"there is no escaping the simple truth. The treatment of the Windrush generation was not a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy.
It results from a deliberate act of policy. It was Mrs May, as Home Secretary, who pursued a relentless drive to make life in Britain impossible for those who, her department believed, were here illegally — all in pursuit of an arbitrary and elusive target of reducing net migration to below 100,000. [snip]
Dear me, a humongous non-sequitur being quoted favourably by a distinguished lawyer!
Since the Windrush generation are here perfectly legally, and always have been, it follows that it was a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy, if they were as stated intending to make life in Britain impossible for those who were here illegally.
It seems Jezza has had his Weetabix this morning. Looking Prime Ministerial and the Tories opposite are seething. He is in his element despite the shouting, anger and interruption from the Tories.
Privately, Downing Street tells us she is “furious” that her chance to shine at the Commonwealth conference in London has been ruined.
Read it all!
And for the second time today, I note that others are drawing the same conclusion that I have for some time:
"there is no escaping the simple truth. The treatment of the Windrush generation was not a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy.
It results from a deliberate act of policy. It was Mrs May, as Home Secretary, who pursued a relentless drive to make life in Britain impossible for those who, her department believed, were here illegally — all in pursuit of an arbitrary and elusive target of reducing net migration to below 100,000.
...
Then the Brexiteers harnessed age-old hostility to immigrants to win majority support for their minority concerns about Parliamentary sovereignty. ...
Now Britain is reaping what it sowed."
Cock up is usually the correct explanation.
A more complex society and reducing the discretion public servants have in implementing policy leads to frequent idiotic decisions that are only corrected following bad publicity engaging ministers.
Longer term I think either we move to a more ordered situation (identity cards for all, everyone knows their status and it is checked for access to public services) or the welfare state and NHS will be reduced in scope. I think that the challenges of automation make universal income linked to radical reform of taxation and benefits highly desirable but that implies clearcut identification of who is a citizen.
"there is no escaping the simple truth. The treatment of the Windrush generation was not a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy.
It results from a deliberate act of policy. It was Mrs May, as Home Secretary, who pursued a relentless drive to make life in Britain impossible for those who, her department believed, were here illegally — all in pursuit of an arbitrary and elusive target of reducing net migration to below 100,000. [snip]
Dear me, a humongous non-sequitur being quoted favourably by a distinguished lawyer!
Since the Windrush generation are here perfectly legally, and always have been, it follows that it was a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy, if they were as stated intending to make life in Britain impossible for those who were here illegally.
"there is no escaping the simple truth. The treatment of the Windrush generation was not a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy.
It results from a deliberate act of policy. It was Mrs May, as Home Secretary, who pursued a relentless drive to make life in Britain impossible for those who, her department believed, were here illegally — all in pursuit of an arbitrary and elusive target of reducing net migration to below 100,000. [snip]
Dear me, a humongous non-sequitur being quoted favourably by a distinguished lawyer!
Since the Windrush generation are here perfectly legally, and always have been, it follows that it was a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy, if they were as stated intending to make life in Britain impossible for those who were here illegally.
Different situation completely. The Windrush children were legal when they arrived and their challenge is to prove that legality. That example seems not to be conclusive as to the legality at first arrival.
That said, it should be noted that Amelia Gentleman of the Graun has done a fantastic job on the Windrush issue.
As an aside, that site is hosted on Amazon. I doubt there is a single American government, state government or dog warden web site hosted by a Scottish provider. That's how America supports its own companies and turns them into world-beaters. Scotland and Britain, not so much.
Are there any Scottish providers that have the sort of tech offered by the likes of AWS? To be perfectly honest, you have to have a really good reason not to use them these days when it comes to web services.
If the Scottish government and Scottish councils had supported their own providers, there might be. That's what I'm getting at: the Americans look after their own and make long term gains. We do not.
I highly doubt it. There is basically AWS and a couple of others and that it is outside of China. If it was easy to to develop something like AWS, there would be masses of other companies doing it, because it is such a massive money maker.
It is a bit like saying, how come there isn't loads of companies as good as ARM in the world.
It is easy and there are, or were, lots of hosting providers including British ones, both cloud and dedicated. They run (more or less) standard software on standard hardware. It really is not like ARM designing its own chips.
There is only one party major party leader who is is standing up for taking back control and asserting the rights of Parliament. It is not Theresa May.
As an aside, that site is hosted on Amazon. I doubt there is a single American government, state government or dog warden web site hosted by a Scottish provider. That's how America supports its own companies and turns them into world-beaters. Scotland and Britain, not so much.
