Re: Who did Amber in? : Sun May 06, 2018 10:34 pm  

majorhound wrote:

I don't think it's the policies as much as the organisational culture. The emphasis on making life difficult for those seen as having no right to be here. Effectively, if you had a brown skin and couldn't show documentary proof then you were fair game.

Well, yes, life here should be difficult for those here illegally. Makes a bit more sense than making life easy for them.

Windrush is an administrative issue, nothing more, and certainly nothing to do with race. A unique set of events conspiring to land some of those migrants in difficulties. Even most Labour MPs have avoided flashing the race card - but it didn't stop you, did it.

There was a woman on the news last night who'd just returned after been stuck in Jamaica for 7 years despite having a son and a daughter both born here. She didn't have the proof. She had the son and daughter but apparently they didn't count.

My wife's gone to the West Indies.
Jamaica?
No Amber Rudd did.

I assume you're referring to Gretel Gocan? More holes in that story than a Catalans defence.

She arrived on a Jamaican passport in the 60s, which was stamped 'indefinite leave to remain'. This passport was (allegedly) stolen in 2006. She then apparently got a new passport (British or Jamaican, we aren't told) and travelled to Jamaica in 2010, but this passport was also stolen (according to some sources but not others). She was then denied re-entry to the UK after her application for a replacement passport was denied (not normally a problem when passports are stolen or lost overseas). As she has been unable to provide any evidence of her residency in the UK, she was stuck.

Firstly: should we let everyone without a passport and/or correct paperwork and/or evidence simply stroll into the country? Of course not. As you said, she didn't have proof. Channel 4 News and the BBC rolling out legions of wizened Windrush migrants to regale their tales of woe isn't good enough reason to relax immigration rules I'm afraid, no matter how hard they try - although of course in light of events individual Windrush cases are being reviewed sympathetically - exactly as happened to Ms Gocan.

Secondly: she was first denied re-entry in 2010. The year the Tories won power, 3 years before the 'hostile environment' speech and 6 years before Rudd became Home Secretary. Attributing her situation to Theresa May or indeed Amber Rudd is ridiculous politicking at best. Attributing it to not having the correct paperwork and no evidence of your claims is more accurate.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Mon May 07, 2018 3:46 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Well, yes, life here should be difficult for those here illegally. Makes a bit more sense than making life easy for them.

Windrush is an administrative issue, nothing more, and certainly nothing to do with race. A unique set of events conspiring to land some of those migrants in difficulties. Even most Labour MPs have avoided flashing the race card - but it didn't stop you, did it.

I assume you're referring to Gretel Gocan? More holes in that story than a Catalans defence.

She arrived on a Jamaican passport in the 60s, which was stamped 'indefinite leave to remain'. This passport was (allegedly) stolen in 2006. She then apparently got a new passport (British or Jamaican, we aren't told) and travelled to Jamaica in 2010, but this passport was also stolen (according to some sources but not others). She was then denied re-entry to the UK after her application for a replacement passport was denied (not normally a problem when passports are stolen or lost overseas). As she has been unable to provide any evidence of her residency in the UK, she was stuck.

Firstly: should we let everyone without a passport and/or correct paperwork and/or evidence simply stroll into the country? Of course not. As you said, she didn't have proof. Channel 4 News and the BBC rolling out legions of wizened Windrush migrants to regale their tales of woe isn't good enough reason to relax immigration rules I'm afraid, no matter how hard they try - although of course in light of events individual Windrush cases are being reviewed sympathetically - exactly as happened to Ms Gocan.

Secondly: she was first denied re-entry in 2010. The year the Tories won power, 3 years before the 'hostile environment' speech and 6 years before Rudd became Home Secretary. Attributing her situation to Theresa May or indeed Amber Rudd is ridiculous politicking at best. Attributing it to not having the correct paperwork and no evidence of your claims is more accurate.

I think having two adult children born here is pretty good evidence. Of course it's about race. This is just mumbo jumbo to cover up the fact that the Tories are riddled with racism. All the stuff about Labour's anti Semitism (which may have some substance) is the kettle calling the pan. The entire attack on Millband was subliminal anti Semitism.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Mon May 07, 2018 7:50 pm  

majorhound wrote:

I think having two adult children born here is pretty good evidence. Of course it's about race. This is just mumbo jumbo to cover up the fact that the Tories are riddled with racism. All the stuff about Labour's anti Semitism (which may have some substance) is the kettle calling the pan. The entire attack on Millband was subliminal anti Semitism.

Interesting then, that Gretel Gocan was first denied re-entry to the UK in 2010. Have a guess which party was in power for 13 years up to 6th May 2010, and who was therefore responsible for the vast majority of (if not all) immigration rules in 2010?

And "it's about race"? What exactly is "it"? All immigration rules? Just immigration rules affecting non-whites (do such rules even exist)? The Windrush situation? Precisely what is about race?

What mumbo jumbo are you talking about? Me? The Tories? Who/what exactly is covering up this alleged racism?

BTW, the attacks on Milliband were because he was about as useful as boobs on a nun.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Tue May 08, 2018 9:08 am  

Cronus wrote:

Interesting then, that Gretel Gocan was first denied re-entry to the UK in 2010. Have a guess which party was in power for 13 years up to 6th May 2010, and who was therefore responsible for the vast majority of (if not all) immigration rules in 2010?

