the Tories to vote against as presumably transparency would reveal her role.

A nice bit of politics by labour.

Reveal? Was her role in some way hidden?

Her role in the Windrush crisis. Better?

I meant that her role in the Windrush crisis is blindingly obvious and doesn't need a review of internal communications to show that (although resisting such a request only makes her look more guilty); I wasn't picking holes.

14 hours ago:

MPs reject Labour's Windrush disclosure motion
The government has survived the motion – MPs have voted down Labour’s motion to force ministers to disclose eight years of internal documents and correspondence about the Windrush scandal.

The government imposed a three-line whip on Tory MPs to vote against and won by 316 votes to 221 – a majority of 95.

The phrase "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" doesn't appear to apply to Tory MPs

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

See my earlier post about May’s stance on this. She cares not a whit. She is banking on the general public sharing her opinion. Unfortunately, some do.

Some do of course, but she and others have clearly misjudged this, or this wouldn't have resulted in the proxy resignation of the Home Secretary.

The Great British Public all agree that the NHS should be better funded - until they hear the detail of how to pay
The Great British Public all agree austerity is necessary - they just don't like the detail of where cuts fall
The Great British Public agree that immigration should be lower - turns out they don't like the detail

pblakeney

I meant she thought the general public wouldn’t care enough to put her job at risk. May turn out to be wrong.

Jez mon

PBlakeney wrote:

I meant she thought the general public wouldn’t care enough to put her job at risk. May turn out to be wrong.

Once again. TM is lucky to have a weak opposition.

TheBigBean

Jez mon wrote:

The phrase "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" doesn't appear to apply to Tory MPs

I believe that only applies when the people are accountable to the state (the complete opposite of democracy)

Jez mon

TheBigBean wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

The phrase "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" doesn't appear to apply to Tory MPs

I believe that only applies when the people are accountable to the state (the complete opposite of democracy)

For the avoidance of doubt I really do not agree with the phrase.

TheBigBean

Jez mon wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

The phrase "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" doesn't appear to apply to Tory MPs

I believe that only applies when the people are accountable to the state (the complete opposite of democracy)

For the avoidance of doubt I really do not agree with the phrase.

That was clear.

Governments should be transparent though, so I do think there is an argument that it applies to governments (not the people) in democracies. May's only defence against publishing any document should be one of national security and cost. Political embarrassment is very much not a defence.

Jez mon

FishFish wrote:

So then what is the great crime that the then home secretary has committed. There is a policy of returning illegal immigrants and there are targets. Both are agreed by the government and are pretty acceptable to society.
The system was defective (in removing unregistered Caribbean immigrants and other 'low hanging fruit') because to make it a zero defect policy would require an audit of each situation which would be horrendously expensive (My calc of the present value being £250M at least).

So some stupid immigration officers playing games with the rules on targets. All of the returned immigrants Caribbean or not did not have the right to stay because they had not gone through the application procedures. There is no process for waiving the application process or fees.

Tell you what, let us make the NHS zero defect too.

Just out of interest.

How does one set targets for deportation of illegal immigrants.

Given that by their nature, they are undocumented, how do you produce an estimate of how many illegal immigrants there are?

pblakeney

I have always been in a quandary about that question.

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

FishFish wrote:

So then what is the great crime that the then home secretary has committed. There is a policy of returning illegal immigrants and there are targets. Both are agreed by the government and are pretty acceptable to society.
The system was defective (in removing unregistered Caribbean immigrants and other 'low hanging fruit') because to make it a zero defect policy would require an audit of each situation which would be horrendously expensive (My calc of the present value being £250M at least).

So some stupid immigration officers playing games with the rules on targets. All of the returned immigrants Caribbean or not did not have the right to stay because they had not gone through the application procedures. There is no process for waiving the application process or fees.

Tell you what, let us make the NHS zero defect too.

Just out of interest.

How does one set targets for deportation of illegal immigrants.

Given that by their nature, they are undocumented, how do you produce an estimate of how many illegal immigrants there are?