Are there any Scottish providers that have the sort of tech offered by the likes of AWS? To be perfectly honest, you have to have a really good reason not to use them these days when it comes to web services.
If the Scottish government and Scottish councils had supported their own providers, there might be. That's what I'm getting at: the Americans look after their own and make long term gains. We do not.
I highly doubt it. There is basically AWS and a couple of others and that it is outside of China. If it was easy to to develop something like AWS, there would be masses of other companies doing it, because it is such a massive money maker.
It is a bit like saying, how come there isn't loads of companies as good as ARM in the world.
It is easy and there are, or were, lots of hosting providers including British ones, both cloud and dedicated. They run (more or less) standard software on standard hardware. It really is not like ARM designing its own chips.
AWS is totally above anything standard hosting offers. I guess you could argue governments don't need much more than a standard hosting package, but I know why I would choose something like AWS over all the rest for governmental cloud services.
No amount of Scottish government backing of small hosting companies would have produced the product Amazon provides via AWS.
Some Tory MPs are making the point if we have a War Powers Act then it will have judicial oversight.
So if a PM wants to use military action they might have to go via the courts.
If you want a speedy military response you might be waiting a while.
The US War Powers Act 1973 requires the President to obtain Congressional approval if US forces are deployed overseas for more than 60 days, thus air strikes and missile strikes are not covered nor are short term special forces operations
There is only one party major party leader who is is standing up for taking back control and asserting the rights of Parliament. It is not Theresa May.
In this case with an impractical policy designed to weaken UK.
I haven't commented on this Windrush mess, as it's obviously a whole cake of wrong smothered in an icing of wrong, with and some nice multicoloured sprinkles of wrong on top.
But I hope the government (and especially the Home Office) don't only try to fix the problem for those effected, but also study why it happened, and try to stop this sort of mess happening again.
What went wrong, and why (and I'm not just talking about glib answers here), how can such problems best be avoided in the future, and what lessons can be learnt for other departments?
Fire ministers if necessary, but the problems are almost certainly much more complex and deeper than that.
As an aside, that site is hosted on Amazon. I doubt there is a single American government, state government or dog warden web site hosted by a Scottish provider. That's how America supports its own companies and turns them into world-beaters. Scotland and Britain, not so much.
Are there any Scottish providers that have the sort of tech offered by the likes of AWS? To be perfectly honest, you have to have a really good reason not to use them these days when it comes to web services.
If the Scottish government and Scottish councils had supported their own providers, there might be. That's what I'm getting at: the Americans look after their own and make long term gains. We do not.
I highly doubt it. There is basically AWS and a couple of others and that it is outside of China. If it was easy to to develop something like AWS, there would be masses of other companies doing it, because it is such a massive money maker.
It is a bit like saying, how come there isn't loads of companies as good as ARM in the world.
It is easy and there are, or were, lots of hosting providers including British ones, both cloud and dedicated. They run (more or less) standard software on standard hardware. It really is not like ARM designing its own chips.
Disagree. Best hosting (in cost, availability, and services available) is AWS or Google Cloud.
"there is no escaping the simple truth. The treatment of the Windrush generation was not a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy.
It results from a deliberate act of policy. It was Mrs May, as Home Secretary, who pursued a relentless drive to make life in Britain impossible for those who, her department believed, were here illegally — all in pursuit of an arbitrary and elusive target of reducing net migration to below 100,000. [snip]
Dear me, a humongous non-sequitur being quoted favourably by a distinguished lawyer!
Since the Windrush generation are here perfectly legally, and always have been, it follows that it was a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy, if they were as stated intending to make life in Britain impossible for those who were here illegally.
Different situation completely. The Windrush children were legal when they arrived and their challenge is to prove that legality. That example seems not to be conclusive as to the legality at first arrival.
That said, it should be noted that Amelia Gentleman of the Graun has done a fantastic job on the Windrush issue.
Not completely different; it is the burden of proof - and the hurdles the Home Office puts in the way - that is the common factor in both cases.
"there is no escaping the simple truth. The treatment of the Windrush generation was not a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy.
It results from a deliberate act of policy. It was Mrs May, as Home Secretary, who pursued a relentless drive to make life in Britain impossible for those who, her department believed, were here illegally — all in pursuit of an arbitrary and elusive target of reducing net migration to below 100,000. [snip]
Dear me, a humongous non-sequitur being quoted favourably by a distinguished lawyer!
