Help Stop This Coaltion Fudge On Child Detention

The Liberal Democrats went into the last election with a manifesto promise to end the detention of children for immigration purposes, something labelled by their party leader as "state-sponsored cruelty". This commitment was enshrined in the Coalition agreement. Initially the Coalition fudged the issue, ending the holding of children at Dungavel IRC in Scotland in May 2010 but continuing to use Yarl's Wood and Tinsley House at Gatwick Airport pending the outcome of a 'review'. Basically they dragged their heels and those of us opposed to the detention of children had to up the pressure on the government.

As a consequence Nick Clegg was forced in December last year to announce the end of the holding of children in immigration detention and the closure of the families unit at Yarl's Wood by 11 May this year. Instead they would be held for a maximum of 72 hours in something called "pre-departure accommodation" or "open accommodation"[Update: UKBA have removed this document but it is available here]. A planning application for the first of these facilities at Pease Pottage near Crawley, designed to hold up to 8 families of up to 6 members at any one time, is currently being rushed through the planning stage to meet this deadline.

Having examined the plans in details, a number of No Borders groups have come to the clear conclusion that this new form of Home Office operation does not in any way constitute a practical solution to the government's promise to end "the detention of children for immigration purposes" and that the Home Office are taking ever precaution to see that this proposed facility is sped through the planning process with the minimum of fuss and opposition.

Firstly, the project has been subject to none of the EU Procurement procedures necessary, with no restricted pre-qualification questionnaires issued or open tendering documents released. When officials were questioned as to why at a recent UKBA stakeholders meeting they claimed there was not enough time to do so. This clearly breached EU Procurement Directives.

Secondly, given that prevailing narrative surround this new type of immigration facility is that it is merely a form of temporary accommodation [see below] and not a new form of detention centre, it is rather strange that the Home Office has invoked paragraphs 24 & 25 of the Memorandum to DCLG Circular 02/2006 Crown Application of the Planning Act (concerning the possibility that an important infrastructure development that may be under terrorist or other threat if planning details were widely available) in order to restrict public access to parts of the planning application itself. Whilst we understand that the invoking of this provision is the norm for many government projects, it still appears a bit 'excessive'.

Then we come to the Change of Use application itself. The current facility is a residential school for children with behavioural and learning difficulties. Under the planning regulations this is classified as Class C2 [Residential institutions - Residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres]. The Home Office is arguing that the "pre-departure accommodation" falls into this category, rather than the normal Class C2A [Secure Residential Institution - Use for a provision of secure residential accommodation, including use as a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation or use as a military barracks] classification used for all other immigration detention facilities.

This is patently absurd. All the adults accommodated in this facility, with its 2.5m high security fences, CCTV and electronically-operated gates, will be held under a secure status; they will no doubt arrive (after being detained in dawn raids) handcuffed to a Reliance Secure Task Management security guard (the firm taking over immigration removal escort contracts from G4S at the beginning of May); they will not be allowed to leave the facility and they will leave handcuffed to a Reliance security guard; plus the children will only be allowed to leave the facility "subject to a risk assessment and suitable adult supervision" (effectively another security guard employed by the firm running the facility on UKBA's behalf, even if not in uniform at the time. All these detainees will continue to be held under the provisions of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, exactly the same provisions used to hold them prior to 'ending' of "the detention of children for immigration purposes" and there appear to be no new legislative provisions planned to make statutory provision for this new for of facility in Law.

Additionally, it could in fact be argued (as the Home Office will no doubt chose to when challenged on the substance of this area of objection) that this 'open' "pre-departure accommodation" is a wholly new Class of use and falls outside the current scheme of classification. Again, this is patently absurd for the same reasons.

When the Home Office and UK Border Agency (UKBA) unveiled this "new, compassionate [sic] approach to family removals", the deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg claimed that it marked "an enormous culture shift within our immigration system." It clearly is not. The Home Office continues to insist that "open accommodation is not detention", yet these children, all of whom the government readily admits "have committed no crime", will still be locked up for 'immigration purposes", depriving them of their liberty. It therefore follows that these new provisions completely fail to live up to Nick Clegg's promise and the Coalition Agreement's pledge to end "the detention of children for immigration purposes".

You can stick a label saying 'Open' on a closed and locked door, but it does not change the fact that it is still locked.

