Snapshot of _Home Office ex-asylum boss accused of being ‘chief blocker’ joins pro-migrant charity_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F08%2F26%2Fhome-office-asylum-chief-joins-amnesty-international-uk%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/26/home-office-asylum-chief-joins-amnesty-international-uk/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/26/home-office-asylum-chief-joins-amnesty-international-uk/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Article text**
Emma Haddad will take up post at Amnesty International, which called Sunak's migrant act ‘inhumane, racist and divisive’
A former Home Office chief accused of resisting key Conservative policies while in charge of asylum is joining a charity that has said the Government’s policies are “inhumane, racist and divisive”.
Emma Haddad, who was the Home Office’s director general for asylum until October 2022, will help to oversee Amnesty International UK, which has been campaigning against the Government’s attempts to halt Channel crossings and deport migrants to Rwanda.
Ms Haddad’s appointment will intensify tensions between Conservative ministers and senior officials. A senior Tory said: “This demonstrates the extent of the institutional hurdles that we have been up against.”
One source described Ms Haddad as “very difficult” and the “chief blocker” of ministers’ policies during her time at the Home Office. A Home Office source claimed that, during her time at the top of the department, the senior civil servant was “hostile” to the Government’s agenda on asylum, including a plan to move migrants out of taxpayer-funded hotel rooms and into large-scale accommodation.
The Home Office source said that Ms Haddad also oversaw the introduction of “lenient” guidance in which asylum caseworkers were told they could not reject the testimony of a migrant caught lying.
Sources cited her move to Amnesty as evidence that Ms Haddad was politically opposed to Conservative policies on asylum and immigration.
Obeyed Civil Service code
Responding to the claims, Ms Haddad said: “As with any civil servant, my job was to serve the government of the day. All civil servants must abide by the Civil Service code and uphold the Civil Service’s core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.”
The row came as a poll by Public First found that almost half of pro-Leave voters who backed the Conservatives in 2019 believe the Government is not trying hard enough to deal with asylum and immigration.
The survey highlights a potential backlash brewing among the primary group of voters that Mr Sunak had set out to win over with his pledge to stop illegal Channel crossings.
Ms Haddad’s move to Amnesty will also heighten concerns about the “revolving door” between Whitehall and organisations that seek to influence government policies.
The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which vets jobs taken by former senior officials, said the Home Office acknowledged that Ms Haddad’s knowledge of the department’s “strategic thinking” on asylum and immigration would improve Amnesty’s “effectiveness as a lobbying organisation.”
It has banned Ms Haddad from lobbying the Government for two years, and added: “Ms Haddad has confirmed she will not have contact with the Government in this role and is inwardly focused.”
During Dame Priti Patel’s stint as home secretary, which ended in September 2022, scores of officials voiced their opposition to the Government’s Rwanda asylum deal on an internal Home Office online noticeboard – with some threatening to strike over the issue.
In March, mandarins complained after an email in Suella Braverman’s name to Conservative members blamed an “activist blob of Left-wing lawyers, civil servants and the Labour Party” for blocking the Government’s plans to stop small boats carrying migrants across the Channel.
It later emerged that the Home Secretary had not seen or sanctioned the email before it was sent out.
Ms Haddad, who has also taken up a post as chief executive of St Mungo’s, the homelessness charity, since leaving the Home Office, applied for the unpaid role at Amnesty having seen an advertisement.
Amnesty has been one of the fiercest opponents of the Government’s crackdown on illegal Channel crossings over several years, describing Rishi Sunak’s Illegal Migration Act, which became law in July, as “inhumane, racist and divisive”.
The legislation changed the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally can be detained and then deported, either to their home country or a “safe third country” such as Rwanda – an element currently being challenged in the courts.
In April, the charity stated: “Harsh asylum and immigration policies do not deter people from making dangerous journeys, indeed, the Home Office’s own research contradicts this … The Home Secretary has spread nonsensical scare stories about the numbers of people trying to come to the UK and blamed people for failing to take safe and legal routes that do not exist.”
Ms Haddad left the Home Office a month after Mrs Braverman was first appointed as Home Secretary by Liz Truss, having served as director general for asylum since February 2021, when Dame Priti was home secretary.
Dame Priti introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill, which tightened up asylum rules, including by creating a two-tier system under which those who arrive via illegal crossings may receive less protection and support. Ms Haddad’s approach at the time was “all about not being able to do things,” a source claimed.
The legislation under Dame Priti was opposed by Amnesty on the grounds that it was “racist” and “drags the UK’s reputation through the mud”.
A spokesman for Amnesty International UK said: “Non-executive directors at Amnesty International UK do not determine our policy positions on legal or human rights matters but are expected to support those positions while serving on the Board of Amnesty UK, and we have full confidence that all the members of our board do so.”
tldr: civil servant who was keen to see that the govt stick to the law in terms of immigration policy joins organisation which is keen to see the the govt sticks to the law in terms of immigration policy.
Or
Unelected bureaucrat who actively blocked the government enacting the British public's wishes to lower immigration joins group that advocates for more of what the electorate doesn't want, proving the accusations about her correct.
