Windrush "scandal"

Please treat other members in a constructive and friendly manner: Our Community Guidelines.
  • I am really starting to smell a rat here, countless governments of all persuasion have done nothing to sort this paperwork problem out and it seemingly has passed our legal system by too.

    As Brexit approaches it seems people who have been here for up to 70 years are being suddenly threatened with deportation with claims of this is just the start of things to come, have we got rid of all the overstayers and illegals then?

    As for the hysterical David Lammy , he should be screaming at his own party for failing to sort this out on their watch!

  • Something definitely needs to be sorted now, little point in looking back and saying something should have been done in the past unless it's just for finger pointing and point scoring reasons.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • Something definitely needs to be sorted now, little point in looking back and saying something should have been done in the past unless it's just for finger pointing and point scoring reasons.

    Labour's 'blame game' is beyond the pale. People might take them more seriously if they actually tried to help put the matter right than trying to make people believe there is a government conspiracy to undermine the Windrush generation.


    The cards were destroyed on their watch. However, it looks like the officials were to blame, not the politicians.

    Protect the vulnerable and get back to work

  • The Home Office 's handling of Windrush is just one of countless examples of how civil servants are neither civil nor serving. They see their role as being to decide whether a member of the public, most probably a bona fide citizen, is eligible to receive a favour and, if so, it is given grudgingly, almost as a special dispensation, or the decision is delayed for an indefinite period.


    The initial default attitude of the civil servant is that an applicant or enquirer is ineligible for whatever it is they seek. A local government planning officer is another example of that mentality.


    Of course, in the case of Windrush, it doesn't help that the problem can be traced to racism, which is indirectly encouraged by senior politicians voicing a policy of strict control of immigrants which they know will have the backing of the majority of existing white citizens. This provides a rationale for immigration officials to subscribe to the song by Bill Bill Broonzy ""if your'e white, it's alright, if you're brown, stick around, but if you're black, go back, go back, go back".


    Even without (suppressed) racism, the mentality of civil servants is almost Asperger-ish. Until head transplants are invented, what is required is proper training, to create a major attitude change , coupled with regular mystery enquirer checks (like Mystery Shoppers), leading to rewards for those civil servants who perform well and, for the bad performers, a penalty or transfer to a job which excludes any form of communication with humans, except with civil servants similar to themselves.

  • You've obviously never had any dealings with "civil" servants from Customs and Excise then, if you think training will sort that lot out.^^

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Thanks for that Ron.


    I wonder if this was a clever ploy by the government to flush out illegal immigrants, or am giving the "wonderful" powers-that-be too much credit here?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Thanks for that Ron.


    I wonder if this was a clever ploy by the government to flush out illegal immigrants, or am giving the "wonderful" powers-that-be too much credit here?

    Yes, you do, it's more likely to be a case of somebody screwing things up again.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • Amber Rudd is just making a statement to parliament on this and how she intends to resolve the problem. Her main points are: are:


    1. Anyone from the Windrush generation who is resident in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship at no cost to themselves and she will waive the citizenship test too.


    2. Any child of the Windrush generation who is not a British citizen will be offered naturalisation at no cost to themselves.


    3. Bizarrely, anyone from the Windwish generation who returned to their country of origin may also apply for British citizenship even if they went back and stayed in their country of origin for ten or more years.


    4. An audit is being done to identify anyone who maybe caught up in this mess. She started her statement by saying that successive governments were to blame for this mess and the problems were caused by legitimate moves to combat illegal immigration which had the unintended affect on legal migration.


    5. On compensation for those who've had their benefits cut, not allowed to return to the UK etc, she is setting up a compensation scheme for them.


    6. For those that arrived after 1st January 1973 (those that came after the Windrush generation) and before 1988, the Home Office will look at all claims made to them by people who do not have documentation with a view to sorting their claims out quickly.


    As Andrew Neil said on last week's This Week, we let in jihadiis fresh from Syria, yet punish those who were invited to come here.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • David Lammy is just making another powerful statement saying that those from Caribbean/West Indies origins, are from the Caribbean because the British Empire forced the people to go there from Africa. He went on to say that these people are British Citizens by right, not by option. A very good point indeed and he went on to say that those from the Indian sub continent are in the same boat, as all of that region was under British control originally.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I don't really see why it became such an issue anyway if someone like many of the so called Windrush generation has been working and paying tax and NI for the past 40/50 or so years then that should surely indicate they have the right to be here, so the question over that should have never arose in the first place.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • As I said in my original post , I find the timing of this very fishy , apparently people have had issues for years , a man on radio 5 yesterday spoke of his uncle being barred from returning from Jamaica since 2001! , other people have had issues under Heath , Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown . It staggers me that nobody in the Civil service or previous governments did anything about it in a legal sense . All this posturing from Labour seems to be a convenient break from anti-semitism for them whilst showing how soft on immigration they are , sort out these people by all means but let's have no amnesties for the illegals.

  • Another issue that was raised by a caller to LBC last week, was that according to this caller, there was a major television campaign in the 80s by the government encouraging those undocumented, to phone up and start the ball rolling on getting citizenship.


    The caller said she was originally from Ireland and she had multiple opportunities to get official papers, so its odd that some from the Caribbean were unaware of this campaign.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Boris Johnson calls for amnesty for illegal immigrants who have been in UK for 10 years


    Quote

    Boris Johnson has challenged Theresa May in Cabinet to introduce an amnesty for illegal immigrants in the wake of the Windrush scandal.


    The Foreign Secretary told Cabinet that there needs to be a "broader" amnesty for those from Commonwealth nations and elsewhere, provided they are "squeaky clean" and do not have criminal records.

    It comes amid a growing debate in Government over the treatment of migrants in the wake of the Windrush immigration scandal, with Mr Johnson among several Cabinet ministers urging a more liberal approach.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/po…ntroduce-migrant-amnesty/


    Even discounting Windrush, we all know what's going to happen if any lunatic in government decides to grant such an amnesty. There will be 100s of thousands, possibly even a million or more illegals crawling out of the woodwork claiming they've been living here under the radar for 10 years even though they may have arrived a few months ago. We all know that dozens, even hundreds, come ashore every week in lorries, small boats, and on dodgy passports. Hundreds overstay their visas too.


    Since Blair threw the doors open in 1997 no one in government dares to even hazard a guess at how many legal immigrants are here, never mind illegals. Blair estimated 750,000 illegals when he was in power, by now with all the cuts in our border force it has to be at least 2 million.

    Those who receive amnesty and then qualify for housing and welfare etc. alone will cost the country billions.


    Johnson must be totally insane to suggest this when he should be suggesting tighter controls instead.

  • You've obviously never had any dealings with "civil" servants from Customs and Excise then, if you think training will sort that lot out.^^

    Not the same types. They're looking for smugglers and I would imagine their profiling is more subtle than colour for colour's sake. But with immigration, there is no excuse for failing to exercise humanity, fairness and discretion

  • I'm gratified to see so many comments that display a healthy dose of cynicism. It is much needed to combat the likes of the media, spearheaded by Ch 4 News, which encourages before-the-camera victim hood. The questions make me puke .....


    How do you feel?

    Can the government can ever make up for what they did to you?

    Do you think it would happen to someone from New Zealand?

    Can there ever be enough compensation for what happened to you?


    No one is asking these victims ......


    - When you say that you see yourself as having given so much to Britain, do you mean you weren't paid a salary?

    - When you arrived in Britain, did you have written assurance of British citizenship or was that a hopeful assumption?

    - Do you think on reflection it would have been a good idea to hold on to your paperwork?

    - Do you think on reflection it would have been smart if your parents had arranged your very own passport?

    - Seriously, what did you expect from government civil servants working in immigration or border control?

    - Couldn't enough of you have got togetherand hired a lawyer to represent and fight your corner?


    Yes, there is racialism in Britain but I don't think it was the main driver of this UK immigration/citizenship screw-up. After all, look at the figures for deportation: an overriding majority are white. The mistreatment lies in the mentality of typical Government civil servants who have any dealings with the public at large. They are self-programmed to grudgingly dispense official favours or concessions, certainly not to try and serve human rights in a humane way Our dread of a future world of Artificial Intelligence probably would not include human officialdom, where AI would probably be an improvement over what we have to contend with today ...... provided the mentality of civil servants and customer service personnel are prohibited from writing the AI programming!

  • Totally missed that story, so thanks for highlighting it.


    I was always borderline with Boris and now he's gone over that line.


    How can he support Brexit (allegedly) and take back control of our borders, yet allow illegal immigration. As usual, Boris will do whatever grabs most headlines for himself. I'm done with him.:cursing::thumbdown:


    If we were a country that shared borders with several other countries, I suppose the argument could be made that it could be easy for immigrants just to "slip" in, but there can be no such argument for coming onto this island. Island being key word. Anyone who comes here illegally, has consciously broken the law by hiding in lorries or some other such method and should be given no amnesty, ever.


    If someone breaks the law as soon as they enter, what does that say to the millions of Britons who have never broken any law, that we'll tolerate law breakers. And of course if someone breaks the law as soon as they come here, who's to say they won't do it again?


    Blair should have been shot for a whole number of reasons, but his open borders policy to change the demographic of England from being majority Conservative to more liberal, is probably one of his greatest crimes.


