» How a leading climate scientist was misrepresented in Mail on Sunday by denialists: http://bit.ly/80QQ2D 36 mins ago

» Another Cameron poster defaced... this time in Crewe: http://bit.ly/8rMMv4 54 mins ago

» Journalism think-tank Polis hosting Evgeny Morozov tomorrow at LSE: 'Digital Democracy and its Discontents': http://bit.ly/7B9IdB 1 hr ago

» David Miliband goes into damage limitation mode after fears of fallout from H&H coup: http://bit.ly/6HNw10 1 hr ago

» Crazy, crazy Italians RT @libcon: Shooting at immigrants: an Italian tragedy http://bit.ly/6QraRF 1 hr ago

More updates...

  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

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

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sajini W
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown

  • Technorati: graph / links

    Over 1300 children locked up in centres

    by Sunny on 2nd November, 2009 at 7:09 AM    

    The Indy reports:

    More than 1,300 children were detained at three immigration removal centres in the UK during a 15-month period, figures revealed today. A total of 884 children were held at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre in Bedfordshire between July 2008 and July 2009, 328 children at the Tinsley House centre near Gatwick Airport between September 1 2008 and August 31 2009, and 103 children at the Dungavel centre in Scotland between October 2008 and September 18 2009.

    Mr Wishart said: “Detaining children in centres made for adults is simply wrong. “Whatever the position of the parents, children should not be detained behind barbed wire.

    And yet right-wingers have the audacity to call this ’soft-touch Britain’. We have now become a country that locks up children and keeps them indefinitely behind barbed wire simply because they’re born to immigrants. And do you see the Daily Mail or Telegraph outrage when these figures are revealed? No. But say this was happening in a Middle Eastern country you’d hear everyone shriek at how uncivilised they were.

            Post to del.icio.us

    Filed in: Race politics

    34 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs

    1. Boyo — on 2nd November, 2009 at 7:57 AM  

      The state will always respond crudely to challenges of this kind because that’s what states do - the machinery of mass action is always a blunt instrument. The way to mitigate this is prevention: the state should not have been confronted with this situation in the first place.

      Prevention is achieved by policy. The government’s policies on immigrant access differ little from your own thinking, with the exception that they are somewhat less liberal?

      Now, rather than slagging me off as a “right-winger”, how would you develop policies that served the best interests of the UK, rather than those that wish to migrate here?

      At heart it begins with what kind of country we want to live in - the economic argument for example only applies if, for one or two generations, we prefer the immigration of many millions from foreign cultures over the relative drop in GDP caused by an aging population.

      It’s a question that has never been seriously asked at the polls, and in my opinion should be. Because at the end of the day, countries are about cultures: India has a culture, France has a culture, they are what makes them what they are. If we choose to change that, I think we should be asked: perhaps as a nation of shopkeepers we will choose to do so, but it might also bring these issues to the fore and help address them as we move forward.

      Now go on - call me a racist.

    2. Boyo — on 2nd November, 2009 at 9:00 AM  

      Heh. But of course, “real” arguments don’t matter - the actual thinking was expressed with jaw-dropping insouciance by Andrew Neather when he inadvertently let the cat out of the bag about “rubbing the right’s nose in it” in the Guardian.

      “The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It’s not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners - although frankly it’s hard to see how the capital could function without them.

      Their place certainly wouldn’t be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone? Immigrants are everywhere and in all sorts of jobs, many of them skilled.

      My family’s east European former nannies, for example, are model migrants, going on to be a social worker and an accountant. They have integrated into London society.

      But this wave of immigration has enriched us much more than that. A large part of London’s attraction is its cosmopolitan nature.

      It is so much more international now than, say, 15 years ago, and so much more heterogeneous than most of the provinces, that it’s pretty much unimaginable for us to go back either to the past or the sticks.”

    3. Reza — on 2nd November, 2009 at 9:19 AM  

      Oh for f*cks sake.

      These are ILLEGAL immigrants. That means that they, and their families, have been caught overstaying visas, entering this country illegally or caught out lying about needing asylum. (A rare feat considering that technically, 99.9% of all asylum seekers are bogus).

      What are we supposed to do? Let them stay? House them? Put them in schools?

      They’re illegal, and the law says that they have to be kicked out. And unless we kick them out proto, we’ll have thousands and thousands more families and kids turning up at our shores to be accommodated courtesy of the British taxpayer.

      My only disappointment is that the numbers seem too low.

    4. cjcjc — on 2nd November, 2009 at 10:16 AM  

      It probably doesn’t help to use the phrase “barbed wire” which conjures up images of concentration camp inmates clutching at the fence.

      If conditions are bad, then that should certainly be exposed.

      How bad are they?

      Or is it the very detention of unlawful immigrants to which you object?
      If they need to be detained, and have children, then I assume the best thing for the children is to be kept with their parents.
      Otherwise I imagine your headline would be “over 1300 children snatched from parents”.

    5. aiyo — on 2nd November, 2009 at 10:45 AM  

      so what if they are illegal imigrants the point is “children should not be detained behind barbed wire.” imagine your child in that situation where is the sypathy or the empathy?

    6. Boyo — on 2nd November, 2009 at 11:01 AM  

      Aiyo. Why is it the responsibility of the state? Don’t the parents have any responsibility?

    7. Laban — on 2nd November, 2009 at 11:14 AM  

      “keeps them indefinitely behind barbed wire simply because they’re born to immigrants”

      No - because they’re accompanyng illegal immigrants - or migrants whose status is unclear and who it is feared might abscond.

    8. Rumbold — on 2nd November, 2009 at 11:27 AM  

      I don’t see why children need to be kept in those camps. They should be housed in accomodation near their parents, and should be able to visit them regularly. What we all want is for the immigration and deportation procedures to be speeded up, so this situation of limbo doesn’t last for too long.

    9. Boyo — on 2nd November, 2009 at 11:49 AM  

      Rumbold. Then they will be “separating families”, the bastards. “Heavies” will have “torn them from the arms of their parents” no doubt, etc, etc. It’s lose lose.

    10. A Councillor Writes — on 2nd November, 2009 at 12:04 PM  

      Trust me, the kids are better off there than in the average children’s home.

    11. bernard — on 2nd November, 2009 at 12:18 PM  

      “Now go on – call me a racist.”

      You’re a racist. And a twat.

    12. Boyo — on 2nd November, 2009 at 12:32 PM  

      @11 and you’re an intellectual I suppose.

    13. bernard — on 2nd November, 2009 at 12:42 PM  

      Yes, actually, but there’s no point wasting my intellect on fuckwits like you.

    14. Rumbold — on 2nd November, 2009 at 12:56 PM  

      I don’t think Boyo is a racist. He is just raising the uncomfortable point that if you are going to have an immigration system, you are going to have to deport some people. And some of those will have families. And if you allow appeals you are going to have to house them somewhere.

    15. Billy — on 2nd November, 2009 at 1:10 PM  

      So an Afghan family scrape together $5,000 or maybe twice that to send a 14-year-old to Blighty.

      He crosses many ’safe’ countries to get to France; NOTE: this is an important point.

      Assuming he doesn’t get subjected to such rough anal rape in the Calais ‘Jungle’ that he is hospitalised in France or is, perhaps, stabbed so severely that he needs lengthy hospital treatment*, his luck is in and he stows away on a truck and - unhappily - he then gets caught in England.

      So he ends up behind barbed wire and every Guardianista saphead can weep and wail about the cruelty of keeping such “children” behind barbed wire.

      Boys his age served on the Gallipoli expedition.

      * If Little Ahmed ends up in a French hospital, the French taxpayer foots the bill. Merci bien!

    16. damon — on 2nd November, 2009 at 1:59 PM  

      The only way out of this is to stop deportations then.
      I just read that Britain deports a person every eight minutes (63,000 in 2007).

      Deportations couldn’t take place without some kind of detention if the people concerned refused an order to leave the country (when asked).

      If you can’t seperate parents from their children, I’m not sure what should be done.
      Have the children stay with their parents at night, but be taken outside everyday to attend school and to go on trips to town and sports centers?

      Reading the website of National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns is grim.

      At Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris, they have 1000 children arriving by air as unaccompanied migrant children a year.
      It seems that many of them are sent back to where they’ve just come from, putting them at all kinds of risk.

      This seems to be one of those areas where you choose to be hard hearted or humane.
      And being ”humane” means having to accept that a certain amout of mickey taking will be made of your country’s immigration and asylum policy.

    17. Trofim — on 2nd November, 2009 at 3:15 PM  

      Of course you’re a racist Boyo. If one of that special class of human beings who has obtained the requisite qualifications in designating people as “racist”, designates you as a “racist”, then you are a “racist”, and you are expected to curl up and die as a result. But you’re much worse than that - as I’ve discovered from this:


      Yes, your an auto-racist, a person who hates himself on racial grounds, and in calling yourself Boyo, you have committed an auto-racist crime against yourself. Shame on you Boyo bach, for offending yourself and hurting your own feelings! By the way, are you the Boyo who was in Воронеж? If so, приветочка!

    18. Sunny — on 2nd November, 2009 at 3:15 PM  

      No – because they’re accompanyng illegal immigrants – or migrants whose status is unclear and who it is feared might abscond.

      I suppose that makes it ok then!

      It’s no wonder that when some illegal migrant does in this country the response many come out with is “thank god he didn’t steal my money”

      that’s right-wing compassion for you.

    19. Reza — on 2nd November, 2009 at 3:27 PM  

      “…that’s right-wing compassion for you.”

      It may have something to do with the fact that those of us on the right are more likely to fork out a huge chunk of our hard-earned cash in taxes.

      And that’ll be cash earned in the wealth-creating part of the economy, rather than the wealth-consuming part.

      The sundry lefties suckling at the teat of the tax-payer, whether that is as students, benefit claimants or Public Sector employees, can afford to be generous with other peoples money.

      Client State parasites that they are.

    20. Katy Newton — on 2nd November, 2009 at 3:39 PM  

      Sunny @18:

      My understanding is that most people awaiting deportation are on immigration bail. Those who are detained are people who have breached their immigration bail conditions. So I am not really sure what you do. Do you think it would be fairer to take the children of illegal immigrants who are detained into foster care or care homes pending deportation? Or do you think that people who have children should get a free pass to breach their bail conditions?

      I genuinely don’t know the answer. Neither option really works, but I think most children would probably prefer to be detained with their parents rather than separated from them.

    21. Boyo — on 2nd November, 2009 at 3:51 PM  

      @17 LOL. I’m not even Welsh!

      A long long time ago that was the first name that came to mind (what was on my mind I wonder?!).

      Now I WILL be racist however, for they’re a cruel race the Welsh - my mum was evacuated to the valleys from the London slums and at their new school the dinner ladies refused to serve the Blitzed cockney gutter snipes lunch unless they asked for it in Welsh!

      I don’t believe I’m racist by any dictionary definition. I care about the country and the culture I was raised in, as no doubt we all do. I have no objection whatsoever to managed immigration, but I do believe in assimilation over integration. Over the last 30 years I have seen my culture increasingly devalued, smeared and subject to a kind of reductionism by “intellectuals” like Bernard (scoff) which they would not dream of visiting on any other culture.

      THAT’S a kind of inverted racism. The English middle class (not the Scots, Welsh etc mind) have sought to destroy the the identity of the English people for reasons put quite unapologetically by Andrew Neather above.

      I mean - who would you rather nanny Lucinda and Nigel? Angry indigenous “chavs” or the wonderfully grateful immigrant?

      I’ve wondered about this, and my pet theory is thus - the vote for the post-War Labour government gave the bourgeois classes such a shock (“they’ve voted Labour, the country won’t stand for it”) that subconsciously, or otherwise, they sought to do everything they could to destroy the identity and solidarity of the “people”. Of course, they “had” to have immigration because “no one” would do manual jobs, right? Or was it that they simply would not pay a fair wage?

      The bourgeois left’s hatred of the working class was confirmed when the ungrateful bastards voted for Thatcher, and some of them even got rich and started having airs! Well, in-coming New Labour would make them pay for that, and have managed to push social mobility back to the 1950s. Oh yeah, and why not loosen the controls on immigration? Just don’t tell the morons in the working men’s clubs - they’re all Tories anyway - and they would never understand how hard it is to get a nanny these days who won’t answer back.

      Phew. That’s my take, but then I’m no intellectual, so what do I know.

    22. Auntie Vera — on 2nd November, 2009 at 3:58 PM  

      - 16 -

      63,000 deported in 2007?

      A good start!

      Look, each one of those 63,000 will have cost the British taxpayer at least a thousand quid a head. That’s 63 million quid roght there.

      The Froggies have it right; knowing THEM, it’s surprising they don’t demand a cornea or a kidney as a fee to cover the bother and the paperwork!

    23. BenM — on 2nd November, 2009 at 5:30 PM  

      @19. Reza.

      It may have something to do with the fact that those of us on the right are more likely to fork out a huge chunk of our hard-earned cash in taxes.

      And that’ll be cash earned in the wealth-creating part of the economy, rather than the wealth-consuming part.

      LoL! Do Righties still believe this bullet-ridden nonsense? Look at the US where most of the poorer states are heavily conservative.

      Here a lot of Wealth is concentrated in big cities - more usually known as the home of the cosmopolitan liberal establishment.

      Perhaps Reza is referring to old “rural” money? Much of which is bolstered by a huge array of govermment subsidies and characterised by a seething resentment of growing, self-generated and independent urban prosperity!

    24. damon — on 2nd November, 2009 at 8:04 PM  

      Billy @ 15. A 14 year old Afghan who gets picked up by the police after coming over from Calais is more likely to be taken into care by a British local authority.

      In Croydon, it’s been said that two thirds of children under its care are ‘Unaccompanied Asylum-seeking Children’.
      Can we take that a as fact and move on?

