‘Chasing status’ – report proves May knew about the Windrush catastrophe in 2014



Theresa May continues to face increasing pressure over the situation faced by the ‘Windrush generation’ of people from Jamaica and other Commonwealth countries – named after the vessel on which the first group arrived in 1948.

Those UK citizens have faced loss of employment and accommodation – and even deportation – because their status in the UK became ‘irregular’ as a result of May’s ‘hostile environment’ policies that she implemented as Home Secretary in 2014, but flagged as early as 2012.

May apologised to Commonwealth leaders visiting the UK this week, but has attempted to shift blame onto Home Office and Border Force employees – and even, dishonestly, onto the Labour Party.

But proof has emerged that Mrs May was warned, in detail, about the impact of her policies on the immigration status of Windrush-generation citizens – by a study published by the Legal Action Group in October 2014, under the title:

Chasing status: if not British, then what am I?
The ‘Surprised Brits’ who find they are living with irregular immigration status

The document looks at the experiences of various groups affected – but “Jamaica”/”Jamaican” feature prominently – over fifty times in a 21-page document.

And the pre-1973 migrants who were guaranteed their rights in 1973 legislation – but had those guarantees specifically removed by May’s 2014 laws – appear throughout:


There is even a specific appendix titled, “How the position changed for Jamaican migrants“, which states:

The Immigration Act 1973 (which came into force on 1 January that year) conferred indefinite leave to remain on those who were ‘settled’ in the UK and who didn’t otherwise qualify for right of abode. Many Jamaicans living in the UK at that time therefore acquired settled status. They remained entitled to live in the UK permanently and to register as British citizens…

Those who came to the UK in the 60s and 70s retained their right to reside but often lacked the documents to prove that they had the right to live here. This was not so important in the earlier decades but in recent years they have increasingly been called upon to prove their right to live in the UK in order to access work or benefits. An old Jamaican passport from 40 years ago is not accepted as proof. A newly issued passport does not contain any residence stamp. Applying for a permanent residence stamp in a new passport costs hundreds of pounds in fees to the Home Office and requires the applicant to provide evidence of residence in this country on a yearly basis going back as much as 40 years.

This report was sent to Theresa May.


The idea that Theresa May only recently became aware of the dire situation faced by ‘Windrush generation’ citizens have always lacked credibility – yet she has claimed to have no knowledge of any deportations and has tried to rehabilitate her image by means of supposedly ‘prompt’ action to waive fees and set up a helpline for affected people.

The last shreds of her cover have been obliterated by the 2014 ‘Chasing Status’. She was told four years ago and did nothing – until it became a political embarrassment.

During that time, thousands of Commonwealth citizens have been deported and many more have faced terrible stress, distress and hardship.

Her position has been untenable, but she has clung to it with the help of the complicit BBC and other media.

No more.

The full report can be downloaded here.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. So, Theresa May was, despite her dishonest public denials, fully aware that the hostile immigration environment she championed at the Home Office would directly and severely impact the lives of the Windrush generation.

    The game is up for the prime minister.

    Theresa May will have to resign.

  2. Read this not sure how true it is, perhaps you can track a source down Police Officers that were caught up in the #Windrush Racist Situation were exempt from being deported courtesy of @theresa_may, this hasn’t been reported in the MSM, & it tells us she absolutely KNEW all along, as well as @AmberRuddHR what they were doing, this is Criminal 100%

  3. A wonderful female Labour member and partner of a friend of mine who is a Labour Candidate in the local elections in a multi- cultural inner city area is planning to stand outside a polling station all day with her Labour rosette on, on Local Election Day to welcome our brother and sister Windrush Generation voters and we plan to stand with her.
    Because I love music I keep thinking of a line from a Bob Marley song which perhaps sums up the Tories and I think it goes: “The Heathen Knock they on the door.” Solidarity!

  4. The Windrush scandal is bad enough for Theresa May, but despite the acknowledged hardship her actions have caused for hundreds of people, who came here legitimately to support Britain, a far greater crime, and make no mistake it is a crime, is her ordering of an attack, without good reason, on another sovereign nation i.e. Syria.

    Why have Skwawkbox and others seemingly ignored this breaking of international law by May and not given it the attention or the significance it warrants?

  5. Jack T, I think Skwawkbox and others have done a huge amount to challenge the evidence for and the morality of the attack.
    Given that journalists – and most lawyers – are unqualified to challenge the attack on its legality how would that even be possible?
    International law doesn’t influence voter opinion much so it doesn’t stop governments taking military action – especially if they think the Falklands effect might win them a landslide.
    Bush & Blair are still free after all this time so where exactly is the downside in flouting international law?

    1. David, there is absolutely NO doubt that our attack was illegal. It did not meet ANY of the UN 1945 Charter terms under which it could have been justified, which basically are; either WE have to be under attack or WE have to be under threat of imminent attack.

      Neither of the above applied, therefore May had to fall back on the “to alleviate THE extreme humanitarian suffering” – excuse, her words, my emphasis.

      Whether or not our attack was moral or not is immaterial to whether it was legal. Even moral intervention is not necessarily a recognised justification in International Law.

      She claimed it was because of Assad’s chemical attack on Douma.

      If indeed a chemical attack had even occurred, it was over and done with therefore could not be prevented. If it was to prevent future attacks, did she have evidence that one was about to happen? in a Commons answer to an SNP MP she said she didn’t.

      In International Law you cannot launch an attack of any sort on a foreign nation without absolute evidence, otherwise states could attack others on a whim. May had no case and zero evidence therefore she is guilty of a war crime and this is what Skwawkbox and others should be pushing.

      Just because the right wing media, including the BBC, are trying to brush it under the carpet, it doesn’t mean that the independents should be frightened off.