We urge all concerned members of the public to email either the Council's District Planning Committee which will examine the application or all the 54 Mid Sussex District Councillors listed below with the attached letter to show your complete opposition to this attempt by the Coalition to backtrack from their promise to end the detention of ALL children with this glorified PR exercise. Together we can hold the Coalition to their promise and force them to end the detention of children once and for all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letter Of Complaint:

I wish to express in the strongest possible terms my objections to the planned "pre-departure accommodation" facility in Pease Pottage. Not only does the proposed facility completely fail to fulfil the Coalition's pledge to end "the detention of children for immigration purposes", the whole planning application and the process so far followed by the Home Office is fatally flawed.

Firstly, in seeking to expedite the project in order to meet the Coalition's self-imposed deadline of 11 May 2001 for the ending of the detention of children in immigration facilities, it has been subject to none of the EU Procurement procedures necessary, with no restricted pre-qualification questionnaires issued or open tendering documents released. When officials were questioned as to why at a recent UKBA stakeholders meeting they claimed there was not enough time to do so. This clearly breached EU Procurement Directives.

Secondly, the planning application for a Change of Use itself is flawed. The current occupant of the site is residential school for children with behavioural and learning difficulties. Under the planning regulations this is classified as Class C2 [Residential institutions - Residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres]. The Home Office is arguing that "pre-departure accommodation" falls into this category, rather than the normal Class C2A [C2A Secure Residential Institution - Use for a provision of secure residential accommodation, including use as a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation or use as a military barracks] classification applied to all other immigration detention facilities.

Yet, all adults accommodated in this facility, with its 2.5m high security fences, CCTV and electronically-operated gates, will be held under a secure status; they will arrive and leave in secure transport and they will not be allowed to leave the facility whilst there. Additionally, their children will only be allowed to leave the facility subject to a risk assessment and under suitable adult supervision. All will continue to be held under the provisions of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, exactly the same provisions currently used to hold families and children for immigration purposes, exactly the same form of 'administrative detention' as was introduced in the Immigration Act 1971.

This clearly falls into Class C2A and as such the application should be rejected. Additionally, the provision of "pre-departure accommodation" in no way fulfils the Coalition's pledge to end "the detention of children for immigration purposes" and the very fact that a residential school for children with behavioural and learning difficulties, a much needed community resource, is being closed in order to accommodate this new species of detention centre only adds insult to injury, both to the current child residents and to the potential future residents, none of whom have committed any crime yet will be deprived of their liberty here in Pease Pottage.

I therefore urge you to do all you can to voice opposition to this plan.

Yours

[your name and address]


Downloadable versions with email addresses: notepad version / word doc / open office doc / pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mid Sussex District Planning Committee

[Copy and paste into the To: pane]
andrew.macnaughton@midsussex.gov.uk; bernard.gillbard@midsussex.gov.uk; stephen.barnett@midsussex.gov.uk; andrew.barrett-miles@midsussex.gov.uk; richard.bates@midsussex.gov.uk; liz.bennett@midsussex.gov.uk; sophia.harrison@midsussex.gov.uk; sue.hatton@midsussex.gov.uk; janice.henwood@midsussex.gov.uk; chris.hersey@midsussex.gov.uk; anne.jones@midsussex.gov.uk; jane.keel@midsussex.gov.uk; susanna.kemp@midsussex.gov.uk; edward.king@midsussex.gov.uk; graham.knight@midsussex.gov.uk; edward.matthews@midsussex.gov.uk; julian.thorpe@midsussex.gov.uk; mike.watts@midsussex.gov.uk

All 54 Mid Sussex District Councillors:

