Is May's 'Hostile Environment Reminiscent Of Nazi Germany

The problem with many targets set in both public and private sector is that they might encourage behavior that wasn't intended. If people get paid by number of successful deportations they will scour the whole country for potential deportees and innocent people will be caught up in this.

If company managers are rewarded based on total sales revenue, they will sell regardless of quality of business and often turn to window-dressing, flattering the accounts one period which is reversed the next etc. There have to be check and balances in every incentive scheme.

I always assumed that ministers in their weekly(?) operations meetings will ask how many successful deportation there were the week or month before. After all they have a target to reduce immigration....

The Home Office has lost the plot and are now targetting British Citizens who were born in the UK. This is very worrying.

Briton who has never left the UK is ordered to move to Uganda by bungling Home Office bosses - despite being born in SHREWSBURY

That is the point i was seeking to make. You cannot put a target on human being. It is an unethical practice and likely to result in innocent victims.

You can put performance target on application processing, on how quickly to answer calls. However you cannot put target on how many people should be deported, as there are many factors that may undermine immediate deportation, and if you put target, enforcement officials are likely to target innocent people in order to meet those targets.

Therefore i believe it is wrong to set targets.

Obie wrote: ↑

Wed May 02, 2018 3:46 pm

That is the point i was seeking to make. You cannot put a target on human being. It is an unethical practice and likely to result in innocent victims.

You can put performance target on application processing, on how quickly to answer calls. However you cannot put target on how many people should be deported, as there are many factors that may undermine immediate deportation, and if you put target, enforcement officials are likely to target innocent people in order to meet those targets.

Therefore i believe it is wrong to set targets.

Yes, I agree with you Obie.

Obie wrote: ↑

Wed May 02, 2018 3:46 pm

That is the point i was seeking to make. You cannot put a target on human being. It is an unethical practice and likely to result in innocent victims.

You can put performance target on application processing, on how quickly to answer calls. However you cannot put target on how many people should be deported, as there are many factors that may undermine immediate deportation, and if you put target, enforcement officials are likely to target innocent people in order to meet those targets.

Therefore i believe it is wrong to set targets.

Agreed. There is always the human element in all of this. There is always the potential risk of some innocents being swept up. This could be by accident or design.

It must surely follow therefore that the issue is not targets per se but the manner in which the process is executed.

There may be 2 different issues here. Firstly, should there be targets to apprehend and deport illegal immigrants. The answer to that is yes.

The second issue is having a very clear, auditable and fair process by which those "illegals" identified are dealt with. Suitable and appropriate checks and balances must be in place.

Its regretable that this situation has even arisen. However those illegals in the country must be rooted out and sent on their way. Unfortunately this very website gives advice to self confessed illegals. Maybe we should be getting our own house in order first.

FXR_1340 wrote: ↑

Wed May 02, 2018 5:02 pm

Obie wrote: ↑

Wed May 02, 2018 3:46 pm

That is the point i was seeking to make. You cannot put a target on human being. It is an unethical practice and likely to result in innocent victims.

You can put performance target on application processing, on how quickly to answer calls. However you cannot put target on how many people should be deported, as there are many factors that may undermine immediate deportation, and if you put target, enforcement officials are likely to target innocent people in order to meet those targets.

Therefore i believe it is wrong to set targets.

Agreed. There is always the human element in all of this. There is always the potential risk of some innocents being swept up. This could be by accident or design.

It must surely follow therefore that the issue is not targets per se but the manner in which the process is executed.

There may be 2 different issues here. Firstly, should there be targets to apprehend and deport illegal immigrants. The answer to that is yes.

The second issue is having a very clear, auditable and fair process by which those "illegals" identified are dealt with. Suitable and appropriate checks and balances must be in place.

Its regretable that this situation has even arisen. However those illegals in the country must be rooted out and sent on their way. Unfortunately this very website gives advice to self confessed illegals. Maybe we should be getting our own house in order first.

