if anything she missed the window to resign with some dignity, the longer she stays now the more shameful the exit becomes
Current Affairs The Conservative Party
- Thread starter Ashtonian
- Start date
- Status
if anything she missed the window to resign with some dignity, the longer she stays now the more shameful the exit becomes
TheBlueGibbon
Player Valuation: £40m
And people thought Dianne Abbott was bad?
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Tbf, Diane Abbott is awful......
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Kinell, it's taken our government all day to come up with that pathetic barrage of excuses.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
LEVESON 2, THE DAILY MAIL AND ME - BY MAX MOSLEY
Byline Investigations . 26 April 2018
Byline Investigations has uncovered evidence that up to six journalists were tasked to investigate Max Mosley a year ago, and held back material to coincide with the Government's decision on Leveson 2. For this reason, we are publishing his response with a declaration of interest beneath
AT THE end of February, Daily Mail readers must have thought something had gone haywire at their paper.
For several days, it ran page after page about me, sometimes up to eleven on one day, including the front cover, all about things that happened more than 50 years ago.
Some Mail readers would be vaguely aware that I had been involved in Formula One and had once sued the News of the World, but they would be quite unable to fathom why the Mail had suddenly become totally obsessed with me, a minor figure from the world of sport administration, and why their paper thought any of it at all interesting.
The explanation lies in two things that greatly alarm the Mail’s editor, Paul Dacre, one of which he blames entirely on me. They are the second part of the Leveson Inquiry and the independent press regulator, IMPRESS.
Having been recognised, IMPRESS makes possible Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act. The thought horrifies Dacre because S.40 means anyone, not just the very rich, could sue the Daily Mail for libel.
It’s anathema to him that an ordinary citizen might have access to justice when attacked by a national newspaper. And S.40, overwhelmingly supported by a 530 to 13 vote in the House of Commons, provides just that. My family charity has indirectly supplied most of the funding for IMPRESS, so Dacre blames me for the threat of S.40.
Neutralising Tom Watson
But perhaps more even than S.40, I believe he fears any continuing inquiry into the press. The Leveson Inquiry was put on hold until the phone-hacking trials had finished, but now that the second part can start, the serious criminality and other wrongdoing, so far concealed, can be exposed.
Like his fellow newspaper bosses, Dacre realises that if the full truth is revealed, there are likely to be severe repercussions. That is why the Sun, the Mirror, the Telegraph and the Sunday Times all joined his attack on me in what was quite clearly a coordinated campaign with, I suspect, the benefit of prior knowledge of the government’s plans.
But what, you may ask, does all this have to do with what I did 56 years ago? And why suddenly this massive attack at the end of February? What was the significance of that date?
It’s not just phone hacking, computer hacking, bribery and theft, other offences will emerge. For example, several newspaper witnesses are accused of lying on oath at the first part of the Leveson Inquiry. That could be serious.
And as Sir Brian Leveson said in his letter to the ministers: “conflicting (and irreconcilable) accounts were given by different people working within the same organisation” when they gave evidence on oath in the criminal trials. Details of perjury are bound to emerge in Leveson 2.
But what, you may ask, does all this have to do with what I did 56 years ago? And why suddenly this massive attack at the end of February? What was the significance of that date?
All became clear when on 1 March, after well over a year of prevarication, the government announced the cancellation of Leveson 2 and the intended repeal of S.40. They knew this would attract fierce criticism in Parliament and in the country.
After all, the government had solemnly promised the phone hacking victims that Leveson 2 would take place and everyone except the national press and their political allies fully understood that S.40 was needed to provide inexpensive justice for all (including local newspapers).
The press and ministers were desperate to hide or at least distract attention from this total capitulation. The major newspapers had forced a weak government to instruct its MPs to reverse the 530 to 13 votes for S.40 and also cancel Leveson 2, despite the then prime minister’s solemn promise to the newspapers’ victims.
One minister even tried to conceal from parliament that Sir Brian Leveson had written to the government saying he “fundamentally disagreed” with its decision to cancel Leveson 2.
With all these problems, certain newspapers, as well as the government, knew they needed somehow to neutralise the shadow secretary of state for the media, Tom Watson. Otherwise, he would expose what they were doing and rally parliament and the general public to stop them.
Knowing that a significant proportion of the funds for Tom Watson’s political office came from me, they set out to weaken him and distract the public by means of a massive attack on me. I believe that was the main reason for the utterly absurd amount of publicity over a number of days.
Track Record
But there was a problem. I had spent more than 50 years in various roles in British motorsport, helping to build it into a world-leading industry with a turnover of 9 billion GBP. And since 1991, more than 130 countries had repeatedly elected me president of the world governing body for all motorsport, not just Formula One.
On top of that, with a small group of colleagues and backed by the world’s major motoring organisations, I had spent the last 25 years working very successfully to save tens of thousands of lives on the public roads.
They made great use of a leaflet apparently issued when I was an election agent for my father’s party in 1961. It should never have been printed and I’m surprised that it bore my name but I had no recollection of it when it was referred to in my 2008 case against the News of the World, as I said at the time, and I still have absolutely no memory of it.
We did this in many different countries starting with the EU in the mid-1990s. We helped to transform the way road cars are built in Europe, greatly accelerating the adoption of major safety improvements. The Belgian government recently confirmed this has saved 78,000 EU lives over the last 20 years. For the past 15 years, we have been active globally, including persuading the United Nations to adopt the safety rules we successfully campaigned for in the European Parliament and the EU Commission back in 1997.