[Copy and paste into the To: pane]
andrew.macnaughton@midsussex.gov.uk; gary.marsh@midsussex.gov.uk; stephen.barnett@midsussex.gov.uk; susan.seward@midsussex.gov.uk; jacqui.landriani@midsussex.gov.uk; andrew.barrett-miles@midsussex.gov.uk; mandy.thomas-atkin@midsussex.gov.uk; eileen.balsdon@midsussex.gov.uk; julian.thorpe@midsussex.gov.uk; heather.ross@midsussex.gov.uk; mike.livesey@midsussex.gov.uk; sophia.harrison@midsussex.gov.uk; dorothy.hatswell@midsussex.gov.uk; ian.pearce@midsussex.gov.uk; mike.watts@midsussex.gov.uk; robert.salisbury@midsussex.gov.uk; edward.king@midsussex.gov.uk; liz.bennett@midsussex.gov.uk; peter.reed@midsussex.gov.uk; bernard.gillbard@midsussex.gov.uk; andrew.brock@midsussex.gov.uk; chris.jerrey@midsussex.gov.uk; ian.dixon@midsussex.gov.uk; jean.glynn@midsussex.gov.uk; heidi.brunsdon@midsussex.gov.uk; james.joyce-nelson@midsussex.gov.uk; edward.matthews@midsussex.gov.uk; peter.martin@midsussex.gov.uk; sue.hatton@midsussex.gov.uk; gordon.marples@midsussex.gov.uk; richard.bates@midsussex.gov.uk; brian.hall@midsussex.gov.uk; irene.balls@midsussex.gov.uk; garry.wall@midsussex.gov.uk; john.demierre@midsussex.gov.uk; sue.ng@midsussex.gov.uk; jonathan.ash-edwards@midsussex.gov.uk; john.belsey@midsussex.gov.uk; jane.keel@midsussex.gov.uk; chris.hersey@midsussex.gov.uk; simon.mcmenemy@midsussex.gov.uk; anna.defilippo@midsussex.gov.uk; susanna.kemp@midsussex.gov.uk; jack.callaghan@midsussex.gov.uk; margaret.hersey@midsussex.gov.uk; andrew.lea@midsussex.gov.uk; christopher.snowling@midsussex.gov.uk

Do We Look Worried?

It appears that the Arora Group/Home Office/UKBA/CgMs Consulting axis is indeed extremely worried that their little plan to convert an insignificant little school in the small sleepy Sussex village of Pease Pottage, where the only excitement is the busy A23 running through it and its more famous Service Station, is about to go pear-shaped. So worried are they that they operated a full court press last night at a meeting of the lowly Slaugham Parish Council and planning meeting, no doubt surprised that their little back door deal, turning a residential school for children with behavioural and learning difficulties into something euphemistically called Pre-Departure Accommodation (i.e. the latest form of immigration detention centre for families and children) [Update: UKBA have removed this document but it is available here], has become so public and that the 13 or so nearby residencies have had the audacity to question their plans.

So, instead of the usual discussions about house extensions, tree cutting and the siting of litter bins, the heavy squad (including Surinder Arora himself and his trusty sidekick Tim Jurdon, both of Mercure Hotel fame) arrived armed with a full set of plans, the very same ones that they are studiously denying the rest of us, the general public, access to under the catch-all of a government infrastructure security directive. In fact, when challenged on this very issue, as to why what they maintain is merely a form of temporary hostel for people waiting to leave the country is being given this degree of security to prevent details of it falling into the hands of terrorists, they had absolutely no answer. Strange that.

Other issues that they failed to adequately address included the key stumbling block as to whether the new facility can genuinely be classified Class C2 under the planning regulations, given that some if not all of those arriving at the centre will be held under what amounts to secure conditions [see: ]. Then there is the time-line for the submission of this project, which appears to be being sped through the planning process with undue haste. Leaving aside the issue of why the Home Office has signally failed to open the process up to any form of public tendering as required under EC legislation, the is the problem of exactly when this course of action was initiated; when the Mid Sussex District Council were first approached about the plans and why the retrospective planning application for the current perimeter fence that the current occupiers of the site Crawley Forest School put up illegally went in only a couple of days before the formal application for the Change of Use.

And the outcome of this attempted damage limitation exercise on behalf of the Arora/Home Office team was that the Parish Council came down firmly against the planning application, submitting 8 formal objections to the proposal. Round one to the objectors.

Celebrate International Women's Day At Yarl's Wood

Come and celebrate International Women's Day by showing solidarity with the migrant women imprisoned at Yarl's Wood!

Saturday, 5th March 2011, 1pm

Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre, Twinwoods Road, Clapham, Bedfordshire, MK41 6HL

Directions: UKBA website
Please organise your own transport.

The coalition government has skilfully employed he "end" to child detention to avoid talking about the brutal and inhumane detention regime of detention in general. Yet, over the years, countless reports and accounts have documented the plight of women locked up at Yarl's Wood: indefinite detention without charge or judicial oversight, overcrowded cells, mistreatment and abuse by private security guards, lack of privacy, restrictions on visits and phone calls, inadequate medical provision and the lack of facilities to address healthcare issues. And it's getting worse.