And "it's about race"? What exactly is "it"? All immigration rules? Just immigration rules affecting non-whites (do such rules even exist)? The Windrush situation? Precisely what is about race?

What mumbo jumbo are you talking about? Me? The Tories? Who/what exactly is covering up this alleged racism?

BTW, the attacks on Milliband were because he was about as useful as boobs on a nun.

Milliband would have been a better PM than either of the last two. Indeed it would be hard to think or worse examples from either party than Cameron or May. But leaving that aside, many of the attacks had an anti-Semite undertone. But the Tories have always played the race card. The "hostile environment" policy was there to appeal to the Tory loony right. You only have to listen to some of them. Philip Davies say. Peter Bone is another. Or there's Daniel Hannan MEP who wants to dismantle the NHS. All in the Powellite tradition. One thing you can guarantee, when election time comes around the Tories will have some trumped up story to stir up its racist supporters.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Tue May 08, 2018 11:33 am  

Cronus wrote:

Windrush is an administrative issue, nothing more, and certainly nothing to do with race. A unique set of events conspiring to land some of those migrants in difficulties.

How sweet. Just a few migrants with a slight bit of inconvenience. They ought to be thankful they are here. May, Rudd & Co actively & deliberately pursued a policy that discriminated against black Britons in the pursuit of numbers.
25 years after Stephen Lawrence institutional racism is still rife in some sectors of the establishment.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Wed May 09, 2018 10:18 am  

Thank you for proving my point in a couple of posts.

Windrush is an administrative cock-up. A conspiracy of events that trapped a some in a no-man's land of citizenship due to lack of appropriate documentation and/or evidence according to current rules. It's no-one's fault. Yes, horrible for those concerned, but it's now being dealt with quickly, effectively and sympathetically. Very few politicians or journalists on either side have played the race card. Except the Guardian. Can always rely on them.

Yet here we are, the usual fruitcakes playing the race card. Steven Lawrence gets a mention! We also get someone trying to pin the antisemitism debate on the Tories. Impressive, even for the loony left.

Perhaps if Labour hadn't fcked up the numbers flooding into this country and created such depth of feeling against mass immigration (enough to drive the Leave vote, remember), subsequent governments wouldn't have to adopt such a strict regime. Fixing such a mess is never going to be pretty and some people will get caught in the vice. That said, it's worth reminding the wailing lefties that the first person to talk of a 'hostile environment' was actually Labour's Alan Johnson.

BTW, Ed Milliband wasn't even the best PM candidate in the Milliband family.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Wed May 09, 2018 11:53 am  

Cronus wrote:

Perhaps if Labour hadn't fcked up the numbers flooding into this country and created such depth of feeling against mass immigration (enough to drive the Leave vote, remember),

Immigration didn't create a depth of feeling. The fear, lies & hatred of the the right wing press, 19C Tory MPs & Councillors, social media, did. It's been used for hundreds of years. Well apart form the social media bit.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Wed May 09, 2018 12:45 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Thank you for proving my point in a couple of posts.

Windrush is an administrative cock-up. A conspiracy of events that trapped a some in a no-man's land of citizenship due to lack of appropriate documentation and/or evidence according to current rules. It's no-one's fault. Yes, horrible for those concerned, but it's now being dealt with quickly, effectively and sympathetically. Very few politicians or journalists on either side have played the race card. Except the Guardian. Can always rely on them.

Yet here we are, the usual fruitcakes playing the race card. Steven Lawrence gets a mention! We also get someone trying to pin the antisemitism debate on the Tories. Impressive, even for the loony left.

Perhaps if Labour hadn't fcked up the numbers flooding into this country and created such depth of feeling against mass immigration (enough to drive the Leave vote, remember), subsequent governments wouldn't have to adopt such a strict regime. Fixing such a mess is never going to be pretty and some people will get caught in the vice. That said, it's worth reminding the wailing lefties that the first person to talk of a 'hostile environment' was actually Labour's Alan Johnson.

BTW, Ed Milliband wasn't even the best PM candidate in the Milliband family.

It's not the administrative cock up that is the issue, it's the denial of an over vigorous to deport anyone "we" can, regardless of whether they may be legally allowed to be here.
Over zealous staff, driven to overstep the line by those in power but its ok really ???

Try putting yourself in their position and just imagine the trauma.
Mind you it fits well with the immigrants "go home" vans that were trawling the capital, were they also an administrative error or just part of the racist narrative trotted out by the Conservatives and the Tory press.

You are bang on about Milliband though.
Who in their right mind would think that Ed was better than David.

Those who thought so, got exactly what they deserved.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Wed May 09, 2018 12:55 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

You are bang on about Milliband though.
Who in their right mind would think that Ed was better than David.

I preferred Steve, especially The Joker.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Thu May 10, 2018 1:20 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

It's not the administrative cock up that is the issue, it's the denial of an over vigorous to deport anyone "we" can, regardless of whether they may be legally allowed to be here.
Over zealous staff, driven to overstep the line by those in power but its ok really ???

Try putting yourself in their position and just imagine the trauma.
Mind you it fits well with the immigrants "go home" vans that were trawling the capital, were they also an administrative error or just part of the racist narrative trotted out by the Conservatives and the Tory press.

You are bang on about Milliband though.
Who in their right mind would think that Ed was better than David.

Those who thought so, got exactly what they deserved.

In a word McClusky who saw Ed as a puppet he could manipulate - how wrong he was and not for the first time