agreed, that really is unacceptable, and the motivation can be interpreted in a very distasteful way
Current Affairs The Conservative Party
- Thread starter Ashtonian
- Start date
- Status
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Hahaha, '-they are goals, not targets.'
It's more that she doesn't know or she's lied.
So she's either provably incompetent or she's a liar.
Either way, resign or be sacked obviously. I'm about as politically impartial as possible when it comes to Tories/Labour and to me it's obvious she should go, just on the grounds of political common sense.
That said, it won't happen.
Also, although the Corbynites won't admit it, Yvette Cooper is very, very good at what she does and has got better year on year.
She is good at asking the right questions, I will give her that. But unfortunately, like most of the Progress crowd, her voting record proves her to be all bluster. People see through the BS more these days I think mate – you've got to back it up.
Good on her for challenging Rudd and May on this though. How their careers can survive this is a testament to the sheer vulgarity of the Conservatives and the mindless compliance of the press.
flibbyflob
Player Valuation: £40m
Week after week in PMQ's it takes a backbencher with one question to land a bigger blow than Corbyn ever can with his 5.
NilSatisOptimum
Player Valuation: £70m
She is very good, don’t underestimate Labours togetherness on this issue and its long standing. Corbyn has been on tune and predicted Windrush years ago, also much better that a back bencher delivers the blows to cabinet minister, it reinforces weak... Corbyn prize is May and elections.
Jib in lad
Player Valuation: £25m
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Rudd is demonstrably a liar - the idea that she didn't know there were targets is exploded by the fact that she was repeatedly told what sort of person was falling foul of this, so either the Home Office absolutely hates people who have worked all their lives and not caused any problems or they were deliberately going after the easy people to deport in order to make up the numbers.
Also with regards to Cooper - her going to the backbenches was her decision, not Corbyn's. I would also point out that she was the Shadow HS when this all was being planned and failed to speak up against it at the time (unlike Abbott). She does a very good disappointed face though.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
May stopped answering Corbyn's questions months ago, and the commentariat do not hold backbenchers to the same standard as Corbyn - just look at last week's for instance, which was largely (and still) seen as "a win for May" even though we now know two of her answers were at best misleading and at worst absolute fibs.
It was under May's watch at the Home Office that the policy was 'get the immigrants'. Rudd should resign forthwith because she is plainly lying and incompetent. But she is being made the scapegoat for her bosses zealous attack against immigrants legal or illegal. May should resign and end this despicable Tory rule.
Home Office did set targets for voluntary removal of illegal immigrants
The disclosure contradicts evidence given by the Home Secretary to Parliament, who said: "We don't have targets for removals."
12:10, UK,Thursday 26 April 2018
Video:Rudd: 'I was not aware' of targets
The Home Office did set targets for the voluntary removal of illegal immigrants, it has emerged.
A 2015 report shows the department set a target of 12,000 voluntary departures in 2015/16, up from 7,200 in 2014/15.
The disclosure of the regional targets, split between 19 Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) teams across the UK, contradicts evidence given by Home Secretary Amber Rudd to Parliament on Wednesday.
"We don't have targets for removals," she told the Home Affairs Select Committee.
"If you are asking me if there are numbers of people we expect to be removed, that's not how we operate."
Image:The section of the report that mentions the targets
Speaking after Ms Rudd's appearance, a spokesman for her department said it has "never been Home Office policy to take decisions arbitrarily to meet a target".
Home Affairs Select Committee chair Yvette Cooper, who grilled Ms Rudd over the Government's handling of immigration in the wake of the Windrush row, said the Home Office's response was a "complete fudge".
Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott has been granted an urgent question in the Commons to ask Ms Rudd if she make a statement to MPs on immigration targets.
Labour's Sir Keir Starmer has told Sky News the "sensible" thing would be for the Home Secretary to come to Parliament and make a statement setting out what the full position is on targets "otherwise there can't be real accountability".
The Home Secretary has faced calls to resign over a scandal which has seen long-term residents of the UK, who came to Britain in the decades after the Second World War, wrongly stripped of benefits and threatened with deportation.
Beth Rigby
✔@BethRigby
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/989387135500345344
Replying to @BethRigby
More questions for Amber Rudd this morning. She told MPs yesterday; "We don't have targets for removals. If you are asking me if there are numbers of people we expect to be removed, that's not how we operate". Will @YvetteCooperMP table an UQ?
