So, who is at fault? The Windrush parents; or the Home Office?

Considering the Windrush scandal; or rather garbage as I call it, I feel that too much is being played out for no real cause whatsoever. As I and my wife were living overseas, our three kids were all born in South Africa. But I, as a responsible parent, knew that I had to ensure their precious birthright; and so I went to the British Consulate in Cape Town within a fortnight of each birth: and by registering their births, I was also claiming their British-registered Birth Certificates; and thus allowing each of my kids to claim a British Passport with the minimum of fuss. They were of course too young to realise the impact of my actions, all three being infants at the time, but I believe I had to act, because with inaction comes multiple problems later in life.

I was in conversation with a receptionist/clerk at the Consulate, and she told me that I was not alone in my actions. Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban were all favourite targets for the Thirty-Pound RedNecks, as we were known. The red neck is self-explanatory, as apart from people such as I, who had travelled all over the world courtesy of the British Merchant Navy, hardly any were used to the strong sun; ipso ergo facto, RedNeck, or ‘Rooinek’ in Afrikaans. The thirty pound sterling was the cost, to a migrant couple or family, of the transport from Great Britain to South Africa by a Boeing 707, and accommodation in a hotel until we got sorted with a job, and our own flat; back in the balmy days of 1967-68.

The receptionist told me that I was just one small slice of the Consulate’s visitors, but most were there for the same reason I was; namely to register at the Consulate, and to acquire that most important document, a British birth certificate for the newly-born child. We stayed in South Africa for seventeen-eighteen years; but decided to leave, as the boycotts of Apartheid South Africa were beginning to slice in, the name of ‘dangerous society’ was ever more apparent, and, after due discussion with my wife and my family, we decided to sell our house, pack up everything, and return to England. The two younger kids, my second son and my daughter, both travelled on my own British passport, but my eldest son was turned sixteen, so I applied for a British passport, and one duly arrived in the post. But I had to gain clearance from the South African Ministry of the Interior, as my son, being born in Cape Town, of course had dual nationality.

Now the main South African Afrikaans-speaking population were the most friendly, accommodating and trustworthy folks around, I still have some good Afrikaaner friends; but transfer an Afrikaaner into Government service, and a whole new animal emerges; stolid, unbending, strictly by the book, and you were often reminded that they wrote the Book. I attended the Interior Ministry, and all the documentation needed, of which there was quite a pile. “Why’, I was asked, “why does your son not use his South African passport, he has one, why not use it, instead of the British one?” I stated that, as I was maybe travelling to an Arabic country, and (Apartheid) South African passports were ‘verboten’ in Islam, I preferred to get my son travelling with a British passport, so there would be no access problems. This furrow-browed lady scrabbled through all the documents, and finally pointed her finger at the one, terrible mistake, she had uncovered. “Agh; No, no, Meneer, (Sir), you have ticked the wrong box. You have stated that you would not object if the Ministry took away your son’s right to hold a South African Passport! Of course you would object! Let me alter it!” My eldest son, when completing the myriad details, had done the terrible deed, and I of course fought to keep a straight face as this stolid person altered the document according to the way that she thought it should be completed.

We sold the house, left our home and our friends, and made our way to Jan Smuts airport, and came back home. All our travel documentation was complete; when my younger son and my daughter applied for passports, the delay was about ten seconds longer than usual before completion, because of the presence of Consulate Birth Certificates.

So now we turn to the alleged ‘Windrush Scandal’, where the Home Office, acting strictly by the book, as they have to do, have contacted many fifty-, sixty-, and seventy-year old people who arrived as child migrants when the Empire Windrush and her sister ships transported many thousands of West Indians to England. They were being contacted because they have no documentation which gives them the right to stay, despite living, working and, of course, sometimes paying taxes for all those years. They have no documentation because their parents never bothered to fill in the forms, and pay a few quid, and help their kids become the holders of British passports.

So we now have “Motor-Mouth’ MP David Lammy getting hysterical in the House of Commons, because a few people have been warned that, because their parents did not formalise their stay, are now, in the eyes of the Law, not welcome in Britain. Home Secretary Amber Rudd has apologised for the treatment of these people, but I wonder why? Did the parents just state, ‘Agh, we’ll do it later, lets have a big party now’; or did they just not consider the future of their kids, when the Law states otherwise?

There is just one other small cloud which might get larger, darker, and more threatening.

Just wait until the British Border Force hears, for the first time but definitely not the last, the claim:-

My name is Abdul Mohammed, I am not an Afghani, as I previously claimed: my Grandfather was third man off the Windrush gangway; and I claim my brand-new Blue British Passport!

8 comments for “So, who is at fault? The Windrush parents; or the Home Office?

  1. Jim
    April 18, 2018 at 5:39 pm

    Yes, you have to conclude that while the situation is intolerable, ie people who came here legitimately and have lived here for decades being told they are no longer welcome, and should never have been allowed to arise, you also have to put a bit of the responsibility for the crisis on the individuals involved as well, and their parents too. Anyone who knows they were born in a country that is not the same as the country they are living in, and where they wish to stay, has a massive vested interest in making sure their legal status is watertight, Just thinking ‘It’ll be OK’ doesn’t cut it, especially when dealing with immigration departments.

  2. Mudplugger
    April 18, 2018 at 8:18 pm

    There is a similarity to the WASPI women’s hysterical complaint that the change in their pension-age has come as a complete shock, leaving them with no time to plan for it.

    Well, Mrs M is one of those women and she knew from the mid 1990s that her pension-age would not be 60, but would be in the transition-scale between 60 and 65, all in the interests of gender equality. Mrs M planned for it and accepted the outcome.

    The ‘Windrush’ folk had the same opportunity to understand and act in plenty of time to secure the status of their, and their children’s, position in Britain – it’s not Amber Rudd’s fault, it’s not even Theresa May’s fault, it’s squarely in the lap of the ‘Windrush’ families themselves.

    The government may not have covered itself in glory over the issue, but the increasingly grovelling apologies simply serve to deflect the responsibility from where it really lies.
    With that apologetic starting-point, I can almost hear the rapacious no-win-no-fee lawyers sharpening their compo-pens as I type.

  3. Pcar
    April 18, 2018 at 8:52 pm

    @Mike

    ..I am not an Afghani, as I previously claimed: my Grandfather was third man off the Windrush gangway..

    Yes. As has been shown by GreenFail Tower, any opportunity for fraudulent financial gain is quickly & remorselessly exploited by “BAME”s

  4. Pcar
    April 18, 2018 at 8:52 pm

    @Jim

    Agree.

    Also, one has to wonder what the motive was for Brown’s Labour Gov’t destroying the only evidence – the boarding cards – in 2009.

  5. Pcar
    April 18, 2018 at 8:54 pm

    BBC news page BBC .. 50% media coverage …. Windrush … Windrush …. Windrush ….

    Word Search : Windrush x 20; Anti-semitism x 0;

    That really emphasises BBC Bias by omission – yesterday there was a lengthy debate on Labour’s Anti-Semitism with Corbyn humiliated.

    Labour Deputy leader Tom Watson left front bench and sat with back benchers.

    • Jim
      April 18, 2018 at 10:52 pm

      Yes, imagine the opposite – TM being attacked in Parliament by her own backbenchers for racist connections with far right groups, the BBC would have it on pages 1-1000 on their news website and lead every bulletin with it from now til next Christmas.

  6. John Duckett
    April 19, 2018 at 3:44 am

    My wife and I emigrated to New Zealand 3years ago to be with our youngest son. We are on Permanent Resident Visas at the moment and they will expire after 5 years. We know that we will have to renew them and it will cost money to do so. We also know that if we break the law in any serious way we will be on a plane back to the UK very quickly on the Kiwi taxpayers dollar. So what do we do ? We behave ourselves.

    • Jim
      April 19, 2018 at 1:42 pm

      I have a Kiwi friend who is a bit lefty, and when Brexit happened was distraught about all the ‘racists’ voting for stronger immigration rules into the UK (among other factors). I pointed out to her that NZ has far more stringent immigration rules actually in place now than have ever been even suggested might happen as a result of Brexit, and that while she could live and work freely in the UK, I had no reciprocal right (as a British citizen) in NZ.

      This was different apparently………..

Comments are closed.