Windrush Generation

This was a huge cock-up in the wording which was only meant to relate to illegal immigrants. However, this is now being rectified. To say the WG were targeted because of their colour is wrong. I have to smile at the indignation of some people on behalf of the black population - reminds me of a friend who wondered if it was because they thought he was too stupid to understand when he had been insulted!

Gerspringer Yawn!

The Government has had several years to rectify their mistakes as the “hostile environment” has resulted in many injustices since 2011. Deportations, driving licences suspended, refusing to allow re-entry after overseas trips, refusing NHS treatment, stays in detention centres, vital documents mislaid or destroyed by the Home Office.

Lawyers, advisors and MPs have been raising these issues for years, so the Home Office have been very aware. They had plenty of time to make good their mistakes or inefficiencies but had chosen not to do it for fear of seeming weak on immigration until the recent exposure in the Guardian. Both Theresa May and later Amber Rudd as Home Secretaries have made a deliberate point of creating a hostile environment for immigrants ignoring the long standing rights of the Windrush children.

So were they mistakes? Could the Home Office really have been that inefficient for the last seven years. Or was it part of a deliberate concerted policy?

joelsnan yawn?

Of course no one in the U.K. can possibly be racist we are all too highly educated and have brought civilisation to the world and we all work and live next door with people from other cultures. Besides all these migrants have benefitted from free education and they are such strong individuals we don’t mind name calling so why should they? Hmm . Of course the Home Office were inefficient, based on massive cuts to experienced personnel overseen by incompetent government.

^ I have to smile at the indignation of some people on behalf of the black population^

What an extraordinarily stupid thing to say, Oldwoman. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever as to what motivates people to be indignant and your implication that it's white people being spuriously indignant on behalf of black people is kind of bordering on racist IMO.

Why can't we just be indignant about an injustice whatever the colour of the victim's skin?

I wrote this much earlier this evening but didn't have a chance to post it. It's for Joelsnan who appears to have some difficulty in understanding what has caused the current problems for the WG (or even, really, just who they are) and strikes me as having something of an empathy bypass.

Why then did the children of the initial mgrants get Jamaican or other passports when their parents came on British Territories passports

When I queried this on twitter an immigration lawyer explained that when a country became independent their state was automatically changed to the 'new' state but those in Britain were given ILR. A lot of the children travelled on their parent's passports. Even if they hadn't become Naturalised British citizens (and why should they have done?) they were still entitled to ILR if they'd travelled on their parent's passports/ arrived before 1973.

It really didn't matter if they didn't have a British passport post 1973 because they had the right to remain. They didn't know that 40 years later the actions of the tory party, and in particular their Home Secretary, were going to cause them huge problems. They didn't know that, after having been here for 40, 50 years or more, they were suddenly going to have to prove with minute detail that they had genuinely lived here for the whole time or that the records which might have helped them had been destroyed.

Joelsnan I find it very difficult to believe that an Indian "lady" who married a British Indian "boy" told you that Indian women, speaking in their own language, were always "slagging off" this country and said they only came here for the free health care and education. You may say you are not a racist, but everything you have written says otherwise.

As others have pointed out, "indefinite leave to remain" would quite reasonably be assumed to mean that it was unlimited and therefore there was no need to obtain a British passport. Introducing retrospective conditions that nullify the original agreement, in my view, goes against the concept of natural justice.

This is not just an unfortunate, unforeseen "mistake". It is a national disgrace.

I know plenty of black and Asian people who are outraged by what has happened. And many white people too - thank goodness. Having watched the series of three programmes about Stephen Lawrence, the way in which the police dealt with his murder was a scandal - but one white policeman went out of his way to help the Lawrence family and Doreen Lawrence was extremely grateful for his support.

So, I am a racist, unempathetic liar now, thank you all very much.
Eloethan your assertion that I am a liar can be backed up by names, addressèss and dates should you wish to pursue.
To others, read my comments, I have NEVER stated anything of a racial context it is you who have made these assumptions. I do not take things on dramatic newspaper headlines as the full truth and display immediate outrage, I explore and research myself to understand why, and most of my posts have been along these lines asking why?
To those of you who view this as insensitive and racist I feel sorry for you for having such narrow minds and not being able to understand that research brings enlightenment.
The term 'racist' is too often bandied about without fully understanding it, deriving from the broader term of prejudice, True racism is a protectionis instinct that is present in greater or lesser degree in all of the human race. When we still lived in tribes we relied on those tribal members who displayed this instinct to protect us and our offspring from invaders, as we have moved from this social setting, we now just vilify these people.
People on this thread are displaying their form of prejudice in a non instinctive manner, more in a bullying form of prejudice in that 'you don't think how I think you should' therefore I will classify you and vilify you.
Some of you need to get out more, see the world, experience life outside your glass balls and be like me who accepts people for who they are not codified by race colour or creed. Unlike you lot I see myself as no better or worse than any other human being.

