Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 18 2018, 08:33 AM

This old data protection excuse again; pathetic!

“Officials said in a statement that the decision was taken on data protection grounds, “to ensure that personal data … should not be kept for longer than necessary. Keeping these records would have represented a potential breach of these principles”.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 18 2018, 10:37 AM

Yes, it is. This looks to me as if a Senior Civil Servant with an agenda has had his knuckles wrapped and is now looking for early retirement. The old fashioned classics would have been far more believable; water ingress in our archive, a fire sometime back or even rodents!

Posted by: SirWilliam Apr 18 2018, 12:00 PM

Lot of tut tutting from the political elite coupled with a cosy meeting with the respective high commissioners but still they can not tell us how many have actually been deported or run a very real risk of being so. What I find even more alarming is that this could easily apply to those members of the EU who have taken up employment in this country and must be wondering how secure their tenure is irrespective of the brexit arrangement. If this happened in another country we would be demanding UN intervention yet we seem to think a few apologies in front of a tv camera and everything in the garden will be roses.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 18 2018, 12:23 PM

Indeed and that's exactly what the EU are talking about right now. The elephant in the room is the UKs traditional dislike immigrants. The Windrush generation were those that brought matters to ahead, Notting Hill, Enoch Powell et al. There are rather too many crocodile tears shed for the previous generation and the immigrant set they wanted sent back. Traditionally, the Home Office have been heartily kicked and kicked for failing to manage the flows and more falling to deport those without documentation. Not really surprising then, that the Home Office staff apply the rules to the letter. Who's fault? Well, perhaps we ought to look in a mirror.

Posted by: newres Apr 18 2018, 02:24 PM

Indeed. Just a couple of weeks ago we were on here castigating the police for being too soft on their children and claiming that a black man in a BMW was probably a pimp or yardee and now we've got this dewy eyed attitude. The talk was of a "hostile" attitude to immigrants and the swivel eyed loons cheered.

Posted by: x2lls Apr 18 2018, 05:29 PM

I don't recall. Please provide a link for Indeed. Just a couple of weeks ago we were on here castigating the police for being too soft on their children and claiming that a black man in a BMW was probably a pimp or yardee and now we've got this dewy eyed attitude.

Posted by: newres Apr 18 2018, 05:39 PM

Find it yourself.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 18 2018, 06:12 PM

Bending the truth again newres?
You won't quote me because you realise after reviewing the post I made that you are talking nonsense.😂

Posted by: SirWilliam Apr 18 2018, 06:35 PM

As a matter of interest, (before the name calling gets under way), wouldn't everyone have a NI and NHS number? This would be be proof positive of their right to be here which makes me wonder if there is something we are not being told. In all the confusion I can see a lot of illegal immigrants gaining status, but just maybe that is the idea.

Posted by: newres Apr 18 2018, 06:40 PM

Been back and edited have we? Yes, it was you that wrote that.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 18 2018, 06:42 PM

This whole debacle was caused when their proof of entry cards were destroyed in 2010. Following the instruction to do so from the government in 2009. The Labour government that is! Anyone watch PMQT today? Look on Corbyns face when he realised he'd broken the golden rule. Never ask a question if you don't already know the answer. Anyone want a researchers job? there's one going!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 18 2018, 06:44 PM

Out of interest, when did these numbers start getting issued? Probably not that it matters much.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 18 2018, 06:53 PM

Yes it was rather silly.

But, it does seem rather odd that the only evidence the Home Office seem to want to rely on are shipping landing dockets. As Sir William rightly points out, there are several other records which could be interrogated, including presumably even the commercial Ship's passenger list. Certainly, Labour in office and the trades unions of the time were far from colour blind, no denying that. It was the spirit of the times; but whilst most have grown to accept a changed World; a fair few and sad to,say primarily those on the right wing politically remain wedded to (for want of a better expression) the Imperial view. Similarly, it does seem that in recent years a certain ruthless efficiency has been applied and for whatever reason, Civil Servants haven't dared question their masters.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 18 2018, 06:53 PM

Not edited. You just "chose" how you read the post. Just showing your bias. You cant even admit it when you are wrong. Disappointing.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 18 2018, 07:05 PM

Today's National Insurance records started with the National Identity Card scheme introduced in WW2. This could then be used for rationing and in 1946, when the Social Security Scheme started your number was used for that too. Anyone registering at a doctors and children going to school, let alone someone taking a job would all need their NI number.