Look at how many each person/office/region/total deported last year and set them a target 10% higher

pblakeney

So simply deport 10% of that number who happen to be legal?
Remember May’s words, we can deport first and hear appeals later.

rjsterry

Which illustrates why managers love targets - nice and easy to assess; don't need to think qualitatively about the person's work. Trouble is it's based on the assumption that there will always be another 10% of whatever it is to be gained, which is frequently not the case. There's also a tendency to measure the things that are easy to measure rather than the things that should be measured.

TheGardenGnome

10% is a nice round number, not too high, not too low, just right. Multiples of ten are easy to work with in the head.

rick_chasey

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ss-you-off

Here's a video of a grunt taking the brief of a hostile environment quite literally.

FishFish

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

It must be sad having that outlook. If you don’t show empathy you don’t tend to receive much either.



That moment when you’re helpless and in dire need and someone says “tough sh!t”. Maybe you’ve never had it. Let’s hope you won’t need to.

I lived in Kuwait and in Gambia and non nationals are on a moments notice to move without even clearing their bank accounts. In the former case there are second generation 25 year olds chucked out because their parents retire.

No I don't care because they should have regularised their position and paid for it. And I have put myself in a position where I don't need sympathy.

FishFish

rjsterry wrote:

Which illustrates why managers love targets - nice and easy to assess; don't need to think qualitatively about the person's work. Trouble is it's based on the assumption that there will always be another 10% of whatever it is to be gained, which is frequently not the case. There's also a tendency to measure the things that are easy to measure rather than the things that should be measured.

Well exactly so if none are deported then most of the UK will demand targets being increased from Zero. Why not start with people who fail asylum then people who commit a crime then people who have not completed their application for permanent residency.

robert88

Cold as a fishfish. Brrrr, It makes me shiver..

rjsterry

FishFish wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Which illustrates why managers love targets - nice and easy to assess; don't need to think qualitatively about the person's work. Trouble is it's based on the assumption that there will always be another 10% of whatever it is to be gained, which is frequently not the case. There's also a tendency to measure the things that are easy to measure rather than the things that should be measured.

Well exactly so if none are deported then most of the UK will demand targets being increased from Zero. Why not start with people who fail asylum then people who commit a crime then people who have not completed their application for permanent residency.

You're missing the point that these people have already been granted permanent residency years ago; they just don't have any documentation.

FishFish

The 'documentation' that you so freely refer to HAS to be a record held in the Home office - NOT a stamp in a passport. Persuasive evidence includes a stamp in a passport or - as is inevitable in the case of residency - a letter which follows from the record in the Home Office.

You are wrong.

orraloon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

See my earlier post about May’s stance on this. She cares not a whit. She is banking on the general public sharing her opinion. Unfortunately, some do.

Some do of course, but she and others have clearly misjudged this, or this wouldn't have resulted in the proxy resignation of the Home Secretary.

The Great British Public all agree that the NHS should be better funded - until they hear the detail of how to pay
The Great British Public all agree austerity is necessary - they just don't like the detail of where cuts fall
The Great British Public agree that immigration should be lower - turns out they don't like the detail

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
(Winston Churchill, allegedly)

pblakeney

FishFish wrote:

The 'documentation' that you so freely refer to HAS to be a record held in the Home office - NOT a stamp in a passport. Persuasive evidence includes a stamp in a passport or - as is inevitable in the case of residency - a letter which follows from the record in the Home Office.

You are wrong.

This is exactly the issue.
The Home Office have “lost” the records.

surrey_commuter

TheGardenGnome wrote:

10% is a nice round number, not too high, not too low, just right. Multiples of ten are easy to work with in the head.

10% was an example :roll:

surrey_commuter

FishFish wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Which illustrates why managers love targets - nice and easy to assess; don't need to think qualitatively about the person's work. Trouble is it's based on the assumption that there will always be another 10% of whatever it is to be gained, which is frequently not the case. There's also a tendency to measure the things that are easy to measure rather than the things that should be measured.

Well exactly so if none are deported then most of the UK will demand targets being increased from Zero. Why not start with people who fail asylum then people who commit a crime then people who have not completed their application for permanent residency.

Or the easy ones who don’t lawyer up. Best to steer clear of criminals and failed asylum seekers as they have a experience at working the legal system.