Increasingly, our work in emerging countries is taking effect and it is here that road casualties are most damaging. For example, 400 people die on the roads in India every day and, worldwide, road traffic is the biggest single killer of young people in the 15 to 24 age group. When you think how unbearably awful a road death is for a family, and multiply that by tens of thousands, you get an idea of how important that work has been.
I wonder if Dacre, Rothermere or Murdoch ever give that a moment’s thought? I doubt it.
My road safety work had been recognised by many international awards including the French Legion d’Honneur. So, apart from a much-publicised court case when I successfully sued the News of the World for invasion of privacy and criticism of me because of my parentage (including trying to blame me for the guests at my parents’ wedding), my work in motorsport and on road safety did not make for easy criticism. All the lies and spin they like to deploy were not going to help much in the face of my record. But they were desperate to get at Tom so, deprived of anything current, they decided to go back more than half a century.
What they did was attack me for helping my father’s political party, the Union Movement, during my time as a student between 1957 and 1963. They dug up every conceivable article and reference to try to label me a fascist and racist, notwithstanding that over the intervening 55 years I have repeatedly demonstrated that I am neither.
They made great use of a leaflet apparently issued when I was an election agent for my father’s party in 1961. It should never have been printed and I’m surprised that it bore my name but I had no recollection of it when it was referred to in my 2008 case against the News of the World, as I said at the time, and I still have absolutely no memory of it. It’s not something I would have approved of even in 1961 and is a million miles away from representing my views. The Mail’s attempt to use this ancient material in an attempt to undermine the press reforms I support is desperate stuff indeed.
'Putin's Work'
The all-out attack by the Daily Mailand the rest of Fleet Street went on for several days, with up to six photographers outside my house. Obviously, anyone would find the inaccuracies, smears and lies (and there were plenty of those) distressing, but, standing back, what this really demonstrates to me is how acutely worried the worst elements of the press are about S.40 and what Leveson 2 will reveal.
Dacre has a collection of failed hacks and ageing harpies to set on anyone he dislikes, and I am told this time he added the former News of the World blackmailer and phone hacker, Neville Thurlbeck, to his team. That’s a bit low, even for Dacre.
Only visceral fear would make them go to such lengths. Although we are aware of some of their criminality, only the newspapers themselves know just how extensive it is. Their lawyers will have told them what will happen to them if the truth gets out. The fury of their attack suggests to me that there may be a lot more to come than I had thought. It shows how serious they know the consequences will be if Leveson 2 reveals the full truth.
In the hope of fending off much-needed scrutiny, Dacre has rallied his supporters. Like Lenin, he has his useful idiots. These include the ridiculous faux toff, Jacob Rees-Mogg (who for some strange reason seems desperate to be taken for something he’s not) and the deeply inadequate Matt Hancock, whose attempts in the CMS Select Committee to wriggle out of his deception of parliament went viral on social media.
Another politician, Ruth Davidson, suggested in the Sunday Telegraph that my campaign for Leveson 2 and S.40 was “doing Putin’s work”. It takes a very special kind of obtuseness to describe a 530 to 13 vote in our Parliament, not to mention Sir Brian Leveson’s careful recommendations, as “Putin’s work”.
Then there’s the journalists. Dacre has a collection of failed hacks and ageing harpies to set on anyone he dislikes, and I am told this time he added the former News of the World blackmailer and phone hacker, Neville Thurlbeck, to his team. That’s a bit low, even for Dacre.
The Mail sent a hack all the way to South Africa hoping, I suspect, to find that Formula One profited from Apartheid. Instead, he is likely to have learned that we tried to move the SA grand prix to newly-independent Zimbabwe in 1982 and stopped it altogether after 1985. When it resumed following the end of Apartheid, Cyril Ramaphosa was at the race. He wanted to meet Murray Walker, so I introduced them, but that’s not the sort of story Dacre wanted.
One reason Dacre has been doing his utmost to destroy my reputation is because I fought back successfully when my privacy was illegally invaded by the News of the World and have campaigned ever since to reduce legal costs so that others can do the same without risking bankruptcy. The other reason is to discourage victims of Mail smears from suing by demonstrating how it can target its enemies on a huge scale. I believe it hopes to intimidate its victims, many of whom have strong cases.
The Problem of Oligopoly
What makes all this even more serious is our national press is an oligopoly. Two men, Rothermere and Murdoch, own more than half the entire online and print publications in the United Kingdom. Four proprietors account for 80% of copies sold. No rational adult would describe that as a free press. When those newspapers talk of press freedom, they mean freedom to ignore the rights of individuals in pursuit of profit for their proprietors.
And to describe (as they do) IPSO, their wholly-owned and controlled so-called regulator, as independent, is beyond parody. IPSO is there for the newspapers, not for the public. Their supporters among politicians know all this perfectly well but are prepared to accept blatant abuse of power in return for political support and, in some cases, silence about their peccadillos. What contemptible people.
Four proprietors account for 80% of copies sold. No rational adult would describe that as a free press. When those newspapers talk of press freedom, they mean freedom to ignore the rights of individuals in pursuit of profit for their proprietors.
In the end, we are all responsible for our actions. I would far rather take responsibility for my life (including the mistakes) than be a Murdoch or a Rothermere or the hired lowlifes like Dacre and Kelvin MacKenzie who do their dirty work for them. The nature of that work is perfectly illustrated in the recent Kerslake report on the Manchester bombing which also shows how absurd is the government’s claim that the press has reformed itself since the first part of the Leveson Inquiry.