Yes, agree. As usual the problem lies with turning a blind eye to the people gaming the system, -- ruining it for everyone else who make the sacrifices, enter legally, and follow the rules (regardless of whether anyone agree with the rules or not).

FXR_1340 wrote: ↑

Wed May 02, 2018 5:02 pm

Agreed. There is always the human element in all of this. There is always the potential risk of some innocents being swept up. This could be by accident or design.

It must surely follow therefore that the issue is not targets per se but the manner in which the process is executed.

There may be 2 different issues here. Firstly, should there be targets to apprehend and deport illegal immigrants. The answer to that is yes.

The second issue is having a very clear, auditable and fair process by which those "illegals" identified are dealt with. Suitable and appropriate checks and balances must be in place.

Its regretable that this situation has even arisen. However those illegals in the country must be rooted out and sent on their way. Unfortunately this very website gives advice to self confessed illegals. Maybe we should be getting our own house in order first.

This Forum makes no apologies for assisting an advising undocumented migrant and it will continue to do so. Advising migrant is not a criminal offense the last time i checked the law book, otherwise all lawyers will be criminalised.

It is the right of all undocumented migrants to be advised as to their rights, and this will continue. If anyone advises a migrant to commit deception, then tell me or my fellow moderators and we will take necessary steps, but no one has any right to stop us from advising all migrant irrespective of their status in the UK. In any event we are not here to police UK immigration. I see undocumented migrant as humans first and undocumented second.

Coming to the topic in discussion. If i am an employee and my employer set me a target, then i will bend over backward to ensure it is met.

So take for example an enforcement team being given a target, they will naturally do all that they can to ensure it is met, otherwise it will rightly appear as if they are not pulling their weight. They ability of the officer to meet such target will depend on intelligence and other factors. If an undocumented person go on ground they clearly will not be caught. If the team want to meet their target, they will wrongly go for the windrush people, or other visible migrant in pursuit of their targets.

Obie wrote: ↑

Wed May 02, 2018 5:52 pm

FXR_1340 wrote: ↑

Wed May 02, 2018 5:02 pm

Agreed. There is always the human element in all of this. There is always the potential risk of some innocents being swept up. This could be by accident or design.

It must surely follow therefore that the issue is not targets per se but the manner in which the process is executed.

There may be 2 different issues here. Firstly, should there be targets to apprehend and deport illegal immigrants. The answer to that is yes.

The second issue is having a very clear, auditable and fair process by which those "illegals" identified are dealt with. Suitable and appropriate checks and balances must be in place.

Its regretable that this situation has even arisen. However those illegals in the country must be rooted out and sent on their way. Unfortunately this very website gives advice to self confessed illegals. Maybe we should be getting our own house in order first.

This Forum makes no apologies for assisting an advising undocumented migrant and it will continue to do so. Advising migrant is not a criminal offense the last time i checked the law book, otherwise all lawyers will be criminalised.

It is the right of all undocumented migrants to be advised as to their rights, and this will continue. If anyone advises a migrant to commit deception, then tell me or my fellow moderators and we will take necessary steps, but no one has any right to stop us from advising all migrant irrespective of their status in the UK. In any event we are not here to police UK immigration. I see undocumented migrant as humans first and undocumented second.

Coming to the topic in discussion. If i am an employee and my employer set me a target, then i will bend over backward to ensure it is met.

So take for example an enforcement team being given a target, they will naturally do all that they can to ensure it is met, otherwise it will rightly appear as if they are not pulling their weight. They ability of the officer to meet such target will depend on intelligence and other factors. If an undocumented person go on ground they clearly will not be caught. If the team want to meet their target, they will wrongly go for the windrush people, or other visible migrant in pursuit of their targets.

There is a lot about "rights" here and nothing about responsibility. Its reasonable to expect consideration of both. Also, it can be argued that assisting illegal (undocumented doesnt cut it) immigrants actually feeds the gremlin that is the deportation of the innocents. There is a very strong link there.

Illegal immigrants must be apprehended and deported. Its that simple. As mentioned before it is those people who are a big part in the immigration mess UK suffers. Those who follow due process and have their application approved should be welcomed with open arms. In addition those who are wrongly denied should have access to the means to challenge such a decision.

I would agree with your closing statement about going after easy and often inappropriate targets like Windrush. There must be appropriate checks and balances to ensure only those who are correctly identified as illegal are deported.

FXR_1340 wrote: ↑

Tue May 01, 2018 3:53 pm

where the problem is in respect of having quantative targets to remove those who reside in UK illegally?

You've just answered your own question:

FXR_1340 wrote: ↑

Tue May 01, 2018 3:53 pm

the targets and criteria for being identified as illegal are stretched. It is wholely unfair and unreasonable to reach targets by sweeping up easy targets and deporting them.

FXR_1340 wrote: ↑

Wed May 02, 2018 6:47 pm

There is a lot about "rights" here and nothing about responsibility.

Wow, now that is an innovative, yet very old-fashioned thought. Individual rights are balanced by responsibilities (what my brother calls "obligations")!!!

In the Western world, states and corporate entities (the BBC, your local council, the local school) have duties and individuals have rights to exercise against the tyranny of those corporate bodies and against each other. Individual duties??? Don't be silly. You obviously have not assimilated sufficiently into the Western liberal worldview.

A discussion that starts with a Reductio ad Hitlerum may require moderation and help to be well-rounded and analyse all sides.

Nobody observed that it is ironic that the "hostile environment" (now renamed the "compliant environment") is an import from that most liberal of places, Europe. I will make abundantly clear that it has nothing to do with the EU. But there is an expectation in most countries in continental Europe for people to carry papers that prove their right to reside in that country. Within Europe, the British Isles and Scandinavia are the main exceptions to this rule, primarily because it seems to be a civil law tradition and not a common law one. Indeed, part of the reason for the difference in behaviour between the UK, Ireland and Scandanavia on the one hand and the rest of the European countries on the other is likely that none of the former were conquered by that great unifier of Europe, Napoleon.

That far-right rag the Grauniad observed in 2015 that "On one point refugees and aid workers agree – it is easier to live under the radar in Britain because we do not have ID cards. In France and every other European country with a Napoleonic code, you cannot access public services or find work without a card. In common-law England, you can just about muddle along." (link).

It is also worth noting that it was not Theresa May who originated the idea of people in the UK being required to possess documentation. Indeed, at one time, she campaigned against the idea. So she can be accused of hypocrisy, but not of its origin.

Not everybody on these forums will recall that it was during the previous Labour government, the Blair years, that the Identity Cards Act 2006 was passed, which would have required everybody in the UK to have a biometric card and be registered on the National Identity Register. That such a requirement would apply to even British citizens was exploited by the Conservatives during their 2010 electoral campaign and when the Coalition took power in 2010, that Act was repealed. But the idea had already gestated by then.

It is worth noting that David Lammy was a minister in that government (though not in the Home Office) and would have voted for the Identity Cards Act 2006 (under the principle of collective responsibility). So, if Theresa May can be accused of hypocracy, so can he.

Citizenship has been called "the right to have rights". If one is exercising a right (such as the right to reside or work in the UK), surely it is reasonable to ask one to prove whether they actually have the right to exercise that right.

It is difficult to have a half way position on these kind of debate. I do not believe in mediocrity or middle-of-the-road stance.

It is either a person is on the Wanderer side of the debate, and believes the UK is full and the windrush people have been treated fairly, or they are on the moral and ethical side of the argument.

I do not think there is a Moral equivalence between Labour party policy on ID card and the disgraceful and abhorrent treatment of the windrush migrant, or the Tories policy on the targets and hostile environment which led to the scandal.

One is a party policy approach which labour put in their manifesto, was voted by the labour party. The windrush may well be a policy, but it is opaque, secretive , with little transparency, we only know about the destruction of landing cards, refusal of cancer treatment, threat of deportation, indefinite detention. It is very hard to see the moral equivalence between that and the ID card issue.

For the avoidance of doubt, i did not agree with ID cards, i thought it would make UK into countries like Netherland, Italy, however I did not feel as strongly about it as i feel the Windrush scandal.

I am not a great fan of David Lammy, he had visited my secondary school when i was younger, and i was dissappointed with him, that he was not forceful enough in regards to changes in our curriculum, however i am with him on the position he has taken on the windrush scandal, and i think it is wrong to characterize his position on the scandal as hypocritical. I heard his speech to parliament and it has my 100% support.

Obie wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 2:24 pm

It is difficult to have a half way position on these kind of debate. I do not believe in mediocrity or middle-of-the-road stance.

On the other hand, purity of thought (that truth/ethics/morality must be one way or the other), whether it be in politics, religion or morality/ethics, is often the shorthand for tyranny.

Morality is often merely presenting the viewpoint that allows one's own self or a group that one favours an advantage. Today's morality will fade away tomorrow. The Inquisition was the epitome of morality and ethics in its time.

A person who can see only black and white can be classified as partially blind. In order to appreciate human life, one needs the ability to both, step far enough to see the bigger picture, and step closer and see the individual paint strokes/pixels. And life is too rich and complex to be black or white. Apparently there are fifty thousand shades of just blue.

Obie wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 2:24 pm

I do not think there is a Moral equivalence between Labour party policy on ID card and the disgraceful and abhorrent treatment of the windrush migrant,

Had the Labour policy been implemented, the Windrush issue would still have arisen. They would have been required to apply for documentation for which they did not have proof.

On a separate point, it seems like the UK is not the only European country tightening its immigration and nationality laws.

France approves controversial immigration bill.

Algerian woman denied French citizenship over handshake

Secret Simon i think you may be getting things fundamentally wrong here.

I don't understand what you mean, the need for one to possess basic human dignity and decency, clearly do not change with passage of time. There are values as human beings which binds us together, irrespective of our culture or ethnicity. I happen to be educated in multi ethnic environment, and i learned that there are certain common values and moral standards which we all share as decent human beings.

There may be fifty thousands shades of blue but on this occasion the type of blue in this case appears very clear to me. I appreciate it may be opaque for you, i fully respect that .

We are not talking about non-Citizens here. We are talking about citizens. I do not think you can equate the windrush scandal to any event happening in other countries.

What France is doing is nothing compared to what is happening here. France is not asking those French Algerian who had settled before 1962 to leave or putting them in detention centres, or refusing them medical. I do not believe the analogy is appropriate.

If the ID card had come into law, it would have actually assisted these people as the landing card would have still been in existence and it would have helped them to have identity documents, many of them would not have been refused cancer treatment or placed in the UK immigration prisons where immigrants are placed without trial without any hope in the horizon. I believe some of you guys should should try and visit some of these immigration prison and the appalling conditions under which people are detained. I remember a man telling me in one of these prisons he was kept lucked up for 23 hours without any shower, and when he attempted to shower all the cell was flooded. I remember a man telling me how he say a man cry for help after when suffered a heart attack, and he was left to die without treatment. Not to mention the Brook House scandal. I will not go into the Yarls Wood woman who complained of being groped and nothing was done to the Immigration Prison guard who groped her . Another one deliberately opening his cell when he knew she just came from the shower. Some of these people i had that the fortune of working with have since been granted refugee status, the UK courts who let them down, have since found that their marriage was not of convenience.

