Tories are lying *******s (warning may contain traces of Tory)

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You've quoted the BBC. Is this a true story, or has she misled, again?

There was a piece on 'PM' on Radio 4 this afternoon which featured input from a couple of former senior Home Office civil servants.

The business case for destroying documentation was signed-off under Labour. The operational decision to go ahead happened under the Coalition.

What came across as being overlooked was that the destruction was of a far greater volume of official documents and records, not just the landing cards. This passed the 'common sense' test for me, as there are vast swathes of hard-copy documentation that would have been destroyed over time and when the work was carried out, it would make sense to batch it as large as possible due to the costs.

All the former secretaries of state at the Home Office have denied knowledge or said they have no recollection of signing off on the decision. One of the civil servants on R4 said that at some point an immigration minister (usually Minister of State level) must have had some sign-off. From memory of the programme, Phil Woolas (Lab) and Damian Green (Con) were the MoSes at that time. Neither had made a statement when 'PM' was broadcast but that may have changed by now. I suppose the question is which of them, if not both, had involvement and when.

What was also interesting was some analysis by 'PM''s political editor. He stated that he thought Amber Rudd would and should be safe - she wasn't around at the time of the destruction and didn't feel she was vulnerable about how Government has responded to events. He did make the point however that there would be elements within the Tories who would use this to try and weaken her position, as Rudd is the most senior Conservative who is out-and-out opposed to hard Brexit and a target for the full-on Leavers.

[lord bunberry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There was a piece on 'PM' on Radio 4 this afternoon which featured input from a couple of former senior Home Office civil servants.

The business case for destroying documentation was signed-off under Labour. The operational decision to go ahead happened under the Coalition.

What came across as being overlooked was that the destruction was of a far greater volume of official documents and records, not just the landing cards. This passed the 'common sense' test for me, as there are vast swathes of hard-copy documentation that would have been destroyed over time and when the work was carried out, it would make sense to batch it as large as possible due to the costs.

All the former secretaries of state at the Home Office have denied knowledge or said they have no recollection of signing off on the decision. One of the civil servants on R4 said that at some point an immigration minister (usually Minister of State level) must have had some sign-off. From memory of the programme, Phil Woolas (Lab) and Damian Green (Con) were the MoSes at that time. Neither had made a statement when 'PM' was broadcast but that may have changed by now. I suppose the question is which of them, if not both, had involvement and when.

What was also interesting was some analysis by 'PM''s political editor. He stated that he thought Amber Rudd would and should be safe - she wasn't around at the time of the destruction and didn't feel she was vulnerable about how Government has responded to events. He did make the point however that there would be elements within the Tories who would use this to try and weaken her position, as Rudd is the most senior Conservative who is out-and-out opposed to hard Brexit and a target for the full-on Leavers.

I always thought that stuff like this was transferred to digital records before being destroyed. I suppose the sheer volume of old records makes this impossible. Either way it’s a shocking state of affairs whoever gave the orders.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I always thought that stuff like this was transferred to digital records before being destroyed. I suppose the sheer volume of old records makes this impossible. Either way it’s a shocking state of affairs whoever gave the orders.

I thought the same. I think you’re right though, volume is probably beyond our imagination and it’s a combination of some of it transferring to digital and some civil servant making a case that it doesn’t need to be kept at all and hard copy can therefore be destroyed - and in fairness that’s probably true for some records. The cost of destroying confidential records isn’t cheap so the higher the volume then the cost should be cheaper, in relative terms.

What’s interesting is there was an outline business case, in 2009. That’s a formal document and theoretically it should describe why it was safe to destroy the documents as well as economical. My interpretation is that civil servants would have had to do an OBC whenever a cull of particular records was being mooted.

In which case surely the BBC have already submitted an FOI unless it’s already been rejected - commercial sensitivity would be one likely reason, though it was nearly ten years ago so that might be hard to argue.

[lord bunberry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I thought the same. I think you’re right though, volume is probably beyond our imagination and it’s a combination of some of it transferring to digital and some civil servant making a case that it doesn’t need to be kept at all and hard copy can therefore be destroyed - and in fairness that’s probably true for some records. The cost of destroying confidential records isn’t cheap so the higher the volume then the cost should be cheaper, in relative terms.

What’s interesting is there was an original business case, in 2009. That’s a formal document and theoretically it should outline why it was safe to destroy the documents as well as economical. My interpretation is that civil servants would have had to do an OBC whenever a cull of particular records was being mooted.

In which case surely the BBC have already submitted an FOI unless it’s already been rejected - commercial sensitivity would be one likely reason, though it was nearly ten years ago so that might be hard to argue.

It shows how little I know about this. I just presumed that everything was just shredded or some similar method of destruction. I had no idea there was a cost involved.

[ronaldo7]

I sat and watched newsnight last night and was quite taken aback at the news from Lord Kerslake. You just never know how low the Tories will stoop.

The former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake, said that some ministers were "deeply unhappy" about the introduction of the "hostile environment" strategy under then Home Secretary Theresa May.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight, Lord Kerslake, said some saw the policy, which has come under the spotlight during the Windrush row, "as almost reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the way it's working".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-4381...f-nazi-germany

[Pretty Boy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43835664

So Alan Johnson confirms Mays account of when the decision to destroy the landing cards was taken is indeed accurate.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I sat and watched newsnight last night and was quite taken aback at the news from Lord Kerslake. You just never know how low the Tories will stoop.

The former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake, said that some ministers were "deeply unhappy" about the introduction of the "hostile environment" strategy under then Home Secretary Theresa May.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight, Lord Kerslake, said some saw the policy, which has come under the spotlight during the Windrush row, "as almost reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the way it's working".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-4381...f-nazi-germany

Ahh the good old Nazi analogy...must be true then.

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43835664

So Alan Johnson confirms Mays account of when the decision to destroy the landing cards was taken is indeed accurate.

As Johnson says, it was clearly a card May had kept up her sleeve for PM's question time where Corbyn must have been confident of deflecting the ongoing pressure on his leadership by giving May a hard time over this. But you can always rely on Corbyn to fluff his lines. He sets the bar so low as an opposition leader that he's contrived to make the 'Maybot' look almost prime ministerial and seen his own ratings slump:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ity-wanes-poll

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ahh the good old Nazi analogy...must be true then.

I saw the Newsnight interview. What he actually said was that other members of the cabinet (who he refused to name) said the "hostile environment" was like something out of Nazi Germany. He also said that the whole thing was driven by the pressure created by Cameron's ill thought out 10s of thousands net migration target.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I saw the Newsnight interview. What he actually said was that other members of the cabinet (who he refused to name) said the "hostile environment" was like something out of Nazi Germany. He also said that the whole thing was driven by the pressure created by Cameron's ill thought out 10s of thousands net migration target.

Which remains an unsubstantiated sound bite...

I have no doubt that Britain has tightened its approach to illegals and I’ve already stated that those that have been here for decades should be treated as citizens first and foremost and therefore any response from the immigration authorities should be much more conciliatory.

But such comparisons are easily said and rarely helpful when in reality I do wonder if people truly understand what an authoritarian fascist state would be like compared to what the U.K. has in place currently.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which remains an unsubstantiated sound bite...

I have no doubt that Britain has tightened its approach to illegals and I’ve already stated that those that have been here for decades should be treated as citizens first and foremost and therefore any response from the immigration authorities should be much more conciliatory.

But such comparisons are easily said and rarely helpful when in reality I do wonder if people truly understand what an authoritarian fascist state would be like compared to what the U.K. has in place currently.

I take your points and agree that Nazi comparisons are unhelpful and not something I would do myself (apart from possibly with the New Rangers ). However, the interesting thing about this (unsubstantiated) allegation is that even other Tory high heid yins made the comparison. If true, that's a pretty damning indictment.

I suspect the Cameron/Osbourne wing of the Tories rather regrets the attempted UKIP triangulation to put so much focus on the non-problem of immigration which, let's face it, was the midwife of Brexit.

[snooky]

Is there not an unwritten rule that the first person that brings the Nazis into an argument loses the argument?

[Haymaker]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is there not an unwritten rule that the first person that brings the Nazis into an argument loses the argument?

