Talk:Windrush scandal

Jack Straw?

A recent edit states, without citation, that the hostile environment policy was instituted by Jack Straw. After a bit of web searching, I can't see any evidence to support this, so I'm going to remove it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@192.173.3.110: and it's been added again, again without a citation, so I've removed it again. 192.173.3.110, could you please read WP:CITE? -- The Anome (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of the immigrants that arrived on the Empire Windrush had been born in the colonies prior to independence hence they had been born British subjects and so if the immigrants or Home Office had taken the case(s) to court the Home Office would have lost, as the immigrant's children would have been British citizens by both place-of-birth and by descent. The immigrants only had to produce proof of birth in a UK colony, e.g. by a birth certificate, etc., to establish a right of abode in the UK. Prior to the movement towards independence after WW II any Empire citizen/British subject had a right of abode in any Empire country.

Hence any attempted deportation of these people would have been unlawful. Considering the number of lawyers that feature as UK MP's one would suspect that they aren't very good lawyers to not know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.224 (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Restructure

I've created a sandbox here try to make this more coherently organised - other editors are welcome to edit or comment in that sandbox as they see fit. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm now working on trying to structure the 'Main' sections and add recent developments.Pincrete (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Work in progress

I am currently attempting to restructure the article into chronological and thematic sequence. Therefore I am sometimes leaving tags on short pieces which I know to be sourcable, but where I need to refind the best source. Where these do not seriously violate BLP or NPOV - I hope other editors will be tolerant of temporarily missing sources. Thanks. Pincrete (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not covered at present

This is a sketchy list of topics not covered clearly at present IMO - some of which might better be covered at "hostile environment policy", which at present is thin on details.

How/why affected children born in UK

Better summary of Parliamentary stages (compensation scheme, hotline etc)(Rudd, May and Javid), changes made by Javid, internal enquiry etc.

Hostile environment criticised by others (Warsi etc)

Review of provisions of HEP inc: NHS etc requirement to share data with Home Office as part of HEPolicy - later amended partly due to Lords during scandal. … Review of use of anti-terror laws vis-a-vis HEPolicy - mainly non-Windrush.

Video (my job to make your life hell)- HEP?

Broader issues - immigration caps - immigration policy. (partly done), Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Home Office under fire over Commonwealth deportations

This reference may be useful

• https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/03/home-office-under-fire-over-commonwealth-deportations-windrush

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Home Office criticised for ‘lack of urgency’ in Windrush scandal

And this one

• https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/05/home-office-criticised-for-lack-of-urgency-identifying-victims-of-windrush-scandal

John Cummings (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

John Cummings, I am (almost) the only editor to have edited this article - and frankly, I got a bit bored and disillusioned at keeping the article up to date (almost) alone. I made a list some time ago (above) of areas not covered presently - and the developments/inaction since early summer have not been added by me - or anyone. If you (like me) think that this is an important topic, the best course of action for you is to try to update the article yourself. Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Pincrete:, thanks for your reply, I've been doing something similar with Home Office hostile environment policy updated. Lets just leave these here as notes for now and I'll come back to it and add them in. I'm mainly leaving things here so they don't get lost.

Best

John Cummings (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Number of people deported?

How many people were deported??? Was anyone? several were stranded in the Caribbean for a period of years, but denied re-entry is not deported. I deleted 63 from the article because it's not supported anywhere in link 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.109.76.170 (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Windrush Scheme" & "Windrush Taskforce"?

These two terms do not even appear anywhere in the article?! There is the "Windrush Scheme" that is being dealt with by a specific administration team, the "Windrush Taskforce", yet the article features virtually nothing about either. (See full details here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/windrush-scheme )

Additionally, the Windrush scandal involves more than those with Caribbean decent. Anyone from most Commonwealth countries, or associated countries like even Ireland, are caught up in the Windrush Scheme, as under the Schemes guidelines it also applies to those who hold non-"British Citizen" passport holders (e.g. "British Subject", with full abode vignette printed within their passports ) being able to avail themselves of international immigration controls (like ESTA) that are available to full "British Citizen" passport holders. The article makes little to no mention of this issue, either (see: Talk:British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland). --Jimthing (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This issue is now proven untrue. See the above talk page for info. --Jimthing (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Presumption of guilt article

Csn any experienced editor here help prevent the much-needed [Presumption of guilt]] article being deleted? Crawiki (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the Windrush