What exactly does your research involve that draws you to the conclusion that racism has somehow evolved from a tribal system? There are many anthropologists and evolutionists who would not agree with that explanation, which is totally unprovable.

many anthropologists and evolutionists who would not agree

Could you name a few, please, geri, so that we can follow that assertion up?

MaizieD Your accusation that I am bordering on racist is really laughable. I married an immigrant almost 50 years ago - at a time when such marriages were frowned upon. I have experienced racism and members of my own family cut me out of their lives. My DH's family became my family and their friends became my friends.

My "stupid" comment was actually spoken by several of those friends. We certainly learned to recognise the faux outrage of those who were what is now called virtue signalling and what we referred to as condescension

Baggs* an interesting starter if you really want the list of academic journals I will link a few more. The main drawback with evolutionary arguments is that they are all just guesswork as we can’t go back to ancient civilisations and scientifically test the hypotheses. One can argue that modern societies are not the same as less complex tribal ones and people are not the same as animals in that their behaviours and beliefs are modified by cultures. Anyway an interesting philosophical diversion. Sparked by the least racist person who believe racism to be somehow natural.
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/philosophy-dispatches/201209/the-roots-racism

I asked for names of people (two or three would be ample, thanks), not a list of journals, geri, but I'll check out your link.

Interesting article with some thoughtful points.

the idea that it’s what you are on the “inside” that makes you a member of a certain race
Like your 'culture' does he mean, or is he talking eugenics here?

I think he was talking about people’s assumptions and beliefs here.
As for anthropologists I am sure you have heard of Margaret Mead in the 1920s she spent many years living in Samoa and wrote many ground breaking books including Coming of Age in Samoa about adolescence. Her views on love and hate were that they were both learned and not “ natural”. You could google her if you wish to find out more.
Getting off the point here, but most agree that our government scored an own goal with this one.

Thanks. I hadn't heard of Margaret Mead.

Random info: one of my dad's cousins was a bishop on Samoa.

My "stupid" comment was actually spoken by several of those friends. We certainly learned to recognise the faux outrage of those who were what is now called virtue signalling and what we referred to as condescension

So one's 'outrage' is only valid if it springs from personal ecperience? At a stroke you invalidate anyone working to improve the human condition on the grounds of 'if you haven't experienced it you can't have any genuine concern about it'

I don't retract 'stupid'.

Gerispringer Strange you should quote Margaret Mead when many of her assumptions have been refuted by the research community.

No Maizie I don't invalidate anyone who is genuinely working towards eradicating racism - or any other ism. My comment was aimed at those who say something simply because it makes them feel good but whose actions show their true feelings.

You cannot dismiss the opinions and feelings of those of us who have experienced real prejudice as stupid.

I’m ashamed and embarrassed to be British. This is a disgusting way to treat people who originally came here to help rebuild Britain after the war.

My comment was aimed at those who say something simply because it makes them feel good but whose actions show their true feelings.

So what filter do you have to separate the 'right' outraged people from the 'wrong' outraged people.

Why did you make such a generalised statement on here which sounded very much as though you were accusing posters of faux outrage? It's really quite insulting to be told that one's outrage isn't pure enough to be of any value.

In my experience those genuinely seeking to eradicate racism do so quietly working without seeking or receiving any recognition for their efforts, their reward is in their results. Those making the most noise are doing very little except bringing attention to themselves - there is a saying empty vessels make the most noise.

That's an insulting remark Oldwoman but I suppose it's to be expected.

And are you applying that to Gnet posters, Oldwoman?

Because that's exactly what your original post sounded like.

I know conclude that we shouldn't say anything in public (i.e on these fora) just quietly get on with being anti-racist?

Though I think I can exclude myself from your sweeping generalisation because I haven't linked the WG affair to racism as such. For me it's just viciously and shamefully anti-immigrant. (Though, is anti-immigrant equal to racist? )