*Why* did the Home Office ignore the law in order to implement racist policies? As the EHRC report found, because that's what Theresa May and David Cameron wanted.
As a direct consequence, Home Office Ministers and officials deliberately and illegally ignored the impact of the "hostile environment" on ethnic minorities:
Home Office Ministers - in particular but not only Theresa May - and senior officials *chose* to ignore the racist impacts of their policies, despite repeated and direct warnings at the time.
None of this was accidental..
[Preempting comments: issues raised here *very* different from EHRC's equally shocking report in anti-semitism and Labour. Direct comparisons unhelpful.
However, *impacts* are very different. "Hostile environment" led to people being deported to die in poverty.]
Worth remembering what new EHRC Commissioner @David_Goodhart said about the "hostile environment" at the time. Would be interested to know if he endorses today's report..
[FWIW I don't personally think an article from 2013 disqualifies @David_Goodhart from joining @EHRC - but he does have a moral obligation to tell us what he thinks of today's report and whether in retrospect he got it wrong and why.]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This from @BBradley_Mans is false. Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 *requires* public authorities to consider socio-economic disadvantage & to exercise powers with due regard to reducing inequality.
*This* government has *chosen* not to bring these provisions into force.(1/3)
Here is Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010. Why is @BBradley_Mans making this false claim, and will he correct it?
I also note that AFAIC @BBradley_Mans never signed the Early Day Motion calling for Section 1 to be brought into effect. So this tweet is not only false, but pure virtue-signalling. If he was serious about this issue, why not actually do something?
Virus won't significantly affect physical, human or intellectual capital. As a consequence, most conventional models would predict little/no effect on potential output. That is, sharp bounce-back to “trend” should be both possible & likely (2/8)
David right to describe channels leading to permanent damage. First, firm-specific capital – some firms will indeed go under. But most are likely to be relatively small and in sectors (retail/tourism/hospitality) where turnover already high (& partly random in normal times) (3/8)
Key features : salary threshold £25.6K (more for higher paid occupations; less for new entrants). Lower threshold (in effect) for shortage occupations and those with PhDs. As MAC said, not really a "points based system" in Australian (or any meaningful) sense (2/6)
For NHS and education implication (no detail) is skill threshold will apply but no salary threshold (as per MAC) because there are national pay scales. Will significantly ease pressures - but no such flexibility for social care (3/6).
For those who want more detail, here's @epkaufm setting out how his racialised immigration policy would work: preferences for Anglo-Canadians, then Poles and Afro-Carribbeans, then Hasidic Jews
Astonishing number of people replying to/commenting on this tweet who couldn't be bothered to read it/don't understand English very well.
Johnson complained about people not speaking English *as a first language*. English language classes won't help with that.
More seriously, even in the most highly diverse areas, vast majority of UK residents speak English well or fairly well, even if it's not thir *first* language.
So this is pure dog-whistle by Johnson, even leaving aside the logical failure.