7:14 AM - Apr 26, 2018
She attempted to get a grip on the row on Monday when she unveiled a package of emergency measures, which includes a fast-track offer of UK citizenship and a compensation scheme.
Appearing before the committee of MPs on Wednesday, Ms Rudd spoke of her "bitter regret" at failing to grasp the scale of the furore sooner.
But the row over the Windrush generation has also provoked scrutiny of Prime Minister Theresa May's "hostile environment" immigration policy brought in during her time as home secretary from 2010-16.
The target for voluntary departures, which happen when an individual or family tells the authorities of their intention to leave the UK, is contained in a December 2015 report from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.
Voluntary departures also include people who approach the Home Office for financial help with their travel arrangements.
Video:Windrush victim hopes he will be allowed to return home after eight years
The report said: "For 2014/15 (10 full months) the Home Office set a target of 7,200 voluntary departures, an average of 120 per week, with the weekly target rising to 160 by the end of March 2015.
"For 2015/16, the annual target was raised to 12,000. These targets were split between the 19 ICE teams across the UK."
The report also said the Home Office had a process for returning families who had no legal right to remain in the UK, something which had a "single numerical target".
The target was "not a useful performance measure" due to the varying nature of cases year to year, the report added".
Home Office did set targets for voluntary removal of illegal immigrants
The disclosure contradicts evidence given by the Home Secretary to Parliament, who said: "We don't have targets for removals."
12:10, UK,Thursday 26 April 2018
Video:Rudd: 'I was not aware' of targets
- By Alan McGuinness, Political Reporter
The Home Office did set targets for the voluntary removal of illegal immigrants, it has emerged.
A 2015 report shows the department set a target of 12,000 voluntary departures in 2015/16, up from 7,200 in 2014/15.
The disclosure of the regional targets, split between 19 Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) teams across the UK, contradicts evidence given by Home Secretary Amber Rudd to Parliament on Wednesday.
"We don't have targets for removals," she told the Home Affairs Select Committee.
"If you are asking me if there are numbers of people we expect to be removed, that's not how we operate."
Image:The section of the report that mentions the targets
Speaking after Ms Rudd's appearance, a spokesman for her department said it has "never been Home Office policy to take decisions arbitrarily to meet a target".
Home Affairs Select Committee chair Yvette Cooper, who grilled Ms Rudd over the Government's handling of immigration in the wake of the Windrush row, said the Home Office's response was a "complete fudge".
Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott has been granted an urgent question in the Commons to ask Ms Rudd if she make a statement to MPs on immigration targets.
Labour's Sir Keir Starmer has told Sky News the "sensible" thing would be for the Home Secretary to come to Parliament and make a statement setting out what the full position is on targets "otherwise there can't be real accountability".
The Home Secretary has faced calls to resign over a scandal which has seen long-term residents of the UK, who came to Britain in the decades after the Second World War, wrongly stripped of benefits and threatened with deportation.
Beth Rigby
✔@BethRigby
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/989387135500345344
Replying to @BethRigby
More questions for Amber Rudd this morning. She told MPs yesterday; "We don't have targets for removals. If you are asking me if there are numbers of people we expect to be removed, that's not how we operate". Will @YvetteCooperMP table an UQ?
7:14 AM - Apr 26, 2018
She attempted to get a grip on the row on Monday when she unveiled a package of emergency measures, which includes a fast-track offer of UK citizenship and a compensation scheme.
Appearing before the committee of MPs on Wednesday, Ms Rudd spoke of her "bitter regret" at failing to grasp the scale of the furore sooner.
But the row over the Windrush generation has also provoked scrutiny of Prime Minister Theresa May's "hostile environment" immigration policy brought in during her time as home secretary from 2010-16.
The target for voluntary departures, which happen when an individual or family tells the authorities of their intention to leave the UK, is contained in a December 2015 report from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.
Voluntary departures also include people who approach the Home Office for financial help with their travel arrangements.
Video:Windrush victim hopes he will be allowed to return home after eight years
The report said: "For 2014/15 (10 full months) the Home Office set a target of 7,200 voluntary departures, an average of 120 per week, with the weekly target rising to 160 by the end of March 2015.
"For 2015/16, the annual target was raised to 12,000. These targets were split between the 19 ICE teams across the UK."
The report also said the Home Office had a process for returning families who had no legal right to remain in the UK, something which had a "single numerical target".
The target was "not a useful performance measure" due to the varying nature of cases year to year, the report added".