Godwins law IIRC

[snooky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Godwins law IIRC

Spot on, HM.
Godwin's Law (aka Godwin's Rule).... From Wiki -->

Generalization, corollaries, usage
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress.[7] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.[8]

[Colr]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Spot on, HM.
Godwin's Law (aka Godwin's Rule).... From Wiki -->

Generalization, corollaries, usage
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress.[7] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.[8]

However, the Nazis (and Stalinists for that matter) present a warning from history against which the drift to tyranny can be benchmarked and checked.

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

However, the Nazis (and Stalinists for that matter) present a warning from history against which the drift to tyranny can be benchmarked and checked.

I’ve always felt that Godwin’s Law is fundamentally nonsense.

It, intentionally or otherwise, calls for the exclusion of arguably the most significant political and military events of the 20th century from any debate.

[Bristolhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is there not an unwritten rule that the first person that brings the Nazis into an argument loses the argument?

Unless you are arguing about who perpetrated the Holocaust with a Holocaust denier.

J

[snooky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Unless you are arguing about who perpetrated the Holocaust with a Holocaust denier.

J

Agreed.

Also, if you don't give a toss about unwritten laws.,

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ahh the good old Nazi analogy...must be true then.

I thought all you right wingers swooned on the word of a Lord.

The last couple of weeks have been harrowing viewing re the windrush debacle. Even the coldest of Tories must have been touched, by the extreme policy decisions of their beloved.

I've lost count of the amount of people either deported, in detention, not allowed back into their own country, or affected in some way. I wonder if the Home office will ever let us know.

The guardian and Carol Cadwalladr have done a great job in outing May and co.

[speedy_gonzales]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've lost count of the amount of people either deported, in detention, not allowed back into their own country, or affected in some way. I wonder if the Home office will ever let us know.

Have you aye, lost count eh?
Over the past few weeks there's been a few different stories of folk deported. Folk not allowed back in and folk detained.
Of those stories there's been a few genuine cases where a British citizen with legitimate right to be here has been held in detention. There's two I can think of and both were quickly released when this all blew up. There's talk of them being compensated, and quite rightly so.
But then there was a story of a guy who couldn't come back from Jamaica for medical treatment, his daughter who is a UK citizen made a very emotional plea, the father however WAS NOT legal. As some right wing press might report, he was an NHS tourist.

I've obviously had my head in the sand though when it comes to all these cases you know of, so many you can't keep count!?!

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I thought all you right wingers swooned on the word of a Lord.

The last couple of weeks have been harrowing viewing re the windrush debacle. Even the coldest of Tories must have been touched, by the extreme policy decisions of their beloved.

I've lost count of the amount of people either deported, in detention, not allowed back into their own country, or affected in some way. I wonder if the Home office will ever let us know.

The guardian and Carol Cadwalladr have done a great job in outing May and co.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Have you aye, lost count eh?
Over the past few weeks there's been a few different stories of folk deported. Folk not allowed back in and folk detained.
Of those stories there's been a few genuine cases where a British citizen with legitimate right to be here has been held in detention. There's two I can think of and both were quickly released when this all blew up. There's talk of them being compensated, and quite rightly so.
But then there was a story of a guy who couldn't come back from Jamaica for medical treatment, his daughter who is a UK citizen made a very emotional plea, the father however WAS NOT legal. As some right wing press might report, he was an NHS tourist.

I've obviously had my head in the sand though when it comes to all these cases you know of, so many you can't keep count!?!

Seems I was wrong then. Colder than the arctic.

We've not even started on the Indians or Africans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43782241

[speedy_gonzales]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Seems I was wrong then. Colder than the arctic.

We've not even started on the Indians or Africans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43782241

Now now, you said you'd lost count of the amount of folk deported, detained or not allowed back in to their country.
Feel free to back up that sensationalist comment, but then you've got form for pulling the pin, chucking the grenade and walking.
I'm as disgusted as most that a government, ministers & civil servants can screw up to the point whereby legal and legitimate citizens are kicked out of their home or not allowed back in. And that HAS happened, but not to the numbers where you'd lose count if you actually stopped and counted the true genuine cases.
You're political point scoring would do a lot better if you weren't so sensationalist and reflected the facts of the day.

Of course, I may be doing you a disservice and perhaps you can't actually count that high, apologies if that's the case.