      From the report:

      An unaccompanied asylum seeking child (UASC) is defined by the Home Office
      as ‘a person who at the time of making the asylum application is, or (if there is no
      proof) appears to be, under 18 and is applying in his or her own right and has no
      relative or guardian in this country’.
      2 There are currently around 10,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children
      supported by local authorities in the UK including those over the age of 18
      receiving a leaving care service. The annual intake of new cases has remained
      static at about 3,000 for the last three years1. About two thousand of these will be
      supported by councils. However, as described below, the number of new cases
      supported by Croydon has increased steeply.

      Reza, I hear what you say, and you’re entitled to your opinions. I don’t agree with your view, but am also a bit purturbed and confused by the opinions of this guy,
      Philippe Legrain.

      I saw him yesterday talking about something else entirely…

      …and would really like to hear him talking on this subject (of open borders) in more detail.

      I saw him on youtube where he was saying that Denmark needed more immigrants, and he talked of Silicon Valley and workers to care for the elderly.

      While I might agree with him mostly, I see that it’s a hugely contentious subject.

    25. bernard — on 2nd November, 2009 at 9:29 PM  

      You thick twat, I’m black and working-class for your information. Furthermore, I live in Burnley and I can assure you no one here voted for your heroine Thatcher. You’re talking bollocks if you think the workers support your Tory shite- why not ask them what they think about your “wealth creating”, “productive” banker friends?

      No, you won’t, because you and your kind never go anywhere near genuinely working-class people, but use a caricature of the “white working class” (I’ve never had anyone spell it out to me how my interests differ from theirs because I’m not white, even though I work in the same job, live in the same community and use the same public services- maybe you could help?) to further your right-wing agenda.

    26. BenM — on 2nd November, 2009 at 9:41 PM  

      Hey Bernard,

      Rightwingers like Boyo really are anti-social little nerds.

      Don’t take too much heed. No one else does.

    27. Rumbold — on 2nd November, 2009 at 9:43 PM  

      As Katy said, does anyone have a solution?

    28. bernard — on 2nd November, 2009 at 9:47 PM  

      I’m not hugely bothered, just mystified. I know from personal experience that hardly anyone like that exists in real life.

      There are a few BNP voters at work and on my street. They always cringe with embarassment when they see a black man, wondering whether I’m going to beat them up or shout at them. Though I wouldn’t because I don’t see why I’d give a fuck.

    29. douglas clark — on 2nd November, 2009 at 9:55 PM  

      big bernard,

      And I take it that there are a lot of folk on your street that don’t think of you as:

      wondering whether I’m going to beat them up or shout at them. Though I wouldn’t because I don’t see why I’d give a fuck.

      Just because, I really wouldn’t want to have that self image….

      That is about as pish as a BNP viewpoint, or Mr Angry, of the New Statesman.

      What was his name again?

      You’ll remember, even if I can’t…

      Oh! Yeh!


      (mad dog)


      Hero to you is he?

    30. bernard — on 2nd November, 2009 at 10:00 PM  

      No, the point is that BNP voters are generally such utter pussies that it scares them to see a black man and they hope I don’t find out what they think, even though I’m completely unthreatening. I probably wouldn’t even fight back effectively if someone attacked me. Yet the minority are still whinging.

      I am perfectly fine with most people. I like living here, which I wouldn’t if the working class were what right-whingers think they are. Lucky that right-whingers talk bollocks, eh?

    31. douglas clark — on 2nd November, 2009 at 10:14 PM  




      Lets expamd your self image of yourself to your complete sentence:

      They always cringe with embarassment when they see a black man, wondering whether I’m going to beat them up or shout at them. Though I wouldn’t because I don’t see why I’d give a fuck.

      How do you know that?

      I probably wouldn’t even fight back effectively if someone attacked me.

      Probably me neither. But who is the minority here?

      Not me, not you.

      It is the tits that try to say otherwise. Do not assume that pathetic white folk and Reza represent any sort of mainstream opinion. For that is what these people want you to do, they want you to see yourself as in a ghetto, as a victim, when you are no such thing.

      I am perfectly fine with most people. I like living here, which I wouldn’t if the working class were what right-whingers think they are. Lucky that right-whingers talk bollocks, eh?


    32. MaidMarian — on 3rd November, 2009 at 12:43 AM  

      Rumbold has this right. Speeding up the process is the way to go. No option is pleasent here.

    33. damon — on 3rd November, 2009 at 7:11 AM  

      Is it morally right though to send people back to countries which are so poor and where life expectancy is so low?
      It’s below 45 years in many African countries, and Afghanistan.

      Speeding up the process means giving less time for appeals and all the stuff that immigration lawyers do.
      (Which is a bit of an industry in itself it seems.)

    34. Boyo — on 3rd November, 2009 at 2:57 PM  

      “You thick twat”. Blimey bernard, you really blow me away with your sophisticated intellectualism.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.