Worse than Windrush

Baroness Deech

There is to be an annual Windrush Day. Noting the acclaim for the contributions made by the Windrush generation, and the remorse over the way they were treated, put me in mind of an earlier generation of immigrants: the Jews, fleeing for their lives from Central Europe to Britain in the 1930s. In the face of fear of a Nazi invasion of Britain, the European Jewish arrivals were rounded up and interned in camps in the Isle of Man and Huyton, amongst others. It seems that Churchill ordered the internment. The famous House of Lords judgment in the case of Liversidge v Anderson [1941] upheld the right of the Home Secretary to intern people if he had reasonable cause to believe that they had hostile associations, his view prevailing over the view the court might take. The refugees were often stateless, and when they married British nationals, their spouses were also made stateless until after the end of the War. They were classed as “enemy aliens” even though it was hard to imagine any group more opposed to Nazism than they were. The internees included Claus Moser, later Lord Moser, and the founders of the Amadeus String Quartet.Thousands were deported unwillingly in terrible conditions to Australia and worse still, the ship transporting more of them to Canada was struck by an enemy torpedo in 1940 and sank with great loss of life (the Arandora Star).  I don’t know of any claims for compensation.

80 years on, and we find that amongst the refugees from Nazism, and the heirs of the earlier wave of Jewish immigrants at the end of the 19th century, are about 13 Nobel prizewinners, the founders of Tesco and Marks and Spencer; Isaiah Berlin, George Weidenfeld, Simon Schama, Martin Gilbert, Judith Kerr, Lionel Blue, Vidal Sassoon and Georg Solti, to name just the tiniest fraction of the eminent lawyers, writers, scientists, artists and doctors emerging from that unpromising start.

Of course refugees are not the same as invited immigrants. Nevertheless, although there is a history of British mistreatment of new arrivals, (even after many years as in the Windrush story), let us celebrate their successes too. There is a good list here – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_African-Caribbean_people#The_%22Windrush_generation%22

6 comments for “Worse than Windrush

  1. maude elwes
    02/07/2018 at 5:28 pm

    In Britain, at the time of Windrush, there was no need to import people from abroad to fill our jobs. That story was a fallacy and a propaganda effort to follow some kind of bizarre idealism.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-4iTQHEsjU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN3hS0pRZio

    British people, at that time, were lined up at Labour exchanges, living in dire poverty and trying to manage on slave wages.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8M6FEu4_HY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Sst54gQq8

    And they marched endlessly in their thousands to desperately try to put a stop to the progression of that horrific poverty. But, they were ignored and their rights of association ridiculed by those they voted for. Those who pretended they were on the side of British working people. How strange politicians never informed the public their EEC unity objectives had other ideas up their sleeves and that Ted Heath and the political parties of the time, knew all about cultural change intentions held in store for Britain in Europe. Now why do you think that was? Could it be because had the population known of the objectives of their leaders, they would never have been voted in?

  2. 02/07/2018 at 7:44 pm

    Our “Great Britain” has many such bad skeletons in its historical cupboard;
    and is continually adding to them too, from the same “Blindness of heart, Pride, Vainglory, Hypocrisy, Envy, Hatred, Malice and further increasingly ‘spiritually-deadening-as-well-as-physiologically-impairing’ that culminates in the ultimate mosr-evil sin of ‘All-Uncharitableness’ or ‘Hard-Heartedness’ [from the Church of England Litany, explicated by author Hubert Libbey in “The Eight Deadlier Sins”].

    My point here is that “we” [actually our Establishmentarian Commanders & ‘Owners’] are both personally-deliberately and constitutionally-collectively ‘skeletonising’ perfectly good, and many truly great, advances in Human Development knowledge and Know-How – repressing, even suppressing and inferiorly-supplanting them:-
    we rescued from the Gestapo one Rudolf Laban [the world’s leading expert in Human-Movement knowledge and both economic and dramatic human-movement enablement and skilling (book “Effort”)]
    and Dartington Hall’s Elmhirst family owners sheltered him while his various wounds healed sufficiently for a way ahead to be found, including for him to help us win WW2 by improving both our economic and dramatic movement abilities.
    But we blindly and impatiently supplanted that world-leading all-round human movement know-how by importing from China ‘Tai-Chi’ and its esotericly strange and indoctrinal foreign philosophy; along with another wholesome-body-movement excluding ‘medical-surgery-treatment’ Acupuncture which is based upon the progressively educationally-therapeutic-and-time-patient enablements of the much more personally-enabling and longlasting foundation, Acupressure.]

    Anyway, visit Dartington Hall today and see no mention of this still world’s-best human-movement exponent and educator or of his invaluable movement-improvement legacy to us – instead the notice boards are covered with “Movement Medicine” “Strength & Speed Training” and various escapist “Fthomas Gordon’s un Stuffs”.

    Other such life-leading [as distinct from Worker-Skilling] advances being suppressed are
    “Mindset” (Dweck)
    together with
    “Perceptual Self-Control” (Powers);

    “People Skills” (Bolton)
    along with the original Dr Thomas Gordon’s
    “Leader Effectiveness Training”.

    {The not-for-Profit, Power nor Prestige voluntary e-site http://www.lifefresh,co.uk shows lists of similarly avoided, suppressed or ‘poo-pooed’ advances in human-development knowledge and know-how.}

    English Law is also “way off top and lame-duck-lagging” in holding that “there is no such legal entity as ‘health’.

    Another humankind-civilisation seriously impairing ‘skeleton’ is also in the Constitution, which allows hugely-disabling and even genociding Powers to be endowed upon and individual public-servant without first requiring that the Office and its particular incumbent to have all the necessary Abilities to safely do-the-job: a recent instance being the non-medically-qualified UK Home Secretary unilaterally [one-way-dictatorially] tantamountly ;signing the death warrant of a helpless and harmless 12 year old boy parient, by stopping his life-supportive medication properly prescribed and already properly controlled by the appeopriate qualified and experienced doctors.

    “Our” British Government also profits from aiding and enabling the genocide of helpless and unarmed Yemeni citizens.

    ‘Skeleton-in-cupboardly’ too, we British have for centuries been living beyond our means – ;thriving’ off ill-gotten gains from conquered and exploited colonial countries and their resoutces and peoples.

    No time nor “room at the inn” now to look at our own internal ;skeletons-in-cupboards …

  3. Pingback: UK Skeletons –
  4. Senex
    24/07/2018 at 10:44 am

    In Liversidge v Anderson Jack Perlzweig, who used the name Robert Liversidge was committed to prison without a reason being given and on the basis that he was probably a spy. Babushka says the use of the word ‘probably’ remains controversial in the affairs of the state.

    In effect the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary applied a test of intra vires to the authority of the ministers concerned. The discretionary power of ministers was recently clarified by the 13th report of the Constitution Committee.

    In the Child Support Act 1991 the phrase ‘ Secretary of State’ appears no less than 264 times with no clarification by regulation or otherwise as to the extent of the minister’s discretionary powers.

    New business in the house is causing standing orders to be in a state of flux. You may be unaware of 73 which states “(f) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made”.

    This is a constitutional change that applies only to Parliament whose business as you know is ultra vires. Why has it taken Parliament such a long time to catch up with the courts?

    Ref: Select Committee on the Constitution: 13th Report of Session 2012–13, the Pre-emption of Parliament
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldconst/165/16502.htm

Comments are closed.