Posted by: x2lls Apr 18 2018, 08:48 PM

My wife, who has no interest in my net stuff said the same.

Posted by: x2lls Apr 18 2018, 08:55 PM

If you were confident to uphold your comments, you would chuck it back at me to confirm I am wrong. Fail.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 18 2018, 10:40 PM

Ahh, right, thanks for that.

Posted by: x2lls Apr 18 2018, 10:44 PM

I assume the doctor has yet to arrive.

Posted by: newres Apr 19 2018, 09:59 AM

No I wouldn’t because I cannot be arsed. Besides which, you have clearly been radicalised and engagement is pointless hence my call the doctor comment.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 19 2018, 04:18 PM

Do you know something we dont? Is he at home cooking up some device to maim soyboys?😮

Posted by: newres Apr 19 2018, 08:31 PM

Would you consider your radicalisation “internet radicalisation”? Who knows, perhaps it was Cambridge Analytica thematic is responsible?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 19 2018, 09:02 PM

Radicalisation in your eyes is someone who disagrees with you. Pretty sad really. I'm centre right but you think anyone right of the lib dems on the Political scene is some sort of danger. You are the real danger as you would have free speech (not hate speech) stopped if it didn't fit your "agenda".

Posted by: x2lls Apr 19 2018, 10:50 PM

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 19 2018, 10:53 PM

Someone's been at the bottle again! Tsk tsk!

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 20 2018, 09:48 AM

On the news feeds today, Labour did start this whole ball rolling with destroying the landing cards in 2009 so the trail of cookie crumbs lead straight back to them.

Posted by: newres Apr 20 2018, 11:26 AM

Calling for black men in BMWs to be stopped isn’t centre right is it?

Posted by: x2lls Apr 20 2018, 04:37 PM

The human brain is an amazing organ.
It keeps working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year….
From before you leave the womb, right up until you vote Labour

Posted by: On the edge Apr 20 2018, 06:18 PM

Spot on.


At least Labour voters were born with a brain....unlike their Conservative peers!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 20 2018, 07:26 PM

I never said that and you know it. At least I didnt call for 99 percent tax on high earners and completely open borders like you did. Marxist.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 24 2018, 10:17 AM

Neither of the two statements about Labours involvement have been proven to be true though have they? In fact the home office claimed at one point that it was done in 2010 under the coalition government.

Also it is this governemnt (tory) who have been trying to deport these people, fully furnished with the knowledge that these records had been destroyed.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 24 2018, 10:26 AM

"The decision to destroy the landing cards for Windrush migrants was taken under Labour, former home secretary Alan Johnson has said."

Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency."

Posted by: Strafin Apr 24 2018, 01:29 PM

Is that some sort of response to my post? Just curious...

Posted by: SirWilliam Apr 24 2018, 02:39 PM

Once again the question has to be addressed as to why this has all of a sudden come to light? If the left are to be believed then countless individuals have been deported, but why wasn't the matter raised when the first one was detained? Despite reports to the contrary we do not round up darks skinned people and ship them back"home" in some ethnic cleansing fashion in this country. Even if there was a question over their residency credentials a quick check on employment record would verify a national insurance number so let us examine the evidence before we start castigating the government of the day.
Personally I think it will turn out to be a proverbial storm in a tea cup but no doubt a lot of lawyers will make a killing at the taxpayers expense.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 25 2018, 08:07 AM

Err, but it DID come to light before but was drowned out by UKIP and right wing Tory MP's demanding tightening immigration rules and that Home Secretary May applied the regulations robustly. Frankly, it's really only come to light because those who seek to destabilise an already weak Party Leader have spotted a wonderful opportunity. The loss of sub prime records, which were not exactly accurate anyway, is simply a diversion. The real evidence still exists. Like it or not, this is classic British Imperial behaviour, matching how we treat Ghurka retired servicemen, how we ran the Indian civil service, enshrined the difference by the Statute of Westminister etc.etc.etc. Only he who forgets history would be surprised by our treatment of Windrush. Hopefully, we might be able to correct these injustices, but now Mr Johnson has spotted a bandwaggon, no telling how it will end.