In her 2009 inspection report on Yarl's Wood, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers reported that “the focus on improving the environment and activities for children appeared to have led to a lack of attention to the needs of the majority population of women. Provision of activities for them was among the poorest seen in any removal centre. It had been inadequate at the last inspection, and had declined even further. The absence of activity added to the depression and anxiety of women, many of whom were spending lengthy periods at Yarl’s Wood. The average length of stay had increased by 50% since the last inspection, and one in ten women had been detained for more than six months.”

End the detention of migrant women!
Close Yarl's Wood now!

Italy Feeling The Refugee Pressure

Over the past couple of weeks one of the most amusing sights has been renown Northern League xenophobe Roberto Maroni virtually frothing at the mouth over the sudden appearance of boat loads of migrants in Lampedusa. So comfortable had he and his cronies become since they struck their 'push-back' deal with their best friend Muammar Gaddafi that they thought that this modern form of gunboat deplomacy had solved all their problems.

That is until the edifice of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's Tunisian regime fell, feeing desperate political and economic refugees to try the perilous crossing to promised lands of Fortress Europe. First stop Lampedusa, a small island closer to Tunisia itself than anywhere else but currently Italian territory after a long and torturous history where it has been traded between the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Spanish until it was finally purchased by the Italians (in the guise of the Kingdom of Naples) in C17th, going on to become a penal colony.

Latterly it served as a useful offshore detention centre for the Berlusconi regime until the Gaddafi deal was struck in 2009. Not that Libya was the only source of migrants that ended up on Lampedusa as there has always been a steady trickle of Tunisian refugees arriving on the island, many of whom were involved in the riot and mass breakout from the internment camp there in January 2009. Admittedly, Maroni's rhetoric about a "biblical exodus that has never been seen before" coupled with demands that Italy be allowed to send its own troops to Tunisia to prevent more migrants trying to make the crossing has prompted the interim government to deploy its military in the coastal belt and agree to its own 'push-back' deal with Italy.

Now with the situation in neighbouring Libya poses another potential headache for the Italian government. With the widespread street fighting and massive repression of the population, the claims that foreign mercenaries (sub-Saharan Africans) are being used by the Gaddafi regime as part of that repression, in turn adding to the threats posed to an already vulnerable and marginalised migrant population trying to use the country as a stepping stone to Europe, all this will inevitably lead to a significant increase to the numbers of people trying to cross the Mediterranean.

It will be interesting to see if the push-back deal will hold and whether the Italian-funded patrol boats will prevent a new wave of migrants to Europe, many of whom will inevitably arrive on Lampedusa, adding further fuel to Maroni's spat with the rest of the EU and sending his blood pressure even higher.

STOP PRESS:

According to Reuters the Libyan authorities are threatening to suspend cooperation with the EU over migration issues unless European governments stop giving vocal support to pro-democracy protesters in its country.

EU concerned about situation in Libya and "the violence and death of civilians" but are in fact more worried about Libya's threat to end co-operation in the fight against irregular migration, not to mention Italian Foreign Minister Frattini's Islamophobic fears over the "really serious threat" posed by "the self-proclamation of the so-called Islamic Emirate of Benghazi."

New Business Opportunities: Deportation Hostels

"In May 2010, the new coalition government committed to ending child detention for immigration purposes. The 'commitment' had to wait another few months to materialise (only last week reports revealed that a 11-year-old girl had been detained at Tinsley House detention centre, near Gatwick, over Christmas). Meanwhile, the UK Border Agency has been experimenting with a new deportation process for families, spun as "a new, compassionate approach to family removals." Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg went as far as claiming that this marked "an enormous culture shift within our immigration system." But while many serious concerns regarding the rights and welfare of migrant families remain, the new system appears to have created a new market for detention and deportation profiteers."

Given the interest raised by the current planning application by the Home Office to build yet another detention facility in our back yard (except the government PR machine calls it "Open Accommodation"), we recommend anyone interested in the Crawley forest School issue and the Coalition's 'commitment' to 'ending the detention of children' read this Corporatewatch article: New Business Opportunities: Deportation Hostels.

How To Sell Your Village To Tourists?

Condemnationalism

At last the fluffy PR-friendly mask of the LibCon Alliance has slipped to reveal their true face: Condemnationalists. Cameron's confused gibberish this weekend:

"state multiculturalism ... encouraging different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream" - just like the British ex-pat communities abroad then.

"We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong" - so the solution is yet another PR campaign then?

"We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values" [see point one].