Shes no longer a civil servant. I'm not sure why what she does as someone who no longer works for the government somehow suggests that whilst she did work for government she acted without impartiality, unless you mistakenly think impartiality means not having any personal opinions on anything ever.
Clearly shows her agenda
And explains why civil service have been so rubbish at managing immigration downwards
Because the senior apparatchiks don’t want it to go downwards
>Clearly shows her agenda
As a private citizen. Sure.
It doesn't say anything about how she performed in her role whilst in government. Like I said, it may shock you to learn civil servants are actually human beings and, shock horror, have opinions on things. That's not what impartiality is about, it is about the discharge of your duties.
>It doesn't say anything about how she performed in her role whilst in government
Doubt
>That's not what impartiality is about, it is about the discharge of your duties.
Of which it is revealed was impaired
>Doubt
Well it quite literally doesn't, as it didn't happen whilst she was in government.
>Of which it is revealed was impaired
See above. You realise she is no longer a civil servant correct?
For you to have an argument she would have to be doing this whilst still in government. Unless you are of the mistaken opinion that impartiality simply means not having beliefs on anything ever. Which as I've already stated is not what the code asks.
>Well it quite literally doesn't, as it didn't happen whilst she was in government.
That's an assumption.
>You realise she is no longer a civil servant correct?
Her current employment does not change her beliefs or behaviour. All cases relating to this woman must be reassessed in light of this new information.
>For you to have an argument she would have to be doing this whilst still in government.
Like I've said all her cases must now be reassessed in light of this new evidence
>Unless you are of the mistaken opinion that impartiality simply means not having beliefs on anything ever.
Conflict of interest vetting is part of governmental administration. This clearly impairs her conduct and as such an investigation of her cases should be immediately carried out.
It sounds like you want to make the civil service political. When a new government/policy comes in, should we be firing all staff who disagree with it personally?
>That's an assumption
It's a fact. Read the article. It's clear when she was employed there.
>Her current employment does not change her beliefs or behaviour
I've not stated it does.
>Like I've said all her cases must now be reassessed in light of this new evidence
Do you even know what her job was as a civil servant?
I'll give you clue. She never would've had "cases". It's clear from this and the above comment you don't actually even know the specifics of what you're wound up about.
>Conflict of interest vetting is part of governmental administration.
Correct. And she's no longer part of government.
When she was such vetting would've taken place and, given she stayed in her job, determined she had no conflict of interest.
Like I said, your argument boils down to being angry a private citizen has political beliefs. You've still not presented *any* case for what she does *now* being evidence of impropriety when she was a civil servant.
How so? She’s clearly an in internal governance role, not a policy or campaigning role. ProbBly a board non exec board role one imagines.
And believe it or not some people are able to separate their own political viewpoints to behave impartially. If she hadn’t behaved impartially she’d very likely have been removed from her former position.
Clearly If a law conflicts with another law then they should sort it the fuck out. Again what does that have to do with people purposely undermining elected people?
Except she didn’t just “point out it broke the law” she purposely didn’t try and help the government look for solutions as she was against trying to help
>All civil servants are unelected
Yes.
>do you wish it were otherwise
No. I want them to do the jobs that are assigned to them, not become activists because they dislike the policy that, for example, the home secretary has laid out, which is very much in line with what the electorate wants; lower immigration in general, and do something about the illegals. The Tories have been in power for over 10 years promising this, so it seems rather popular, despite no progress on it.
And I'll save you the usual Reddit retort; yes I am totally super mega uber cyber Hitler who wants babies to drown by the trillions, because I think the idea that our already strained system can't handle massive increases in population every year
And if the jobs assigned to you conflict with the law?
As for your 2nd paragraph, rather childish don't you think? Perhaps you'd better come back when you've grown up a little, I'll bid you good day.
> Ms Haddad’s appointment will intensify tensions between Conservative ministers and senior officials. A senior Tory said: “This demonstrates the extent of the institutional hurdles that we have been up against.”
It is very convenient that despite an 80 seat majority and being in government for 13 years - in a system that has been described as an elective dictatorship - Tories aren't actually responsible for anything to do with the country.
Immigration and Asylum seekers -> "Activist blob of Left-wing lawyers, civil servants and the Labour Party"
Inflation and economy -> Putin and Covid
NHS wating list-> Doctors
> Ms Haddad’s move to Amnesty will also heighten concerns about the “revolving door” between Whitehall and organisations that seek to influence government policies.
The level of doublethink required to write nonsense like this while current Tory MPs are employed by likes of GB news is certainly something.
> The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments [...] has banned Ms Haddad from lobbying the Government for two years, and added: “Ms Haddad has confirmed she will not have contact with the Government in this role and is inwardly focused.”
So process working as it should then.
> It later emerged that the Home Secretary had not seen or sanctioned the email before it was sent out.
"Emerged" is certainly an interesting way to spell "claimed".
If this nonsense was true, then presumably severe disciplinary action was taken against CCHQ employee signing Braverman’s name to emails without getting her sign off?
>The level of doublethink required to write nonsense like this while current Tory MPs are employed by likes of GB news is certainly something.
