»   Dutch politicians have comprehensively ditched their liberal principles by allying with Geert Wilders http://bit.ly/9JSRcf 5 hrs ago

»   The same right-wingers who want a sane debate when accused of 'climate change denial' then accuse others of 'eco-fascism' 6 hrs ago

»   Supposedly libertarian twat @guidofawkes can't even bring himself to condemn libel threat against @SallyBercow 7 hrs ago

»   RT @DPJHodges: Ed M showed he is prepared to take independent line from unions. He did not, repeat did not, get the strike pulled. << True 7 hrs ago

»   Actually, @DPJHodges is right - we shouldn't over-estimate influence Ed M has on unions. He can't decide when they do or don't happen. 7 hrs ago

» More updates...


  • Family

    • Earwicga
    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shreen Ayob
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    UK tortures torture victims


    by earwicga
    26th September, 2010 at 7:08 pm    

    Wonder if the Labour conference will address this shameful part of their legacy?

    Millions of pounds in compensation is being paid to migrants who have been traumatised after being locked up in detention centres across the UK, the Guardian has learned.

    Government figures show £12m in “special payments” – including compensation – for 2009/10 and a further £3m the year before.

    The Home Office said it did not record the proportion of special payments made in compensation, but officials accepted that the figure over the past three years ran to millions of pounds.

    Lawyers who are acting for detainees said there was an “epidemic of mistreatment” in the asylum system.

    These payments are unlikely to continue thanks to Labour’s policy of depriving asylum seekers of legal representation.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Civil liberties






    68 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. sunny hundal

      Blogged: : UK tortures torture victims http://bit.ly/asDcI6


    2. Philip M

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : UK tortures torture victims http://bit.ly/asDcI6


    3. earwicga

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : UK tortures torture victims http://bit.ly/asDcI6


    4. luke brandt

      RT @sunny_hundal: UK mistreats torture victims @EdMTeam http://bit.ly/asDcI6 #lab10 #labconf


    5. smileandsubvert

      UK tortures torture victims http://bit.ly/bVUEBq


    6. Larry Gardiner

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : UK tortures torture victims http://bit.ly/asDcI6


    7. Denise Taylor

      Pickled Politics » UK tortures torture victims: ukliberty on This is why discipline in politics is sometimes neces… http://bit.ly/9ctuRB


    8. Police State UK

      Millions of pounds compensation paid to migrants traumatised after being locked up in UK detention centres http://bit.ly/algQei


    9. Fred Perraut

      RT @policestateuk: Millions of pounds compensation paid to migrants traumatised after being locked up in UK detention centres http://bit.ly/algQei


    10. Elly M

      RT @PoliceStateUK: Compensation paid to migrants traumatised after being locked up in UK detention centres http://bit.ly/algQei


    11. their_vodka

      RT @policestateuk: Millions of pounds compensation paid to migrants traumatised after being locked up in UK detention centres http://bit.ly/algQei


    12. Hotspur

      RT @policestateuk: Millions of pounds compensation paid to migrants traumatised after being locked up in UK detention centres http://bit.ly/algQei


    13. MyProLaw

      Pickled Politics » UK tortures torture victims http://bit.ly/coj2Ur


    14. GRS-ONE

      RT @policestateuk: Millions of pounds compensation paid to migrants traumatised after being locked up in UK detention centres http://bit.ly/algQei


    15. Jens Boss

      RT @policestateuk: Millions of pounds compensation paid to migrants traumatised after being locked up in UK detention centres http://bit.ly/algQei


    16. Mike Craggs

      RT @policestateuk: Millions of pounds compensation paid to migrants traumatised after being locked up in UK detention centres http://bit.ly/algQei


    17. Denise Taylor

      Pickled Politics » UK tortures torture victims: As it stands, we (and by that I mean large parts of the world) are… http://bit.ly/dvHCwk


    18. Lynne Lake

      RT @policestateuk: Millions of pounds compensation paid to migrants traumatised after being locked up in UK detention centres http://bit.ly/algQei




    1. MaidMarian — on 27th September, 2010 at 9:45 am  

      Sorry - I stopped buying this, ‘UK tortures….,’ line quite some time ago. These cries might have a greater degree of credibility were it the case that the UK locked up every non-UK citizen on entry to the country. It does not.

