First a few articles on the news today that an amnesty was 'in effect' implemented in an effort to clear the backlog of asylum cases; the Daily Telegraph, the Evening Standard and FactCheck. The Home Affairs Select Committee summary and report can be accessed here.
Where to start? Where indeed,
It is amazing that someone who presided over failure - and whilst so doing - is able to earn performance bonuses equal in amount to what some ordinary people earn in a year. It is likewise amazing that someone who presided over failure is then rewarded with promotion to a new post in another department. Her background can be found here, courtesy of Wikipedia, in which I searched in vain for any relevant qualification in either asylum, immigration or transport.
Damien Green may wriggle about what is and what is not an amnesty, however it sure looks as if it is an amnesty. Cathy Newman on FactCheck considers Green can be given a card of the same colour, rather than a red card, but is forced to concede that:
"However, the Home Affairs Select Committee is spot on to argue that the policy pursued by this government and the previous one amounts “in effect” to an amnesty. But to own up to that would incur the wrath of the rightwing press. And that would never do."
If, as Cathy Newman writes, someone is suddenly allowed to remain "no questions" asked, has anyone queried why a possible refusal is suddenly reversed years later? How come such a damning report is released when parliament is in recess and the contents of the report cannot be raised in the House of Commons? Are the Coalition continuing the practise of "a good day to bury bad news"?
Footnote: apologies for the paucity of this post - been out all day, not returning until 8pm desperately in need of food and alcohol. Just felt so incensed that I needed to put fingers to keyboard!
5 comments:
I confess to chuckling at your Phil Woolas point, then having the futile exercise of explaining to my husband why I chuckled. The meaning was lost.
As I'm sure you'll appreciate, I disagree this is an amnesty. You'll have seen my post on the same subject, which considers how exactly UKBA managed to "lose" so many, and the justification in them being here in the first place.
David, would you deny the victims of torture somewhere to stay and the rights normal citizens in the UK enjoy?
C?: I must admit to being also curious as to your identity, however noting your blogs: Hello Kelly!
To be honest - and I am sure this may well annoy you, however I also know you believe in free speech - while the elderly & vulnerable go without; while we do not have the money to run our own country properly and while we continue to pour money into reasonably prosperous countries; all to the detriment of our own people then I care not one fig for the plight of those disadvantaged 'from abroad' - there are plenty of other countries to whom they could plead for asylum.
WfW, I agree with you completely. As I have written to my MP on numerous occasions over the past decade or more, my position is for no immigrants, no refugees and no asylum seekers. I am sick and tired of socialists making other peoples problems my problem. I don't want any of them here in my country and I honestly couldn't care less where they go, live or die. All the troubled countries in the world have their own governments; let them sort out their own mess for a change. Or not, if that's all they are intellectually capable of.
My understanding is that asylum seekers are supposed to seek asylum in the first, or nearest, safe country from where they are fleeing. How can Britain be the nearest safe haven for anyone?
jic: Thank you!
k: Oh, but immigrants do seek refuge in the nearest country to them - then they make their way to the 'soft touch of Europe'!
Post a Comment