i feel that your comment on targets is a rather unfair comparison.
In terms of controlling immigration, very much the topic pre the Brexit referendum and quite possibly the reason for it, the strategy for reducing or, capping numbers will have been driven by central government and in the way that a CEO may demand his managers to drive cost reductions of 10%, it's is highly likely that there would have been substantial pressure from central government and i those circumstances, it's unbelievable to say there were "no targets" or, to deny all knowledge of them .
Maybe in her memoirs, we will find out the reason that she had no knowledge or, twisted the truth.
However, Rudd was drowning under the increasing pressure regarding Windrush, which is the reason that she finally had to go

I think had the numbers been smaller and people's lives affected to a lesser extent, there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place, as the issue wouldn't have made the national press.
She will have realised that the situation was getting difficult when the Tory press started to be less sympathetic.

Personally, I think that she was being a little Clintonesque, when she denied that targets existed, perhaps hoping that the issue would disperse.

However, when "we" start deporting people or, denying them access to services or, the right to continue working , in a country that they were invited to live in, the ante increases somewhat.
Amber Rudd has been unlucky and no doubt, after the dust has settled, she will be given another opportunity for a different ministerial role, assuming thet the Tory's are still holding the reigns.

The Tory apologists can make all the compelling and articulate arguments they want - but ask yourself this - did they show the same understanding, forgiveness and laissez-faire attitude when, for example, Diane Abbot got a number wrong in an interview last year...?

It's bull - however strongly and confidently argued; which was, incidentally, a large part of Amber Rudd's approach to political debate.

She's just as inept as the rest of the Tory party. Mays reign will go down in the history books as the most shambolic in history

Regards

King james

Will it? It's probably one of the most challenging periods in our history but hey let's over look that shall we?

Her predecessor knew what was coming and scarpered of to oxfordshire for a pint in the local with his wealthy wife.

Her election campaign last year was one of the worst ever. An utter shambles. Can't blame that on the predecessor.

Seems Corbyn's rise to the heights has hit its ceiling - Labour should have wiped the floor with the Tories given the issues with the NHS, Windrush etc despite all the momentum interference they have been unable to make any real ground in the local elections.

The spin from the Tory owned press this morning has been nothing short of superb! Even the american associated press has picked up on how embarassing it has been

Regards

King James

Her predecessor made a severe error of judgement in allowing the EU referendum and then didn't have the sense to let someone else run the campaign.
As for challenging, yes, of course you are right.
However, May's weakness, together with her divided party, particularly on Brexit, is much of her own doing and let's not forget, it was Mays own error of judgement that made the Tory majority disappear and now they are being propped up by the DUP.

I have no sympathy with Mrs "strong and stable" May.

Just like Cameron, she gambled and lost and made the task almost impossible and with Brexit getting closer, it wont be getting easier anytime soon.

I don't think it's the policies as much as the organisational culture. The emphasis on making life difficult for those seen as having no right to be here. Effectively, if you had a brown skin and couldn't show documentary proof then you were fair game.
There was a woman on the news last night who'd just returned after been stuck in Jamaica for 7 years despite having a son and a daughter both born here. She didn't have the proof. She had the son and daughter but apparently they didn't count.

My wife's gone to the West Indies.
Jamaica?
No Amber Rudd did.

Well, yes, life here should be difficult for those here illegally. Makes a bit more sense than making life easy for them.

Windrush is an administrative issue, nothing more, and certainly nothing to do with race. A unique set of events conspiring to land some of those migrants in difficulties. Even most Labour MPs have avoided flashing the race card - but it didn't stop you, did it.




I assume you're referring to Gretel Gocan? More holes in that story than a Catalans defence.

She arrived on a Jamaican passport in the 60s, which was stamped 'indefinite leave to remain'. This passport was (allegedly) stolen in 2006. She then apparently got a new passport (British or Jamaican, we aren't told) and travelled to Jamaica in 2010, but this passport was also stolen (according to some sources but not others). She was then denied re-entry to the UK after her application for a replacement passport was denied (not normally a problem when passports are stolen or lost overseas). As she has been unable to provide any evidence of her residency in the UK, she was stuck.

Firstly: should we let everyone without a passport and/or correct paperwork and/or evidence simply stroll into the country? Of course not. As you said, she didn't have proof. Channel 4 News and the BBC rolling out legions of wizened Windrush migrants to regale their tales of woe isn't good enough reason to relax immigration rules I'm afraid, no matter how hard they try - although of course in light of events individual Windrush cases are being reviewed sympathetically - exactly as happened to Ms Gocan.

Secondly: she was first denied re-entry in 2010. The year the Tories won power, 3 years before the 'hostile environment' speech and 6 years before Rudd became Home Secretary. Attributing her situation to Theresa May or indeed Amber Rudd is ridiculous politicking at best. Attributing it to not having the correct paperwork and no evidence of your claims is more accurate.

I think having two adult children born here is pretty good evidence. Of course it's about race. This is just mumbo jumbo to cover up the fact that the Tories are riddled with racism. All the stuff about Labour's anti Semitism (which may have some substance) is the kettle calling the pan. The entire attack on Millband was subliminal anti Semitism.

Interesting then, that Gretel Gocan was first denied re-entry to the UK in 2010. Have a guess which party was in power for 13 years up to 6th May 2010, and who was therefore responsible for the vast majority of (if not all) immigration rules in 2010?

And "it's about race"? What exactly is "it"? All immigration rules? Just immigration rules affecting non-whites (do such rules even exist)? The Windrush situation? Precisely what is about race?

What mumbo jumbo are you talking about? Me? The Tories? Who/what exactly is covering up this alleged racism?