After all that we await the vote in parliament on the cancellation of Leveson 2 as well as an application for Judicial Review by some of the victims of press abuse, challenging the government’s decisions to cancel Leveson 2 and not commence S.40. The government has yet to announce how it proposes to repeal S.40.
It is said that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We cannot learn from history unless it is available. The press, particularly the Daily Mail, only like to examine history when it suits their purposes. That’s why Leveson 2 is essential. Without it, the lessons will not be learned and press misconduct will continue unchecked.
Max Mosley is one of over a dozen shareholders in Byline Media Holdings Ltd owning less than 5% of the equity. He has never made any editorial comment or sought to interfere in any business decision. We are publishing his response in the public interest because of the unlikelihood it will be published fully elsewhere.
Byline is also a member of the Leveson compliant regulator IMPRESS, which is independently and transparently funded (according to the official Press Recognition Panel) by a charity established in the name of Mr Mosley's son.
Byline Investigations . 26 April 2018
Byline Investigations has uncovered evidence that up to six journalists were tasked to investigate Max Mosley a year ago, and held back material to coincide with the Government's decision on Leveson 2. For this reason, we are publishing his response with a declaration of interest beneath
AT THE end of February, Daily Mail readers must have thought something had gone haywire at their paper.
For several days, it ran page after page about me, sometimes up to eleven on one day, including the front cover, all about things that happened more than 50 years ago.
Some Mail readers would be vaguely aware that I had been involved in Formula One and had once sued the News of the World, but they would be quite unable to fathom why the Mail had suddenly become totally obsessed with me, a minor figure from the world of sport administration, and why their paper thought any of it at all interesting.
The explanation lies in two things that greatly alarm the Mail’s editor, Paul Dacre, one of which he blames entirely on me. They are the second part of the Leveson Inquiry and the independent press regulator, IMPRESS.
Having been recognised, IMPRESS makes possible Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act. The thought horrifies Dacre because S.40 means anyone, not just the very rich, could sue the Daily Mail for libel.
It’s anathema to him that an ordinary citizen might have access to justice when attacked by a national newspaper. And S.40, overwhelmingly supported by a 530 to 13 vote in the House of Commons, provides just that. My family charity has indirectly supplied most of the funding for IMPRESS, so Dacre blames me for the threat of S.40.
Neutralising Tom Watson
But perhaps more even than S.40, I believe he fears any continuing inquiry into the press. The Leveson Inquiry was put on hold until the phone-hacking trials had finished, but now that the second part can start, the serious criminality and other wrongdoing, so far concealed, can be exposed.
Like his fellow newspaper bosses, Dacre realises that if the full truth is revealed, there are likely to be severe repercussions. That is why the Sun, the Mirror, the Telegraph and the Sunday Times all joined his attack on me in what was quite clearly a coordinated campaign with, I suspect, the benefit of prior knowledge of the government’s plans.
But what, you may ask, does all this have to do with what I did 56 years ago? And why suddenly this massive attack at the end of February? What was the significance of that date?
It’s not just phone hacking, computer hacking, bribery and theft, other offences will emerge. For example, several newspaper witnesses are accused of lying on oath at the first part of the Leveson Inquiry. That could be serious.
And as Sir Brian Leveson said in his letter to the ministers: “conflicting (and irreconcilable) accounts were given by different people working within the same organisation” when they gave evidence on oath in the criminal trials. Details of perjury are bound to emerge in Leveson 2.
But what, you may ask, does all this have to do with what I did 56 years ago? And why suddenly this massive attack at the end of February? What was the significance of that date?
All became clear when on 1 March, after well over a year of prevarication, the government announced the cancellation of Leveson 2 and the intended repeal of S.40. They knew this would attract fierce criticism in Parliament and in the country.
After all, the government had solemnly promised the phone hacking victims that Leveson 2 would take place and everyone except the national press and their political allies fully understood that S.40 was needed to provide inexpensive justice for all (including local newspapers).
The press and ministers were desperate to hide or at least distract attention from this total capitulation. The major newspapers had forced a weak government to instruct its MPs to reverse the 530 to 13 votes for S.40 and also cancel Leveson 2, despite the then prime minister’s solemn promise to the newspapers’ victims.
One minister even tried to conceal from parliament that Sir Brian Leveson had written to the government saying he “fundamentally disagreed” with its decision to cancel Leveson 2.
With all these problems, certain newspapers, as well as the government, knew they needed somehow to neutralise the shadow secretary of state for the media, Tom Watson. Otherwise, he would expose what they were doing and rally parliament and the general public to stop them.
Knowing that a significant proportion of the funds for Tom Watson’s political office came from me, they set out to weaken him and distract the public by means of a massive attack on me. I believe that was the main reason for the utterly absurd amount of publicity over a number of days.
Track Record
But there was a problem. I had spent more than 50 years in various roles in British motorsport, helping to build it into a world-leading industry with a turnover of 9 billion GBP. And since 1991, more than 130 countries had repeatedly elected me president of the world governing body for all motorsport, not just Formula One.
On top of that, with a small group of colleagues and backed by the world’s major motoring organisations, I had spent the last 25 years working very successfully to save tens of thousands of lives on the public roads.
