The Government, behind the scenes, acknowledges that the “vast majority” of the Afghans it has let in under various official resettlement schemes made bogus claims.
You’ll never have enough information at the centre to be able to do anything at all in detail.
And:
The Conservative government took action in 2023 when it learnt that a list of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to come to Britain was wrongly shared by a defence official in 2022.
It wasn’t – at all – the list of those we thought we’d put in peril. It was the list of those who’d applied to come here. Not even the filtered list, those who had a right.
They’re pretty desperate now. It was a Marine. Not a spotty faced four eyed snivil servant, oh no.
Yeah, right…
I find this data loss absolutely amazing. Their working practices are beyond belief
In business I’ve always had a similar security problem. I do not want to share certain information with either clients or subcontractors. It wouldn’t be in my interest to. So I have a system where I can’t even do it inadvertently.
There is a “working” folder which contains all the data relating to the project. And there are separate folders for dissemination of data to clients & subs & maybe another one for data shared with suppliers. They contain data copied to that folder but given a different filename (There will be a small text file in the folder with the same filename saying where the file originated & full or part) Any correspondence, attachments come from those folders not the “working” folder. One thus also has a record of what can be shared & what has been shared. Doesn’t everyone do it like this? One never sends anything “raw”.
I’m not saying that allowing tens of thousands of fighting age males from alien cultures who despise us and our way of life is a deliberate plot to replace us because decades of leftist indoctrination at university and everywhere else has facilitated a Long March Through The Institutions so that our leadership is composed of people who subscribe to the belief that white Anglos are uniquely evil and deserve nothing more than misery and death, but if such a plot were to exist how would it look any different?
Meanwhile, this doesn’t appear to be making any waves in the mainstream media, despite being without doubt the greatest political scandal ever to hit the English-speaking world:
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/415722.php
Weirdly, the people who were weaponising the US state against its democratically elected leader are the same people who are importing tens of thousands (in fact millions) of fighting age males into the US with no checks whatsoever.
Related?
https://fackel.substack.com/p/eu-commission-funds-legacy-media
Bis:’find this data loss absolutely amazing. Their working practices are beyond belief.’
How quickly the HMRC Disc data loss is forgotten…
The timing of the release of the so-called Epstein letter, allegedly dating back over 20 years, indicates something else really damaging that the deep state and their media flying monkeys are desperate to deflect attention from.
Over here the same “story” is providing cover for the bbc, telegraph and others to largely ignore the police actions in Epping and to minimise ongoing coverage of the Afghan immigration scandal.
The Epping video shows the way. Dare to protest and you’ll get your white head broken. They’d never have driven that van into Diversity in that way.
What I find revealing is the timing.
Working from memory (I don’t have time to check right now):
– August 2022: we find out about the leak
– April 2023: scheme to let in loads of Afghans
If letting them in was in response to the leak, the time to do that would have been September 2023.
If letting them in was what ‘we’ wanted to do anyway, the leak was just a convenient excuse.
Selma! Selma!
Norman:’They’d never have driven that van into Diversity in that way.
How is it that neither the van driver nor the cop with the riot shield is under arrest for assault right now!?
No, it’s ok, rhetorical question…
When “Romanians” kicked off in Leeds last year the police were largely notable for their absence. As were “anti-racists”. It seems the bother started in Epping when “anti-racists” showed up.
Did the driver stop to exchange details? Immediate loss of licence.
Also, the victim is described as ‘protestor’.
Is there eviudence of that? Peaceful, lawful protestor, or proof violent action?
Or just a pedestrian hit by a reckless driver?
@ C J Nerd
Eight months for the Civil Service to prepare a scheme to provide sanctuary for people endangered by the incompetence of another civil servant? That’s pretty quick. Grant Shapps must have been breathing down their necks.
You’ll never have enough information at the centre to be able to do anything at all in detail.
Eh? That’s a counsel of despair. Detailed and defined projects can be managed from the centre, providing the right project management techniques are applied from planning to implementation. Unfortunately, the UK civil service is not trained to do this…but it should be.
What can’t be managed from the centre is a national economy or a national health service, because no-one or no management team can gather, process and interpret the vast amounts of management information available and required.
That’s the point, Theo: you can manage from the centre when you’re running a closed system, and even then, if you’re managing a complex system you have to follow the rules for that, which essentially are object-orientated: you define communications protocols (rules of behaviour) and then let the objects themselves get on with it. This is the opposite of Stalinism.
Exactly, Norman. But Tim’s point was very loosely phrased…
BiS
I find this data loss absolutely amazing. Their working practices are beyond belief
Yes. They are. I’ve seen it up close – as a civil servant and an external consultant. Recently, a friend’s daughter was interviewed for one of a few quite senior civil service posts. She was horrified that the interviewers were more concerned about her team-working abilities and her attitudes to multiculturalism than her CV. That said, this girlie told her dad that she would, as a civil servant, actively oppose any government that obstructed Net Zero….Be prepared, Reform, be prepared!
Theo, a pal’s daughter works in the Cabinet Office. When she’s not skiving at work writing teen gothic lesbian novels, for which she’s getting a name and has a good publishing deal. Ex-SOAS, green hair, huge arse, indeterminate sexuality, full-on Corbynista. Another friend’s daughter, graduated two years ago, has joined the Treasury on a graduate direct access programme. Ex-Durham, mixed brown/white, nose ring, full-on Corbynista.
Reform are going to have to use their majority and iron Parliamentary discipline to enact a law explicitly over-riding all others that states public sector failure to act to implement statutory law by Ministerial directive is insubordination punishable by immediate dismissal and forfeit of pension rights. The next law they pass is to stop all government funding of NGOs.
For example, Reform says they’ll windfall-tax away all Net Zero subsidies. I can certainly see HMRC plain refusing to collect the tax. What then: there must be a sanction available and a way of collecting the tax.
That this problem is obvious and intentions have been announced leads me to believe that Reform must be planning means to overcome it, for the simple reason that this would be by far their major problem in government: actually getting the Civil Service to act.
Norman – For example, Reform says they’ll windfall-tax away all Net Zero subsidies. I can certainly see HMRC plain refusing to collect the tax. What then: there must be a sanction available and a way of collecting the tax.
What then? Very rapid sacking of anybody who refuses to do their job (gross misconduct, do not pass Go or collect redundancy) and similarly rapid hiring of replacements. This is trivial stuff, not a problem.
HMRC won’t be an issue at all, taxmen are naturally inclined to hide in sycamore trees, they’re not strikers. The worst rot is in the Home Office, the NHS, Education and all the unaccountable noodly appendages of quangoworld that Dave promised to bonfire.
Reform must be planning means to overcome it,
Anybody who has run a business sees what the problem is. There’s two ways of dealing with truculent employees: they get a quick attitude adjustment or they get a P45. I know this seems like arcane black magic to the Tories, since Home Secretary Suella lacked the wits to ask who had the key to the flagpole on her building. But obstructing the lawful instructions of cabinet ministers isn’t a cute Yes Minister sketch, it’s a sackable offence and it’s easier when the troublemakers volunteer to give you a perfectly legitimate reason to get rid of them immediately.
Of course, Steve, but there has to be a way of bulldozing union objections, unfair dismissal, etc. and loss of pension must be part of it. Non-compliance with “international law” or ECHR cannot be an excuse not to comply with Ministerial instructions. I reckon that has to be spelled out. Anything which is anti-Hermer is a good idea.
Norman – the way of bulldozing objections is when they give you reasonable cause to sack them on the spot.
People can moan about it to employment tribunals later, but gross misconduct isn’t a novel or unfair concept. The Trump admin must be Kevin Keegan looving it when political enemies in the US civil service identify themselves as such. Makes their job so much easier.
Non-compliance with “international law” or ECHR cannot be an excuse not to comply with Ministerial instructions
Indeed, as I keep banging on about, the supremacy of parliament *is* the British constitution. As long as it behaves lawfully, it can’t be overruled, nobody to overrule it. Parliament ultimately decides what is lawful, and gets to decide the composition of our courts.
Labour just decided to change the electoral franchise on a whim, to try to benefit themselves in the next elections. Britain governments can, indeed, just do things when they have a majority in Parliament.
Steve, the so-called supremacy of parliament is what spreadsheet people call a circular reference. Who said they were supreme? They did. What gave them the right to endow themselves supremacy? Well, the supremacy of parliament, of course. Logically a non-argument. The people are supreme. It’s in the Bill of Rights. Which parliament wants to ignore.
Parliament is supreme, because it can do whatever it wants – if judges object, they can be replaced. But the people are supremer, because every 5 years, we can replace Parliament.