On this forum, I cited the case of Mr Santos who was kept in an immigration prison for 6 months, when he had rights under the EEA regulation. He was eventually awarded £155,000 in damages. I had the fortune of recently speaking to him, and he said he will give up the £155,000 if Home Office can give back to him what they took when they detained him on the 08-01-2012. He said his life will never be the same again.

To imagine a fellow compatriot being kept under this conditions is disheartening.

I find it distressing when people come on this forum and start to ostracize and vilify migrant, without taking an opportunity of finding out the extent of the difficulties they endure or how badly they are treated.

For me, there is no middle ground on this matter. If there ever was a middle ground, then it disappeared the day i start talking to these so called illegals.

The authorities burnt or shred the landing card and now placing the burden on them to prove that they came during the windrush period. It is wholly scandalous.

Before burning these cards, if they had good intentions, they could have found a way of transferring these information on disc for future use, rather than destroying them and coming to ask the people to prove their status.

A Twitter post on Canadian politics that sums up my thoughts quite well.

If you always measure how your govt is doing against your version of what is perfect/ideal, you'll always be disappointed and outraged.

If you measure against what is pragmatically possible given the players and context of the moment, you'll be much happier.

On that point, it is local council elections in England today and possibly the first election since the Referendum and GE2017 that EEA citizens who have not naturalised can vote in. I urge everybody who is in an area holding local elections and who has the right to vote to do so today. We may disagree, vehemently at times, but we must be thankful that we can express our viewpoints in peaceful ways, like here on these forums and in the voting booths.

I am glad we can agree on something.

I have to make the point that our government must share and represent our values, if the do not, then we must bring pressure to bear on them and bring public opinion on our side. I dont believe one should resign to accepting practices which are inconsistent with their values and allow the government to get away with bad practices.

I will give America as an example in this . On election day 64% of Americans felt that Donald Trump was fundamentally unfit for office and does not represent or share their values, notwithstanding that 15% of that 64% voted for him, being resigned to the fact that he is their best bet. If just half of those had stuck to their guns and did the right thing Trump would not have been a president, with all the scandal associated with his presidency.

In the UK, the pollsters told us Mrs May will win a landslide. Many brits of my age groups took one look at Mrs May and said no, this woman does not represent their values or what we stand for and we must not let her have that landslide she was undeservedly seeking, and on election night, made her look stupid with a hung parliament.

Had people resigned themselves to a May landslide and the hardbrexit approach that she had espoused and her hostile environment and go home bus policy, they would have sat home, Kensington would have still be Tories territory, Canterbury will still be Tories.

We must always hold our government to an extremely high standards and must never settle for second best, or resign ourselves to the inevitable.

When they fail to demonstrate a good standards we must resist them with Vigor.

One can try persuading members of the majority to one's standards and opinions, but when your standards, opinions and points of view are in a minority, one must gracefully give way and accept the will of the majority.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 3:03 pm

Had the Labour policy been implemented, the Windrush issue would still have arisen. They would have been required to apply for documentation for which they did not have proof.

How can you possibly say that? The papers were destroyed in 2011 not when Labour was in power (not that I have any sympathy for them. In my opinion Corbyn is 10 times worse than T.M.!)

I think you're a bit confused about continental Europe. Tracing a difference of behaviour between the British and the Scandinavians on one side and the rest of Europe on the other only on Napoleon is bizarre! And then how can you possibly conflate the British with the Scandinavians? Oh my oh my!

It all depends on what that the standards are. I believe in existence of the concept of "changing public opinion".

Incidentally, according to polls 65% of the British public tell pollsters they are appalled by the treatment of the windrush people. I disagree that this public outrage is in the minority.

Therefore the values I espoused here dont seem to be in the minority. But even if it was not, I will still hold it.

I am prepared to proceed on the basis that you are playing devils advocate, as opposed to seriously holding the belief that people who are appalled with the windrush situation are minority.

rooibos wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 6:09 pm

How can you possibly say that? The papers were destroyed in 2011 not when Labour was in power

In either case, the Windrush generation would have had to acquire documentation to prove their right to reside in the UK.