The Tories are to get rid of targets for deporting people, set by May, they said the never had. How can they get of something that wasn't there in the first place.
Amber Rudd
Amber Rudd scraps targets for removing immigrants from UK
Home secretary urged to quit as she ditches targets she told MPs had not been set
Heather Stewart and Jessica Elgot
Thu 26 Apr 2018 17.44 BST First published on Thu 26 Apr 2018 15.36 BST
Amber Rudd
Amber Rudd scraps targets for removing immigrants from UK
Home secretary urged to quit as she ditches targets she told MPs had not been set
Heather Stewart and Jessica Elgot
Thu 26 Apr 2018 17.44 BST First published on Thu 26 Apr 2018 15.36 BST
Amber Rudd was non-committal about meeting the government’s net migration target. Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images
Amber Rudd has said she will scrap Home Office targets for removing people from Britain, hours after she was forced back to the House of Commons to admit her department had in fact set them.
The home secretary was hauled back in front of MPs on Thursday to answer an urgent question from Labour’s Diane Abbott, after documents revealed targets had been set for voluntary removals.
She had told the home affairs select committee on Wednesday that her department did not set such targets.
Speaking to journalists in Westminster, the home secretary said: “I have not approved or seen or cleared any targets for removals looking ahead, and looking ahead I will not be doing that.”
Rudd said she felt “very serious and responsible” for tackling the Windrush scandal. “I can do this,” she insisted, saying she hoped to change the culture in the Home Office.
Officials would be encouraged to “lean in” to complex cases, she said. “I want to make sure we focus more on the individual … I’m confident that we will see a marked change in tone.”
An inspection report from 2015 seen by the Guardian reveals that the Home Office set a target of 12,000 voluntary departures of people regarded as having no right to stay in the UK. It is not clear whether the target is still in force.
The figure was a 60% increase on the previous year, prompting concerns that immigration officials may have been under so much pressure to meet the target that legal migrants who struggled to prove their status could have been caught up in the crackdown.
A Downing Street spokesman said removal targets were a concept that went back over a number of decades, and cited those imposed by Labour governments from 1998 to 2010, although these were aimed at more specific areas such as asylum seekers and foreign prisoners.
Answering questions from reporters, Rudd was initially non-committal when asked about meeting the government’s target of reducing net immigration to tens of thousands. “I’ll come back to you on that,” she said, before adding it was a long-term target. “It was in our manifesto,” she said.
She sidestepped the question of whether she had considered resigning in recent days. Asked if she still harboured ambitions to lead the Conservatives, she said: “I’m just thinking about staying in the game.”
The home secretary distanced herself from the phrase “hostile environment” which has been used, including by Theresa May, to describe the system of making life difficult for illegal immigrants.
“I don’t like the phrase ‘hostile environment’. It was first used by Labour, but we have expanded on it and I’m not running away from that,” she said.
Rudd has faced mounting calls for her resignation as the scandal over the treatment of the Windrush generation has deepened over the past week. Abbott, the shadow home secretary, said it was “time the home secretary considered her honour and resigned”.
Tory MPs, however, including cabinet colleagues, have repeatedly expressed their backing. Michael Gove and Sajid Javid sat beside her on the frontbench on Thursday morning.
The Tory backbencher Nicholas Soames said Rudd had “the total support of this side of the house”, to cheers from other Tory MPs.
Pressed by Labour’s Paula Sherriff, Rudd said she did not intend to step aside. “I do take seriously my responsibility, but I do think I am the person who can put it right,” she said.
Downing Street backed Rudd’s decision to drop the removals targets, but said the Home Office should still prioritise reducing migration. “It remains a government priority to tackle illegal immigration to ensure the rules are properly enforced, but how you choose to achieve that is a matter for individual home secretaries,” May’s spokesman said.
No 10 did not rule out continuing to use the phrase “hostile environment’ to describe its strategy. “I can’t predict the phrases individuals ministers will use,” the spokesman said.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Skip to main content
Menu
Search
Liberty wins first battle in landmark challenge to mass surveillance powers in the Investigatory Powers Act
27 April 2018
In a landmark victory for privacy rights, the High Court has today ruled part of the Government’s flagship surveillance law, the Investigatory Powers Act, is unlawful – following a legal challenge from human rights campaigning organisation Liberty.
In this first stage of its comprehensive challenge to the law, Liberty focused on government powers to order private companies to store everybody’s communications data, including internet history, so that state agencies can access it. Liberty argued that retaining every person’s data in this way without limits and safeguards violates the UK public’s right to privacy.