"So when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them." - that's why the non-white prison population is so large [27% compared to only 11% of the general population] and ethnic minorities are much more likely to be subject to stop and search then?

So what's Cameron's solution to a situation where only white people are ever accused of being racist? "We need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism." So he's suggesting a little more than a PR campaign then and is aiming for a full-scale monoculturalism as the answer then [One Culture Conservatism anyone?] - if we all think and behave exactly like all true blue Brits do in his rose-tinted vision of a neo-Victorianist world and if everyone coming to this country adopted Cameron's way of speaking/dressing/thinking/voting/etc. then all would be well with the world. Utter tosh.

So we should all stop eating filthy foreign foods like curries, spag bol, chow mien...; stop drinking all those filthy foreign drinks like tea, coffee, Chateau la Fete and coca cola; stop wearing Armani suits, Chanel couture, Adidas, Nike, etc. and stop worshipping those awful foreign gods [surely everyone knows that God is an Englishman and his son was born in Blighty?] and be just like ... well, not like Cameron and his ilk at least.

So, here's the Condemnationalist view of the Good Foreigner:

They must have enough money [c.f. Tier 1 visas] of the right skill that the country can exploit [everyone else] before they are allowed into the country, only then will we behave in anything approaching a 'colour-blind' manner towards them [a hefty donation to the political party of their choice always goes down well and may even end up with the ultimate seal of approval - a knighthood]. That is, until they are no longer useful and then they better bugger off back to where they came from tout suite or we'll lock you up in an internment camp [detention centre] for as long as we see fit.

Then there is the good foreigner who is willing to still be exploited but has the good manners to stay in their own countries. You know the sort: they work for low wages in multinational companies or their subcontractors producing the sort of cheap goods that we think that it is our right to buy at low prices in high street shops and supermarkets; that produce the vital resources that end up in the latest must have consumer goods that within months end up as landfill. And all the while their environment is to be degraded and sold off to the highest bidder and their subsistence farms turned into massive pesticide and fertiliser-guzzling monocultures under World bank and IMF 'free trade' rules.

And the Bad Foreigner? Well, everyone else surely is a 'bogus' asylum seeker/religious fundamentalist/extremist/dago/wop/terrorist/coolie/etc. - legitimate targets all for Jeremy Clarkson's [the ur Brit] xenophobia.

Not that Cameron's 'Little Englander' rhetoric has been the only inane drivel sprouted by a politician this weekend. There was also Miliband's 'British promise' i.e. the expectation that children will have more opportunities than their parents, which roughly translates as: it is our god-given right to continue to expand the economy, and at the inevitable expense of the rest of the world.

Operation First Contact

London NoBorders has launched a campaign against hotel company Arora International which, in form of their subsidiary Arora Management Services Ltd., has started a second attempt to make money from the Home Office's deportation business. The company plans to use the site of a residential school for children with behavioural and learning difficulties in Pease Pottage, Crawley, Sussex, owned by the Arora Group subsidiary The Crossroads Childrens (sic) Education Services Ltd., to open an immigration detention facility. It is the second attempt by Arora Hotels to extend their business into detention following the company's failure to gain planning permission to turn one of their hotels in Crawley into a holding facility for migrants in 2010. Crawley Forest School has been told to vacate the property by 1 April 2011.

First Contact

On 25th January planning consultant CGMS sent out a letter informing local residents about the Arora Hotel plans, which they and the Home Office intend to push through the planning process within weeks, having the detention facility ready by mid-May. The letter also makes no secret that the facility is planned to replace the use of Yarl's Wood and nearby Tinsley House detention facilities for the explicit use of holding families and children, and that this necessitates the proposed urgency. Not only is the UKBA extending their detention capacity, but the government is also breaking their pledge to end the detention of children.

Arora try to legitimise their rush by starting some kind of "community process", but silently hoping that the process would go through unnoticed. In this they have failed.

CGMS ends their letter saying that they "would welcome any comments you may have on the proposal and [they] would be happy to answer any queries."

So they want your feedback, and we think they should get it.

What to do?

We are asking people to do exactly what they ask for: contact CGMS and Arora Hotels and let them know your opinion about the planned detention centre for families. To make it easier for them to deal with incoming queries and to bundle the feedback nicely, we propose that you contact them between Monday 7 February 10am and Tuesday 8 February 5pm.

Stay polite, stay firm!

Spread the word!