They made great use of a leaflet apparently issued when I was an election agent for my father’s party in 1961. It should never have been printed and I’m surprised that it bore my name but I had no recollection of it when it was referred to in my 2008 case against the News of the World, as I said at the time, and I still have absolutely no memory of it.
We did this in many different countries starting with the EU in the mid-1990s. We helped to transform the way road cars are built in Europe, greatly accelerating the adoption of major safety improvements. The Belgian government recently confirmed this has saved 78,000 EU lives over the last 20 years. For the past 15 years, we have been active globally, including persuading the United Nations to adopt the safety rules we successfully campaigned for in the European Parliament and the EU Commission back in 1997.
Increasingly, our work in emerging countries is taking effect and it is here that road casualties are most damaging. For example, 400 people die on the roads in India every day and, worldwide, road traffic is the biggest single killer of young people in the 15 to 24 age group. When you think how unbearably awful a road death is for a family, and multiply that by tens of thousands, you get an idea of how important that work has been.
I wonder if Dacre, Rothermere or Murdoch ever give that a moment’s thought? I doubt it.
My road safety work had been recognised by many international awards including the French Legion d’Honneur. So, apart from a much-publicised court case when I successfully sued the News of the World for invasion of privacy and criticism of me because of my parentage (including trying to blame me for the guests at my parents’ wedding), my work in motorsport and on road safety did not make for easy criticism. All the lies and spin they like to deploy were not going to help much in the face of my record. But they were desperate to get at Tom so, deprived of anything current, they decided to go back more than half a century.
What they did was attack me for helping my father’s political party, the Union Movement, during my time as a student between 1957 and 1963. They dug up every conceivable article and reference to try to label me a fascist and racist, notwithstanding that over the intervening 55 years I have repeatedly demonstrated that I am neither.
They made great use of a leaflet apparently issued when I was an election agent for my father’s party in 1961. It should never have been printed and I’m surprised that it bore my name but I had no recollection of it when it was referred to in my 2008 case against the News of the World, as I said at the time, and I still have absolutely no memory of it. It’s not something I would have approved of even in 1961 and is a million miles away from representing my views. The Mail’s attempt to use this ancient material in an attempt to undermine the press reforms I support is desperate stuff indeed.
'Putin's Work'
The all-out attack by the Daily Mailand the rest of Fleet Street went on for several days, with up to six photographers outside my house. Obviously, anyone would find the inaccuracies, smears and lies (and there were plenty of those) distressing, but, standing back, what this really demonstrates to me is how acutely worried the worst elements of the press are about S.40 and what Leveson 2 will reveal.
Dacre has a collection of failed hacks and ageing harpies to set on anyone he dislikes, and I am told this time he added the former News of the World blackmailer and phone hacker, Neville Thurlbeck, to his team. That’s a bit low, even for Dacre.
Only visceral fear would make them go to such lengths. Although we are aware of some of their criminality, only the newspapers themselves know just how extensive it is. Their lawyers will have told them what will happen to them if the truth gets out. The fury of their attack suggests to me that there may be a lot more to come than I had thought. It shows how serious they know the consequences will be if Leveson 2 reveals the full truth.
In the hope of fending off much-needed scrutiny, Dacre has rallied his supporters. Like Lenin, he has his useful idiots. These include the ridiculous faux toff, Jacob Rees-Mogg (who for some strange reason seems desperate to be taken for something he’s not) and the deeply inadequate Matt Hancock, whose attempts in the CMS Select Committee to wriggle out of his deception of parliament went viral on social media.
Another politician, Ruth Davidson, suggested in the Sunday Telegraph that my campaign for Leveson 2 and S.40 was “doing Putin’s work”. It takes a very special kind of obtuseness to describe a 530 to 13 vote in our Parliament, not to mention Sir Brian Leveson’s careful recommendations, as “Putin’s work”.
Then there’s the journalists. Dacre has a collection of failed hacks and ageing harpies to set on anyone he dislikes, and I am told this time he added the former News of the World blackmailer and phone hacker, Neville Thurlbeck, to his team. That’s a bit low, even for Dacre.
The Mail sent a hack all the way to South Africa hoping, I suspect, to find that Formula One profited from Apartheid. Instead, he is likely to have learned that we tried to move the SA grand prix to newly-independent Zimbabwe in 1982 and stopped it altogether after 1985. When it resumed following the end of Apartheid, Cyril Ramaphosa was at the race. He wanted to meet Murray Walker, so I introduced them, but that’s not the sort of story Dacre wanted.
One reason Dacre has been doing his utmost to destroy my reputation is because I fought back successfully when my privacy was illegally invaded by the News of the World and have campaigned ever since to reduce legal costs so that others can do the same without risking bankruptcy. The other reason is to discourage victims of Mail smears from suing by demonstrating how it can target its enemies on a huge scale. I believe it hopes to intimidate its victims, many of whom have strong cases.
The Problem of Oligopoly
What makes all this even more serious is our national press is an oligopoly. Two men, Rothermere and Murdoch, own more than half the entire online and print publications in the United Kingdom. Four proprietors account for 80% of copies sold. No rational adult would describe that as a free press. When those newspapers talk of press freedom, they mean freedom to ignore the rights of individuals in pursuit of profit for their proprietors.
And to describe (as they do) IPSO, their wholly-owned and controlled so-called regulator, as independent, is beyond parody. IPSO is there for the newspapers, not for the public. Their supporters among politicians know all this perfectly well but are prepared to accept blatant abuse of power in return for political support and, in some cases, silence about their peccadillos. What contemptible people.