Since the Windrush generation are here perfectly legally, and always have been, it follows that it was a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy, if the Home Office were as stated intending to make life in Britain impossible for those who were here illegally.
It's not a non sequitur. As a result of the policy, the individual has to prove he or she is here perfectly legally. The fact that this catches some of those who are indeed here perfectly legally is a consequence of the policy, and its enforcement.
"there is no escaping the simple truth. The treatment of the Windrush generation was not a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy.
It results from a deliberate act of policy. It was Mrs May, as Home Secretary, who pursued a relentless drive to make life in Britain impossible for those who, her department believed, were here illegally — all in pursuit of an arbitrary and elusive target of reducing net migration to below 100,000. [snip]
Dear me, a humongous non-sequitur being quoted favourably by a distinguished lawyer!
Since the Windrush generation are here perfectly legally, and always have been, it follows that it was a mistake or an oversight by an unwieldy bureaucracy, if the Home Office were as stated intending to make life in Britain impossible for those who were here illegally.
It's not a non sequitur. As a result of the policy, the individual has to prove he or she is here perfectly legally. The fact that this catches some of those who are indeed here perfectly legally is a consequence of the policy, and its enforcement.
Yes, as a result of an oversight by the Home Office, who don't seem to have twigged that this would be a problem.
Nor, it seems, did many other people, including LibDem and Labour MPs. In fact, the problem has existed since 2008, when employers became legally obliged to retain records proving that anyone they recruited had the right to work in the UK. You can't blame that on Theresa May, the Conservatives, or Brexit.
I haven't commented on this Windrush mess, as it's obviously a whole cake of wrong smothered in an icing of wrong, with and some nice multicoloured sprinkles of wrong on top.
But I hope the government (and especially the Home Office) don't only try to fix the problem for those effected, but also study why it happened, and try to stop this sort of mess happening again.
What went wrong, and why (and I'm not just talking about glib answers here), how can such problems best be avoided in the future, and what lessons can be learnt for other departments?
Fire ministers if necessary, but the problems are almost certainly much more complex and deeper than that.
What astonishes me more than anything else about it, is that when Jez could be having an emergency debate about it in HoC he prefers to lose his second debate in two days about Syria.
I haven't commented on this Windrush mess, as it's obviously a whole cake of wrong smothered in an icing of wrong, with and some nice multicoloured sprinkles of wrong on top.
But I hope the government (and especially the Home Office) don't only try to fix the problem for those effected, but also study why it happened, and try to stop this sort of mess happening again.
What went wrong, and why (and I'm not just talking about glib answers here), how can such problems best be avoided in the future, and what lessons can be learnt for other departments?
Fire ministers if necessary, but the problems are almost certainly much more complex and deeper than that.
What astonishes me more than anything else about it, is that when Jez could be having an emergency debate about it in HoC he prefers to lose his second debate in two days about Syria.
That's because he doesn't really care about injustices, he cares most of all about what he sees as the horrors of Western and especially American global power.
(A) capital group and capital international are run very separately (B) the shareholding will be an aggregated position of many shareholders based on the company model portfolio (C) Philip May will have no control over the model portfolio (D) he is an employee and his remuneration will not depend on the Lockheed shares (E) there are procedures in place to manage conflicts
BREAKING: @GOVUK applies to @UKSupremeCourt to challenge Scottish and Welsh #Brexit bills
Twitter
Philip Sim@BBCPhilipSim UK government confirms the Scottish and Welsh Brexit bills are being referred to the Supreme Court. Attorney General Jeremy Wright says legislation "risks creating serious legal uncertainty for individuals and businesses as we leave the EU"
Philip Sim@BBCPhilipSim UKgov seeking ruling in Supreme Court as to whether devolved Brexit bills are "constitutional and properly within devolved legislative powers"
Philip Sim@BBCPhilipSim Holyrood PO Ken Macintosh has argued Scottish Brexit bill isn't within @ScotParl's competence because it makes provision for exercise of powers parliament doesn't yet hold. However Lord Advocate James Wolffe contends that it is "carefully framed" not to cut across EU law
I wonder if Ken Macintosh will last the term of the parliament as presiding officer.
I think that Sturgeon is far less likely to last this Parliamentary term.
She about to get severely shot down in flames by the Supreme Court, for her bill that’s quite clearly unconstitutional.
From my friends in Scotland, the impression I get is that the day to day running of the place is being seriously neglected, by a government who are only interested in constitutional games rather than health, education and policing.
Maybe, although I imagine they've calculated they will get some bpost from the UK court striking things down.