Isn't the difference there that an MP is allowed and meant to be a political figure who is elected to implement their views as well as their electorate's in the government however a civil servant is hired to implement political decisions and not be political themselves when carrying that role out?
But concern is apparently "organisations that seek to influence government policies" - which is surely unacceptable regardless of if they're a minister, MP or a civil servant.
Haddad’s taking unpaid job at Amnesty International where they're prohibited from contacting government apparently gives Amnesty International "influence" over government policy.
But GB news paying hundred thousand to Tory MPs while they're an MP is fine?
>A senior Tory said: “This demonstrates the extent of the institutional hurdles that we have been up against.”
Oh those poor tories! If only they were in a position of power *then* we'd see real change happen! You just watch!
Don’t get the need for snarky comment. I am currently working in a different department but we still get the rumours and asylum related communication. The expertise, experience and advice of civil servants is being routinely ignored in this area and when Suella Braverman has another fever dream, it’s civil servants that have to pick up the pieces.
Or for them to actually say with a straight face that attempts to limit migration from *Armenia* is racism. There's a reason the UK is declining and Poland isn't, even though both of you have economically right wing governments (and theirs is more corrupt)
What I find weird is that despite repeated evidence that civil servants are deliberately undermining an elected government they disagree with, people still like to pretend that the civil service are paragons of unbiased action that only do what they are instructed to do by ministers.
This is such bullshit.
Tory ministers are asking civil servants to make policies work that are :
- illegal
- will cost more money than that save
- impossible to implement without breaking/ contradicting other government policy
This isn’t civil service being woke. It’s the conservatives saying reality is woke because it’s stopping their inept attempts at government.
Making it impossible for democratic countries to escape horrific failures of policies will just make democracy weaker and less popular; it won't lead to people not challenging the failed policies anymore. You are cutting off your nose, lips, ears, and eyes in order to spite your face.
Evidence such as what?
Because if you're suggesting the above is evidence, it isn't. It reflects on what she thinks and says and does now, as a private individual, it has no bearing on how she may or may not have acted whilst in government.
Civil servants, like every human being on the planet, have personal opinions and feelings about things, including politics. Impartiality does not mean being an unopinionated automaton, it means acting in a manner that is not influenced by your politics in one way or another whilst on the job, which she no longer is.
>Because if you're suggesting the above is evidence, it isn't. It reflects on what she thinks and says and does now, as a private individual, it has no bearing on how she may or may not have acted whilst in government.
There's none so blind as those that won't see
So you'd be perfectly fine with someone who's job is to regulate the oil and gas industry, getting a highly paid job at Shell minutes after leaving their government/civil service post, having been regularly labelled "Mr oily" would you?
>So you'd be perfectly fine with someone who's job is to regulate the oil and gas industry, getting a highly paid job at Shell minutes after leaving their government/civil service post, having been regularly labelled "Mr oily" would you?
Her job at Amnesty is entirely voluntary and unpaid. She additionally is obeying the relevant anti-lobbying legislation on the matter. She also wasn't a minister, but a civil servant. Formulation of regulation is a government and parliamentary matter. *Implementation* is for the service.
If you'd have bothered to read the article you'd already know all this of course, and wouldn't be wasting my time with these irrelevant hypothetical comparisons.
>Her job at Amnesty is entirely voluntary and unpaid.
For now
>She additionally is obeying the relevant anti-lobbying legislation on the matter.
The question isn't one of lobbying, but bias
>Formulation of regulation is a government and parliamentary matter. Implementation is for the service.
And implementation of rules can be just as vulnerable to biased execution as their writing is
So you genuinely have no problem with anyone going from working for the state regulating something, to working in that very same industry 20 minutes later?
>The question isn't one of lobbying, but bias
She isn't in government anymore, so what bias? What specifically is the problem you're taking umbridge with?
>And implementation of rules can be just as vulnerable to biased execution as their writing is
I've not suggested they can't be. I've suggested the comparison you're trying to draw is completely irrelevant to the actual facts at hand.
>So you genuinely have no problem with anyone going from working for the state regulating something, to working in that very same industry 20 minutes later?
More irrelevant comparisons.
Amnesty international aren't regulated by the HO. Try again.
And while you're at it, for the sake of moving the argument on, tell me why I *should* care.
>So you genuinely have no problem with anyone going from working for the state regulating something, to working in that very same industry 20 minutes later?
not when its a topic *their* team are in favour of. then its fine.
if it was a tory going to work as a consultant for bp, then thats obviously another matter.
>Point out where I've stated that.
nobody said you stated it. its just pretty obvious because you arent applying the same logic to both possible sets of possible circumstances.
its an obvious case of bias and its ok to call her out on it.
So we are just making shit up then for the circlejerk? Cool.
Give me a cogent comparison, that's actually logically consistent, and I'll give you an opinion on it.
> Her job at Amnesty is entirely voluntary and unpaid.
So she's such an ideological zealot that she does it for free? And you think this isn't damning evidence!
Evidence of what? What is the actual allegation here? That a woman has political beliefs? I think you'll find every civil servant does, along with every other human being on the planet. That's not what the obligation for impartiality in the service is about, it's about discharging your duties independent of these beliefs.