      By attacking Syria, May has given Assad a perfectly justifiable reason in International Law to attack the UK.

      1. There was no chemical weapons attack. It was all staged by the so-called white-helmets. Just a couple of weeks beforehand – and a couple of weeks or so after the Salisbury incident, which was also undoubtedly staged – RT was running a piece in which a Russian army general was saying that a false flag chemical attack was being planned in Syria, albeit a different location to where it actually happened. Assad had absolutely no reason whatsoever to order a chemical weapons attack on his own people, and potentially much to lose, and at present RT are running news items in which a doctor at the hospital is saying there was absolutely no evidence of anyone suffering from exposure to a chemical weapon, and also interviewing people who were present at the hospital at the time and – in the aftermath of an explosion – were saying that someone suddenly came rushing in shouting there had been a chemical weapons attack – ie the explosion – and started hosing everyone down with water.


      2. Jack, I’ve no doubt you’ve no doubt but I’m completely unqualified to judge your or anyone else’s degree of expertise – so despite being personally convinced all Tories are liars and criminals I wouldn’t expect Skwawkbox to publish on my say so or on yours.
        I’ve never seen international lawyers united in agreement on anything so I have to assume there may be at least some differing views.

        Why would a journalist risk his credibility by writing more than he can prove or has an authoritative named source for?

        Never been accused by the MSM of publishing fake news myself – have you?.
        Skwawkbox has and the MSM would stop at nothing to discredit him and recover some credibility for themselves – therefore I suggest it’s for him to decide where he draws the line on his own blog.
        I’m just grateful he hasn’t deleted any of my geriatric rantings (that I remember).

      3. David, you don’t need to be any sort of expert to judge that Theresa May has committed a war crime you just need to read the UN 1945 Charter where it states clearly the conditions under which it is legal to use force against another State.

        Aside from that, there are MANY lawyers expert in International Law who agree that the attack by May, Trump and Macron was illegal, here is just one for example:


        You won’t of course hear about them in the British MSM because it is intent on protecting May but It would be quite easy for Skwawkbox or anyone else to bring the UN Charter and the opinions of legal experts questioning the legality of the attacks to the attention of the public, with no difficulty whatsoever.

      4. Jack, there are roughly thirty universities in the UK alone offering various degree courses in international law – multiply that by, say, ten times for RoW, multiply again by ten for the number of years operating and ten again for the number of degrees awarded per course per year.
        You’ll agree that 30,000 would be a ridiculously low estimate of the total worldwide number of “international lawyers” currently practising.
        My own very limited experience is that for every ten lawyers asked there will be more than ten opinions proffered.
        Any government will be able to produce a whole raft of them eager to uphold their government’s position with one voice whatever that position might be from day to day – because LAWYERS DISSEMBLE BEST FOR MONEYED CLIENTS.
        It’s a law.
        Steve’s high profile makes him a prime target for dirty tricks.
        With respect, I say you’re wrong to try to press him.
        I was of course aware of the meat of your last reply.

      5. David, I find your arguments strange to say the least. Just because one set of lawyers say one thing, it’s not a reason to ignore opinions of others with whom you agree.

        Jeremy Corbyn himself says the legal case for the attack is doubtful and he is correct. All the more reason to support him by backing him up with strong arguments.

        Skwawkbox has quite rightly stuck to the Skripal case, pointing out what appear to be flaws and anomalies. If ever a case needs to be demolished, it’s May’s contention that what she did was legal.

  6. BBC Sunday Politics Bias ? blatant note the questioning of emily and the chosen camera angle

  7. Just witnessed a slow motion car crash interview with Maureen Lipman on the Peston Show.

    Having previously called Jeremy Corbyn an anti-Semite, Maureen Lipman backed away from her own accusation and questioned whether she had made the accusation, despite her quote being widely reported.

    Things got increasingly bizarre when Maureen questioned why there were protests about Palestinians being murdered by IDF snipers but no protests about Syria, despite Stop the War only recently having held a protest about Syria.

    Things became even more surreal when Maureen then said that because of her concerns about racism in the Labour Party she would now be voting for the institutionally racist Conservative Party.

    Maureen appears to be lecturing others on racism whilst simultaneously being a practitioner.

    1. I hate repeating myself (laugh, I dare you) but I said this on Twitter earlier:

      David McNiven
      Replying to @pestononsunday @maureenlipman @OwenSmith_MP

      So… Corbyn was with the “wrong people” on the “wrong night for Seder?”
      So… now she’s “thinking about” turning Tory?
      So… if I’m NOT an anti-Semite should I prove it by turning Tory too?
      If any of the 240,000 disagree with her are THEY the wrong people too?
      I’m so confused!

      I hate Tories who pretend to be nice old left-leaning ladies forced to reverse their lifetime convictions by the horror that is the devil Corbyn.

  8. Today Diane Abbott says ” The Windrush scandal shames Britain. I say, May and Rudd shame Britain. What does Usain Bolt say about Britain and Windrush? ”

    Sky News reported on Windrush scandal last night, BBC News did not touch it. BBC News are complicit.

    1. There is only one conclusion to draw from the BBC’s reporting of the Windrush story.

      Like its fellow traveller, the Conservative Party, the BBC is an institutionally racist organisation.

  9. Everything about this is sickening and disgraceful. The very act of turning landlords, doctors, teachers and employers into border guards, and militarising the general public feels like something copied straight out of a Nazi party rule book. The government’s obsession with targets and figures – first with the “deficit”, now with these ridiculous “immigration targets” has caused so much needless suffering.

    It appears to be part of a general culture in government where living human beings, particularly poor ones, are seen as mere statistical inconveniences. These sadists and idiots need deporting from government. We need a general election now. Nobody voted for this shambles.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: