Crosswords0 min ago
Should Rudd Go?
35 Answers
http://
Amber Rudd has today admitted that the Home Office uses deportation quotas for illegal immigrants. On Wednesday, she told Parliament that such quotas did not exist. Furthermore, she now claims that she was not aware of them.
Surely this is a sackable offense? The Home Office cannot easily reconcile "case-by-case" investigation to determine whether someone is illegal if it also operates under a quota system, as the Windrush scandal demonstrates quite clearly. Furthermore, how terrible a Home Secretary must Rudd be if she was never aware of such a far-reaching aspect of UK immigration policy?
Amber Rudd has today admitted that the Home Office uses deportation quotas for illegal immigrants. On Wednesday, she told Parliament that such quotas did not exist. Furthermore, she now claims that she was not aware of them.
Surely this is a sackable offense? The Home Office cannot easily reconcile "case-by-case" investigation to determine whether someone is illegal if it also operates under a quota system, as the Windrush scandal demonstrates quite clearly. Furthermore, how terrible a Home Secretary must Rudd be if she was never aware of such a far-reaching aspect of UK immigration policy?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
They're effectively quotas. You can't claim to be investigating each instance case-by-case and judging it fairly if you're also going to commit yourself to reaching a target. It is despicable policymaking and Rudd is either a fool for not knowing it was going on or a liar for trying to pretend it wasn't.
I guess the problem is that she's just not experienced enough to be Home Sec. You might say that... Amber Rudd's green.
http://
http://
From the Guardian's coverage:
//Asked by Labour MP Rachel Maskell who was running the department if Rudd did not know about the targets, the home secretary said: “I accept the criticism on the issue ... that’s why I’m in the house today setting out the changes I’m going to make ... to continue to develop the confidence of everybody involved.”//
Rudd does not even deny that this was a horrible mistake or that she has been caught out. She, like her boss, is a disgrace.
//Asked by Labour MP Rachel Maskell who was running the department if Rudd did not know about the targets, the home secretary said: “I accept the criticism on the issue ... that’s why I’m in the house today setting out the changes I’m going to make ... to continue to develop the confidence of everybody involved.”//
Rudd does not even deny that this was a horrible mistake or that she has been caught out. She, like her boss, is a disgrace.
"The Guardians coverage" No bias there then.
Should she go? Not immediately, she should sort out the mess then go. Sick of politicians 'falling on their sword' and leving the mess for someone else.
"she does not appear to know what is going on in her own department. "
I doubt it, but then I doubt any Minister knows what the civil service is up to and I suspect never from from the year dot.
Should she go? Not immediately, she should sort out the mess then go. Sick of politicians 'falling on their sword' and leving the mess for someone else.
"she does not appear to know what is going on in her own department. "
I doubt it, but then I doubt any Minister knows what the civil service is up to and I suspect never from from the year dot.
//I bet it is...........No agenda there then.//
Why are people obsessing about this one reference to the Guardian I made rather than the actual serious problem with the home secretary?
The piece of information I quoted was something said in parliament (or, I think, on a parliamentary committee). On camera. It is on public record. If you mistrust it and feel so inclined, you can check it. It just happens to be where I read it, because Google News had a select few articles dedicated to this at the time I checked.
Why are people obsessing about this one reference to the Guardian I made rather than the actual serious problem with the home secretary?
The piece of information I quoted was something said in parliament (or, I think, on a parliamentary committee). On camera. It is on public record. If you mistrust it and feel so inclined, you can check it. It just happens to be where I read it, because Google News had a select few articles dedicated to this at the time I checked.
I don't think that I showed any interest whatsoever in the veracity or otherwise of the "report". I did however allude to the spiteful and devious machinations of the civil service. It is not hard to imagine the enthusiasm that would have been shown to deliberately bend a set of guidelines, particularly ones that our entrenched fifth column lobbies are not supportive of, and put them to spiteful use. Any chance that the office staff and management in the civil service , have taken steps to use policies and guideline meant to stem the illegal influx from the Arabia and Africa, and instead applied them to Commonwealth immigrants? It would indeed explain some of the very strange decisions that occasionally make the headlines. They would know full well of the embarrassing furore it would cause, and the "ammunition" it would provide for Putin's trolls.
//It is not hard to imagine //
Evidently not.
I would suggest that your image of civil servants maliciously interpreting the government's own policy in order to undermine it is a little bit far-fetched. I think it's a lot more likely that the government simply introduced policies that were poorly thought-out.
Evidently not.
I would suggest that your image of civil servants maliciously interpreting the government's own policy in order to undermine it is a little bit far-fetched. I think it's a lot more likely that the government simply introduced policies that were poorly thought-out.