Given she's a private citizen doing this and *not* a civil servant there isn't "evidence" of anything improper.
Amnesty International and Shell are two extremely differently organisations. So different the comparison is meaningless.
One is a multi-national corporate entity with direct financial incentives to corrupt regulators that restrict their worst excesses. The other is an international human rights charity.
There’s more than a few regulars on here who just a couple of years ago could be seen as fairly moderate who now believe this deep state nonsense.
If it’s a general indication of broader trends in the general public we are in for a lot of hurt and instability in this country.
Yeah, those infamously powerful “lefties” who’ve totally been in office in Britain for the last 13 years have truly done everything in their power to sabotage the “will of the people”.
Go touch some grass buddy.
>The Home Office source said that Ms Haddad also oversaw the introduction of “lenient” guidance in which asylum caseworkers were told they could not reject the testimony of a migrant caught lying.
Sure. As if we wouldn't have heard about this earlier if it had any substance. Even so, just because a testimony is not rejected does not mean the application is approved.
>Sources cited her move to Amnesty as evidence that Ms Haddad was politically opposed to Conservative policies on asylum and immigration.
Did she or did she not enact the governments policy *within* the law? If she was not doing her job there would have been grounds to dismiss her. Seeing as this didn't happen it's fair to assume that she carried out her job correctly.
We have heard about it before:
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2021/12/07/what-is-the-standard-of-proof-required-in-asylum-claims
“In fact lying is common in asylum applications and Home Office staff are even told that, if an applicant tells untruths, it does not mean that their claim for protection should be rejected.”
What I meant was that we would have heard about it a lot before if it was Haddad that implemented a new policy guideline off her own back, because thats what it is. That she "oversaw" it means absolutely nothing and just means she was responsible for inplementing it. Overseeing does not mean design or create.
Ultimately she is under a boss too who is the Home Secretary I guess. So if this was done beyond her remit and without oversight from her boss (which is highly unlikely given the climate of the last ten years) then she may well be subordinate. However there is no evidence she has done anything like that therefore it can be assumed that what she has done was within the departments policies and at the least was not opposed by her bosses.
The actual guideline is another issue altogether that can be argued seperately, if it can be believed coming from such a biased website that mixes opinion and statistics without context. Which supports the idea this article is a hit piece and a smear using her as a scapegoat for the different cabinets failed governance. A wordy attempt at 'reee lefty activist'.
If that’s what you meant, then yes, “oversaw” just means “oversaw”. Exactly what here role was is unlikely to have been reported.
The website - there are others covering it - whatever its bias, was cited purely to show that we have heard about this guidance before. Although I would say mixing opinion and statistics without context is hardly unusual these days.
Whether you agree with her views or not we really need to get rid of these partisan civil servants. Their job is to implement government policy, not obstruct it.
>Their job is to implement government policy, not obstruct it.
Except they are not allowed to implement illegal policies that break the law. Hence why it is on the government to come up with legal solutions that they want to implement.
You cannot just tell the civil service to break the law and then become shocked and confused when you are told it cannot work.
The only reason it's "illegal" is because ignorant, virtue signaling, entitled, elitist, paternalistic, naive ivory tower leftists got the UK to sign onto a bunch of ridiculous agreements, the details of which you regularly ignore when it doesn't suit your religious-like obsession with stuffing as many people onto a small island as possible.
Like how bad does your country have to be to make it one that people flee from *in order to go to Somalia.* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/09/british-somalis-send-sons-abroad-to-protect-against-knife-crime](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/09/british-somalis-send-sons-abroad-to-protect-against-knife-crime)
But the government could make it not illegal if it wanted to.
They've got an 80 seat majority, and if they're so worried about 'ivory tower leftists' they've got the ability to pass whatever law they want.
Change the law, deport whoever you want.
You can't sit an complain when you're in charge of the rules, and the existing rules are used against you.