In today's ruling, Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Holgate found that these intrusive powers are unlawful.
The Court ruled this part of the Act is incompatible with people’s fundamental rights because ministers can issue data retention orders without independent review and authorisation – and for reasons which have nothing to do with investigating serious crime (par. 89).
Today’s judgment means the Government will now have to amend this part of the Investigatory Powers Act so that it no longer breaches people’s rights. The Court has given ministers until Thursday 1 November 2018 to do so (par. 183).
Martha Spurrier, Director of Liberty, said: “Police and security agencies need tools to tackle serious crime in the digital age – but creating the most intrusive surveillance regime of any democracy in the world is unlawful, unnecessary and ineffective.
“Spying on everyone’s internet histories and email, text and phone records with no suspicion of serious criminal activity and no basic protections for our rights undermines everything that’s central to our democracy and freedom – our privacy, free press, free speech, protest rights, protections for journalists’ sources and whistleblowers, and legal and patient confidentiality. It also puts our most sensitive personal information at huge risk from criminal hackers and foreign spies.
“The Court has done what the Government failed to do and protected these vital values – but today’s ruling focuses on just one part of a law that is rotten to the core. It still lets the state hack our computers, tablets and phones, hoover up information about who we speak to, where we go, and what we look at online, and collect profiles of individual people even without any suspicion of criminality. Liberty’s challenge to these powers will continue.”
The case was funded by donations from members of the public. Today Liberty is launching the second phase of crowdfunding to ensure it can continue with the next stage of the legal challenge.
About the case
This part of Liberty’s challenge – and today’s ruling – focuses on powers in Part 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act. These allow the Government to force communications companies and service providers to store records of everybody’s location tracking information from our mobile phones, web browsing history and lists of who we call, text or email, when and how often.
This information, which communications providers might not otherwise collect or keep, paints an intimate picture of a person’s movements, contacts, habits and views.
Using other powers in the Act, dozens of public bodies – from local police to financial regulators – can then access this information with no independent authorisation and for reasons that have nothing to do with investigating terrorism or serious crime.
Liberty asked the Court to find these parts of the Act unlawful because, among other things, they let the Government compel retention of this data:
The Court did not rule on the legitimacy of the wide range of other non-crime purposes in the Act because the Government has already proposed legislation to remove them.
Prior to today’s ruling, the Government had conceded Part 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act has several of the same flaws – but argued it should nonetheless be permitted to continue to apply it until April 2019. The High Court rejected this argument.
About the Investigatory Powers Act
The Investigatory Powers Act became law in late 2016. It was intended to introduce transparency to state surveillance following Edward Snowden’s revelations of unlawful mass monitoring of the public’s communications. Instead it simply legalised the practices he exposed – and introduced hugely intrusive new powers.
It passed in 2016 as Parliament reeled from the EU referendum – despite the Government failing to provide any evidence that the extreme indiscriminate powers it introduced were lawful or necessary to prevent or detect crime. A public petition calling for its repeal attracted more than 200,000 signatures, but was not debated by Parliament.
The Investigatory Powers Act also allows the state to hack computers, phones and tablets on an industrial scale, and collect the content of people’s digital communications and records about those communications created by our devices. It also allows the creation and linking of huge ‘bulk personal datasets’.
Liberty has also issued legal challenges to three other parts of the Act containing these powers.
Liberty instructed Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, Martin Chamberlain QC, Ben Jaffey QC and David Heaton in this case.
For enquiries and interviews, please contact the Liberty press office: 0207 378 3656 / 07973 831 128 / pressoffice@liberty-human-rights.org.uk
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookBlog
Press releases and statements
Founded in 1934, Liberty is a membership organisation at the heart of the movement for fundamental rights and freedoms in the UK.
Join Liberty
Get in touch
Keep connected
Using this site
Site by Cogapp
Menu
Search
Liberty wins first battle in landmark challenge to mass surveillance powers in the Investigatory Powers Act
27 April 2018
In a landmark victory for privacy rights, the High Court has today ruled part of the Government’s flagship surveillance law, the Investigatory Powers Act, is unlawful – following a legal challenge from human rights campaigning organisation Liberty.
In this first stage of its comprehensive challenge to the law, Liberty focused on government powers to order private companies to store everybody’s communications data, including internet history, so that state agencies can access it. Liberty argued that retaining every person’s data in this way without limits and safeguards violates the UK public’s right to privacy.
In today's ruling, Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Holgate found that these intrusive powers are unlawful.
The Court ruled this part of the Act is incompatible with people’s fundamental rights because ministers can issue data retention orders without independent review and authorisation – and for reasons which have nothing to do with investigating serious crime (par. 89).
Today’s judgment means the Government will now have to amend this part of the Investigatory Powers Act so that it no longer breaches people’s rights. The Court has given ministers until Thursday 1 November 2018 to do so (par. 183).
Martha Spurrier, Director of Liberty, said: “Police and security agencies need tools to tackle serious crime in the digital age – but creating the most intrusive surveillance regime of any democracy in the world is unlawful, unnecessary and ineffective.
“Spying on everyone’s internet histories and email, text and phone records with no suspicion of serious criminal activity and no basic protections for our rights undermines everything that’s central to our democracy and freedom – our privacy, free press, free speech, protest rights, protections for journalists’ sources and whistleblowers, and legal and patient confidentiality. It also puts our most sensitive personal information at huge risk from criminal hackers and foreign spies.
“The Court has done what the Government failed to do and protected these vital values – but today’s ruling focuses on just one part of a law that is rotten to the core. It still lets the state hack our computers, tablets and phones, hoover up information about who we speak to, where we go, and what we look at online, and collect profiles of individual people even without any suspicion of criminality. Liberty’s challenge to these powers will continue.”
The case was funded by donations from members of the public. Today Liberty is launching the second phase of crowdfunding to ensure it can continue with the next stage of the legal challenge.
About the case
This part of Liberty’s challenge – and today’s ruling – focuses on powers in Part 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act. These allow the Government to force communications companies and service providers to store records of everybody’s location tracking information from our mobile phones, web browsing history and lists of who we call, text or email, when and how often.
This information, which communications providers might not otherwise collect or keep, paints an intimate picture of a person’s movements, contacts, habits and views.
Using other powers in the Act, dozens of public bodies – from local police to financial regulators – can then access this information with no independent authorisation and for reasons that have nothing to do with investigating terrorism or serious crime.
Liberty asked the Court to find these parts of the Act unlawful because, among other things, they let the Government compel retention of this data:
- With no independent authorisation by a court or independent agency
- For crime-fighting purposes extending far beyond “serious crime”
- For a wide range of other non-crime purposes, including collecting taxes and fines owed and regulating financial services.
The Court did not rule on the legitimacy of the wide range of other non-crime purposes in the Act because the Government has already proposed legislation to remove them.
Prior to today’s ruling, the Government had conceded Part 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act has several of the same flaws – but argued it should nonetheless be permitted to continue to apply it until April 2019. The High Court rejected this argument.
About the Investigatory Powers Act
The Investigatory Powers Act became law in late 2016. It was intended to introduce transparency to state surveillance following Edward Snowden’s revelations of unlawful mass monitoring of the public’s communications. Instead it simply legalised the practices he exposed – and introduced hugely intrusive new powers.
It passed in 2016 as Parliament reeled from the EU referendum – despite the Government failing to provide any evidence that the extreme indiscriminate powers it introduced were lawful or necessary to prevent or detect crime. A public petition calling for its repeal attracted more than 200,000 signatures, but was not debated by Parliament.
The Investigatory Powers Act also allows the state to hack computers, phones and tablets on an industrial scale, and collect the content of people’s digital communications and records about those communications created by our devices. It also allows the creation and linking of huge ‘bulk personal datasets’.
Liberty has also issued legal challenges to three other parts of the Act containing these powers.
Liberty instructed Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, Martin Chamberlain QC, Ben Jaffey QC and David Heaton in this case.
For enquiries and interviews, please contact the Liberty press office: 0207 378 3656 / 07973 831 128 / pressoffice@liberty-human-rights.org.uk
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookBlog
Press releases and statements
- 2018 (12)
- 2017 (56)
- 2016 (69)
- 2015 (55)
- 2014 (56)
- 2013 (31)
- 2012 (34)
- 2011 (43)
- 2010 (62)
- 2009 (70)
- 2008 (56)
- 2007 (69)
- 2006 (62)
- 2005 (62)
- 2004 (10)
- 2003 (61)
- 2002 (83)
- 2001 (51)
Founded in 1934, Liberty is a membership organisation at the heart of the movement for fundamental rights and freedoms in the UK.
Join Liberty
Get in touch
Keep connected
Using this site
Site by Cogapp
- Status