I am furious over Windrush and Rudd must be under threat as she is the one holding the ball. Seems lot of effort being put in to right the wrongs but it should not have happened.
However, the idea TM is under threat is just wishful thinking especially after yesterdays 7 hour marathon in the HOC. She is in as strong a position as she has been and is going nowhere.
What happens for GE 2022 is another matter and I would expect a new leader is probable and likely to be female
TM is obviously the one responsible for the Windrush shambles from her time as Home Secretary. But as she seems to be on the spectrum, lacking human empathy, it is unfair to blame her for her condition.
I think a politician with autism would be OK as Secretary for Defence or even as COE but not as PM. I agree a new leader is probable. And it won't be Moggsy (though I sincerely hope it is!)
Where has this sudden idea May might be on the spectrum come from? She's a bit awkward, and some her policies aren't great, that eems to be it.
Some Tory MPs are making the point if we have a War Powers Act then it will have judicial oversight.
So if a PM wants to use military action they might have to go via the courts.
If you want a speedy military response you might be waiting a while.
I think that getting Parliamentary approval for military action is desirable, but it is not always possible, so such an Act would not make sense.
It feels like it could become an increasingly used convention, but retaining the urgency of not using it us needed. Even if an act said urgent use was ok, that would be problematic.
It's not a clear cut issue though, and I should think as it is about process Jeremy must be loving this.
I haven't commented on this Windrush mess, as it's obviously a whole cake of wrong smothered in an icing of wrong, with and some nice multicoloured sprinkles of wrong on top.
But I hope the government (and especially the Home Office) don't only try to fix the problem for those effected, but also study why it happened, and try to stop this sort of mess happening again.
What went wrong, and why (and I'm not just talking about glib answers here), how can such problems best be avoided in the future, and what lessons can be learnt for other departments?
Fire ministers if necessary, but the problems are almost certainly much more complex and deeper than that.
What astonishes me more than anything else about it, is that when Jez could be having an emergency debate about it in HoC he prefers to lose his second debate in two days about Syria.
Still time - Syria will be back out of the headlines soon, Windrush has quite a ways to go.
Comments
No one has been pointing this out for years...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/25/undocumented-children-facing-deportation-from-uk
https://mobile.twitter.com/swanseadan/status/986042420403097600
So if a PM wants to use military action they might have to go via the courts.
If you want a speedy military response you might be waiting a while.
A more complex society and reducing the discretion public servants have in implementing policy leads to frequent idiotic decisions that are only corrected following bad publicity engaging ministers.
Longer term I think either we move to a more ordered situation (identity cards for all, everyone knows their status and it is checked for access to public services) or the welfare state and NHS will be reduced in scope. I think that the challenges of automation make universal income linked to radical reform of taxation and benefits highly desirable but that implies clearcut identification of who is a citizen.
That said, it should be noted that Amelia Gentleman of the Graun has done a fantastic job on the Windrush issue.
No amount of Scottish government backing of small hosting companies would have produced the product Amazon provides via AWS.
The majority didn't really care too much about immigration until Labour/EU opened the floodgates.
Mind you the gov legislation to respond to it is totally disproportionate and without thought to the consequences.
TMay did something similar with her porn-registration law, which is also going to cause a lot of problems.
No wait, I know the answer to that xD
NEW THREAD
But I hope the government (and especially the Home Office) don't only try to fix the problem for those effected, but also study why it happened, and try to stop this sort of mess happening again.
What went wrong, and why (and I'm not just talking about glib answers here), how can such problems best be avoided in the future, and what lessons can be learnt for other departments?
Fire ministers if necessary, but the problems are almost certainly much more complex and deeper than that.
Disagree. Best hosting (in cost, availability, and services available) is AWS or Google Cloud.
Small hosting providers don't even come close.
Nor, it seems, did many other people, including LibDem and Labour MPs. In fact, the problem has existed since 2008, when employers became legally obliged to retain records proving that anyone they recruited had the right to work in the UK. You can't blame that on Theresa May, the Conservatives, or Brexit.
(A) capital group and capital international are run very separately
(B) the shareholding will be an aggregated position of many shareholders based on the company model portfolio
(C) Philip May will have no control over the model portfolio
(D) he is an employee and his remuneration will not depend on the Lockheed shares
(E) there are procedures in place to manage conflicts
Good timing for Jeremy though, let's see what thus opposition can do.
It's not a clear cut issue though, and I should think as it is about process Jeremy must be loving this.