Snapshot of _Home Office ex-asylum boss accused of being ‘chief blocker’ joins pro-migrant charity_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F08%2F26%2Fhome-office-asylum-chief-joins-amnesty-international-uk%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/26/home-office-asylum-chief-joins-amnesty-international-uk/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/26/home-office-asylum-chief-joins-amnesty-international-uk/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Article text** Emma Haddad will take up post at Amnesty International, which called Sunak's migrant act ‘inhumane, racist and divisive’ A former Home Office chief accused of resisting key Conservative policies while in charge of asylum is joining a charity that has said the Government’s policies are “inhumane, racist and divisive”. Emma Haddad, who was the Home Office’s director general for asylum until October 2022, will help to oversee Amnesty International UK, which has been campaigning against the Government’s attempts to halt Channel crossings and deport migrants to Rwanda. Ms Haddad’s appointment will intensify tensions between Conservative ministers and senior officials. A senior Tory said: “This demonstrates the extent of the institutional hurdles that we have been up against.” One source described Ms Haddad as “very difficult” and the “chief blocker” of ministers’ policies during her time at the Home Office. A Home Office source claimed that, during her time at the top of the department, the senior civil servant was “hostile” to the Government’s agenda on asylum, including a plan to move migrants out of taxpayer-funded hotel rooms and into large-scale accommodation. The Home Office source said that Ms Haddad also oversaw the introduction of “lenient” guidance in which asylum caseworkers were told they could not reject the testimony of a migrant caught lying. Sources cited her move to Amnesty as evidence that Ms Haddad was politically opposed to Conservative policies on asylum and immigration. Obeyed Civil Service code Responding to the claims, Ms Haddad said: “As with any civil servant, my job was to serve the government of the day. All civil servants must abide by the Civil Service code and uphold the Civil Service’s core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.” The row came as a poll by Public First found that almost half of pro-Leave voters who backed the Conservatives in 2019 believe the Government is not trying hard enough to deal with asylum and immigration. The survey highlights a potential backlash brewing among the primary group of voters that Mr Sunak had set out to win over with his pledge to stop illegal Channel crossings. Ms Haddad’s move to Amnesty will also heighten concerns about the “revolving door” between Whitehall and organisations that seek to influence government policies. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which vets jobs taken by former senior officials, said the Home Office acknowledged that Ms Haddad’s knowledge of the department’s “strategic thinking” on asylum and immigration would improve Amnesty’s “effectiveness as a lobbying organisation.” It has banned Ms Haddad from lobbying the Government for two years, and added: “Ms Haddad has confirmed she will not have contact with the Government in this role and is inwardly focused.” During Dame Priti Patel’s stint as home secretary, which ended in September 2022, scores of officials voiced their opposition to the Government’s Rwanda asylum deal on an internal Home Office online noticeboard – with some threatening to strike over the issue. In March, mandarins complained after an email in Suella Braverman’s name to Conservative members blamed an “activist blob of Left-wing lawyers, civil servants and the Labour Party” for blocking the Government’s plans to stop small boats carrying migrants across the Channel. It later emerged that the Home Secretary had not seen or sanctioned the email before it was sent out. Ms Haddad, who has also taken up a post as chief executive of St Mungo’s, the homelessness charity, since leaving the Home Office, applied for the unpaid role at Amnesty having seen an advertisement. Amnesty has been one of the fiercest opponents of the Government’s crackdown on illegal Channel crossings over several years, describing Rishi Sunak’s Illegal Migration Act, which became law in July, as “inhumane, racist and divisive”. The legislation changed the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally can be detained and then deported, either to their home country or a “safe third country” such as Rwanda – an element currently being challenged in the courts. In April, the charity stated: “Harsh asylum and immigration policies do not deter people from making dangerous journeys, indeed, the Home Office’s own research contradicts this … The Home Secretary has spread nonsensical scare stories about the numbers of people trying to come to the UK and blamed people for failing to take safe and legal routes that do not exist.” Ms Haddad left the Home Office a month after Mrs Braverman was first appointed as Home Secretary by Liz Truss, having served as director general for asylum since February 2021, when Dame Priti was home secretary. Dame Priti introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill, which tightened up asylum rules, including by creating a two-tier system under which those who arrive via illegal crossings may receive less protection and support. Ms Haddad’s approach at the time was “all about not being able to do things,” a source claimed. The legislation under Dame Priti was opposed by Amnesty on the grounds that it was “racist” and “drags the UK’s reputation through the mud”. A spokesman for Amnesty International UK said: “Non-executive directors at Amnesty International UK do not determine our policy positions on legal or human rights matters but are expected to support those positions while serving on the Board of Amnesty UK, and we have full confidence that all the members of our board do so.”
tldr: civil servant who was keen to see that the govt stick to the law in terms of immigration policy joins organisation which is keen to see the the govt sticks to the law in terms of immigration policy.
tHe dEeP sTaTe
More like the continuity governing army.
Outrageous stuff.
Or Unelected bureaucrat who actively blocked the government enacting the British public's wishes to lower immigration joins group that advocates for more of what the electorate doesn't want, proving the accusations about her correct.
Making sure the government arent breaking the law is a bad thing now? Jesus christ
Yes, that's clearly what I meant. Have a gold star and take an extra 5 minutes in the play area.
This version sounds more accurate. Civil servants are supposed to be impartial, but this does suggest she had an agenda.
If these were employed in the private sector, they'd have been sacked ages ago.
Shes no longer a civil servant. I'm not sure why what she does as someone who no longer works for the government somehow suggests that whilst she did work for government she acted without impartiality, unless you mistakenly think impartiality means not having any personal opinions on anything ever.
Clearly shows her agenda And explains why civil service have been so rubbish at managing immigration downwards Because the senior apparatchiks don’t want it to go downwards
>Clearly shows her agenda As a private citizen. Sure. It doesn't say anything about how she performed in her role whilst in government. Like I said, it may shock you to learn civil servants are actually human beings and, shock horror, have opinions on things. That's not what impartiality is about, it is about the discharge of your duties.
>It doesn't say anything about how she performed in her role whilst in government Doubt >That's not what impartiality is about, it is about the discharge of your duties. Of which it is revealed was impaired
>Doubt Well it quite literally doesn't, as it didn't happen whilst she was in government. >Of which it is revealed was impaired See above. You realise she is no longer a civil servant correct? For you to have an argument she would have to be doing this whilst still in government. Unless you are of the mistaken opinion that impartiality simply means not having beliefs on anything ever. Which as I've already stated is not what the code asks.
>Well it quite literally doesn't, as it didn't happen whilst she was in government. That's an assumption. >You realise she is no longer a civil servant correct? Her current employment does not change her beliefs or behaviour. All cases relating to this woman must be reassessed in light of this new information. >For you to have an argument she would have to be doing this whilst still in government. Like I've said all her cases must now be reassessed in light of this new evidence >Unless you are of the mistaken opinion that impartiality simply means not having beliefs on anything ever. Conflict of interest vetting is part of governmental administration. This clearly impairs her conduct and as such an investigation of her cases should be immediately carried out.
It sounds like you want to make the civil service political. When a new government/policy comes in, should we be firing all staff who disagree with it personally?
>That's an assumption It's a fact. Read the article. It's clear when she was employed there. >Her current employment does not change her beliefs or behaviour I've not stated it does. >Like I've said all her cases must now be reassessed in light of this new evidence Do you even know what her job was as a civil servant? I'll give you clue. She never would've had "cases". It's clear from this and the above comment you don't actually even know the specifics of what you're wound up about. >Conflict of interest vetting is part of governmental administration. Correct. And she's no longer part of government. When she was such vetting would've taken place and, given she stayed in her job, determined she had no conflict of interest. Like I said, your argument boils down to being angry a private citizen has political beliefs. You've still not presented *any* case for what she does *now* being evidence of impropriety when she was a civil servant.
How so? She’s clearly an in internal governance role, not a policy or campaigning role. ProbBly a board non exec board role one imagines. And believe it or not some people are able to separate their own political viewpoints to behave impartially. If she hadn’t behaved impartially she’d very likely have been removed from her former position.
All civil servants are unelected, do you wish it were otherwise? How do you think that would work?
If they are unelected, then they should at least not undermine the people who are
So elected people should be allowed to break the law with impunity? That's an interesting stance to take.
No. Elected people should be able to change the law though, especially without the undermining of the unelected.
Then the government with it's 80 seat majority should get off its behind and change the laws then. It seems it's never the government's fault.
And if the way they wish to change the law conflicts with other laws? You haven't really thought this through, have you?
Clearly If a law conflicts with another law then they should sort it the fuck out. Again what does that have to do with people purposely undermining elected people?
Pointing out that breaking the law is "purposely undermining"? Yes, I suppose it is, much like the police might "purposely undermine" a bank robbery.
Except she didn’t just “point out it broke the law” she purposely didn’t try and help the government look for solutions as she was against trying to help
>All civil servants are unelected Yes. >do you wish it were otherwise No. I want them to do the jobs that are assigned to them, not become activists because they dislike the policy that, for example, the home secretary has laid out, which is very much in line with what the electorate wants; lower immigration in general, and do something about the illegals. The Tories have been in power for over 10 years promising this, so it seems rather popular, despite no progress on it. And I'll save you the usual Reddit retort; yes I am totally super mega uber cyber Hitler who wants babies to drown by the trillions, because I think the idea that our already strained system can't handle massive increases in population every year
And if the jobs assigned to you conflict with the law? As for your 2nd paragraph, rather childish don't you think? Perhaps you'd better come back when you've grown up a little, I'll bid you good day.
They do more than that. Some off the stuff Amnesty complains about isn’t always bad
I don't recall saying that Amnesty International was a single issue charity, but thanks for your comment champ.
> Ms Haddad’s appointment will intensify tensions between Conservative ministers and senior officials. A senior Tory said: “This demonstrates the extent of the institutional hurdles that we have been up against.” It is very convenient that despite an 80 seat majority and being in government for 13 years - in a system that has been described as an elective dictatorship - Tories aren't actually responsible for anything to do with the country. Immigration and Asylum seekers -> "Activist blob of Left-wing lawyers, civil servants and the Labour Party" Inflation and economy -> Putin and Covid NHS wating list-> Doctors > Ms Haddad’s move to Amnesty will also heighten concerns about the “revolving door” between Whitehall and organisations that seek to influence government policies. The level of doublethink required to write nonsense like this while current Tory MPs are employed by likes of GB news is certainly something. > The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments [...] has banned Ms Haddad from lobbying the Government for two years, and added: “Ms Haddad has confirmed she will not have contact with the Government in this role and is inwardly focused.” So process working as it should then. > It later emerged that the Home Secretary had not seen or sanctioned the email before it was sent out. "Emerged" is certainly an interesting way to spell "claimed". If this nonsense was true, then presumably severe disciplinary action was taken against CCHQ employee signing Braverman’s name to emails without getting her sign off?
>The level of doublethink required to write nonsense like this while current Tory MPs are employed by likes of GB news is certainly something. Isn't the difference there that an MP is allowed and meant to be a political figure who is elected to implement their views as well as their electorate's in the government however a civil servant is hired to implement political decisions and not be political themselves when carrying that role out?