      Detention is used for those cases where there is an entirely reasonable suspicion that there is an offence under immigration law or a likelihood that the person will ‘vanish.’

      For me, the main problem is the big delays in asylum, and the industry that has sprung up and does not take no as an answer. If at first your claim does not succeed, try try again with a different story each time, all the while being told they will get legal aid, and other support.

      Many of these people have crossed several safe countries, for me, if you fail to convince first time round, out you go. Unaccompanied children should be refused point blank, as should everyone without ID.

      Asylum is not a back door.

      As it stands, we (and by that I mean large parts of the world) are hobbled by immigration laws designed with steamships in mind. The founders of asylum would likely spin in their graves at the sight of some of today’s successful cases.

      However much I may want to sympathise with asylum seekers, the scenes at Sangatte and Calais (and, incidentally earwicga, is there any reason you are not having a go at the French, or is this a UK only thing?) make it increasingly difficult.

      Now, the handle you put on this is about legal representation, presumably to resonate with the civil liberty line. Looking at the link, it is hard not to question the management of RMJ here. Lots of providers of access to justice in all sorts of areas of practice manage not to go bankrupt - and that includes self-employed solicitors and barristers who often wait a very long time for legal aid payments.

      Of course everyone has a right to proper advice. I have little doubt that, for example, Britain’s 140,000 qualified solicitors will be able to provide it. More than a few have time on their hands as the recession has affected traditional business (house conveyancing for instance) and will be able to take up the slack.

      Funding for this advice is always going to be hard, and some charitable input will be required, I get that. Infinite legal aid is not going to be popular when so many other public sector budgets are being cut. I do rather struggle to see why asylum seekers are a special case.

      Sorry.

    2. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 9:56 am  

      Maid Marion,

      I realise this is a subject that exercises you.

      I do rather struggle to see why asylum seekers are a special case.

      Because they are the canaries in the coal mines? Because the State would like to treat you in a similar way and doesn’t. Not yet?

      It is your civil liberties that are being usurped, you head banging idiot!

    3. MaidMarian — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:03 am  

      ‘Because they are the canaries in the coal mines? Because the State would like to treat you in a similar way and doesn’t. Not yet?’

      Sorry, did you actually read my comment, or are you just reacting? I’ll just repeat myself. Of course everyone has a right to proper advice. I have little doubt that, for example, Britain’s 140,000 qualified solicitors will be able to provide it.

      Do you wake up Douglas, look at Britain today and think, ‘goodness me - there’s a country that needs more lawyers!’

      ‘It is your civil liberties that are being usurped, you head banging idiot!’

      That might or might not be the case. It’s just that I think that there are better examples to use to make the point than those seeking to abuse asylum. Unless, of course, you think that there is no abuse of asylum going on and the only thing that people are doing wrong is getting caught?

    4. earwicga — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:10 am  

      How many of the ’140,000′ qualified solicitors are qualified to deal with immigration law MaidMarian? And I would appreciate you revealing how many clients are able to pay to subsidise the wait for legal aid payment? You are aware that the supply of legal aid has been reduced radically?

    5. MaidMarian — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:17 am  

      -sigh

      OK earwicga, same question for you. Do you wake up, look at Britain today and think, ‘goodness me – there’s a country that needs more lawyers!’

      If you don’t like the areas in which those lawyers specialise, take it up with the legal profession. Unless your vision of civil liberty runs to government dictating what areas of expertise the professions must follow to an individual?

      You have taken your concerns up with the Law Society, I assume?

      Legal aid is being tightened up right the way around the common law world. But the appeals process, judicial review, human rights law, pro-bono work and legal aid still provide serious legal options for anyone who walks up and makes a case. Again, if you want to make an argument as to why asylum seekers must be prioritised, I’d certainly be interested to hear your case.

    6. earwicga — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:20 am  

      Pathetic answer MaidMarian, but as expected.

    7. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:33 am  

      -sigh

      See where I got that from?

      You say this:

      That might or might not be the case. It’s just that I think that there are better examples to use to make the point than those seeking to abuse asylum. Unless, of course, you think that there is no abuse of asylum going on and the only thing that people are doing wrong is getting caught?

      And you don’t think you have an opinion on asylum seekers?

      There is no legitimate asylum to be offered, that we sould walk on bye?

      I don’t think so, and I do think that asylum seekers have been grouped, wrongly, in some sort of anti-immigrant agenda. By people such as you, Maid Marian.

      I’d have thought your prejudice stood out as soon as you said this:

      than those seeking to abuse asylum

      You what?

      I am talking about due process, I am talking about the rule of law. You appear to me to be talking about abuse, or money or summat.

      Get a grip.

    8. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:46 am  

      Obviously “should”, not whatever shit I typed

    9. cim — on 27th September, 2010 at 2:11 pm  

      Do you wake up, look at Britain today and think, ‘goodness me – there’s a country that needs more lawyers!’

      Yes, Britain needs more lawyers, or more precisely more advocates. There are huge numbers of people across the country (asylum seekers included, of course) who are being mistreated by branches of the state, or by corporations, and who do not have the time, energy and/or money to pursue this and get reasonable recompense.

      If for every few hundred people there was someone local, with legal and bureaucratic experience, who they could go to for help with their appeals (or who could come to them), and who could refer those who needed specific legal assistance to a suitably subsidised lawyer, then a lot of the problems with society might iron themselves out. If the state paid for these people, it might also have an incentive not to increase its own costs by putting in place systems that make appeals inevitable by having an unjustly high first-line rejection rate.

      I’m not saying this is a plausible dream, or one that it would be practical to fund any time soon, but on the basic principle, yes, absolutely, we need more lawyers, or most legal protections end up de facto only for those rich enough to afford the relatively rare lawyers we currently have.

      …now, with that answered: Yes, the way that we treat asylum seekers is terrible. I would have thought that the harm caused by revictimising the genuine ones far outweighed any administrative benefits to the government of having the non-genuine ones under lock and key, pretty much regardless of the ratio between the two.

      Given the number of high profile cases (i.e. the lucky ones who came to wider attention) where the government had clearly utterly messed up its decision making (deporting LGBT asylum seekers back to countries where their sexuality or gender identity is illegal, for instance) I’m utterly unconvinced that the government can reliably tell the difference between “genuine” and “not genuine” without a large - and well-advocated - appeals process to protect people.

    10. MaidMarian — on 27th September, 2010 at 2:22 pm  

      cim - Have you never come across the redoubtable Citizen’s Advice Bureau? Sounds like just what you have in mind. Some councils operate a similar service, though they are I accept unlikely to make it through the cuts.

      A bit part of the problem is that too many lawyers treat, ‘recompense,’ as, ‘pursuit of soft target insurance policies.’

      I maintain there is no justification for giving asylum seekers priority over U.K. residents. Unless you think that there should be an exemption from the rule of law?

      The most important issue here is finding ways of speeding up the asylum process so that refugees and asylum seekers cases are decided within a few months at the very most.

    11. earwicga — on 27th September, 2010 at 2:55 pm  

      I maintain there is no justification for giving asylum seekers priority over U.K. residents

      That’s not likely to begin!

      The most important issue here is treating human beings like human beings. Simples.

    12. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 3:19 pm  

      I maintain there is no justification for giving asylum seekers priority over U.K. residents.

      You can maintain what you like. You can see yourself as a spokesman for the Brits, whatever.

      You do not speak for me.

      Capiche?

    13. Shamit — on 27th September, 2010 at 3:27 pm  

      Douglas -

      I have a lot of respect for your views however, we are a small island and we do need to choose the people who come here.

      Saying that Britain has a long history of letting those in who are persecuted including Abu Hamza. People, who we have given asylum to have blown us up and so there should be some checks and balances in the system. We should not put up the drawbridge but we do need to ensure that those seeking asylum have legitimate claims.

