INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

The future of Government (if any)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3201 Postby Alan H » March 27th, 2018, 1:11 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Nick, you said:
There's a rather obvious answer to your puzzlement: that you are wrong. Which I think you are. ISTM you don't understand the stats.
Your, you, you, you and you: you attributed those sentiments directly to me. I am not the author of that piece.
I just thought you might possibly have made the correction I'd intended, but you didn't. Have we really got down to some sort of Janet and John level?
What the fuck are you on about, Nick? What 'correction'? Or is this just another nice diversion?

This no comment on how appropriate or otherwise is the proposed pay-deal, just a tiny bit of resistance to indiscriminate mud-slinging, which some people will forward without question.
The appropriateness or otherwise of the proposed pay deal was not the issue. You did read it, didn't you, Nick?
That is precisely why I said that, Alan!!! I was deliberately setting that aside to address the central point, that the article posted was making a stupid mistake. But, typically, you failed to address that issue, but seek to gripe over the irrelevant. Oh, well. Up to you. :yawn:
What 'stupid mistake' was the article making Nick?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3202 Postby Nick » March 28th, 2018, 2:08 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Nick, you said:Your, you, you, you and you: you attributed those sentiments directly to me. I am not the author of that piece.
I just thought you might possibly have made the correction I'd intended, but you didn't. Have we really got down to some sort of Janet and John level?
What the fuck are you on about, Nick? What 'correction'? Or is this just another nice diversion?

The appropriateness or otherwise of the proposed pay deal was not the issue. You did read it, didn't you, Nick?
That is precisely why I said that, Alan!!! I was deliberately setting that aside to address the central point, that the article posted was making a stupid mistake. But, typically, you failed to address that issue, but seek to gripe over the irrelevant. Oh, well. Up to you. :yawn:
What 'stupid mistake' was the article making Nick?


So I made a typo :yawn: Should an n, not an r. Oh well. Now gather up your toys, and put them back in the pram.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3203 Postby Alan H » March 28th, 2018, 2:34 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:I just thought you might possibly have made the correction I'd intended, but you didn't. Have we really got down to some sort of Janet and John level?
What the fuck are you on about, Nick? What 'correction'? Or is this just another nice diversion?

That is precisely why I said that, Alan!!! I was deliberately setting that aside to address the central point, that the article posted was making a stupid mistake. But, typically, you failed to address that issue, but seek to gripe over the irrelevant. Oh, well. Up to you. :yawn:
What 'stupid mistake' was the article making Nick?


So I made a typo :yawn: Should an n, not an r. Oh well. Now gather up your toys, and put them back in the pram.
[-X
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3204 Postby Alan H » March 30th, 2018, 5:07 pm

What is this country becoming? Is this all part of the Brexit dividend? Man who moved from Antigua 59 years ago told he is in UK illegally
Elwaldo Romeo moved from Antigua to the UK when he was four, 59 years ago, and has lived and worked here continuously ever since.

He was extremely distressed to receive a Home Office letter earlier this month informing him that he was “liable to be detained” because he was a “person without leave”.

The letter continued: “You have NOT been given leave to enter the United Kingdom within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971.”

He has been told to report fortnightly to Home Office premises. The letter also offered advice on “help and support on returning home voluntarily”.

Romeo, 63, has no desire to be helped to return to a country he has not visited for more than half a century, where he has no close family. Given that all his schooling was in London, he studied at college here, has worked here for more than 40 years, has held a British passport, owns his own home in London, and has two adult British children and five British grandchildren, he cannot understand why the Home Office has classified him as someone who is here illegally.
The wife of a friend is also from Antigua. She has lived here the best part of half a century and they have four children. They are now worried she will get the same letter. What a small-minded, xenophobic little country we are becoming.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3205 Postby Alan H » April 5th, 2018, 11:47 am

London Tories threaten breakaway from main party ahead of projected local elections wipeout
he Conservatives in London have reportedly held secret discussions about a potential breakaway from the national party, amid fears of an electoral wipeout in the local elections next month.