Arora/CGMS wanted to push this through without being noticed. Help us to spread the word, ask your friends to join #Operation_FirstContact.

Who to contact?

Conveniently, we have collected a list of public contacts of both Arora Hotels and CGMS here:

CGMS
London:
Tel: 020 7583 6767
london@cgms.co.uk

Birmingham:
Tel: 0121 616 4850
birmingham@cgms.co.uk

More contacts at:
http://www.cgms.co.uk/page/Contact_9/1.html

Arora
Head Office:
Marketing
Marketing@arorahotels.com

Press and Media
PublicRelations@arorahotels.com

Head Office enquiries
HeadOffice@arorahotels.com

Public Inquieries:
+44 (0)20 8757 7770
PublicRelations@arorahotels.com

+44 (0)1293 530 000
Gatwick@arorahotels.com

+44 (0)20 8759 7777
Heathrow@arorahotels.com

+44 (0)161 236 8999
Manchester@arorahotels.com

Britons: More Racist/Xenophobic/Bigoted/Paranoid/Ignorant* Than Anyone Else?

* delete as applicable

The latest Transatlantic Trends on Immigration report shows that Britons are easily the most fearful and ignorant of migration trends than any other country surveyed. Where the country comes out top of the survey: 65% see immigration as more of a problem than an opportunity; 59% said there were "too many immigrants" [the European average for this figure is 12%]; had the most negative views on migrants in the job market (taking jobs away from 'natives' and bringing down wages of citizens); access to health care, state schooling and social housing should be for citizens only; and 48% thought that immigration negatively affects 'British culture'. The UK also has the lowest approval for a country's government's handling of immigration matters.

The only positive thing that we could find in all the data was that at least we weren't as obviously xenophobic as the Italians, Germans, Dutch and French in ascribing increases in crime to immigrants.

In an odd footnote to the media coverage of this was the BBC's on-line content where it claims, after discussing attitudes to access to health and schools and migrants taking jobs from natives, was this: "However, nearly three quarters thought the government should allow more foreign doctors and nurses into the UK and just over half wanted more foreign care workers for the elderly." We can find this nowhere in the report, nor were there any listings of questions involving the migration of health care workers in the Methodology.

Odd! Maybe they just made it up? If it is true however, it just goes to show that the old Empire spirit is still alive: foreigners - make good servants but you wouldn't want one moving in next door to you or marrying your daughter; and maybe this is the reason the Brits are so more racist/xenophobic/bigoted/paranoid/ignorant* than everyone else.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This news comes on the day that another report, 'Coping with Destitution: Survival and livelihood strategies of refused asylum seekers living in the UK', part-funded by Oxfam and conducted by the Centre for Migration Policy Research, is published in the UK detailing the appalling conditions of destitution that refused asylum seekers have to in this country. Many face a hand-to-mouth existence, sleeping rough or stuck in an endless rut of sofa-surfing or sleeping on friends' floors. Many suffer from ill-health because of the lack of accommodation, because of a poor diet and a lack of access to healthcare. Most are in constant fear of forced return or, due to their vulnerability, of being attacked on the street or being exploited and abused. Many are emotionally and psychologically scarred already and their situations are making them much worse.

Dodgy Dealing Over Pease Pottage?

Pease pottage hot, pease pottage cold,
Pease pottage in the pot, nine days old;
Some like it hot, some like it cold,
Some like it in the pot, nine days old.
[Old English nursery rhyme and children's singing game.]


It is beginning to look more and more as if our initial opinion about the Crawley Forest School plan, namely that the agreement between detention business wannabes Arora Hotels Ltd. and the Home Office to convert the school into a Pre-Departure Accommodation facility' i.e. a 'fluffy' detention centre to appease woolly Lib Dem members of the Condemnation, is in fact a dodgy behind-closed-doors stitch-up between the two organisations.

At a regular UK Border Agency 'stakeholder' meeting last week, when the plans were revealed to those attending [1], it became clear that there would be no open public procurement tendering process for the facility as is required under EU and UK legislation. In response to a question from one of those attending as to why the Agency was ignoring the law the response was "because there is not time"!

This of course signals a potential spanner that might just fall into the Arora/UKBA works, leaving them open to a legal challenge on the issue and it certainly warrants a parliamentary question being asked by some interested MP about the Home Office's apparently mendacious behaviour.


[1] Though interestingly not in the latest [January 2011] issue of the Border Agency News.