      Similarly, there is an immigration racket which enables people to stay in this country through dodgy means and most of them are supported by some law firm or other.

      Knowing the level of idiocy and lack of knowledge some on this blog have, let me be clear that I am in support of asylum but as long as they play by our rules.

      Lawyers have even termed working in the kitchen of Asian restaurants (a £3 billion industry) as special skills when it is simply not especially in Britain.

      Governing is not about idelogy but about pragmatism and about doing what is best for the country.

      I think Maidmarian has got this spot on. You understand nuances and the limit of the public purse.

      This is not about colour, creed or religion - this is about our best interest and the best interest of our future generations. We do have an oblgation towards them. While detention centres are wrong, even I feel strongly about putting a one year old in a cage - I would like to know what are the options you suggest?

      What should we do and why would that be in the best interest of britain? Its easy to write a headline like a typical tabloid embracing our ideologies but not eacy to develop policies and implement them.

      may be idiots (not you) should consider this before opening their fucking mouths. And I am sure you would agree there are far too many of them on this blog sometimes.

    14. cim — on 27th September, 2010 at 3:53 pm  

      MaidMarian: CAB are great, but nowhere near numerous or powerful enough. More of them, with better funding and a couple of useful statutory powers so that they can’t get stonewalled when trying to get the necessary information for their clients.

      Shamit: “I am in support of asylum but as long as they play by our rules.”

      Don’t the rules for asylum largely boil down to “would be killed or otherwise seriously harmed by being sent back?”.

      Governing is not about idelogy but about pragmatism and about doing what is best for the country.

      Until there is some objective measure of “best for the country” available, though, ideology will have to do.

    15. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 4:26 pm  

      Shamit,

      Well said!

      Could I try to take your arguement apart?

      It seems to me that ‘the small island’ viewpoint is one that only Londoners’ have. There are, in my native land, villages that are bereft of a poplulation. or a frigging roof, because of the actions of land owners. When I go North of here, I see that devestation. Shamit, I’ll invite you right now on a tour of the Highlands, with especial insight into the utter and complete lack of a population.

      It is a mad and sad arguement that you make there.

      Anyways.

      Abu Hamza was an idiot. And an ex night club bouncer. Please do not attempt to associate folk like that, who you rightly reject, with asylum seekers at large.

      Similarly, there is an immigration racket which enables people to stay in this country through dodgy means and most of them are supported by some law firm or other.

      Y’know, that is what I hate about arguement. I am not talking about immigrants as such, I am talking about people seeking asylum. The latter category of folk, the asylum seekers, are treated appallingly, in my opinion. It is a complete disgrace so it is:

      http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/asylum-seeker-precious-mhango-defies-order-to-leave-glasgow-1.1040531

      That wee lassie grew up in my town and you want to apply rules and regulations to her?

      No.

      Fuck off.

      You have absorbed some sort of exclusionist policy when you had this to say:

      This is not about colour, creed or religion – this is about our best interest and the best interest of our future generations. We do have an oblgation towards them. While detention centres are wrong, even I feel strongly about putting a one year old in a cage – I would like to know what are the options you suggest?

      Our best interests are served by being decent people Shamit, not by being some sort of pretendy liberals, when we are nothing of the sort.

      It is decent to give folk that are at risk freedom. It is decent to not have detention centres and the like. It is decent to not hide behind distance, as we currently do…

      That, Shamit, is what I am about.

      Call me names or whatever….

    16. MaidMarian — on 27th September, 2010 at 4:29 pm  

      cim - ‘Don’t the rules for asylum largely boil down to “would be killed or otherwise seriously harmed by being sent back?”.’

      Well, that’s the theory at least. A look across the channel at Calais does however rather suggest that the theory doesn’t always work.

      However, even if the rules did work as theory dictates, the long delays in people actually leaving are the real problem.

    17. earwicga — on 27th September, 2010 at 4:33 pm  

      People, who we have given asylum to have blown us up

      And you have the chee to talk about people opening their ‘fucking mouths’. You should keep your fucking moron mouth shut!

    18. MaidMarian — on 27th September, 2010 at 4:37 pm  

      douglas -

      The case you cite actually is exactly the sort of thing I have in mind.

      http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/06/10/asylum-seeker-girl-precious-mhango-loses-battle-against-deportation-to-malawi-86908-22324611/

      In particular, the judges pointed out that the only reason that these people have ‘integrated’ is because of the ongoing legal battles. The system allows cases to be strung out and effectively harm the child.

      A fast system would have resolved that case you cite.

      Unless you can tell me why the law should not apply here?

    19. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 4:49 pm  

      Maid Marian,

      I am not citing cases. I am saying your are an evil idiot.

      Is that clear enough for you?

      It is folk like you that corrupt discussion. It is folk like you that make me sick…

    20. MaidMarian — on 27th September, 2010 at 4:54 pm  

      ‘I am not citing cases. I am saying your are an evil idiot.’

      Love this quality of argument - or summat. See where I got that from?

    21. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 4:57 pm  

      No.

    22. Shamit — on 27th September, 2010 at 5:10 pm  

      Douglas -

      Good points and I do not disagree. My objective was to highlight the problems with developing a policy and implementing it effectively.

      Ideally, we could go about creating a case by case policy but that is impossible to do so - so we need to set some criteria. And for cases such as Precious - she is exactly the reason the Home Secretary has been given powers to make exceptions.

      And Douglas I was not attacking you by any means. And, I do not like detention centres and I think it is an abusive system.

      What should be our asylum policy? I am not pretending to be anything that I am not. And neither am I attacking you or calling you names Douglas.

      I am all for decent people to be given a fair chance but who defines decent. Anjem Chaudhary’s decent would be different from Nick Griffin’s decent taking two extremes.

      What makes you think I am pretending to be a liberal? I don’t like tags and I choose to support issues the way I see them.
      ****************
      Earwicga:

      “And you have the chee to talk about people opening their ‘fucking mouths’. You should keep your fucking moron mouth shut”

      Well done for once again proving you have nothing to add to the debate except tabloid headlines and demonstrate your lack of intellect and reason.

      You want to take me on - you have to do far far better than that.
      ********************************

    23. earwicga — on 27th September, 2010 at 5:52 pm  

      You want to take me on

      This means nothing to me Shamit. Another example of your testosterone fuelled drivel.

    24. poppy — on 27th September, 2010 at 6:10 pm  

      “Lawyers acting for detainees said there was an “epidemic of mistreatment” in the asylum system.”

      as someone who has had much experience of working as a nurse in the healthcare wing of a detention centre, i would have to say that i have never heard such pish in all of my life,

    25. Shamit — on 27th September, 2010 at 6:19 pm  

      Poppy, that is earwicga’s style. She does not know much so forgive her.

    26. Rumbold — on 27th September, 2010 at 8:14 pm  

      Asylum is an emotive subject, and understandably so; we are talking about people’s lives here in some cases. The problem is that nobody has worked out what sort of asylum system we actually want.

      Either you give asylum to everyone or you don’t. If you do, fine, but then you have to think about the cost of the welfare state, and space. If you don’t, then you have to devise a measure for keeping people out/removing people.

      If you have that, you can either make it quick and efficient, or slow with time allowed for appeals. Either approach can be criticised.

      The point about some asylum seekers crossing safe countries to get here is fine, but then most people, unless they fly or get the boat, would have to cross safe countries to get here. And we don’t want a situation like we have at the moment (in Malta) where a coutnry is being overwhelmed because it is the first point of contact.

      There can be no perfect asylum system. I would always prefer to be seen as a ‘soft touch’ though; better to let a few more bogus asylum seekers stay then deport too many genuine ones.

    27. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 9:19 pm  

      detret @ 26

      Welcome aboard!

      You say:

      Calling people evil, sick and that they should “keep [their] fucking moron mouth shut” all because they disagree with a point of view.

      Shocking. Or it would be if this level of nasty
      anti-democratic thuggery wasn’t so popular these days.

      And I’d be willing to wager that you haven’t read what I say here very much.

      I am saying that treating individuals with decency ought to be seen as reasonable. What do you have to say to that?