Senior Tories have hosted a series of meetings over the past year in order to draw up plans for a separate party which would boast its own brand, ­policies and figurehead separate to Theresa May.

The disclosure is deeply embarrassing for Mrs May, who is braced for the party’s worst performance in the ­capital in its 184-year history, when the ballots are cast next month.

According to analysis conducted by Lord Hayward and Tony Travers, a respected academic, the Conservatives are expected to lose almost 100 seats in the capital, falling from 612 to 519, while all nine councils under its ­control are thought to be at risk.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3206 Postby Alan H » April 16th, 2018, 8:18 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3207 Postby Alan H » April 16th, 2018, 8:23 pm

David Lammy letting rip in the House of Commons this afternoon. We need more of him and more like him. Windrush Generation
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3208 Postby Alan H » April 16th, 2018, 10:26 pm

UK removed legal protection for Windrush immigrants in 2014
The government quietly removed a key protection from the statute books for some British residents of the Windrush generation who could face deportation, the Guardian has learned.

The Home Office said the clause was not included in the 2014 Immigration Act because adequate protections were already in place for people who were initially granted temporary rights to remain in the UK and have stayed for decades.

The Labour party, lawyers and charities are urging the government to reinstate the clause to ensure all longstanding Commonwealth residents are protected from enforced removal, not just those who have gained “settled” status.

The Guardian has revealed many cases of Commonwealth citizens who have lived, worked and paid taxes in the UK for decades but have recently been threatened with removal. They have struggled to provide the paperwork required by the Home Office to prove they have the legal right to remain in the UK.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3209 Postby Alan H » April 17th, 2018, 9:28 am

Leading article in The Times yesterday: Windrush Shambles
Mass deportation is a policy associated with tyrannical states such as apartheid South Africa. It is scarcely conceivable that thousands of people in Britain have been at risk of that fate. They are immigrants from Commonwealth countries who have made this country their home for decades and conscientiously contributed to its betterment. Quite rightly they believed that they had the right to stay. Yet until a belated reversal yesterday, they were being required to prove that they had been continuously resident in Britain since 1973.

To have kept records showing residency over nearly half a century is a bureaucratic obstacle that few people can surmount. This state of affairs is not some anomaly. It is the predictable outcome of policies pursued by Theresa May when she was home secretary to increase the onus on people lawfully settled in Britain to prove their entitlements.

The prime minister has shown scant imagination in anticipating the problems that this approach would throw up or a sense of urgency in rectifying the injustices it has stoked. For Mrs May and the government, a rethink appeared to start only yesterday in response to public outrage. If these second thoughts are to mean anything, they need to be unsparing in their assessment of the damage caused by Mrs May’s draconian attitudes to lawful immigration.

The people affected are part of the “Windrush generation” of immigrants. This label refers to the ship, the Empire Windrush, that brought nearly 500 immigrants from the Caribbean to Britain in 1948. Most were ex-service personnel who had helped the allied war effort and were seeking a better life. These passengers were pioneers in a wave of immigration from Commonwealth countries to Britain. They put down roots and greatly helped their adopted country through willingness to do lower-paid jobs that British workers were reluctant to take on. The fledgling National Health Service was a particular beneficiary.

These immigrants in the 1950s and 1960s naturally brought their children with them and these children have long since grown up. They have worked and lived in Britain all their adult lives and are now of pensionable age. Their rights were guaranteed in the 1971 Immigration Act, passed by the Conservative government of Edward Heath, which gave Commonwealth citizens living in Britain indefinite leave to remain.

So they have done, and they are valued members of society. They withstood an inflammatory and infamous speech 50 years ago by Enoch Powell, whose warnings of racial strife have since been amply refuted. Yet the corrosive assumption that immigrants are a problem rather than a benefit, and that they are raw numbers rather than real people, has bedevilled Mrs May’s policies.