Four proprietors account for 80% of copies sold. No rational adult would describe that as a free press. When those newspapers talk of press freedom, they mean freedom to ignore the rights of individuals in pursuit of profit for their proprietors.
In the end, we are all responsible for our actions. I would far rather take responsibility for my life (including the mistakes) than be a Murdoch or a Rothermere or the hired lowlifes like Dacre and Kelvin MacKenzie who do their dirty work for them. The nature of that work is perfectly illustrated in the recent Kerslake report on the Manchester bombing which also shows how absurd is the government’s claim that the press has reformed itself since the first part of the Leveson Inquiry.
After all that we await the vote in parliament on the cancellation of Leveson 2 as well as an application for Judicial Review by some of the victims of press abuse, challenging the government’s decisions to cancel Leveson 2 and not commence S.40. The government has yet to announce how it proposes to repeal S.40.
It is said that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We cannot learn from history unless it is available. The press, particularly the Daily Mail, only like to examine history when it suits their purposes. That’s why Leveson 2 is essential. Without it, the lessons will not be learned and press misconduct will continue unchecked.
Max Mosley is one of over a dozen shareholders in Byline Media Holdings Ltd owning less than 5% of the equity. He has never made any editorial comment or sought to interfere in any business decision. We are publishing his response in the public interest because of the unlikelihood it will be published fully elsewhere.
Byline is also a member of the Leveson compliant regulator IMPRESS, which is independently and transparently funded (according to the official Press Recognition Panel) by a charity established in the name of Mr Mosley's son.
Gove trying to gain political capital out of people's misery and suffering, typical Tory deflective behaviour. Next he will be blaming those that suffered from this 'get the immigrants' Tory policy for their situation .
Commonwealth immigration
Labour 'weaponising Windrush to distract from antisemitism row'
Michael Gove defends Amber Rudd over internal Home Office memo about removal targets
Damien Gayle
@damiengayle
Sat 28 Apr 2018 10.42 BSTFirst published on Sat 28 Apr 2018 10.38 BST
Michael Gove: ‘There does seem to be a series of leaks, or sharing with the Guardian in particular, that is designed to serve a particular agenda.’ Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA
The home secretary did not see the internal Home Office memo that boasted of exceeding the department’s target for immigration removals, Michael Gove has claimed, as he suggested that Labour had “weaponised” the Windrush scandal to distract from its own row over antisemitism.
The environment secretary, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Saturday, said Amber Rudd did not receive the document despite it having been copied to her and Brandon Lewis, then immigration minister, and several civil servants and political aides.
The six-page memo, revealed on Friday by the Guardian, says the department had set “a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017-18”, boasts that “we have exceeded our target of assisted returns”, and adds that progress had been made on increasing enforced removals by 10%.
The issue has become particularly toxic because of coverage of the Windrush generation of migrants from the Caribbean. Many have been left destitute or homeless, and denied benefits and healthcare because of the Home Office’s “hostile environment” policies targeting migrants.
Backing Rudd’s own claims on Twitter that she had simply missed the document, Gove said: “What we are witnessing is an example of government not functioning as it should have done, and that’s something for which the home secretary has taken responsibility.
“There does seem to be a series of leaks, or sharing with the Guardian in particular, that is designed to serve a particular agenda … There’s a campaign against the government and against the home secretary. What’s not surprising is that this happens at the same time as the Labour party is mired in allegations of it’s failure to deal with antisemitism.”
“This is about politics,” Gove said. “And the focus on whether or not a particular document that was cc’d to a particular address was then put in a particular box at a particular time – and we know it wasn’t – is intended to distract from the difficulties that the Labour party faces with handling prejudice in its own ranks.”
“Labour are attempting to weaponise this. I think that is quite wrong.”
The shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, said Rudd should have been prepared to accept responsibility for what had happened. “I am just surprised that she doesn’t seem to take the issue seriously enough to offer her resignation,” she told Today.
The decision to set a “broad numerical target” could have contributed to the Windrush fiasco, Abbott said. “It wasn’t saying, for instance, we have to have a target for deporting former criminals. The danger is that that very broad target put pressure on Home Office officials to bundle Jamaican grandmothers into detention centres.”
Rudd is to be recalled to give evidence to the Commons home affairs committee, after she responded to the leaked document in a series of tweets late on Friday night insisting she had not seen the leaked memo, “although it was copied to my office, as many documents are”.
She repeated her claim that she “wasn’t aware of specific removal targets” and said: “I accept I should have been and I’m sorry that I wasn’t.”
The Labour chair of the home affairs committee, Yvette Cooper, told Today: “We have obviously been given inaccurate information to parliament twice now. This is a serious concern and I am calling Amber Rudd to come back and give further evidence to the committee.
“I think we will also want to hear from the permanent secretary as well, because this raises some questions about the way the Home Office is operating.”
Commonwealth immigration
Labour 'weaponising Windrush to distract from antisemitism row'
Michael Gove defends Amber Rudd over internal Home Office memo about removal targets
Damien Gayle
@damiengayle
Sat 28 Apr 2018 10.42 BSTFirst published on Sat 28 Apr 2018 10.38 BST
Michael Gove: ‘There does seem to be a series of leaks, or sharing with the Guardian in particular, that is designed to serve a particular agenda.’ Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA
The home secretary did not see the internal Home Office memo that boasted of exceeding the department’s target for immigration removals, Michael Gove has claimed, as he suggested that Labour had “weaponised” the Windrush scandal to distract from its own row over antisemitism.