    28. earwicga — on 27th September, 2010 at 9:25 pm  

      Rumbold - a good place to start would be to clear out all the racists and abusers in UKBA.

      Listening to evidence would also be another good staring point. There is clear evidence that migrants with children are unlikely to disappear. This is ignored and families are locked up.

      It would also be handy if the UK didn’t directly create conditions in other countries that necessitated people to flee.

      Forced migration isn’t going to disappear, with climate change it is going to increase. As MM crudely points out, who pays to take care of migrants is very important. Personally I don’t think it should be decided on an ad-hoc country by country basis. There should be some kind of central fund etc. etc.

      Shamit -

      Poppy, that is earwicga’s style. She does not know much so forgive her.

      Poppy quoted from the Guardian piece. I guess they were just making it up. I guess nobody knows much according to you, except you Shamit.

    29. MaidMarian — on 27th September, 2010 at 9:25 pm  

      Rumbold -

      ‘The problem is that nobody has worked out what sort of asylum system we actually want.’

      Well…I’m not altogether sure that is true. Asylum, as envisaged in 1951 had a very different world in mind. Quite reasonably, in the time since 1951 there has been continuity and change.

      We no longer have a situation where steamships carry people. A look at Calais shows the problem. Whether these people feel they will be granted asylum or not, they clearly feel that there is a point in trying.

      This is not POLITICAL asylum, which I suspect is what most people have in mind. This is not, or should not be, a route out of family disputes, for example.

      As I said earlier, if everyone was detained, the critics might have a point. As it stands there are many, many legal routes to come to the UK through. They are used by tens of thousands every year. Those who are denied and have no right to be here should leave. This is not about space or the welfare state.

      This is about the rule of law. What people want, and have a right to expect from asylum is a system that resonates with the rule of law. People here years after refusal fall at the first.

    30. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 9:26 pm  

      Rumbold @ 27,

      There can be no perfect asylum system. I would always prefer to be seen as a ‘soft touch’ though; better to let a few more bogus asylum seekers stay then deport too many genuine ones.

      Absolutely right.

    31. MaidMarian — on 27th September, 2010 at 9:30 pm  

      ‘It would also be handy if the UK didn’t directly create conditions in other countries that necessitated people to flee.’

      I was wondering how long it would take that old cannard to come up. Of course, under Saddam and the Taliban these places were the land of milk and honey and there were no people seeking asylum at all. One can only wonder how the Russians would treat Afghans making that argument. Again earwicga, is there any reason this seems to be a UK only thing?

    32. earwicga — on 27th September, 2010 at 9:33 pm  

      I haven’t said it is MM. It really is something that you are comparing UKBA with the Taliban.

    33. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 9:45 pm  

      Maid Marian,

      You say:

      This is not POLITICAL asylum, which I suspect is what most people have in mind. This is not, or should not be, a route out of family disputes, for example.

      As I said earlier, if everyone was detained, the critics might have a point. As it stands there are many, many legal routes to come to the UK through. They are used by tens of thousands every year. Those who are denied and have no right to be here should leave. This is not about space or the welfare state.

      Where did you get that idea from? I gave you the case of Precious Mhango who is a child and you claim, well, what do you claim exactly? That because she is foreign that you have some sort of superiority over her?

      Jolly good with that idea. I claim the right to give folk a chance, a right, if you like, to live here. And not to be talked down to by our resident idiots.

      Of whom, sir, you are one.

    34. MaidMarian — on 27th September, 2010 at 9:57 pm  

      douglas clark -

      ‘Where did you get that idea from? I gave you the case of Precious Mhango who is a child and you claim, well, what do you claim exactly? That because she is foreign that you have some sort of superiority over her?’

      I also pointed out earlier how the judges pointed out that her mother’s continuted appeals are a big part of the problem in that case.

      I claim this - she has no legal right to be in the UK. I invited you earlier to explain why you think it is that the law should not apply in this case. You seemed to be very big on the rule of law in this thread earlier on.

      I can’t see any explanation, and one shows no sign of emerging. Don’t get me wrong here douglas, you may just want to argue for open borders, if you do, fair enough. But in any case, asylum is not a back door.

    35. Shamit — on 27th September, 2010 at 9:58 pm  

      Earwicga:

      On this one, I screwed up - yes Poppy was quoting from the Guardian and I am sorry.

    36. earwicga — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:08 pm  

      Shamit - Accepted. I apologise for telling you to shut your mouth. I find your views inexplicable and would do best to ignore them.

    37. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:09 pm  

      MM,

      You are some screwed up person.

      Here is a link to people that are not screwed up:

      http://www.libdemvoice.org/florence-and-precious-mhango-a-campaign-to-prevent-a-mother-and-daughter-being-deported-20362.html

      I am providing that, not for you, but for anyone else reading this thread. You, sir, are beyond redemption.

    38. detret — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:21 pm  

      [Deleted]

    39. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:35 pm  

      detret,

      I know that name from somewhere…

      If you think I impose myself here, then why does Sunny or Jai or indeed Rumbold not appear to have an issue with what I say? Within the bounds of discussion, obviously.

      I find it odd, to say the least, that you can say this of me:

      You seek to force your opinion upon others and degrade and abuse all with whom you disagree.

      You use the language and tactics of the fascists, you are certainly no better then them. I would say that is more then fair.

      How about you start treating “individuals” with whom you merely politically disagree with some “decency” and then maybe people could take you seriously.

      What do you have to say to that?

      I do not seek to do anything, detret, for the purposes of this forum, I am just me. What you see is what you get.

      Whether people agree with me, or you, is up to them.

    40. earwicga — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:43 pm  

      (sorry douglas - ‘detret’ is Incom etc. and I deleted his posts.)

    41. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2010 at 10:53 pm  

      earwicga,

      Thanks for that.

      love you lots as they say :-)

    42. persephone — on 27th September, 2010 at 11:42 pm  

      “ There can be no perfect asylum system. I would always prefer to be seen as a ‘soft touch’ though; better to let a few more bogus asylum seekers stay then deport too many genuine ones.”

      The sentiment is a noble one. And we live in an imperfect world. But at which point do you exercise control if there is a lack of legal expertise and housing/other living costs etc to fund this?

      It will be interesting to see how the coalition tackle this given their plan to implement in depth cost cutting and closure/merger of public sector bodies. Plus their stance on limiting litigation in the UK. I see the asylum system having a radical review – its not sustainable.

    43. douglas clark — on 28th September, 2010 at 8:58 am  

      earwicga @ 39,

      Could you also deal with detret @ 38?

    44. Lucy — on 28th September, 2010 at 10:09 am  

      Here are some undoubtedly tedious points of information - but they are valuable for dispelling some old saws and fictions about ‘first country entry’ that get dragged up ignorantly time and time again…
      It is not surprising that asylum seekers get shafted when times get hard - they get stick in any case because they are such an easy target - everywhere - not just in the UK. But it is a red herring to go on and on about first country of entry. Greece is frequently a first country of entry, but Greece does not allow 99 per cent of would-be asylum seekers to even apply for asylum so it cannot seriously be regarded as a first country of origin for those seeking asylum. At the beginning of this month the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights made an intervention as a third party before the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of the case of an Afghan asylum seeker, observing that the ‘current asylum law and practice in Greece [was] not in compliance with international and European human rights standards.’
      http://www.statewatch.org/news/2010/sep/greece-asylum-seekers-coe.pdf.
      He said: ““Asylum seekers in Greece continue to face enormous difficulties trying to gain access to the asylum procedure, and
      do not always enjoy basic safeguards such as interpretation and legal aid. Moreover, existing remedy to appeal
      against negative asylum applications cannot be considered as effective.”
      The Commissioner expressed his particular concern that asylum seekers transferred to Greece may face the risk of being returned to a country where their life and limb would be in danger. He also stressed that reception conditions in Greece are far from satisfactory.
      ‘Under the ‘Dublin Regulation’ certain countries face the challenge of dealing with numbers of asylum applications beyond their capacities”. ‘
      The Commissioner [Hammarberg] added that he “supports the European Commission’s proposal for a mechanism that would suspend transfers and give states under particular strain short-term relief from their responsibilities under the ‘Dublin Regulation’, as well as the possibility to seek financial or technical assistance to cope with the situation. Such a system could help ensure that asylum seekers are not denied their right to a full and fair determination of their asylum claims”.’
      ==============
      (The notable aspect of UK policy is indefinite detention. Some people have been held over 3 years, They cannot return to their country of origin and they cannot work in the UK.)

