Windrush Report

I think certain posters have a skewed sense of priority and their agenda becomes clear because of it, the idea that Rutnam for feeding misinformation to Rudd is as culpable as the Government for enforcing the policy is quite ludicrous, whilst his actions in regard to Rudd deserve censure there’s a much bigger picture of a totally unjust and race driven policy that should be the main focus of attention with the people in Ministerial positions shouldering the most blame.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree this was an example of modern day racism. It was clear to all that a group of people had come to the UK in the 1950s and early 1960s without documentation, but were welcomed, and had lived here paying taxes etc here for over 50 years. They were not illegal immigrants.

If it were officials or their children of the British Colonial services born in say Kenya or India in the 1940s it would not have occurred. Weren't Cliff Richard and Felicity Kendall born in India? Richard E Grant in Swaziland? they don't seem to have any problems with expulsion from the UK.

Ref Wilf's point - I have it seen it with how some people with disabilities have been so called dealt with if they claim any benefits.
 
Redwurzel said:
Totally agree this was an example of modern day racism. It was clear to all that a group of people had come to the UK in the 1950s and early 1960s without documentation, but were welcomed, and had lived here paying taxes etc here for over 50 years. They were not illegal immigrants.

If it were officials or their children of the British Colonial services born in say Kenya or India in the 1940s it would not have occurred. Weren't Cliff Richard and Felicity Kendall born in India? Richard E Grant in Swaziland? they don't seem to have any problems with expulsion from the UK.

Ref Wilf's point - I have it seen it with how some people with disabilities have been so called dealt with if they claim any benefits.
Click to expand...

Spike Milligan was born in India, dad was Irish (then part of GB), a captain in the Indian army, Spike served 6 years in the Royal Artillery and was wounded out near Momte Cassino, when the law changed under Thatcher he applied for British citizenship, he was turned down in part because he refused to swear the oath of allegiance (he was furious that Thatcher and her cronies had demanded this when unlike them he'd served during the war on the front line in North Africa and Italy, was wounded and had severe shell shock, so why should he have to swear what he'd already proved), and he was rendered stateless. He wrote to the Irish ambassador asking "if they would have me". They replied that they would be delighted.
 
Cooper6711 said:
Because he was the most senior civil servant in that department.
Click to expand...
civil servants do not have free reign to set strategy, they work to the direction of the government strategy and policies. It's pretty disingenuous to pick one senior civil servant out, who wasn't a part of it when it started and point the finger at hime. He is way down the list in culpability here. If you carry on with silly comments like that, someone will accuse you of being a Tory activist :unsure:
 
Cooper671 said:
Nice piece on Sir Philip by the boards choice of paper.

fair to say they don’t share the view of this board that he’s not culpable and is abit of a hero for some for complaining about being bullied

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....3/windrush-bullying-home-office-philip-rutnam
Click to expand...

I see nothing in that article to disagree with, or at odds with what has been said on this thread.

I don't see anything in the article suggesting that in a list of say the top 5 most culpable for Windrush that Rutnam should be top, whereas it comes across that you'd put him top ahead of racist tory voters, racist tory members, racist tory MP's, racist Tory policy makers and Theresa May.
 
FatCat said:
What I will never understand about this case is how these people managed to get through life undocumented?
It’s easy to blame the gvt but surely the individuals have some ownership of the issue. It’s not believable that they were unawares that they were flying under the radar (some purposefully)

some of the things they would need in life:

passport , driving licence . National insurance card, proof of address, hmrc tax codes, drrecords, employment history.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anything saying they didn't have documents such as passports, driving licences, National Insurance numbers etc. In fact, if you Google Windrush, you will find various articles talking about cases where people had paid taxes for decades, had NHS medical records, passports, etc.

What they didn't have was documentatation related to their arrival in the country, or proof of their immigration status, partly because the Home Office had destroyed all their landing cards starting in 2009.

Don't forget, some of them were children of 3 or 4 years old when they arrived and as @bear66's post mentioned:
They found themselves criticised for failing to obtain evidence of their status, even though when they tried to do so they were not provided with the right documentation.
Click to expand...
 
Liamo said:
I haven't seen anything saying they didn't have documents such as passports, driving licences, National Insurance numbers etc. In fact, if you Google Windrush, you will find various articles talking about cases where people had paid taxes for decades, had NHS medical records, passports, etc.

What they didn't have was documentatation related to their arrival in the country, or proof of their immigration status, partly because the Home Office had destroyed all their landing cards starting in 2009.

Don't forget, some of them were children of 3 or 4 years old when they arrived and as @bear66's post mentioned:
Click to expand...
Many were employed and there were therefore HMRC records, but that wasn't sufficient as that would not prove continued residence.
 
Yes
bear66 said:
I was making the point that proving continued residence was the key factor that made it difficult for people to prove their right to remain, even when there was a mass of evidence that they have resided in the UK.
Click to expand...
guys it seems some time ago I made that post - having read more and saw the in limbo film last week it seems that they were indeed badly treated. Before reading up it always seemed the most obvious thing to be able to prove however it seems the level of documentation they were asked for was very stringent.
 
FatCat said:
Yes

guys it seems some time ago I made that post - having read more and saw the in limbo film last week it seems that they were indeed badly treated. Before reading up it always seemed the most obvious thing to be able to prove however it seems the level of documentation they were asked for was very stringent.
Click to expand...

Indeed it was stringent and it was deliberately so. It was a hostile environment, as stated, as intended and as implemented.
 
FatCat said:
Yes

guys it seems some time ago I made that post - having read more and saw the in limbo film last week it seems that they were indeed badly treated. Before reading up it always seemed the most obvious thing to be able to prove however it seems the level of documentation they were asked for was very stringent.
Click to expand...
very stringent or unreasonably stringent?
 
Lefty said:
Indeed it was stringent and it was deliberately so. It was a hostile environment, as stated, as intended and as implemented.
Click to expand...
Yes I got the feeling watching the film that they just made it so difficult that people would stop fighting and just accept their fate.
 
NYboro said:
Unreasonably and it seems they are being just as unreasonable in paying compensation.
Click to expand...
Yes at the end of the film it stayed that the guy had just gotten his at the beginning of this month!!! And it seems very few have actually won compensation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top