The environment secretary, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Saturday, said Amber Rudd did not receive the document despite it having been copied to her and Brandon Lewis, then immigration minister, and several civil servants and political aides.
The six-page memo, revealed on Friday by the Guardian, says the department had set “a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017-18”, boasts that “we have exceeded our target of assisted returns”, and adds that progress had been made on increasing enforced removals by 10%.
The issue has become particularly toxic because of coverage of the Windrush generation of migrants from the Caribbean. Many have been left destitute or homeless, and denied benefits and healthcare because of the Home Office’s “hostile environment” policies targeting migrants.
Backing Rudd’s own claims on Twitter that she had simply missed the document, Gove said: “What we are witnessing is an example of government not functioning as it should have done, and that’s something for which the home secretary has taken responsibility.
“There does seem to be a series of leaks, or sharing with the Guardian in particular, that is designed to serve a particular agenda … There’s a campaign against the government and against the home secretary. What’s not surprising is that this happens at the same time as the Labour party is mired in allegations of it’s failure to deal with antisemitism.”
“This is about politics,” Gove said. “And the focus on whether or not a particular document that was cc’d to a particular address was then put in a particular box at a particular time – and we know it wasn’t – is intended to distract from the difficulties that the Labour party faces with handling prejudice in its own ranks.”
“Labour are attempting to weaponise this. I think that is quite wrong.”
The shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, said Rudd should have been prepared to accept responsibility for what had happened. “I am just surprised that she doesn’t seem to take the issue seriously enough to offer her resignation,” she told Today.
The decision to set a “broad numerical target” could have contributed to the Windrush fiasco, Abbott said. “It wasn’t saying, for instance, we have to have a target for deporting former criminals. The danger is that that very broad target put pressure on Home Office officials to bundle Jamaican grandmothers into detention centres.”
Rudd is to be recalled to give evidence to the Commons home affairs committee, after she responded to the leaked document in a series of tweets late on Friday night insisting she had not seen the leaked memo, “although it was copied to my office, as many documents are”.
She repeated her claim that she “wasn’t aware of specific removal targets” and said: “I accept I should have been and I’m sorry that I wasn’t.”
The Labour chair of the home affairs committee, Yvette Cooper, told Today: “We have obviously been given inaccurate information to parliament twice now. This is a serious concern and I am calling Amber Rudd to come back and give further evidence to the committee.
“I think we will also want to hear from the permanent secretary as well, because this raises some questions about the way the Home Office is operating.”
frightening this despicable rat could be rudd's replacementGove trying to gain political capital out of people's misery and suffering, typical Tory deflective behaviour. Next he will be blaming those that suffered from this 'get the immigrants' Tory policy for their situation .
Commonwealth immigration
Labour 'weaponising Windrush to distract from antisemitism row'
Michael Gove defends Amber Rudd over internal Home Office memo about removal targets
Damien Gayle
@damiengayle
Sat 28 Apr 2018 10.42 BSTFirst published on Sat 28 Apr 2018 10.38 BST
Michael Gove: ‘There does seem to be a series of leaks, or sharing with the Guardian in particular, that is designed to serve a particular agenda.’ Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA
The home secretary did not see the internal Home Office memo that boasted of exceeding the department’s target for immigration removals, Michael Gove has claimed, as he suggested that Labour had “weaponised” the Windrush scandal to distract from its own row over antisemitism.
The environment secretary, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Saturday, said Amber Rudd did not receive the document despite it having been copied to her and Brandon Lewis, then immigration minister, and several civil servants and political aides.
The six-page memo, revealed on Friday by the Guardian, says the department had set “a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017-18”, boasts that “we have exceeded our target of assisted returns”, and adds that progress had been made on increasing enforced removals by 10%.
The issue has become particularly toxic because of coverage of the Windrush generation of migrants from the Caribbean. Many have been left destitute or homeless, and denied benefits and healthcare because of the Home Office’s “hostile environment” policies targeting migrants.
Backing Rudd’s own claims on Twitter that she had simply missed the document, Gove said: “What we are witnessing is an example of government not functioning as it should have done, and that’s something for which the home secretary has taken responsibility.
“There does seem to be a series of leaks, or sharing with the Guardian in particular, that is designed to serve a particular agenda … There’s a campaign against the government and against the home secretary. What’s not surprising is that this happens at the same time as the Labour party is mired in allegations of it’s failure to deal with antisemitism.”
“This is about politics,” Gove said. “And the focus on whether or not a particular document that was cc’d to a particular address was then put in a particular box at a particular time – and we know it wasn’t – is intended to distract from the difficulties that the Labour party faces with handling prejudice in its own ranks.”
“Labour are attempting to weaponise this. I think that is quite wrong.”
The shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, said Rudd should have been prepared to accept responsibility for what had happened. “I am just surprised that she doesn’t seem to take the issue seriously enough to offer her resignation,” she told Today.
The decision to set a “broad numerical target” could have contributed to the Windrush fiasco, Abbott said. “It wasn’t saying, for instance, we have to have a target for deporting former criminals. The danger is that that very broad target put pressure on Home Office officials to bundle Jamaican grandmothers into detention centres.”
