Category Archives: Politics

Britain, Government, Politics, Society

The Windrush generation

BRITAIN

West Indian residents arrived in Britain after the Second World War.

Intro: The Windrush scandal has humiliated many of our citizens and is a bad stain on the UK

MANY immigrants from Commonwealth countries have lived in the UK for decades. A vast number of them have now been told by the Home Office that they are in the UK illegally and have been ordered to either prove their status or leave. British citizens welcomed here as children have been treated as mere numbers in a bureaucratic exercise flawed by the fact the British Government itself failed to retain the necessary records relating to the citizenship of many of these people. Most came from the Caribbean between 1948 and 1971. The first that many became aware of their questioned status was when they received official government letters informing them they were illegal immigrants. What an utter humiliating thing to happen to people who have every right to consider themselves British.

The fact that this bureaucratic mess isn’t scandal enough, the adjoining political response to it has been woeful and pitifully lacking. By the time Home Secretary Amber Rudd got to her feet in the House of Commons earlier this week, scores of British citizens had suffered the crass indignity of being treated as unwanted strangers in their home country. Labour MP David Lammy was quite right to describe this as a matter of national shame. The Home Secretary has promised the establishment of a task force in the Home Office which will help members of the Windrush generation, ensuring none lose access to public services and other entitlements. Given the way many have been treated this is the least they should expect.

It is impossible to consider the plight of the Windrush generation without considering that their race may have had something to do with the careless way their citizenship and naturalisation status was dealt with. It is perfectly reasonable to question that, if those affected had been white, any such problems would have arisen. Amber Rudd was right to offer an unreserved apology to those treated so disgracefully by a Home Office and Government that loses sight of individuals. She must, however, go much further.

Those who have suffered due to bureaucratic incompetence should have the right to claim compensation for the indignity and injury they have suffered. At the very minimum, anyone forced out of pocket because they had to hire legal counsel or apply again for citizenship should have all costs reimbursed. The Windrush scandal is a stain on the UK and the sooner it’s cleared up, the better.

 

THE Home Office couldn’t have made a more humiliating hash of dealing with the toxic row over the Windrush generation.

As soon as it became clear that Caribbean migrants who have lived, worked, paid taxes and raised families here for 50 years or more were being stripped of their residency rights, ministers should have acted immediately and without prevarication to address this cruel and inhumane injustice.

Instead, they stalled and vacillated, giving the impression of callous indifference to the plight of decent people who have lost their jobs, been denied state benefits and NHS care and even forced out of Britain. Access to UK bank accounts were also denied.

The utter fiasco continued as Amber Rudd and Immigration Minister Caroline Nokes admitted that many may already have been deported and, astonishingly, didn’t know how many, or who they were.

The Windrush generation from countries such as Jamaica were invited here to help post-war reconstruction and have hugely enriched our cultural life. To even consider deporting them – especially when countless foreign criminals are allowed to live here with impunity – is a grotesque betrayal.

 

UNDER the 1971 Immigration Act, all Commonwealth citizens already living in the UK were given indefinite leave to remain. But the Home Office did not keep records of those given to stay or issue any documents confirming this. Many people never applied for passports or became naturalised, so it became virtually impossible to prove that they were in the UK legally.

Changes to immigration law – introduced under Labour in 2006, then toughened by the Coalition in 2014 – was aimed primarily to weed out visa over-stayers.

Thousands of landing card slips recording the arrival of migrants, including those of the Windrush generation, were destroyed in 2010. It is these slips that would have proven important to establish citizenship. Instead, people would be sent a standard government letter which said: ‘We have searched our records, we can find no trace of you.’ Many were then deported.

David Lammy who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on race and community, said: ‘This reveals that the problems being faced by the Windrush generation are not down to one-off bureaucratic errors but as a direct result of systemic incompetence, callousness and cruelty.’

Standard
Business, Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

Digital Economy: Many small firms not able to cope with cyber attack

SCOTLAND

ONE in five businesses in Scotland is unprepared for dealing with a cyber-attack, raising fears that the economy is at risk unless action is taken.

A Scottish Government survey of more than 3,000 firms has revealed 19 per cent of them are “not equipped” or “poorly equipped” for dealing with an attack.

The research indicates that the private sector is at risk if hackers deploy viruses to disrupt the Scottish economy, which could also threaten the personal information of firms’ customers.

. See also Digital interfacing must be embraced by public sector

The survey comes just months after a malware attack wreaked havoc on NHS Scotland as hackers deployed a virus that sealed off vitally important files and demanded payment to unlock them.

The findings have sparked calls for more help from the Scottish Government to ensure firms are better prepared to deal with such incidents.

In 2015, the Scottish Government set a target for Scotland to become “a world leading nation in cyber resilience” by 2020. The UK Government has previously blamed Russia for major cyber attacks and the growing tensions between the two countries have increased fears of another major strike.

Separate research found a quarter of firms are struggling to grow because of the threat of a cyber-attack.

A spokesperson for the Federation of Small Business in Scotland, said: “We know there is a growing digital threat out there for Scottish firms and that is why the FSB offers services to members on this and have made the case to government north and south of the Border for extra help for small businesses.

“Like traditional crime, firms need to keep themselves safe and take sensible precautions. There have been high-profile cases where crooks have got the better of businesses and firms large and small need to protect against that threat.”

The Scottish Government surveyed 3,258 firms as part of a Digital Economy report. It asked them to what extent they felt equipped to protect against and deal with cyber-security threats.

Nine per cent said they were “not equipped at all” to deal with a cyber-attack and 10 per cent were “poorly equipped”. A further 47 per cent described themselves as “somewhat equipped”, while only 30 per cent rated themselves as “fully equipped”.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Russia, Society

UK measures and sanctions on Russia still leaves us vulnerable

BRITAINopinion-1

IN measured but uncompromising language, Theresa May handled herself extremely well in the House of Commons this week as she outlined the Government’s response to Vladimir Putin’s use of a lethal nerve and chemical agent on British soil. The Prime Minister’s rhetoric was equal to the profound seriousness of the occasion.

Her resolute demeanour and command of her brief – no doubt learned from her long experience of security matters at the Home Office – put to shame Jeremy Corbyn’s efforts to defend the Russian state and his attempt to score petty political point scoring.

In a new low for British politics, the Labour leader parroted the Kremlin line, suggesting it was unfair to blame Putin without first sending him scientific samples of the toxin in the Salisbury attack.

To his discredit, too, Mr Corbyn even appeared to pin part of the blame on budget cuts to the British diplomatic service.

Corbyn’s response to this grotesque violation of international law and British sovereignty – in which scores of our citizens were put at risk of agonising death – was: “It is essential to maintain robust dialogue with Russia.”

Who would honestly believe dialogue would bring to heel a former KGB officer who exults in presenting himself at stopping at nothing to eradicate his country’s enemies?

Even the SNP in Scotland, never a party solid on defence – incoherent on NATO and divisive over Trident – have grasped the gravity of the situation.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “It is very clear that Russia cannot be permitted to unlawfully kill or attempt to kill people on the streets of the UK with impunity.”

The SNP’s party’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford assured the Commons that his party backed the Government and that “a robust response to the use of terror on our streets” was required.

However, we must be realistic. On their own, the measures outlined by the Prime Minister are high unlikely to shake Putin out of his contempt for the international order.

 

YES, Mrs May’s approach is a start. Her expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats identified as spies, the most radical such measure for more than 30 years, should seriously undermine Russia’s intelligence network. These expulsions were always going to be met with a tit-for-tat response.

Other sanctions – including the freezing of Russian state assets deemed a threat, the suspension of high-level contacts and increased security checks on private flights, customs and freight – also sends a signal that Britain will not let state-sponsored gangsterism flourish with impunity.

The truth, though, is that Mrs May held back from other measures that could have inflicted serious harm on the Russian economy.

The reasons for such caution are clear. One is that Britain depends on Russia for 20 per cent of our gas, leaving us desperately vulnerable to punitive Russian reprisals.

Another is that BP, our biggest company, has a vast holding in Russia’s biggest oil company, while the City launders billions in the country’s dirty cash.

And politicians have run down our Armed Forces, spending only £36billion a year on defence. Putin, with a defence budget of £44-50billion – and has an army ten times the size of ours – will feel safe to sneer.

Yet, Russia’s economy is only two-thirds the size of ours. We could be doing much more to match Putin’s military strength.

As for energy security, wasn’t it criminally irresponsible to allow last year’s closure of Britain’s biggest gas storage facility, leaving our reserves at today’s perilously low levels?

Given our vulnerability, the sanctions may have gone as far as Britain could go alone without the international effort needed by straining every sinew to secure.

There is one gesture that could signify abhorrence of the Salisbury atrocity. Whilst it is welcomed that no government minister or member of the Royal family will attend the World Cup in Russia this summer, wouldn’t a boycott by the England team and other countries who are equally infuriated ram home the message more powerfully?

Standard