I think people are conflating the destruction of the landing cards and the hostile environment as one event. They are two separate events. The destruction of records took place independently, not in the context of the hostile environment.

I had not considered Obie's idea of having saved the landing cards data to a computer system. Of course, two obvious reasons against it come to mind. Computer systems are hackable (and Russia is showing us that more and more). And data privacy advocates would have gone bananas over such information being held in perpetuity. I would have thought the best approach would have been to archive the landing card data with the National Archives. But unfortunately that was not done and we are where we are.

The hostile environment would have occurred under Labour policy which was enacted into law, just as it did under the Conservatives. Both parties were implementing the same policy.

rooibos wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 6:09 pm

And then how can you possibly conflate the British with the Scandinavians?

Did you not click though on the many links in my post? The map would have answered your question.

rooibos wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 6:09 pm

Tracing a difference of behaviour between the British and the Scandinavians on one side and the rest of Europe on the other only on Napoleon is bizarre!

The Guardian article made a point about the Napoleonic code and when one looks at the map, it does seem to fit the pattern. I am aware that codes descended from the Napoleonic Code are in use in Scandinavia, but it did seem to be a coincidence that nobody else had remarked on.

rooibos wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 6:09 pm

In my opinion Corbyn is 10 times worse than T.M.

I can spot issues with both of them. May lacks principles, Corbyn has a bit too much of them. Too much of a good thing is bad, in some cases, positively toxic.

rooibos wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 6:09 pm

Oh my oh my!

Yours, yours, now all yours to respond to.

I remember being told during practice that it Is it Better that Ten Guilty Persons Go Free Than that One Innocent Person be Convicted.

If a legal system fail one person, it is worst than wrongly acquitting 10 guilty person .

One would not have complained if they put the card on computer and russia hacked it. They did what was worst than Russia hacking it. The Russian have nothing against the windrush people, they would not have sought to harm their interest. The only person that has issue is Teressa May.

Is better that 1000 undocumented migrant be set free than the wrongful punishment of 1 windrush migrant.

The government has failed to tell us why they burnt the landing card.

I recently got a registration certificate for a person who was registered in 1950, to enable his son to secure British Citizen, if the keeping of that does not violate Data protection act, i am unable to see how storing the landing card can cause that.

The government has failed to give us reasons why they burnt the card, we are therefore entitled to deduce in the absence of any evidence of the contrary, that this was part of the hostile policy.

Obie wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 6:18 pm

I am prepared to proceed on the basis that you are playing devils advocate

Every fanatic needs to be balanced out by a devil's advocate. The stronger the fanaticism, the stronger the devil's advocate needs to be. Otherwise, we will end up with Trump. But just as hate is not the opposite of love (disinterest is), the opposite of fanaticism is not fanaticism at the other end of the scale, but moderation.

If people could avoid being fanatic and could exercise self-control, there would be no need for either moderation or playing devil's advocate.

Obie wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 6:41 pm

I remember being told during practice that it Is it Better that Ten Guilty Persons Go Free Than that One Innocent Person be Convicted.

If a legal system fail one person, it is worst than wrongly acquitting 10 guilty person .

The exchange rate is lousy. Such a principle would allow too many guilty people free and would not be very useful.

Obie wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 6:41 pm

we are therefore entitled

The most common issues nowadays are caused by people thinking that they are "entitled". If everybody exercised their entitlement, there would be anarchy, as one person's entitlement would encroach on another person's. Brexit is a good example of entitlements cancelling each other out. EU citizens were entitled to enter the UK without restriction and the British people used their entitlement to vote to advise the government to take the EU citizens' entitlement away. As mentioned above, entitlements only work if their exercise is self-restrained. Self-control and not claiming everything one is entitled to is the only way society can survive. If everybody enforced their entitlement, there would be no society as it would be every person for themselves.