BTW, the attacks on Milliband were because he was about as useful as boobs on a nun.

Milliband would have been a better PM than either of the last two. Indeed it would be hard to think or worse examples from either party than Cameron or May. But leaving that aside, many of the attacks had an anti-Semite undertone. But the Tories have always played the race card. The "hostile environment" policy was there to appeal to the Tory loony right. You only have to listen to some of them. Philip Davies say. Peter Bone is another. Or there's Daniel Hannan MEP who wants to dismantle the NHS. All in the Powellite tradition. One thing you can guarantee, when election time comes around the Tories will have some trumped up story to stir up its racist supporters.

How sweet. Just a few migrants with a slight bit of inconvenience. They ought to be thankful they are here. May, Rudd & Co actively & deliberately pursued a policy that discriminated against black Britons in the pursuit of numbers.
25 years after Stephen Lawrence institutional racism is still rife in some sectors of the establishment.

Thank you for proving my point in a couple of posts.

Windrush is an administrative cock-up. A conspiracy of events that trapped a some in a no-man's land of citizenship due to lack of appropriate documentation and/or evidence according to current rules. It's no-one's fault. Yes, horrible for those concerned, but it's now being dealt with quickly, effectively and sympathetically. Very few politicians or journalists on either side have played the race card. Except the Guardian. Can always rely on them.

Yet here we are, the usual fruitcakes playing the race card. Steven Lawrence gets a mention! We also get someone trying to pin the antisemitism debate on the Tories. Impressive, even for the loony left.



Perhaps if Labour hadn't fcked up the numbers flooding into this country and created such depth of feeling against mass immigration (enough to drive the Leave vote, remember), subsequent governments wouldn't have to adopt such a strict regime. Fixing such a mess is never going to be pretty and some people will get caught in the vice. That said, it's worth reminding the wailing lefties that the first person to talk of a 'hostile environment' was actually Labour's Alan Johnson.

BTW, Ed Milliband wasn't even the best PM candidate in the Milliband family.

Immigration didn't create a depth of feeling. The fear, lies & hatred of the the right wing press, 19C Tory MPs & Councillors, social media, did. It's been used for hundreds of years. Well apart form the social media bit.

It's not the administrative cock up that is the issue, it's the denial of an over vigorous to deport anyone "we" can, regardless of whether they may be legally allowed to be here.
Over zealous staff, driven to overstep the line by those in power but its ok really ???

Try putting yourself in their position and just imagine the trauma.
Mind you it fits well with the immigrants "go home" vans that were trawling the capital, were they also an administrative error or just part of the racist narrative trotted out by the Conservatives and the Tory press.

You are bang on about Milliband though.
Who in their right mind would think that Ed was better than David.

Those who thought so, got exactly what they deserved.

I preferred Steve, especially The Joker.

In a word McClusky who saw Ed as a puppet he could manipulate - how wrong he was and not for the first time

Manipulating an opposition leader isn't very effective and right now, Labour are a hell of a long way from being electable to the masses.
If the Tories weren't so utterly inept, Labour would be tailed off last.
Thankfully for Corbyn, Mrs May is "in charge" and he may still get a sniff of power, just a sniff though as he will never win an overall majority.

However, May will be gone at some point and as long as the Tories dont go for Boris or Gove, they will win the next General Election.

Yes, I get all that. I have no problem with an aggressive climate surrounding ILLEGAL immigration - but a modicum of common sense would tell you most if not all Windrush migrants are (or should be made) legal.

The issue for the Home Office is that alongside the genuine cases, every day they are dealing with chancers and liars doing their best to gain entry to the UK by deception. Their culture has to be a suspicious one by definition. I wouldn't be surprised if some people are even using the Windrush backlash to sneak in the back door.

Of course it's traumatic. But yet again I will state the problem has been recognised, the government has acknowledged the distress caused and apologised, all Windrush migrants are being granted the right to remain and compensation is to be paid. I'm not sure what more you want them to do? I could tut and shake my head in empathy, but it won't really do much good.

I agree, the issue does finally appear to be getting dealt with now and that can only be a positive step.
It was your "administrative cock up comment" that I thought was a little generous to those in charge at the Home Office.

Without the over zealous approach of "easy" targets, this would never have happened and to dismiss theis as an administrative cock up was letting certain people off the hook far too easily.

If people want their time in the "big chair" and take the kudos that comes with the ministerial title, they should also be prepared to take responsibility when things go wrong.

Rarely are these issues their personal fault but that's just the way it is.
Actually, credit should go to Rudd for actually resigning, far too many people in power dont take responsibility.

That's all right then. Guy with cancer was denied treatment for 6 months. But it's ok now because it's been recognised, it's been going one for years and May and her successors have been denying it. And those on the government benches behind May have been cheering her on because they heartily approve of persecuting people with brown skins. They may say it in code, but we all now what they mean.

I don't see anyone saying it's 'all right'. But what more do you want them to do?

BTW, given you're apparently a gentleman of considerable years, you don't half post like a hormonal teenager. Your constant accusations of racism are plain boring.

Quote ="Cronus"I don't see anyone saying it's 'all right'. But what more do you want them to do? BTW, given you're apparently a gentleman of considerable years, you don't half post like a hormonal teenager. Your constant accusations of racism are plain boring.'" But true nevertheless. And it's not just me it's the United Nations https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 48021.html

Quote ="Cronus"I don't see anyone saying it's 'all right'. But what more do you want them to do? BTW, given you're apparently a gentleman of considerable years, you don't half post like a hormonal teenager. Your constant accusations of racism are plain boring.'" But true nevertheless. And it's not just me it's the United Nations https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 48021.html