Posted by: SirWilliam Apr 25 2018, 06:16 PM

If that proves to be the case, and I have no reason to doubt it, why wasn't it headlined in the Grauniad if nowhere else? No one on here raised their concerns in the ranting section despite every subject imaginable being aired. Maybe blaming the right wing for suppressing matters is more palatable than the realisation that Labour is equally culpable.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 25 2018, 08:53 PM

I suppose that because the victims were processed one at a time, their detailed arguments went heard - just another illegal immigrant protesting. And yes, Labour were certainly culpable; Enoch Powell's major support came from what was then the working man. Trades Unions at the time were certainly not colour blind. Nonetheless, Labour governments as pre 1980s Conservative ones, gave the Civil Service far more room for discretion and would generally recognise social justice.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 30 2018, 11:02 PM

"LABOUR'S Emily Thornberry faced embarrassment today as she was forced to admit that it was HER party who first said they would create a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants.

The Shadow Foreign Secretary said she knew that former Home Secretary Alan Johnson first used the phrase in a speech."

Posted by: On the edge May 1 2018, 05:43 AM

I don't think any party has been immune; its the utter hypocrisy I can't stand All parties have characters making inflammatory and aggressive comments which don't stand scrutiny and are properly moderated by the policy framers. In this latest débâcle, its the utter hypocrisy spouted by rather too many I can't stomach.

Posted by: Biker1 May 1 2018, 08:14 AM

This gets more hilarious (or perhaps potentially frightening) as it progresses!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDSALUydgzU

Posted by: Strafin May 2 2018, 08:22 AM

Another unsubstantiated quote from JSC.

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 2 2018, 10:00 AM

Google it, its what's known as a fact.

Posted by: Strafin May 2 2018, 11:11 AM

Why because you said it is? You cite your opinion as fact an awful lot on here.

If you google it the only place other than you that says it is the sun. If that's considered a reliable source of information then I'm gonna start quoting Viz.

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 2 2018, 11:49 AM

It's cited in various newsfeeds boy. If your too lazy or stupid to do research then that's not our problem. And Via is about your level for political commentary.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 2 2018, 12:32 PM

Read that on BBC site couple of weeks ago? And if I remember on the independent? VIZ! Is that still going? How's Billy the fish?

Posted by: Strafin May 3 2018, 10:50 AM

If it's in various newsfeeds then just supply a link! I did my research, and it isn't in loads of news feeds because this issue keeps changing and everyone keeps blaming everyone else.

You just keep bleating your opinons out and citing them as fact. That is both lazy and stupid.

You prick.

Posted by: Strafin May 3 2018, 10:52 AM

Again, we can all say we've read something - it doesn't count though without some back up!

And Billy is still in goal, although he was manager for a bit when the other one retired!

Posted by: Turin Machine May 3 2018, 11:07 AM

You could check Hansard old chap, it was said in the house after all. I know I read it, but I'm not so desperate to prove a point as to spend time trolling through the net to prove it. Good news about Billy though!

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 3 2018, 01:19 PM

1; I never said loads, just various.
2; This is a forum where opinions are offered. That's why it's called a forum.
3; if you don't like those opinions, don't read them.
4; Its not unsubstantiated, you've seen it in a daily newsfeed, ie the Sun.
5; Your refusal to accept the facts is as baffling as it is risible.

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 3 2018, 01:28 PM

And here,

https://www.healthbreakingnews.net/2018/04/labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-emily-thornberry-admits-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/
Here

http://www.immigrationnewswire.com/emily-thornberry-admits-labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/

In here

https://www.wikinow.co/topic/shadow-foreign-secretary

And finally

https://youtu.be/wcr5yBrrDsg

So, you did your research huh?

Posted by: Turin Machine May 3 2018, 01:43 PM

It was on the Andrew Marr show, its on iPlayer, "seek and though shalt look!"

Quotey thing,

"BBC host Nick Robinson told Ms Thornberry that it wasn't the Tories who first used the phrase "hostile environment", it was Labour.

A UK Home Office report from February 2010 said: "This strategy sets out how we will continue our efforts to cut crime and make the UK a hostile environment for those that seek to break our laws or abuse our hospitality."

