Windrush Generation

I understood that the U.K. Border Agency recommended getting rid of the Windrush landing slips in 2009 but no action was taken until the Home Office made the decision under the Coalition Government in 2010.

No danger of having to eat my words - the HO and the PO will not put things right - they will prevaricate and dissemble and hope it all just goes away. Explain to me the justification for the removal of the clause in the 2014 Act - thought not and why the PO refused initially to meet with the Commonweslth heads ? If it walks like a racist and talks like a racist .......

So many sad and shocking stories

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43794366

MaryEliza if the HO put things right quickly, will you eat your rather florid words?
I have no illusions that any political party never make mistakes, but unlike you, do not believe this was done on purpose, or will not be put right.

Statements from the govt, even clarifications, are often still confusing. I think they are referring to the landing cards. Some reports are saying staff raised objections because of potential future difficulties, but then when they moved office, the destruction went ahead. I don't know if this is fact.
maryeliza, I know what you mean!
Channel 4 reporting on another case now where the man has since died

Yes - my understanding is that they started on some paperwork in 2009 but the actual landing cards in 2010 when the Perfect One was HS. bmacca not talk politics at home <faints> how does that work

Tory Party's OWN clarification "And Downing Street clarified after PMQs that the decision to destroy the landing cards in 2009 was an “operational decision” by the UK Border Agency and therefore would not have been directly taken by the then Labour home secretary." Furthermore they confirmed "documents which had been used to establish when migrants arrived in the UK were destroyed by the Home Office in 2010" - i.e. when May was Home Secretary.

This isn't quite making sense. Are two different sets of documents being referred to here?

maryeliza, I like your quote! I know what you mean about the Guardian journalist, maybe they don't talk politics at home

Deputy Wendell: This is turnin' into a hell of a mess, ain't it, Sheriff?
Sheriff Ed Tom Bell: If it isn't, it'll do until the mess gets here.

My favourite quote about a ‘mess’ from No Country For Old Men. Perfect??

bmacca - sorry - I see you've dealt with that. What a mess!

TM now says Labour was in government and the year was 2009 when the landing cards were destroyed. Don't these people keep records of what was done when?

Amelia Gentleman of the Guardian has been pursuing this whole story for the last six months. That’s the place to get the facts - she’s done / doing a great job but I just can’t get my head round who she’s married to

She’s also been very misleading about AT.

I love the way the cultists believe every word that is said in Parliament. Such faith in ones leader is so touching isn’t it? I would guess that there are more lies and half truths spouted at the dispatch box than anywhere else in Government

Tory Party's OWN clarification "And Downing Street clarified after PMQs that the decision to destroy the landing cards in 2009 was an “operational decision” by the UK Border Agency and therefore would not have been directly taken by the then Labour home secretary." Furthermore they confirmed "documents which had been used to establish when migrants arrived in the UK were destroyed by the Home Office in 2010" - i.e. when May was Home Secretary. Of course, this only became relevant after the removal of this clause from the 2014 Immigration Act - and there's no doubt about who was in the driving seat for that decision. Home Secretary Theresa May. Today there are reports inMSM of a minimum 49 more cases of erroneous deportation, under the watch of Home Secretary Amber Rudd and Prime Minister Theresa May.

TM was very selective with her ‘facts’ today. AT is part of the WG problem and the changes implemented in 1973. He has worked and lived here for the last 45 years approx

Oh how rosy it is in your world lemon. This is all deliberate - the removal of the protective clause in the 2014 Act is proof of this. No one else will suffer anxiety - hahahahaha - they must be full of confidence in the Government and especially the HO’s competence. Also even those who are now reassured have lost jobs, homes, pensions, paid solicitors - when is all this going to be put right? The posters who believe everything is fine now sound as though they belong to some - let me think - could be call it a cult where the leader can do no wrong and whose every word is the truth.

AT is definitely black and from the Commo wealth. It is on legal advice that he is not using his real name.

I'm not in any way disputing the fact that this case may have had racist overtones, GillT57, and it may well have done, but it was reported that Albert Thomson is not the man's real name. I don't see how any inference can be drawn from a name these days, anyway. I suppose an Albert could come from anywhere!

Why would anyone within the NHS ask a man called Albert Thomson whether he is entitled to access treatment? Hardly a 'suspiciously foreign sounding' name is it? How many white men called Albert Thomson have been asked about their entitlement?

Questions are being asked of people because there has been
Abuse of benefits and health /operations/treatment by those not entitled to them, plus so called ‘health tourism’.
There should surely be checks on this.
The Windrush generation ( or rather, some of them) have been caught up in this in a way never intended.
It was reported today that nobody else will suffer anxiety about being able to stay here who came across with parents.

I heard that the man concerned was not part of the ’Windrush’ generation, but apart from that, know nothing about his case.
It was said today in Parliament that the decision to get rid of the registration documents was actually taken by the last Labour government and implemented a year later by the Conservatives, when they were in power.So it looks as if deciding to keep them no longer was decided for a reason, and not a racist reason.
Not everything is done for racist reasons.

I guess it has to be done, but I feel sorry for the NHS staff having to ask. A lady in a wheelchair in front of me at our local minor injuries clinic was very affronted when the receptionist asked how long she'd been in the country, presumably because of her strong accent. She was white as it happens, German, and had lived here since 1948.

For those clinging on to their belief that this disgraceful episode was not, partly at least, motivated by racism, ask yourself this;

The gentleman who was presented with a bill in excess of £54000 for his cancer treatment; why was he asked about his residency/right to have treatment? Nobody has asked my 86 year old Mother ( white) if she can prove that she is entitled to NHS treatment? Anyone on here been asked to prove their entitlement?

This from the Guardian explains the position very clearly and TMs disgraceful behaviour re the 2014 Act and removal of the clause. Only 16 MPs voted against this at the time and there are no prizes for guessing at least one of them.

‘The onus is on individuals to prove they were resident in the UK before 1 January 1973, the date the 1971 Immigration Act came into force. However, a key clause from 1999 legislation, which had provided longstanding Commonwealth residents with protection from enforced removal, was deleted from the 2014 Immigration Act. The government did not announce the removal of this clause, nor did it consult on the potential ramifications.

Some Commonwealth citizens were given temporary permission to work in the UK or arrived as students before 1973. They are likely to have been born in the late 1940s or early 1950s and are now of pensionable age. As a result of the government’s “hostile environment” policies requiring landlords, the NHS and other bodies to check people’s immigration status, these cases have started to come to light.

Children of the Windrush generation – those invited by the British government to work in the UK after the second world war – were automatically entitled to settled status under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, provided they had documentation that satisfied the Home Office. There is no equivalent clause specifically protecting Commonwealth citizens granted limited status before January 1973, such as students or people who came on temporary work visas

All longstanding Commonwealth residents were protected from enforced removal by a specific exemption in the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act – a clause removed in the updated 2014 legislation.

Frances Webber, a former barrister and vice-chair of the Institute of Race Relations, discovered the deletion of the clause. “I find it very frightening that rights can be removed in this way, surreptitiously, with no debate,” she said.