As home secretary, she introduced what she termed a “really hostile environment for illegal immigrants”. To that end, checks are required of businesses and landlords whose employees or tenants are legally entitled to be in Britain. The same is true of hospitals treating patients. Some people have lost jobs, been refused operations or even been deported as result.

No sensible person doubts that a government must manage immigration and thwart illegal entry. The Windrush generation are, however, fully entitled to be in Britain. Amber Rudd, the home secretary, has admitted that she does not know whether any Windrush children have been deported. Clearly embarrassed, Mrs May has reversed a decision not to meet heads of governments from Caribbean countries to discuss their concerns on this issue. Her change of course is welcome but not enough. Controls are one thing; instilling fear among lawfully settled citizens is quite another. It is a scandal that matters have come to this pass.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3210 Postby Alan H » April 17th, 2018, 5:01 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3211 Postby Alan H » April 20th, 2018, 6:55 pm

DWP sent Windrush pensioner £33,000 bill for disability benefits
A Windrush pensioner who has lived in Britain for 52 years was landed with a bill of more than £33,000 from the government for past disability benefits and threatened with deportation.

Valerie Baker, 66, came to Britain from Jamaica as a four-year-old in 1955 on her aunt’s passport. Her mother and father had arrived a year earlier after taking up the invitation to help rebuild the country after the war.

She was educated in London, and worked all her life but was forced into early retirement in 2008 because of chronic back problems.

Last April, she received a letter from the Home Office, telling her she had “no lawful basis to remain in the UK and you should leave as soon as possible”. If she didn’t leave the country within seven days, she was told she could be deported at any time.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3212 Postby Alan H » April 22nd, 2018, 11:52 am

7,600 deported to Commonwealth nations on ‘charter flights’ since 2010
Thousands of people have been forcibly removed from the UK and returned to Commonwealth countries on controversial Home Office charter flights, it can be revealed.

More than 7,600 people have been returned to countries including Pakistan, Nigeria, Ghana, Sri Lanka and Jamaica on charter flights escorted by teams of security personnel since 2010.

The flights are controversial because little is known about their operation and passengers can be handcuffed or fitted with leg and waist restraints.

The news comes as the Government faces mounting pressure over the Windrush crisis. It has taken the Home Office 16 months to respond after an FOI request in October 2016.

Campaigners concerned about the use of the flights also fear they will include cases of Commonwealth citizens being unjustly deported.

Luke de Noronha, an academic who has researched UK deportations, said: “There are people across the Commonwealth whose life stories and family lives are bound up in the history of the British Empire, whose families have been split apart by immigration controls.

“People are being deported who have lived in the UK for a long time – people whose parents, children, and siblings are British citizens.

“The issue with Windrush migrants doesn’t begin or end in 1973. These trans-national family connections continued and will keep going.

“It does feel uncomfortable that the UK is forcibly expelling people to former colonies on these charter flights, in secret, in the middle of the night.”

Zita Holbourne, a human rights campaigner, said: “It’s an insult that people are being removed in this way.”

The Home Office was last night approached for comment.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3213 Postby Alan H » April 25th, 2018, 1:34 am

'I felt like dirt': disabled Canadian woman told to leave UK after 44 years
Margaret O’Brien, 69, moved from Canada to Wolverhampton in 1971, got married, had three children and worked for the local council for more than 25 years as a dinner lady, meals on wheels driver, lollipop lady and cleaner.

A spinal injury a few years ago meant she had to give up her job, leading her to apply for benefits for the first time. In 2015, she was told her disability payments had been suspended because she was an illegal immigrant.

O’Brien received a letter stating: “Home Office records indicate that you do not have permission to be in the UK. You should make arrangements to leave without delay.”

The letter informed her “of our intention to remove you from the UK to your country of nationality if you do not depart voluntarily. No further notice will be given”.

If she decided to stay, the letter warned, “life in the UK will become increasingly difficult”; O’Brien was liable to be arrested, prosecuted and face a possible six-month prison sentence.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3214 Postby Alan H » April 25th, 2018, 11:05 am

Foreign Office climate staff cut by 25% under Boris Johnson
The number of full-time officials dedicated to climate change in the Foreign Office has dropped by almost 25% in the two years since Boris Johnson became foreign secretary, according to data released under freedom of information (FoI) rules.