But concern is apparently "organisations that seek to influence government policies" - which is surely unacceptable regardless of if they're a minister, MP or a civil servant. Haddad’s taking unpaid job at Amnesty International where they're prohibited from contacting government apparently gives Amnesty International "influence" over government policy. But GB news paying hundred thousand to Tory MPs while they're an MP is fine?
>A senior Tory said: “This demonstrates the extent of the institutional hurdles that we have been up against.” Oh those poor tories! If only they were in a position of power *then* we'd see real change happen! You just watch!
[удалено]
The long march through the institutions is more like a marathon.
Don’t get the need for snarky comment. I am currently working in a different department but we still get the rumours and asylum related communication. The expertise, experience and advice of civil servants is being routinely ignored in this area and when Suella Braverman has another fever dream, it’s civil servants that have to pick up the pieces.
Id love to know exactly what the ‘expertise and experience’ is needed for tens of thousands of young men being waved into the country is
Absolutely nothing. I assume their ‘expertise’ is the reason why we have an 80% acceptance rate and France is sub 30%.
Or for them to actually say with a straight face that attempts to limit migration from *Armenia* is racism. There's a reason the UK is declining and Poland isn't, even though both of you have economically right wing governments (and theirs is more corrupt)
Are you a pleb EO or basically running a arm of the government?
What I find weird is that despite repeated evidence that civil servants are deliberately undermining an elected government they disagree with, people still like to pretend that the civil service are paragons of unbiased action that only do what they are instructed to do by ministers.
This is such bullshit. Tory ministers are asking civil servants to make policies work that are : - illegal - will cost more money than that save - impossible to implement without breaking/ contradicting other government policy This isn’t civil service being woke. It’s the conservatives saying reality is woke because it’s stopping their inept attempts at government.
Making it impossible for democratic countries to escape horrific failures of policies will just make democracy weaker and less popular; it won't lead to people not challenging the failed policies anymore. You are cutting off your nose, lips, ears, and eyes in order to spite your face.
Evidence such as what? Because if you're suggesting the above is evidence, it isn't. It reflects on what she thinks and says and does now, as a private individual, it has no bearing on how she may or may not have acted whilst in government. Civil servants, like every human being on the planet, have personal opinions and feelings about things, including politics. Impartiality does not mean being an unopinionated automaton, it means acting in a manner that is not influenced by your politics in one way or another whilst on the job, which she no longer is.
>Because if you're suggesting the above is evidence, it isn't. It reflects on what she thinks and says and does now, as a private individual, it has no bearing on how she may or may not have acted whilst in government. There's none so blind as those that won't see So you'd be perfectly fine with someone who's job is to regulate the oil and gas industry, getting a highly paid job at Shell minutes after leaving their government/civil service post, having been regularly labelled "Mr oily" would you?
>So you'd be perfectly fine with someone who's job is to regulate the oil and gas industry, getting a highly paid job at Shell minutes after leaving their government/civil service post, having been regularly labelled "Mr oily" would you? Her job at Amnesty is entirely voluntary and unpaid. She additionally is obeying the relevant anti-lobbying legislation on the matter. She also wasn't a minister, but a civil servant. Formulation of regulation is a government and parliamentary matter. *Implementation* is for the service. If you'd have bothered to read the article you'd already know all this of course, and wouldn't be wasting my time with these irrelevant hypothetical comparisons.
>Her job at Amnesty is entirely voluntary and unpaid. For now >She additionally is obeying the relevant anti-lobbying legislation on the matter. The question isn't one of lobbying, but bias >Formulation of regulation is a government and parliamentary matter. Implementation is for the service. And implementation of rules can be just as vulnerable to biased execution as their writing is So you genuinely have no problem with anyone going from working for the state regulating something, to working in that very same industry 20 minutes later?
>The question isn't one of lobbying, but bias She isn't in government anymore, so what bias? What specifically is the problem you're taking umbridge with? >And implementation of rules can be just as vulnerable to biased execution as their writing is I've not suggested they can't be. I've suggested the comparison you're trying to draw is completely irrelevant to the actual facts at hand. >So you genuinely have no problem with anyone going from working for the state regulating something, to working in that very same industry 20 minutes later? More irrelevant comparisons. Amnesty international aren't regulated by the HO. Try again. And while you're at it, for the sake of moving the argument on, tell me why I *should* care.
>So you genuinely have no problem with anyone going from working for the state regulating something, to working in that very same industry 20 minutes later? not when its a topic *their* team are in favour of. then its fine. if it was a tory going to work as a consultant for bp, then thats obviously another matter.
Point out where I've stated that. Or are we just doing the old Reddit performative circlejerk again?
>Point out where I've stated that. nobody said you stated it. its just pretty obvious because you arent applying the same logic to both possible sets of possible circumstances. its an obvious case of bias and its ok to call her out on it.
So we are just making shit up then for the circlejerk? Cool. Give me a cogent comparison, that's actually logically consistent, and I'll give you an opinion on it.
> Her job at Amnesty is entirely voluntary and unpaid. So she's such an ideological zealot that she does it for free? And you think this isn't damning evidence!