Firstly i do not consider myself a Fanatic, as i do not espouse extreme religious or political views. The fact that you may prefer i espouse a more Wanderer view does not make me a fanatic. The views i speak of are view every decent human being share.

I respect views like Wanderer's for example even though i do not believe in it. They are clear on their position as i am clear on mine. Centrism is not authentic in my view, it involves a compromise between two ends of a spectrum.

I remember telling my chemistry teacher at A level that i do not like Neutral on the PH scale as it is inauthentic. I prefer to be either is 0 of the PH scale or in 14. Either i am Acidic or Alkaline.

However in relation to the situation of the windrush people, it is difficult to appreciate a middle position.

My views are well in the mainstream.

Really interesting reading here.

Would anyone wish to float a view as to why the Windrush data was destroyed?

Was it a lack of thinking and/or understanding of the situation. Or was it part of a cospiracy?

Obie wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 7:54 pm

Centrism is not authentic in my view, it involves a compromise between two ends of a spectrum.

Errr, yes. Compromise is the essence of a diverse world.

Obie wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 7:54 pm

I remember telling my chemistry teacher at A level that i do not like Neutral on the PH scale as it is inauthentic. I prefer to be either is 0 of the PH scale or in 14. Either i am Acidic or Alkaline.

So says the person who is not a fanatic

I can so completely believe that you would tell your teacher that. Kind of proves my point. Both ends of the pH scale are hazardous and dangerous to life . On the other hand, the dull and utterly centrist water is required for life itself.

I apologise for my lighter tone here. I am enjoying this conversation.

FXR_1340 wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 8:06 pm

Was it a lack of thinking and/or understanding of the situation. Or was it part of a cospiracy?

I agree that the situation of the Windrush citizens is unfortunate. Where I disagree is that I base it on incompetence and lack of forward planning, not active malice.

Well the human body is made up of 60-65 percent of water anyway, so why do one need more water. We need acid to kill bacteria in human stomach. Alkaline needed for the female reproductive tract. So Alkaline and Acid are important also.

Coming to the wind rush, i have no doubt in my mind it was down to malice, unless the government can put other preposition before me. I am sorry SecretSimon, i was not sure that was our point of contention, I thought we disagreed on the whole Windrush issue. I hope our views can be reconciled one day, but at present they are a gulf apart.

The government could have said it was a mistake, but the question will be, no that cannot be a mistake, how could it be, It simply cannot be. I do not support the Wanderer proposition that it was a mistake. It was a well thought through policy to burn them so no right could be claimed from them.

I don't just think the windrush case is unfortunate, i think it is abhorrent, indefensible, suspicious, mysterious, properly calculated and well mexecuted with the intention of causing immeasurable harm.

In regards to how to deal with it, i have lobbied my local MP, notified him that if we don't see him take action we will make sure we don't forget when we next get the opportunity. I informed him we have about 15 known windrush victims in our local authority who are all voters. I made clear to him that his predecessor was a good person, a nice man who will bend over backward to help us, until his party choose to join company with the Tories and we as a community made sure he paid for the misadventure. We made clear to him that we reward loyalty. That we should not be taken for granted. That his predecessor served us for nearly 30 years, began well before my time, but eventually he paid the price.

I told him we will monitor his voting pattern, i was happy he voted for the motion. I told him the step he takes now will determine my vote for the next 20 years. He got the message. He has been very good so far, bless him. He has done all what we asked of him. He voted against Article 50, he voted for a meaningful Brexit vote, following our consultation, he said he will vote in favour of a custom union. So I have no issues locally. Our representative is taking notes of our views. He is not like that Vauxhall Labour woman, he is aware that about 80% of his constituent voted against Brexit and hate.

The rejection of the labour motion confirms to me that it was not mistake, this government is hiding something, as they don't want to disclose it to parliament, the Guardian will disclose it to us, of that i am very sure.