Johnson has also failed to mention climate change in any official speech since he took the office, in marked contrast to his two predecessors.

The cutback in climate change diplomacy has come despite the prime minister, Theresa May, asserting that the UK leads the world on climate action. The UK has been praised for its past climate diplomacy, which helped pave the way to the landmark Paris agreement.

“It is extremely disappointing,” said Prof Sir David King, who was the foreign secretary’s special envoy for climate change from September 2013 until March 2017.

“Yes, we have the Paris agreement, but everybody knows the difference between what the agreement says – if possible no more than 1.5C rise – and what countries have promised is enormous,” he said. “There is a very big amount of work to be done. Other countries have had an enormous amount of respect for what Britain has delivered. If you then cut back the British effort then of course there is a real danger that the focus drifts away.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3215 Postby Alan H » April 29th, 2018, 5:55 pm

Looks like we can now safely rename Amber Rudd, lying liar Amber 'Liar' Rudd: Amber Rudd letter to PM reveals 'ambitious but deliverable' removals target
The private letter from Amber Rudd to Downing Street in which she sets an “ambitious but deliverable” target for an increase in the enforced deportation of immigrants has been published by the Guardian.

The letter, signed by the home secretary in January last year, states that she is refocusing work within her department to achieve the “aim of increasing the number of enforced removals by more than 10% over the next few years”.

Rudd has claimed she did not set, see or approve any targets for removals. The former immigration minister Brandon Lewis suggested on Sunday this proposed increase was an ambition rather than a target.

But Home Office sources have told the Guardian that it is “shame-faced nonsense” to claim the department had not been set specific targets in this area, or that these have not been regularly discussed at the highest levels.

The latest furore was sparked on Friday when the Guardian published details from a separate confidential memo that was sent to Rudd in June last year.

Prepared by Hugh Ind, the director general of Immigration Enforcement in the Home Office, it picked up on the new policy outlined by Rudd in her letter to Theresa May.

The document stated that his agency had “set a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017/18 … this will move us along the path towards the 10% increased performance on enforced returns which we promised the Home Secretary earlier this year”.

While Rudd has denied seeing the six-page briefing note, the Guardian can now reveal that it was also sent to at least eight of the Home Office’s most senior officials, including:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3216 Postby Alan H » April 29th, 2018, 7:26 pm

Tsk, tsk: High court blocks Amber Rudd attempt to deport witness
Amber Rudd has lost a legal battle over her attempts to deport a key witness to a controversial death at a UK immigration centre. Jamaican Andrew Van Horn was due to be expelled from from the country this week, despite the likelihood that he would be summoned to appear at an inquest into the death, and to a separate police investigation.

On Tuesday a high court judge ruled against Rudd, ordering that Van Horn should be allowed to remain in the UK because he “may well be required to give evidence at the inquest of a fellow detainee” and the Home Office had not offered any assurances that he would be allowed to return to the UK to give evidence.

Lawyers said the approach by Rudd, who is battling for her career over the continued fallout of the Windrush generation scandal “offended fundamental principles concerning the rule of law” and compromised the state’s duty to adequately investigate deaths in custody.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3217 Postby Alan H » April 29th, 2018, 10:08 pm

She should have been sacked long before now if we had a PM with any integrity. Aye, there's the rub. Theresa May accepts Amber Rudd's resignation
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3218 Postby Alan H » April 30th, 2018, 7:34 pm

Theresa May reveals she did know about deportation targets - hours after Cabinet member suggests she didn't
Theresa May has revealed she did know there were targets for deporting illegal immigrants – hours after a Cabinet minister suggested she had no knowledge.

The comment will pile pressure on the prime minister to explain to MPs why she did not intervene, to point out that Amber Rudd – when denying the targets existed – had misled parliament.

Earlier, Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, suggested Ms May had been ignorant of the targets, because “an extensive period” had passed since she was home secretary.

But, in a TV interview, she said: “When I was home secretary, yes, there were targets in terms of removing people from the country who were here illegally.

“This is important. If you talk to members of the public, they want to be reassured that we are dealing with people who are here illegally.”

The revelation will sharpen the focus on the role of the prime minister, the architect of the “hostile environment” policy that ended up persecuting the Windrush generation.

Crucially, it is believed that any members of the Windrush generation detained for deportation – or prevented from returning to the UK – would have counted towards the now-revealed forced removal target.

Jeremy Corbyn said: “Amber Rudd has been a human shield for Theresa May – and now she has gone.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3219 Postby Alan H » May 1st, 2018, 11:56 pm

Sajid Javid and the strange science behind power poses
The new home secretary was the latest politician to strike a power pose on Monday. But what does the science say about this odd stance?

Standing like Wonder Woman doesn’t get you any actual superpowers, but various members of the British government are doing it anyway. The latest politician to join the ranks of the power stance team is Sajid Javid, whose promotion to home secretary was accompanied by a photo call in which he stood with his legs so far apart he practically reinvented manspreading. His colleagues have also been pictured doing this stance, which is known in lifestyle and management coaching circles as the “power pose”. It’s known to me, however, as “a bit of nonsense”.

Anyone else think it just makes them look stupid?

2018-05-01_23h56_04.png
2018-05-01_23h56_04.png (665.34 KiB) Viewed 872 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3220 Postby Alan H » May 4th, 2018, 7:18 pm

Local election voter ID check - as it happened: People denied right to vote in UK for first time ever due to lack of identification
People have been denied the right to vote in local council elections in a controversial pilot of ID checks that force voters to prove their identities before casting their ballot.

The trial scheme has prompted concerns the measures will disproportionately affect black and ethnic minority people, the elderly and migrants.

A 76-year-old man who has lived in Bromley for 40 years told The Independent he was "shocked" to be turned away because he did not have a bank card or passport.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23217
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3221 Postby Alan H » May 31st, 2018, 6:46 pm

Government U-turn over anti-terror law used to deport migrants
Section of Immigration Act to be reviewed after misuse of clause saw highly skilled migrants forced from UK

Use of the section 322(5) clause by the Home Office has been condemned as ‘truly wicked’ and ‘an abuse of power’. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images
The government has agreed to stop deporting people under an immigration rule designed to tackle terrorism and those judged to be a threat to national security pending a review, after the Guardian highlighted numerous cases in which the power was being misused.

The news came as the home secretary, Sajid Javid, admitted on Tuesday that at least 19 highly skilled migrants had been forced to leave the country under the rule.

A review of the controversial section 322(5) of the Immigration Act was announced in a letter to the home affairs select committee.

Javid said one person had been issued with a visa to return to the UK as a result of ongoing inquiries. He also said that all applications for leave to remain that could potentially be refused under the section have been put on hold pending the findings of the review, which is due to be completed by the end the month.

Javid’s letter to the home affairs select committee also admitted that the Home Office’s use of the clause – condemned as “truly wicked” and “an abuse of power” by MPs and experts – could have spread to other applications, including that of any migrant applying for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) who might have been asked to submit evidence of earnings.

At least 1,000 highly skilled migrants seeking indefinite leave to remain in the UK are facing deportation under the section of the act.

The high-tax paying applicants – including teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers and IT professionals – have been refused ILR after being accused of lying in their applications for making minor and legal amendments to their tax records.

The controversial paragraph comes with devastating conditions. Migrants, some who have lived here for a decade or more and have British-born children, immediately become ineligible for any other UK visa. Many are given just 14 days to leave the UK while others are allowed to stay and fight their cases but not to work.

In addition, those deported under the terrorism-associated paragraph will have that permanently marked on their passports, making it highly unlikely they will ever get a visa to visit or work anywhere else in the world.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests