Amnesty: an official pardon for people convicted of political offences: an official undertaking to take no action against specified offences during a fixed period.
The above is the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of the word “amnesty”
So how do a select committee of well educated (one hopes) erudite highly paid elected representatives put out such a misleading statement? For the record:
Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North)
are those linguistically challenged people who have permanently tainted the reputation of those granted indefinite leave to remain.
What offences have they committed, perhaps only being misguided enough to think they might get their rights under international law upheld, and given a fair hearing in a timely manner about their claim that if they return home they will be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.
That is yet to be deemed something that someone needs to be pardoned for as far as I know. The real offence is that the real story that UK BA, who have become the apotheosis of government incompetence: “During the late 1990s and early 2000s the Home Office built up a backlog of between 400,000 and 450,000 unresolved asylum cases.” Is going to disappear like smoke on a windy day.
So just how do you solve a problem like that? Well you could give the idea that the last government has let 160,000 people live in this country as a result of some misguided benevolence, thus infuriating the rabid right wing press, and reigniting the anti-asylum seeker debate so your staggering incompetence gets buried under a torrent of anti asylum rhetoric: Well done everyone!
But now it is comedy time, this is what Jonathan Sedgwick Chief Executive UK Border Agency said while being asked about “that the UKBA understood that it had a role dealing with people not as enemies, not as people to be controlled, but as customers,”
“I think it is becoming more and more embedded. We have had a particular focus on our work to recognise that people, who come to us in a number of forms as you say, are customers. For example, I think staff have always been in a way delighted when they are able to grant somebody refugee status. That is seen by many of our staff as a very noble thing to do.”
So let noblesse oblige commence.
For it is now in writing from UK BA:
“Support is also provided to failed asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected by us and the courts but who face a temporary barrier to return, and there are additional safeguards for families with dependent children under 18 when they become appeal rights exhausted who continue receiving support until they leave the UK. Therefore, no asylum seeker or failed asylum seeker need be destitute while they have a valid reason to be here.”
That’s okay then.
And if you should wish to read the report yourselves, instead of letting journalists and spinners tell you what it says, the original report is here: