Forum Topic

I received a reply from Ann Keens office a few weeks ago and today have received a letter from her, giving me the response she has received from Tony McNulty Minister for State.Her letter was attached to the reply from him, with the staple right through the middle of the embossed heading - tsk tsk - don't they realise that people frame these letters?  I am keeping the signature for when she makes her money when she comes out of Office ... the holes will probably knock a few bob off.What was that?  …  Oh you were wondering what the answer was?Well, TM says that the constituents point about 'our removal policy not being applied fairly is incorrect.  Our removal policy does not discriminate in its objectives and is universally applied to all individuals irrespective of their background or country of origin'.I read the letter and I read between the lines and it sounds to me like one set of people are now playing off against another set of people but the end result was the Police were told that 'Indian illegals' were not a priority and they were let go.I suppose it is too much to get an answer of "Wow!  Gosh - DID this happen?  - IS this happening? - Do we want this to happen?  - How does it fit in with our agreed Policy so we can make sure the Police know our agreed policy and we can all sing from the same song sheet?At the moment the policy at the point of implementation is - I understand - Indian illegals are not a priority, which means that the agreed Policy, is not being implemented fairly.I think it is for the Police to comment on, now. 

Sarah Felstead ● 7193d

Matt.I wrote to Susan Kramer recently as there was an article in the local paper about her work with a family who are in the process of being deported.  The story I related to her was one concerning the developers around here and a story which had arisen from one of the sites.A report was apparently made that illegal workers were being employed on a development site.I understand (from a reliable source) that the Police investigated the issues involved and after visiting the site tucked 6 workers into a holding unit at Heathrow, with the intention of taking a prosecution against the developer.  New legislation rules that the responsibility for ensuring workers have correct papers, falls on the developer or employers head.Immigration, I understand, then said to the Police that 'Indian illegals' are not a priority, and let them go.  The Police could not proceed with a prosecution and the workers probably went back to working on the same development?If the rules regarding illegal workers/immigrants are not applied consistently and fairly, how can Immigration pick a family with the Children going through their formative years, and say they ARE a priority?  This group of illegal workers, I understand, were all male and most of the family groups will have females involved.  Who decides that 'Indian illegals' are not a priority then?  Who is interpreting the legislation to allow for this?I don't know when this occurred, I gave Susan Kramer the contacts details so it can be verified.Susan Kramer has just written to me to say that she has passed my letter on to Ann Keen - lovely letter on posh House of Commons paper!  ;-)Sarah

Sarah Felstead ● 7371d