Rudd is to be recalled to give evidence to the Commons home affairs committee, after she responded to the leaked document in a series of tweets late on Friday night insisting she had not seen the leaked memo, “although it was copied to my office, as many documents are”.
She repeated her claim that she “wasn’t aware of specific removal targets” and said: “I accept I should have been and I’m sorry that I wasn’t.”
The Labour chair of the home affairs committee, Yvette Cooper, told Today: “We have obviously been given inaccurate information to parliament twice now. This is a serious concern and I am calling Amber Rudd to come back and give further evidence to the committee.
“I think we will also want to hear from the permanent secretary as well, because this raises some questions about the way the Home Office is operating.”
As far as I can make out Gove's biggest contribution to UK politics was that time he fell on his arse walking up Downing street
Homelessness crisis: Number staying in B&Bs 1,000% higher than stats released by govt, report says
Homelessness crisis: Number staying in B&Bs 1,000% higher than stats released by govt, report says
Published time: 27 Apr, 2018 14:19Edited time: 28 Apr, 2018 09:09
[URL='https://on.rt.com/946f']Get short URL
Sleeping rough in the snow. © Daniel Bockwoldt / Global Look Press
Using data gathered from Freedom of Information requests to local authorities, along with other information from the government's Rural and Urban Classification for Local Authority Districts data, Justlife estimates that at least 51,500 people were living in B&Bs in the year to April 2016. Government figures show that a mere 5,870 official B&B placements were recorded.
One B&B resident, referred to in the report as Malcolm, told of his experience of living in temporary accommodation for 18 months. “I'm totally depressed living there,” he said. You can't have anything nice. Things just go missing.
“You see, there aren't working locks on all the doors. In my room there are bare wires hanging out and I have no light. I also feel quite vulnerable because anyone can get in or is let in and it gets me down.”
Justlife’s findings follow a separate investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that revealed that 78 homeless people died last winter – an average of at least two a week. Fatalities included rough sleepers, and people staying in temporary accommodation either at their own cost or thanks to a local council authority.
Read more
Rough-sleeper deaths double in five years, govt accused of ‘pitiful response’
Author of the Justlife report Christa Maciver said: “We can no longer ignore the tens of thousands of people stuck homeless, hidden and ignored in our cities. This report shows there is so much we don’t know and that we really need to be calculating homelessness more accurately.
“Very few seem to care about the vulnerable people who end up in B&Bs, hostels and guesthouses. Once they are there they are forgotten and it’s almost like we forget they are people.
“Their mental and physical health gets worse, and many can end up dead, but because they have a roof over their head – no matter how insecure – they are not counted within homelessness, when they should be. Only if we acknowledge the problem will we really be able to start finding solutions.”
Justlife’s findings are yet another blow to the government’s homelessness policies. A report commissioned by Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), released earlier this month, estimated that over 100,000 households would be living in temporary accommodation by the year 2020. The government of Theresa May has vowed to halve rough sleeping by 2022, and eliminate it altogether by 2027 – a pledge that now seems ever harder to achieve.
Responding to the findings, a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “Everyone deserves a safe and decent place to live, and we are providing more than £1.2 billion (US$1.65 billion) to ensure homeless people get the support they need.
“To ensure they can access permanent accommodation, we are also investing £2 billion in social rent housing and allowing councils to borrow more to build homes. In addition, the Homelessness Reduction Act came into force this month, requiring councils to help those at risk of being homeless sooner.”
[/URL]
Homelessness crisis: Number staying in B&Bs 1,000% higher than stats released by govt, report says
Published time: 27 Apr, 2018 14:19Edited time: 28 Apr, 2018 09:09
[URL='https://on.rt.com/946f']Get short URL
Sleeping rough in the snow. © Daniel Bockwoldt / Global Look Press
- 471
Using data gathered from Freedom of Information requests to local authorities, along with other information from the government's Rural and Urban Classification for Local Authority Districts data, Justlife estimates that at least 51,500 people were living in B&Bs in the year to April 2016. Government figures show that a mere 5,870 official B&B placements were recorded.
One B&B resident, referred to in the report as Malcolm, told of his experience of living in temporary accommodation for 18 months. “I'm totally depressed living there,” he said. You can't have anything nice. Things just go missing.
“You see, there aren't working locks on all the doors. In my room there are bare wires hanging out and I have no light. I also feel quite vulnerable because anyone can get in or is let in and it gets me down.”
Justlife’s findings follow a separate investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that revealed that 78 homeless people died last winter – an average of at least two a week. Fatalities included rough sleepers, and people staying in temporary accommodation either at their own cost or thanks to a local council authority.
Read more
Rough-sleeper deaths double in five years, govt accused of ‘pitiful response’Author of the Justlife report Christa Maciver said: “We can no longer ignore the tens of thousands of people stuck homeless, hidden and ignored in our cities. This report shows there is so much we don’t know and that we really need to be calculating homelessness more accurately.
“Very few seem to care about the vulnerable people who end up in B&Bs, hostels and guesthouses. Once they are there they are forgotten and it’s almost like we forget they are people.
“Their mental and physical health gets worse, and many can end up dead, but because they have a roof over their head – no matter how insecure – they are not counted within homelessness, when they should be. Only if we acknowledge the problem will we really be able to start finding solutions.”
Justlife’s findings are yet another blow to the government’s homelessness policies. A report commissioned by Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), released earlier this month, estimated that over 100,000 households would be living in temporary accommodation by the year 2020. The government of Theresa May has vowed to halve rough sleeping by 2022, and eliminate it altogether by 2027 – a pledge that now seems ever harder to achieve.
Responding to the findings, a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “Everyone deserves a safe and decent place to live, and we are providing more than £1.2 billion (US$1.65 billion) to ensure homeless people get the support they need.
“To ensure they can access permanent accommodation, we are also investing £2 billion in social rent housing and allowing councils to borrow more to build homes. In addition, the Homelessness Reduction Act came into force this month, requiring councils to help those at risk of being homeless sooner.”
[/URL]
Time for a general election.
Commonwealth immigration
Tory chairman says he discussed deportations with Amber Rudd
Brandon Lewis’s claims appear to contradict home secretary’s denial of existence of targets
Rajeev Syal
Sun 29 Apr 2018 11.16 BST Last modified on Sun 29 Apr 2018 11.55 BST
Commonwealth immigration
Tory chairman says he discussed deportations with Amber Rudd
Brandon Lewis’s claims appear to contradict home secretary’s denial of existence of targets
Rajeev Syal
Sun 29 Apr 2018 11.16 BST Last modified on Sun 29 Apr 2018 11.55 BST
- Amber Rudd while a minister in her department, increasing pressure on the home secretary to resign.
- The Conservative party chairman said he had seen the memo that was leaked to the Guardian on Friday and said he had talked to Rudd about “ambitions” to increase the number of people deported from Britain.
Lewis’s claims appear to contradict Rudd’s evidence to the home affairs select committee last Wednesday, when she was asked when targets for removals were set. Rudd told the committee: “We do not have targets for removals.”
Interviewed on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Lewis said he had discussed increasing the number of removals with Rudd.
“[The memo] was outlining the figures from the previous year and the team outlining to me in the context of wanting to see that 10% increase in removals of illegal migrants and foreign national offenders,” he said.
Marr told Lewis that Rudd had told parliament: “We don’t have targets for removal … If you are asking me are there numbers of people we expect to be removed, that is not how we operate.”
“Isn’t that a target?” Marr asked.
Lewis replied that Rudd’s words to the committee were replying to specific questions about local targets, not overall ambitions for the Home Office.
“If you look at the questions she was being asked [by the committee], she was being asked about the localised, regional, internal, effectively the KPIs [key performance indicators] the immigration enforcement agency was using and, no, she was not aware of that,” he said.
“I have been in a room with Amber Rudd talking about increasing the number of returns but Amber Rudd and I have never discussed particular numbers in the way that was outlined in the home affairs select committee.”
Rudd has been under intense pressure to resign since the document was leaked to the Guardian on Friday.
The six-page memo said the department has set “a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017-18” and boasts that “we have exceeded our target of assisted returns”.
It adds that progress has been made on a “path towards the 10% increased performance on enforced returns, which we promised the home secretary earlier this year”.
The document was prepared by Hugh Ind, the director general of the Home Office’s immigration enforcement agency, in June last year and copied to Rudd and Lewis, the then immigration minister, as well as several senior civil servants and special advisers.
The home secretary insisted on Friday night that she had not seen the leaked memo “although it was copied to my office, as many documents are”.
She repeated her claim that she “wasn’t aware of specific removal targets”, adding: “I accept I should have been and I’m sorry that I wasn’t.”
She promised to make a fresh statement to MPs on Monday about the affair, and concluded: “As home secretary I will work to ensure that our immigration policy is fair and humane.”
More than 200 MPs have written to Theresa May urging her to enshrine promises made to Windrush generation in law, keeping the pressure on the prime minister as she fights to contain the crisis.
The letter, which is predominantly backed by Labour MPs, also accuses Amber Rudd of making up immigration policy “on the hoof” in a bid to ride out the scandal.
The home secretary is facing a barrage of calls to resign, including from the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, writing in the Observer, with critics accusing her of mishandling the Windrush row and apparently being unaware of the Home Office’s use of targets for removing illegal immigrants.
Khan told ITV’s Peston On Sunday: “I think this is a question not just of competence, it’s also a question of conduct. But also I think there needs to be an acceptance that what has happened to the Windrush generation isn’t an anomaly, it’s not due to an administrative error. It’s a consequence of the hostile environment created by this government.”
A senior Conservative minister appealed to ethnic minority voters not to abandon the party in this week’s local elections over the Windrush scandal.
Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, whose parents emigrated from Pakistan in the 1960s, said his first reaction when he heard people were being wrongly threatened with deportation was that it could have been his family.
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, he said the government was committed to putting things right and he urged ethnic minority voters to look at the bigger picture when it came to Thursday’s vote.
Labour, however, made clear there would be no let-up on the pressure on Rudd, who apologised on Friday in a series of late-night tweets for not knowing the Home Office did use immigration targets, when she had previously said it did not.
She said she had not seen a memo referring to the targets, even though it was copied to her office.
TheBlueGibbon
Player Valuation: £40m
Both Rudd and May knew about the targets.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...als-ambitious-but-deliverable-removals-target
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...als-ambitious-but-deliverable-removals-target
There's no doubt they all knew in that rat haven at Tory hq, plausible deniability, two most important words to any self serving politician
Raging Otter
Player Valuation: Free Transfer
This is implausible deniability though - we all know there were targets, they admit in these bits of internal correspondence that there are targets and the whole system can only have worked in the way that it did because targets had been set.
Even Rudd going probably won’t fix this now.
Caught lying again
- Status