    45. damon — on 28th September, 2010 at 11:58 am  

      What a daft headline Earwicga. Who is being tortured in the UK? The women in Yarl’s Wood who said they were physically abused and called ”black monkeys” by the staff? (Or who made it up as a tactic in fighting their deportations?)

      This is why I don’t really bother with the left anymore. They just feed the right wing by being so belligerently partisan about every last issue.

      This was Sunny on Liberal Conspiracy complaining about someone making a lame joke about stowaways on board a lorry crossing the English Channel.

      ”UKHomeOffice sick joke about Stowaways”

      http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/09/17/home-office-makes-sick-joke-about-stowaways/

    46. Rumbold — on 28th September, 2010 at 3:41 pm  

      MaidMarian:

      This is not POLITICAL asylum, which I suspect is what most people have in mind. This is not, or should not be, a route out of family disputes, for example.

      I disagree. Asylum shouldn’t just be about state repression. There are times when people are unsafe in a coutnry because they have flouted tribal/cultural norms.

      Earwiga:

      Interesting. Do you have any papers to back up the claim that those with children are a lot less likely to flee? I believe you, and it sounds plausible, but it would be interesting to read the study.

      The UKBA would benefit from closer inspection it seems.

      Persephone:

      that’s the thing- I don’t know where to set the limit. And I don’t envy those that do. In many ways it is a thankless task (as resources are finite and there is heavy pressure to crack down on asylum seekers).

    47. earwicga — on 28th September, 2010 at 3:57 pm  

      I do Rumbold, on my dead laptop. There was also a trial of ‘open’ accomodation (I think in Scotland) for those refused asylum but it was completely bodged by authorities. I’ll try to find them later.

    48. Rumbold — on 28th September, 2010 at 4:22 pm  

      Thanks Earwiga.

    49. earwicga — on 28th September, 2010 at 7:04 pm  

      Can’t find the actual report I was thinking of, this is the closest I can find at the mo:

      Although the UKBA itself has admitted that there is no evidence that families with young children abscond in significant numbers, the agency arrests and detains between 1,000 and 2,000 asylum-seeking children every year.

      David Wood, UKBA director of criminality and detention, told a parliamentary committee in September: “Whilst issues are raised about absconding, that is not our biggest issue. It does happen but it is not terribly easy for a family unit to abscond.”
      There will be actual reports somewhere to back that up. This document states that 90% of asylum seekers do not abscond, the figure will be higher for families with children.

      It looks like The Scottish Family Returns Project has continued after it’s trial. Aims can be seen here.

      I look forward to the tories review - they certainly can’t do any worse than Labour did.

    50. earwicga — on 28th September, 2010 at 7:16 pm  

      From the report of the parliamentary comittee report, The Detention of Children in the Immigration System - Home Affairs Committee (24/12/09), refered to above:

      7. We do not understand why, if detention is the final step in the asylum process, and there is no evidence of families systematically “disappearing” or absconding, families are detained pending judicial reviews and other legal appeals. The detention of children for indeterminate periods of time (possibly for 6-8 weeks), pending legal appeals must be avoided. We recommend that after a child has spent an initial fortnight in detention and every seven days thereafter, UKBA notifies the Home Office, and the Children’s Commissioner as to why detention for this amount of time is justified and why the continued detention of this child is necessary.

      8. We further recommend that UKBA consider the use of electronic tags, reporting requirements and residence restrictions while reserving the right to detain as an alternative to indeterminate detention pending final legal decisions.[10] More generally we urge UKBA to work from the principle that the detention of young children must only ever be used as a last resort and the length of time spent in detention should be reduced.



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.