Despite the media labelling this the Windrush Scandal it must be pointed out that virtually everyone who came to the UK on the Windrush in 1948 is now dead or in their 90s. This furore therefore has nothing to do with the Windrush. If Wikipedia wants to be respected for truth this should be prominently pointed out. 2A00:23C4:B607:CF00:9429:2DD7:B488:B2A7 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no 'Windrush', the boat was called The Empire Windrush, the first period of immigrants - until the late 1960s became informally known as 'the Windrush generation', the scandal took up that name. Nowhere in the article is it implied that any, or all the victims came on the boat itself. Actually, a few of those threatened with deportation HAD actually been on the Empire Windrush, boat and yes, they were by then in theit late 80s or 90s. WP refers to topics by the name commonly used in sources. Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Needs to be updated

Very dense coverage ends abruptly with events and sources from 2020 -- with many issues left unresolved at that time. Needs to be updated! 2600:4040:7688:9600:CD1B:21FC:3746:7805 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Citizenship of Windrush Generation

In the "Background" section the following statement was made: "Many of the countries from which the migrants had come became independent of the UK after 1948, thereby making those migrants citizens of the countries they formerly resided in." I grew up in Jamaica and we had a class in high school about the Constitution (early-mid 90s) as there was a push at the time to overhaul it. The Jamaican Constitution at the time was pretty much the boilerplate, 1950's, Colonial Office constitution AFAIK so many other newly independent Commonwealth countries might have had similar definitions. I don't recall that there was anything about giving Jamaican citizenship to people born in Jamaica but non-resident in it at independence (That was changed in 1993). If you were resident in Jamaica at independence (August 1962) you became a Jamaican by default (I'm sure there were some caveats) but If you had moved to England in, say, 1955 you would not automatically become a Jamaican citizen. You'd have to check the original Jamaican constituions Moreover (AFAIK) gaining Jamaican citizenship at Jamaican independence did not revoke your UK/British citizenship as long as you continued to assert it (maintain a passport etc). 174.169.91.252 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain of the full legal position on this, particularly the Jamaican legal position. From the PoV of this article, and of the scandal, those people who could not prove early and continuous residence in UK, were deemed by the UK Home Office to have 'commonwealth country' citizenship, or at least the right to it and were thus deported to their country of birth.

I would be surprised if Jamaica etc did not grant right to citizenship at independence to all those born there, even if they were living in one of the 'diaspora' countries, otherwise, a Jamaican-born person living and working in New York at the time as a legal resident there, but not a US citizen, could not be granted a Jamaican passport unless they 'went home', and it would have been easy for a Jamaican born person to become technically 'stateless' if they didn't have continuous residence, but as I say, I'm only guessing. It is also possible that Jamaican rules were different from those of other newly independent countries.

I don't think this 'error' fundamentally affects the scandal/article, but we should get these basic facts right, though we would need sources to make any change. Pincrete (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Formatting of citations; style of language

The way citations are gathered, especially for long chunks of text, make fact-checking and parsing strange. There are many ramble on sentences with too many citations gathered in one area, rather than placed at the appropriate part. Under Initial Warnings: Press Reports:

"The press coverage accused Home Office agencies of operating a "guilty until proven innocent" and "deport first, appeal later" regime; of targeting the weakest groups, particularly those from the Caribbean; of inhumanely applying regulations by cutting off access to jobs, services and bank accounts while cases were still being investigated; of losing large numbers of original documents that proved right to remain; of making unreasonable demands for documentary proof – in some instances, elderly people had been asked for four documents for each year they had lived in the UK; and of leaving people stranded outside the UK because of British administrative errors or intransigence and denial of medical treatment.[14 citations in a row]"

This is excessive and confusing, especially because 11 of those citations are new ones inserted for this section. Citations need to be reviewed and placed more accordingly as many are either dated/low quality (as of now), like mentioned above, and sections need to be rewritten. Sentences frequently run on when they could be singular statements.

Additionally, some language is in a fashion that may be needlessly wordy or more confusing than needed. Under Initial Warnings:

"... formal request for a meeting with the British Prime Minister to discuss the issue, which was rejected by Downing Street.[citation]"

The use of Downing Street to refer to the PM is unnecessary and may draw more confusion if anything. These sorts of things appear frequently in the article and contribute to the already difficult parsing from formatting. Trashling06 (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I will begin working on making sentences more legible in earlier sections, while maintaining current facts before they can be updated or fixed. Afterwards, I will try to put references in more appropriate sections rather than crowding them all at the end, if possible. Trashling06 (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Downing St is the office of the PM, when sources refer to it rather than the PM personally, we are surely obligated to respect that distinction. This is no different from President and White House or similar instances of the appointed person and their staff. Pincrete (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)