    In terms of numbers, there is at least a million illegal immigrants in London alone and that number is probably far too low and Boris wants to give amnesty to all of them. No thanks.X(

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • How can he support Brexit (allegedly) and take back control of our borders, yet allow illegal immigration. As usual, Boris will do whatever grabs most headlines for himself. I'm done with him. :cursing::thumbdown:

    Just the same as any other politician, will say anything to try and make people like them depending on the audience even to the point of contradicting themselves.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • I agree with the practical considerations of the most recent postings but don't we as a country feel any sense of guilt or unfair play in having allowed in people from what were then British colonies, who viewed Britain as the colonial parent and guardian of justice and fair play, who quite reasonably believed that they would be treated as citizens, and only decades later would be decreed or treated as illegal immigrants?

  • .... two points here.


    As David Lammy said in parliament the other day, those from the Caribbean were forcibly taken there from their African homes, so it should be an absolute right that they were British citizens, something I partially agree with. So, any that came from the Caribbean during the 50s and some of the 60s would be British as a automatic right. That is fair. But....


    Jamaica became a fully independent country in 1962, by their choice. Barbados in 66, Trinidad and Tobago in 62 and a republic in 76 etc. Most of the Caribbean chose to break away from Britain in the 60s and at that point, they ceased, by their own choice, to be British. So why should anyone coming from those countries after their independence be given British citizenship as a automatic right?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • .... two points here.


    As David Lammy said in parliament the other day, those from the Caribbean were forcibly taken there from their African homes, so it should be an absolute right that they were British citizens, something I partially agree with. So, any that came from the Caribbean during the 50s and some of the 60s would be British as a automatic right. That is fair. But....


    Jamaica became a fully independent country in 1962, by their choice. Barbados in 66, Trinidad and Tobago in 62 and a republic in 76 etc. Most of the Caribbean chose to break away from Britain in the 60s and at that point, they ceased, by their own choice, to be British. So why should anyone coming from those countries after their independence be given British citizenship as a automatic right?

    Because white ,ology graduates who read the Guardian seem to wish it , makes them feel better about our shameful history.

  • .... two points here.


    As David Lammy said in parliament the other day, those from the Caribbean were forcibly taken there from their African homes, so it should be an absolute right that they were British citizens, something I partially agree with. So, any that came from the Caribbean during the 50s and some of the 60s would be British as a automatic right. That is fair. But....


    Jamaica became a fully independent country in 1962, by their choice. Barbados in 66, Trinidad and Tobago in 62 and a republic in 76 etc. Most of the Caribbean chose to break away from Britain in the 60s and at that point, they ceased, by their own choice, to be British. So why should anyone coming from those countries after their independence be given British citizenship as a automatic right?

    David Lammy's interesting historical point does give pause for thought but doesn't offer much logical, legal or even moral traction for use in the 20th century, even less so in the 21st. Nonetheless this historical background make a case for a poetic justice in demanding that Britain refrains from exercising its usual hypocrisy of only doing the right thing when it suits them.


    Your second point about Caribbean independence in the 60's onwards is in my opinion fair and correct on the question of Britain having no legal or moral obligation to grant British citizenship to Caribbeans from then onwards as an automatic right. (All this commonwealth stuff is just showbiz or nostalgia harking back to the "good old days" when much of the globe was marked in red).


    That said, why did Britain let in Caribbeans after independence and allow them to stay in Britain for a period that was neither specified nor confirmed? All sorts of reasons: the usual related factors of government indecisiveness, fudging the issue, kicking the problem into the tall grass, sweeping the dirt under the carpet, avoiding bad publicity that lose votes, lack of foresight of a possible day of reckoning, sheer amateurism and, perhaps most important of all, a decline in a sense of humanity, ethics and morality among Britain's elected representatives, worst still, a corresponding decline among British citizens.


    Britain might argue that these Caribbeans were let in to plug an employment shortage rather than as existing citizens It's an interesting legal point. The Caribbean immigrant's argument is that it is regrettable (huge understatement) that it took decades before informing Caribbeans that their length of stay in Britain was fluid, undetermined and subject to Britain's permission to stay. The reason that defence is so thin, is that it beggars belief that a country can behave in such a callous inhuman way.

  • Cancer patient Albert Thompson, the man who has been the focus of much of the Windrush row, has been given a date to start his treatment on the NHS.

    It comes after he was told last year he would have to pay £54,000 unless he could produce the right documentation.

    As the BBC article accurately goes on to say (for once..), this man who has been at the centre of the Windrush scandal is not from that generation of immigrants. He came to this country in 1963, one year after Jamaica's independence from Britain. So, does that make him a illegal immigrant after all, as per my earlier comments?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • That said, why did Britain let in Caribbeans after independence and allow them to stay in Britain for a period that was neither specified nor confirmed? All sorts of reasons: the usual related factors of government indecisiveness, fudging the issue, kicking the problem into the tall grass, sweeping the dirt under the carpet, avoiding bad publicity that lose votes, lack of foresight of a possible day of reckoning, sheer amateurism and, perhaps most important of all, a decline in a sense of humanity, ethics and morality among Britain's elected representatives, worst still, a corresponding decline among British citizens.

    I don't know the reasons why they were let in after independence, but many people, including I, pin all the widespread immigration problems on Tony Blair and his open doors policy. But the truth is, this open door policy started decades earlier. This country has been the subject of a social engineering experiment. The question is, has it worked?

    Britain might argue that these Caribbeans were let in to plug an employment shortage rather than as existing citizens It's an interesting legal point. The Caribbean immigrant's argument is that it is regrettable (huge understatement) that it took decades before informing Caribbeans that their length of stay in Britain was fluid, undetermined and subject to Britain's permission to stay. The reason that defence is so thin, is that it beggars belief that a country can behave in such a callous inhuman way.

    The employment reason doesn't always hold water, as many of the immigrants never found work and it might be argued in some quarters, never had any intention of doing so to begin with.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Because white ,ology graduates who read the Guardian seem to wish it , makes them feel better about our shameful history.

    Self flagellation over past events doesn't really help. Perhaps you should consider instead some of the advantages we gave to these people with our inventions, medical knowledge, schools, and the fact that after independence we left them with democracies based on our own and copied by the rest of the civilised world.


    Where would these people be today if we hadn't had our empire? I'll tell you, running through the jungle with spears trying to catch their supper, dying from curable diseases and fighting wars with each other just as they were 300 years ago and many are still doing today. They hadn't advanced in the thousands of previous years, why would they have progressed in the othr 300?


    Personally I'm proud of our great history. The world could not function today without the things we invented and dicovered in all fields of science,medicine, engineering, agriculture. And the world would have none of them if we hadn't had an empire to recompense us for the cost of giving them to the millions of people we then ruled.

  • I was about to say Morgan, that we need to tread carefully with comments that you've just made, but only a hour ago I was reading about the Congo and the millions that have died there over recent decades doing exactly what you have just said.


    You could argue that this same behaviour is being playing out on the streets of London at the moment via all the knife crime, but that would take the thread way off course and I would have to give myself a warning, so I won't go there.;):whistling:

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I agree with Morgan that Britain in it's heyday did accelerate civilisation in the colonies but I also think civilisation would have eventually arrived in those colonies without Britain's help.


    I agree with Horizon's view that Britain today is no longer the template of civilisation. Indeed, I think that Britain today is a classic example of the downside of a certain type of civilisation - a self-infestation of laws, rules, procedures and bureaucracy, coupled with excess liberalisation which has festered into political correctness , all of which has knocked the stuffing out of a sense of freedom, initiative, entrepreneurship and is now generating a backlash of rebellion, disobedience, lawlessness, violence, popular democracy, civil disorder, with anarchy on the horizon. (Okay, all of that is another thread!)


    While watching the love fest develop between the US and France, does anyone apart from me feel ashamed or embarrassed that Britain couldn't have been in that position just a year ago. Instead, in so many ways we have shown the world generally and the US in particular that we have become a nation of obnoxious fools.

  • Self flagellation over past events doesn't really help. Perhaps you should consider instead some of the advantages we gave to these people with our inventions, medical knowledge, schools, and the fact that after independence we left them with democracies based on our own and copied by the rest of the civilised world.


    Where would these people be today if we hadn't had our empire? I'll tell you, running through the jungle with spears trying to catch their supper, dying from curable diseases and fighting wars with each other just as they were 300 years ago and many are still doing today. They hadn't advanced in the thousands of previous years, why would they have progressed in the othr 300?


    Personally I'm proud of our great history. The world could not function today without the things we invented and dicovered in all fields of science,medicine, engineering, agriculture. And the world would have none of them if we hadn't had an empire to recompense us for the cost of giving them to the millions of people we then ruled.

    You do realise I was being ironic towards my target , don't you?

  • I am watching the Daily Politics show open mouthed , Dawn Butler , spouting more crap than ever just said this government is racist , yet another reason this Labour party is unfit to govern.

  • I am watching the Daily Politics show open mouthed , Dawn Butler , spouting more crap than ever just said this government is racist , yet another reason this Labour party is unfit to govern.

    Labour is trying to divert attention from the anti-Semitism scandal in their own party, which JC seems unable to deal with.

    Protect the vulnerable and get back to work