Ministers at the time were trying to prove they could be tough on immigration, but voters booted Labour out at the ballot box later in 2010.

Today Ms Thornberry admitted: "Alan Johnson first used it in a speech."

Posted by: newres May 4 2018, 05:27 AM

So coining a phrase now makes one Pohl Pot. You’re being ridiculous.

Posted by: On the edge May 4 2018, 06:47 AM

Don't worry, it's classic deflection stuff. The Conservatives are petrified that no one gets near enough to shine a torch on the real cuprit, under whose watch the fire was lit. Whilst they don't like her, the Blessed Theresa must stay in post until their civil war subsides!

The really sporopriate phrase, also coined about a Tory PM seems singularly appropriate now Amber Rudd has gone - 'greater love hath no man that he lays down his friends for his life'.

Posted by: newres May 4 2018, 06:58 AM

Exactly like the anti Semitic nonsense. In the same way that I’m an Islamophobe for finding ISIS or Saudi Arabia abhorrent.

Posted by: Biker1 May 4 2018, 07:44 AM

Posted by: Turin Machine May 4 2018, 08:01 AM

You were wrong though, it was said, it is a fact, you said it was an unsubstantiated opinion and it wasn't. You're not even man enough to admit it. Just keep wriggling away, being abusive, being wrong. Same old same old.
And as for your claim of I've done research? Took me ten seconds to track the program down, so again, you're either a liar or just too damned lazy or stupid to do it yourself.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 4 2018, 08:16 AM

You mean Tony Blair, labour, 2010. As admitted by labour, on TV. And talking of civil war, how's jc's party at the moment? Short of physical attacks couldn't get a lot worse!

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 4 2018, 08:25 AM

And the much vaunted "sweeping aside" of the Tories yesterday?
From auntie beeb, again,

"But, in the words of Sir John Curtice, Jeremy Corbyn's party has come out of this more or less "empty-handed", and they can't show the kind of progress they would be shouting about if they were truly convinced they were on a rapid march to Number 10."

Couldn't even win Swindon! Or the council from Grenfell tower! They boasted " we'll turn the map of London red, NOT ONE SINGLE COUNCIL! Not one.

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 4 2018, 08:26 AM

Ahh, but that's just opinion, doesn't count.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 4 2018, 08:44 AM

You're right, sorry sir, won't appen agin like!

Posted by: newres May 4 2018, 10:55 AM

I never said any of the above. You’re getting confused.

Posted by: SirWilliam May 4 2018, 11:20 AM

I find it increasingly apparent that this forum mirrors the political landscape. Lots of huffing and puffing over who said what and the interpretation of the crossed T, but very little substance as to the real issues. Having done a quick trawl through yesterday's results and failing to establish the turnout percentage, one assumes that the party faithful made their cross in the tablet of stone which left a few local issues to encourage some "real" voters to venture out. Of course, like on here, each party is in the blinkered belief that they are the answer to a maiden's prayer whilst the rest are the antichrist personified, yet none of them actually listen to the population at large.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 4 2018, 11:31 AM

Indeed, I was. In fact I was in error to direct that at you. I apologize.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 4 2018, 11:33 AM

One thing is clear, and that is that TM did better in areas where the demographics point to an older voter. JC, the opposite.

Posted by: On the edge May 4 2018, 03:42 PM

No, Jeremy Thorpe to Harold MacMillan.

As you say in your later post TM had done well in constituencies where older people predominate, whilst JC where the electorate is young.

As far as I can see then, JC simply needs to wait.

Posted by: SirWilliam May 4 2018, 06:04 PM

Forgive my ignorance but don't young people become old people over a period of time? Or is it just a simple case of frontal lobe development as young voters do tend to take today and forget tomorrow. Older ones don't have a tomorrow to worry about.

Posted by: On the edge May 4 2018, 07:50 PM

Of course they do, but as we see here, attitudes once formed rarely change.

it's quite a mistake to assume the young haven't noticed we've sacrificed their chances to secure decent reasonably paid jobs, adequate pensions and homes they can purchase. They also feel miffed about falling for the lie they were told about the need to get an expensive Unuversity degree as the key. They've only seen a collection of chancers and graspers running the Country for the past 12 years who only seem interested in personal greed and self indulgence.