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Now now, you said you'd lost count of the amount of folk deported, detained or not allowed back in to their country.
Feel free to back up that sensationalist comment, but then you've got form for pulling the pin, chucking the grenade and walking.
I'm as disgusted as most that a government, ministers & civil servants can screw up to the point whereby legal and legitimate citizens are kicked out of their home or not allowed back in. And that HAS happened, but not to the numbers where you'd lose count if you actually stopped and counted the true genuine cases.
You're political point scoring would do a lot better if you weren't so sensationalist and reflected the facts of the day.

Of course, I may be doing you a disservice and perhaps you can't actually count that high, apologies if that's the case.

I have.

The link above is from the BBC, and you can never rely on them to get it right.

You're doing a grand job of protecting the government of the day. I heard Dianne abbot going on about having hundreds of people affected, whilst the BBC say it's thousands. As I said, nobody knows the true number of people affected, not even the Home office, unless of course you work on your abacas which only goes up to 10. Then again, maybe it's only a couple eh.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have.

The link above is from the BBC, and you can never rely on them to get it right.

You're doing a grand job of protecting the government of the day. I heard Dianne abbot going on about having hundreds of people affected, whilst the BBC say it's thousands. As I said, nobody knows the true number of people affected, not even the Home office, unless of course you work on your abacas which only goes up to 10. Then again, maybe it's only a couple eh.

Been caught out again R7

You never counted anything, let alone lost count.

Your posts would carry more weight if you didn't resort to sensationalising and lazy links.

Accusing Speedy of 'protecting the government' is just an ad hominem to deflect from his valid point.

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Been caught out again R7

You never counted anything, let alone lost count.

Your posts would carry more weight if you didn't resort to sensationalising and lazy links.

Accusing Speedy of 'protecting the government' is just an ad hominem to deflect from his valid point.

Started counting, then lost count. It's easy to follow, even for you MA

Speedy has been doing a grand job for Theresa and co, and still they don't have numbers. What's not to understand?

This was last Thursday and they're still counting. As in, lost count.

Officials have been contacted by more than 230 people over the bureaucratic blunders which resulted in long-term UK residents being wrongly threatened with deportation and denied health care.

More abacuses required.

[speedy_gonzales]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're doing a grand job of protecting the government of the day.

Is that what I'm doing? I thought I was asking you, YOU, to back up your claim at losing count of all those people being sent home/detained/refused entry.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As I said, nobody knows the true number of people affected,

Did you say that, aye?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

,,,,not even the Home office, unless of course you work on your abacas which only goes up to 10. Then again, maybe it's only a couple eh.

Abacus, oh man, yer killing me. I have read all the links that you and others including myself posted. I have read print, I have read online. At no point did I lose count, you however claim to have done just that.
A figure I read in the London Evening Standard said 5000 "could" be affected. That's 5000 individuals that don't meet the criteria to demonstrate their legal right to be here. There is absolutely no suggestion 5000 people have been deported, detained or refused re-entry. These people will almost certainly get their paperwork expedited now with all the media focus.

I'm calling you out for being sensationalist, I'd even argue you don't care one jot for the individuals that are affected by this. A colleague of mines that potentially IS affected doesn't point score or kick the Tories as much as you do.

Feel free to label me Tory, conservative, whatever you see fit. Call me a Jambo. It really doesn't matter, I know where I lie politically and I know who I vote for. I didn't vote for either of the parties that "govern" me but I'm not bitter about it, in fact I'm quite happy for you to carry on with your deluded view that anyone that challenges you can only be a Tory. It just means that any further meaningful posts by your good self will be lost in the background noise.

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is that what I'm doing? I thought I was asking you, YOU, to back up your claim at losing count of all those people being sent home/detained/refused entry.



Did you say that, aye?



Abacus, oh man, yer killing me. I have read all the links that you and others including myself posted. I have read print, I have read online. At no point did I lose count, you however claim to have done just that.
A figure I read in the London Evening Standard said 5000 "could" be affected. That's 5000 individuals that don't meet the criteria to demonstrate their legal right to be here. There is absolutely no suggestion 5000 people have been deported, detained or refused re-entry. These people will almost certainly get their paperwork expedited now with all the media focus.

I'm calling you out for being sensationalist, I'd even argue you don't care one jot for the individuals that are affected by this. A colleague of mines that potentially IS affected doesn't point score or kick the Tories as much as you do.

Feel free to label me Tory, conservative, whatever you see fit. Call me a Jambo. It really doesn't matter, I know where I lie politically and I know who I vote for. I didn't vote for either of the parties that "govern" me but I'm not bitter about it, in fact I'm quite happy for you to carry on with your deluded view that anyone that challenges you can only be a Tory. It just means that any further meaningful posts by your good self will be lost in the background noise.

Hey, you don't have to be a Tory to protect the Tory government, the Labour boys are good at doing that.

In other news, I don't have the numbers, you don't have the numbers, and the Home office don't have the numbers, that's why nobody knows how many people have been affected.

The bit in bold...You seem to think it's all going to be tickety boo for those affected, now that the media have got a hold of it. It's a pity that Theresa and co didn't bother their buckie to get it sorted some time ago, but she was too busy putting the policies in place which then affected the many, not the few.

I'll leave you to go through your posts and get back to me when you've decided whether it's been, 2, 10, 100's or 1,000's affected.

This one has a way to go yet, and I for one, won't apologise for having a go at the Tories, thanks. That's the same Tories who caused the problems in the first place.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hey, you don't have to be a Tory to protect the Tory government, the Labour boys are good at doing that.

In other news, I don't have the numbers, you don't have the numbers, and the Home office don't have the numbers, that's why nobody knows how many people have been affected.

The bit in bold...You seem to think it's all going to be tickety boo for those affected, now that the media have got a hold of it. It's a pity that Theresa and co didn't bother their buckie to get it sorted some time ago, but she was too busy putting the policies in place which then affected the many, not the few.

I'll leave you to go through your posts and get back to me when you've decided whether it's been, 2, 10, 100's or 1,000's affected.

This one has a way to go yet, and I for one, won't apologise for having a go at the Tories, thanks. That's the same Tories who caused the problems in the first place.

I thought you said you had started count. Can you not remember what number you got to?

Is this a general affliction for Nationalists? It maybe explains why the NHS waiting time targets keep getting missed?

[speedy_gonzales]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hey, you don't have to be a Tory to protect the Tory government, the Labour boys are good at doing that.


In other news, I don't have the numbers

Is that how you lost count?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

you don't have the numbers,

Correct, and I never claimed I did but I did manage to keep a tally of all those that I did read about.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The bit in bold...You seem to think it's all going to be tickety boo for those affected, now that the media have got a hold of it.

I'd go even further and suggest to prevent a further PR disaster the Home Office will be very lenient on the processing of those individuals concerned.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This one has a way to go yet, and I for one, won't apologise for having a go at the Tories, thanks. That's the same Tories who caused the problems in the first place.

But surely it wasn't just the Tories, who was in political power when these "Commonwealth" citizens were invited over.
What about the permanent ministers, civil servants. They are not all signed up party political members.
This is an institutional cock up. If Home Secretaries fall, then that will be considered a win by some but won't make one iota of difference to those who want to remain in a country they call home.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is that how you lost count?




Correct, and I never claimed I did but I did manage to keep a tally of all those that I did read about.



I'd go even further and suggest to prevent a further PR disaster the Home Office will be very lenient on the processing of those individuals concerned.



But surely it wasn't just the Tories, who was in political power when these "Commonwealth" citizens were invited over.
What about the permanent ministers, civil servants. They are not all signed up party political members.
This is an institutional cock up. If Home Secretaries fall, then that will be considered a win by some but won't make one iota of difference to those who want to remain in a country they call home.

This situation has developed over Conservative, Labour and Coalition administrations. While politicians set the tone, civil servants would and should have been able to recommend policy to avoid this. At the same time, immigration is such a complex issue that sane advice by civil servants won't necessarily overcome political imperatives. And if we want to look where to blame for that we only need examine ourselves as a society.

My take is this is messy. Home Office policy and immigration policy especially, tends to be complex, often short-termist and often populist in order to meet a perceived need of reaction, regardless of the colour of rosette the Home Secretary wears. Point-scoring is ultimately pointless but easy to do.