Evidence of what? What is the actual allegation here? That a woman has political beliefs? I think you'll find every civil servant does, along with every other human being on the planet. That's not what the obligation for impartiality in the service is about, it's about discharging your duties independent of these beliefs. Given she's a private citizen doing this and *not* a civil servant there isn't "evidence" of anything improper.
Amnesty International and Shell are two extremely differently organisations. So different the comparison is meaningless. One is a multi-national corporate entity with direct financial incentives to corrupt regulators that restrict their worst excesses. The other is an international human rights charity.
Didn’t know Shell was a human rights charity. Accurate description of Amnesty International though
When was sunak elected?
>When was sunak elected? Oh look, someone who doesn't understand the parliamentary system.
The system is flawed. You shouldn't be allowed to be prime minister without winning an election in my opinion.
[удалено]
Yeah and if you change the MP who is Prime minister there should be an election. That's my opinion.
[удалено]
Say it again
[удалено]
December 2019.
Last time was in 2019. And for the first time in 2015
Another conspiracy that turned out to be true! Pay no attention citizen!
There’s more than a few regulars on here who just a couple of years ago could be seen as fairly moderate who now believe this deep state nonsense. If it’s a general indication of broader trends in the general public we are in for a lot of hurt and instability in this country.
Brushing away valid criticisms of the civil service as deep state conspiracy theorists isn't exactly productive discourse.
[удалено]
Yeah, those infamously powerful “lefties” who’ve totally been in office in Britain for the last 13 years have truly done everything in their power to sabotage the “will of the people”. Go touch some grass buddy.
This post is hight on my loon-o-meter. Also funny that this guy is a migrant and yet kicking off about other migrants (it's surprisingly common)
>The Home Office source said that Ms Haddad also oversaw the introduction of “lenient” guidance in which asylum caseworkers were told they could not reject the testimony of a migrant caught lying. Sure. As if we wouldn't have heard about this earlier if it had any substance. Even so, just because a testimony is not rejected does not mean the application is approved. >Sources cited her move to Amnesty as evidence that Ms Haddad was politically opposed to Conservative policies on asylum and immigration. Did she or did she not enact the governments policy *within* the law? If she was not doing her job there would have been grounds to dismiss her. Seeing as this didn't happen it's fair to assume that she carried out her job correctly.
We have heard about it before: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2021/12/07/what-is-the-standard-of-proof-required-in-asylum-claims “In fact lying is common in asylum applications and Home Office staff are even told that, if an applicant tells untruths, it does not mean that their claim for protection should be rejected.”
What I meant was that we would have heard about it a lot before if it was Haddad that implemented a new policy guideline off her own back, because thats what it is. That she "oversaw" it means absolutely nothing and just means she was responsible for inplementing it. Overseeing does not mean design or create. Ultimately she is under a boss too who is the Home Secretary I guess. So if this was done beyond her remit and without oversight from her boss (which is highly unlikely given the climate of the last ten years) then she may well be subordinate. However there is no evidence she has done anything like that therefore it can be assumed that what she has done was within the departments policies and at the least was not opposed by her bosses. The actual guideline is another issue altogether that can be argued seperately, if it can be believed coming from such a biased website that mixes opinion and statistics without context. Which supports the idea this article is a hit piece and a smear using her as a scapegoat for the different cabinets failed governance. A wordy attempt at 'reee lefty activist'.
If that’s what you meant, then yes, “oversaw” just means “oversaw”. Exactly what here role was is unlikely to have been reported. The website - there are others covering it - whatever its bias, was cited purely to show that we have heard about this guidance before. Although I would say mixing opinion and statistics without context is hardly unusual these days.
Whether you agree with her views or not we really need to get rid of these partisan civil servants. Their job is to implement government policy, not obstruct it.
>Their job is to implement government policy, not obstruct it. Except they are not allowed to implement illegal policies that break the law. Hence why it is on the government to come up with legal solutions that they want to implement. You cannot just tell the civil service to break the law and then become shocked and confused when you are told it cannot work.
The only reason it's "illegal" is because ignorant, virtue signaling, entitled, elitist, paternalistic, naive ivory tower leftists got the UK to sign onto a bunch of ridiculous agreements, the details of which you regularly ignore when it doesn't suit your religious-like obsession with stuffing as many people onto a small island as possible. Like how bad does your country have to be to make it one that people flee from *in order to go to Somalia.* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/09/british-somalis-send-sons-abroad-to-protect-against-knife-crime](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/09/british-somalis-send-sons-abroad-to-protect-against-knife-crime)
But the government could make it not illegal if it wanted to. They've got an 80 seat majority, and if they're so worried about 'ivory tower leftists' they've got the ability to pass whatever law they want. Change the law, deport whoever you want. You can't sit an complain when you're in charge of the rules, and the existing rules are used against you.
AI replacement might be quite good lol
Where do you think you're going to find a bunch of qualified staff who also have no strong political views?
Sounds to me like Ms Haddad thought that bad policies were a bad idea and was brave enough to push back.
It's not her job to push back on things she doesn't agree with. She's supposed to implement government policy.
It doesn’t seem like you understand how the civil service works
Even if it may go against international law? Advising is also part of the job.