Imagine yourself in their shoes, what example does Sir Philip Green and his ilk really set?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 5 2018, 02:00 PM

The young will vote for JC becuase he is offering uncosted freebies. When they get a house, a well paid job (not all but some) then they will change votes. Always been the same. I am afraid people are selfish and always have been. The drean of a full welfare state is just that. A dream. Always has been. Always will be.

As for the Philip Greens of this world. He is not representative of all bosses. My CEO left last week and on the day he left he gave us HIS credit card and told us to put it behind the bar and have a good time. This was for all staff including the cleaners.

Posted by: On the edge May 5 2018, 08:33 PM

Facinating, but I suspect a very accurate reflection of human nature which as you so rightly imply underscores Conservative philosophy. Used to be parodied the then of the Red Flag, 'The working class can kiss my ar*se I've got the Forman's job at last......' What I've grasped I keeps. Yes, sport on.

However, that means we now have a slight problem - 'when they get a house and a well paid job' just isn't going to happen for most of them. Worse, when their pay increases, they'll be immediatley reminded not to believe any political 'free offer' because the student loan repayment kicks in. They'll have seen mum and dad collect a good pension from work and have seen them retire rather early. Guess who is going to get the blame for that lot?

So, sorry, JC simply has to wait!

Nice to see your CEO coughing up for a party. I agree, that's real old style Toryisim. His Lordship usually threw a party up at the big house to celebrate family events good to hear it's still going on. Hope you all lined up by the door when he finally left.

Posted by: newres May 6 2018, 01:25 AM

I hear Philip Green through terrific parties. And?

Posted by: On the edge May 6 2018, 05:39 AM

Yes, he certainly does, very nice to the peasantry, unless they dare answer back, like the time he angrily explained his philosophy to one of the shop staff....I own you!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 6 2018, 08:34 AM

There’s almost no chance of JC for PM; there’s barely anything going for him. If he can’t make big gains now, he never will. Even if he deserves it, I don’t think he does, we can’t have McDonnell and Abbott in government.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 6 2018, 09:27 AM

If Abbott got in she would want a higher rate of tax for white people.😂

Posted by: newres May 6 2018, 10:50 AM

Yeah, Labour are doing rubbish aren’t they.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cz3nmp2eyxgt/england-local-elections-2018

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 6 2018, 12:24 PM

Very poor for mid term.

Posted by: On the edge May 6 2018, 12:50 PM

Much the same was said about Ted Heath immediatley before 1970 election. Anyway, if the Torys manage to cling on, we'd have the joy of Johnson or Rees-Gobb as PM....then we'd really be an international laughing stock.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 6 2018, 12:59 PM

Rees Mogg and Boris. The dream team.

Posted by: newres May 6 2018, 02:32 PM

They are a pair of bufoons, but one is much more malign than the other. Boris is just an idiot, but Rees Mogg is a religious fundamentalist.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 6 2018, 03:56 PM

Maybe so. But people should still be allowed to vote for them.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 7 2018, 04:41 PM

Yes they are: “But swings to Labour in London mean that overall they have lost councillors compared to the last time these seats were up, in 2014.”

Posted by: Andy Capp May 7 2018, 04:47 PM

In a parliamentary democracy, MPs having certain personality traits are tempered.

Posted by: newres May 7 2018, 05:34 PM

That sentence isn’t in the quoted article and it doesn’t make sense actually as the figures show they have more seats than 2014. I’m baffled.

Posted by: newres May 7 2018, 05:38 PM

That’s not really much of an argument. Don’t worry because although although Rees Mogg would like to abolish abortion for girls raped by their fathers, parliament won’t let him.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 7 2018, 05:49 PM

I'd still rather have Rees Mogg and Johnson than Abbott and Mcdonnell. The electorate really are being let down. Still I suppose if I can earn more than an MP you really are not going to attract the quality you need. MPs salaries are way too low.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 7 2018, 06:50 PM

You may think it isn’t much of an argument, but it is effective and that is all we need.

Posted by: newres May 8 2018, 04:57 AM

Although I agree, we have to hope most do it for reasons of altruism.

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 8 2018, 09:54 AM

Says the eejit who can't differentiate between 'through' and 'threw' and supposedly can't even spell 'buffoon' , keep that intellect coming!