The Mail Says: 'Foreign Nurses Forced To Take English Lessons'...

...So It Must Be True?

Ah yes! The Daily Mail, in its xenophobic Spitfires-over-the-cliffs-of-Dover and Churchill-fighting-the-damn-foreigners-on-the-beaches world, is at it again, revealing the startling news that (as the Telegraph puts it in its more sedate rehash of the Mail's story), 'NHS trust employs staff from 70 countries' - "Managers at Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals in Oxford have arranged for employees to take English lessons after patients complained that they could not make themselves understood."

Except that the Mail's original version is slightly more sensationalist, 'Revealed: Hospital has staff from 70 countries as nurses who don't even understand 'nil by mouth' forced to take English lessons' [note the word 'forced'] - "An NHS hospital has staff from a staggering 70 countries on its payroll. The huge number of overseas nurses, cleaners and porters has forced health chiefs to send them on ten-week English courses because many do not understand basic medical phrases."

And how do we know this to be the case? You can bet your bottom dollar that the NHS Trust did not press-release the story. Of course not, far too obvious a target for Mail-like sensationalism. So, in sightly torturous English, the Telegraph reveals who did, "Many nurses and other front-line staff at the hospitals have such poor language skills that they are unable to read or write English, patient groups said."

The aforementioned 'patient group(s)' was, according to the Mail, the Oxford Radcliffe Patients' Forum, or to be more accurate, one Jacquie Pearce-Gervis,* who apparently "called last night for English lessons to be made compulsory rather than voluntary." The Telegraph, who appear to have checked her bona fides before publishing, identified her as spokeswoman for "Patient Voice, the Oxfordshire-based campaign group". And a quick search of the internet reveals that she was certainly a member of the 'Oxford Radcliffe Patients' Forum'** in 2006 (the most recent listing on the Trust's website) but most recently she has been a member of the Oxford-based or Oxfordshire-based group 'Patients Voice', depending on who one reads. Whether this is the same group as the pro-vivisection Oxford-based group Patients' Voice for Medical Advance we do not know.

However, it would appear that all one needs to do to get a story in the Mail, whatever group one claims to represent, is to ring up some dodgy Mail journo or the 'News' desk itself with some juicy titbit about damn foreigners causing good English stock some form of upset and Bob's your uncle (or aunty as the case maybe be, though she wouldn't get any favourable space if she were the later).

Anyway, to get back to the Mail: "Among the terms some workers from countries such as Burma, the Philippines and Poland can't follow are 'nil by mouth', 'doing the rounds' and 'bleeping a doctor'." Err! Why that particular choice of countries? Burma possibly, the Philippines less obviously, but Poland!? Clearly Poles (swan-eating shed-squatters) are now up there with the French (cheese-eating surrender monkeys, though they do want to ban the burqa) and Germans (the Boche - no can't use that word, its French - started WWI, WWII and the EU along with the French and always beating England on penalties at the World Cup) on the Mail's list of countries to hate.

Now here's the juicy bit, the meat (or TVP) in the sandwich of this story: "The lessons follow several 'near-disaster' cases, including one where a meal was delivered to a patient because a member of staff did not understand that 'nil by mouth' meant the man could not eat or drink." Disturbing, especially as the headline implied that this was due to "nurses who don't even understand 'nil by mouth'."

Reading on through the article, after learning that "all doctors from outside the EU must pass an English language test set by the General Medical Council before they can practise" and that "the same rules do not apply for other hospital workers", except that nurses and porters of course do not practice medicine and therefore do not have to take the GMC tests. "Instead, they are usually assessed on their grasp of the language at interview."

OK then? Except, "the problem has become so acute at Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals that foreign workers are being encouraged to attend ten-week, taxpayer-funded 'English For Speakers Of Other Languages' courses, which are run by a nearby college."

So exactly how bad is this 'problem'? The Mail seems reluctant to actually say. It does reveal the interesting 'factoid' that "research has found that up to a quarter of nurses - more than 60,000 - working in London are foreign, with the largest number coming from the Philippines." What research this is the article does not reveal, or why the facts about London are relevant to Oxford and a hospital (or is that a hospital trust, not necessarily the same thing) that the paper clearly implies has much more of a 'problem' with foreign staff as they surely would be leading with the banner 'London hospitals employ staff from 70 countries' or some such rubbish?

Then we get a list of some hospitals in London and that "Manchester Royal Infirmary also has a high proportion of foreign staff from countries including India, Ghana, Spain, Germany, Iceland and the Yemen." Outstanding journalism! But probably nicked from a 2002 edition of the Independent.*** And its only then that we learn, both that this earth-shattering story is due to this Ms Pearce-Gervis calling "last night for English lessons to be made compulsory rather than voluntary."

And, wait for it, "There have been cases when porters have delivered a patient food despite the fact there is a clear sign on their bed saying "nil by mouth"." So it is NOT nurses who don't understand the phrase 'nil by mouth', it is porters delivering food to patients who apparently do not understand it. And even then we have no evidence that the food being delivered to the bed of someone due to have an operation was because the porters could not read English or because they got mixed up over who was having what meal, a mistake that we are sure no English-reading porters has ever made.

And even then, in the very next sentence, Ms Pearce-Gervis states "obviously this could have led to disaster but fortunately THE PATIENT [our emphasis] has been intelligent enough to point out that they are not allowed the food." So it was only one patient, as the Mail itself claimed earlier in the article. One case and even then there's no evidence presented of possible 'disaster' if the patient had gone ahead and eaten the food.

So what do Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust have to say on the subject? After a short anonymous quote from 'a member of staff at the trust' ("I think it should be compulsory. There can often be problems with common slang terms used on the ward." - something that 10 weeks of English lessons are not necessarily going to solve) and as many column inches of space dedicated to Dr Daniel Ubani, the German (naturally) GP involved in the death of a patient through the administration of a massive overdose of a painkiller he had never used before, but who also happened to have failed the GMC language test, their spokesperson, Rainy Faisey, deputy director of human resources at Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals, claimed that the courses were a way of giving staff in lower-paid jobs a chance to develop their skills.

"As an employer, Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust offers a wide variety of training and development opportunities to its staff to help them to provide excellent care for our patients and further their career in the NHS. Like all good employers we give all staff the opportunity to develop their reading, writing and numeracy skills, whether their first language is English or not."

So, all in all, another xenophobic Mail non-story. And NO nurses are in fact being "forced to take English lessons."



* Who a back copy of the May 2004 issue of ORH News helpfully tells us "began work at the Radcliffe Infirmary as a shorthand typist when she was 17 and worked in the NHS for 20 years before re-training as a teacher in further education."
** As an aside, the Oxford Radcliffe Patients' Forum or Patient and Public Involvement Forum or the Oxfordshire and Berkshire Consortium for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (or even Oxfordshire and Berkshire Consortium for Patient and Public Involvement in Health depending on which NHS trust website one visits) no longer appears to exist in one or maybe all of its previous forms. Certainly neither of the websites [1, 2] are up and running and there is no mention of it in recent issues of the ORH News.
If, however, you live in the Oxford area, you can apply to join the panel by filling out this form. And maybe you'll get to meet the famous Ms Pearce-Gervis who the Mail is happy to dedicate so much of its valuable advertising space to.
*** This really does show up how little research goes in to this sort of story. No doubt the journo Google a few hospitals abd came up with the Independent article 'Why foreign nurses hold the nation's health in their hands', which contains the following information: "Indian nurses now account for one in ten of the infirmary's nursing workforce." Followed by: "In addition, a dozen other countries supply staff, including the Philippines, Australia, Spain, Ghana, Germany, Iceland and the Yemen."

Selected Lowlights Of The Yarl's Wood Inspection Report

As many of you probably cannot be bothered to read the full report on the unannounced full follow-up inspection of Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre on 9 – 13 November 2009 by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, we've chosen a few lowlights for you, with the odd comment of course.

Length of Detention:

Over the past six months, 420 children had been detained, of whom half had been released back into the community, calling into question the need for their detention and the disruption and distress this caused. Some children and babies had been detained for considerable periods – 68 for over a month and one, a baby, for 100 days – in some cases even after social workers had indicated concerns about their and their family’s welfare. Detailed welfare discussions did not fully feed into submissions to Ministers on continued detention. - Introduction. [This figure of only 50% actually deported was confirmed earlier this month.]

Now Phil Woolas has responded to this directly, on amongst other things Radio 4, and has claimed that, whilst half of all Yarl's Wood detainees are released at some point (he helpfully pointed out that "all the people we are talking about are appeal-rights exhausted"), almost all are subsequently removed from the country. Now, this raises a few interesting points.

Firstly, and our maths here may not be too hot, but if half of all detainees are released but almost all are subsequently removed then:
1] half are being detained before all legal avenues have been exhausted, be they appeal-rights exhausted or not;
2] in order to remove almost 100%, if half are removed at each subsequent detention, then 25% are detained twice before deportation, 12% detained three times, 6% four times, you get the picture.

Therefore the line that "whenever we [UKBA] take decisions involving children, their welfare comes first and we will always seek to act in the best interests of the child" and that the Home Office's only detains people when their removal is imminent or when there is a risk of them absconding, and when other alternatives have been considered, is clearly not true.

And just ask yourself, if you have been in the country for a number of years, you have a settled home life with your children in school, are you likely to go on the run? The Home Office clearly thinks so, despite them never having offered one scintilla of evidence that this is likely to be the response of families facing deportation.

So his statement in response to the report that "The sad fact is that some illegal immigrants refuse to comply with the decision of the independent courts and return home voluntarily. The alternatives to centres like Yarl's Wood include putting children into care – which would mean separating them from their parents and risking increased child trafficking and further illegal immigration," is a load of hogwash. [Note: he does not iterate the other alternatives.] And to bring child trafficking into the argument is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

None of the five families who had been held for 28 days or more [NB: reviews of continued detention have to be carried out after 28 days] and who were discussed during a conference call held during the inspection were removed and all were eventually released. - Main recommendation #2.

More than 10% of detainees had been held at Yarl’s Wood for more than six months. Of these, 13 had been held for six to eight months, eight for eight to 10 months and 11 for more than 10 months. Three detainees had been detained for two years and more. The average length of detention at the centre was 34 days for single female detainees (compared to 22 days in 2008) and 16 days for families. There were no statistics for length of detention across the estate and even those for length of detention at Yarl’s Wood were not easily accessible. The cumulative length of detention was highly relevant to the management of cases, including by the UKBA’s on-site office, so this lack of accurate statistics could adversely impact on detainees. - Immigration casework 3.15.

One Zimbabwean woman detained for nearly two years was awaiting a Court of Appeal hearing, but the monthly review letters failed to mention that there had been no forced removals to Zimbabwe throughout this period. In the case of another woman held for 13 months, it had taken a year to confirm her claim of having Nigerian nationality and the monthly review letters failed to identify the reason for lack of progress. There was no evidence in the case file that the detainee was not cooperating. In other cases, the reason for continued detention was highly questionable. One Nigerian woman who had been at the centre for 16 months was told that her continued detention was because she had been ‘assessed as posing a serious risk of harm to the public’ for committing the offence of possession of a false identity document for which she had served nine months in prison. - Immigration casework 3.17.

Health & Welfare Provision:

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. There was some paid work, but only about a dozen jobs offered more than 10 hours a week. The quality and quantity of education was poor, except for some good arts and crafts work. - Introduction.

The conditions, activities and services for children, within the centre, had improved significantly, but this, while welcome, could not compensate for the adverse effect of detention itself on the welfare of children, half of whom were later released back into the community. - Introduction.

There had been no assessment of adult mental health needs. - Introduction.

Food:

None of the 5 previous recommendations regarding food had been achieved, though the percentage saying that "the food was good or very good" had risen to 17% from the previous only 7%, against the comparator standard of 27%.

Food lacked variety, could be of poor quality and was much criticised by detainees. - Respect HE.24.

Detainees did not work in the kitchen and were unable to contribute to the preparation of national dishes. - Respect HE.33.

Removals:

[Between August and October 2009], 845 detainees had left following issue of removal directions: 554 [66%] had been escorted by G4S inland and 143 of these removals (26%) had failed; 291 [34%] had been escorted by overseas escorts and 74 (25%) had failed. - Removal and release 10.18.

There were several examples of arrangements made to split the family for effective removal. This usually meant separating the family from the father, but in one case the proposal was to separate a five year old child from his mother on their journey to the airport. In another case, separating the father was described as ‘leverage over the mother’ and in another, separating the mother from her 18 year old son was described as ‘leverage to decrease the mother’s obstructive behaviour’. - Removal and release 10.26.

In January 2009, force had been used to split a family of six so that the father and two children could be removed. The youngest child had been removed by force from his father’s grip and a 10 year old child was taken by force into the departure area after refusing to leave his mother. In the same month, force was used on a pregnant woman. Her three year old son had been kept in the family care suite while she was taken to the legal offices to be given removal directions. On leaving the offices, she had refused to move further and called repeatedly for her son. She had been forcibly placed in, and held in, a wheelchair and taken to the family care suite where she was reunited with her son. - Removal and release 10.27.

Paid Work:

Paid work had expanded to 49 paid work roles, but this was still inadequate for the population. Only a quarter of roles offered work for more than 10 hours a week and there was a two to three week waiting list for jobs. The application process was unclear and work agreements that detainees were required to sign were not translated. Access to work could be vetoed for non-compliance with UKBA, which inappropriately mixed custodial and immigration functions. the child. - Activities HE.37.

The privileges of enhanced status were access to the clothing bazaar, 30 minutes a day internet access and the ability to apply for paid work, subject to UKBA approval (see section on work and learning and skills). Standard level detainees were restricted to 30 minutes a week of internet access, which inappropriately reduced the amount of their contact with the outside world. - Rewards scheme 8.15.

Further recommendations 8.16 Detainees should only be downgraded to the standard level for a pattern of behaviour rather than a single incident, unless that incident is very serious. 8.17 Reviews should be regular and take place on time. 8.18 Reduced access to the internet should not be a penalty within the rewards scheme

Other findings:

A 65% increase in the use of force in first 9 months of 2009 compared to the same period in 2008.

Almost twice the numbers of incidents of temporary confinement under Rule 42 in first 9 months of 2009 compared to same period 2008.

A 37% increase in the number of complaints, nearly half were made about medical issues [32%] and ‘poor communication’ [16%].

After the 2008 inspection, the HM Inspectorate of Prisons made 128 recommendations, the same number as during the 2009 visit. Of those, only 59 [46%] were achieved by the second visit. Of those 43 unachieved and 16 partially achieved recommendations from 2008, 65 were carried over to this report to make 187 new or repeated recommendations to the operators of Yarl's Wood [156] and to UKBA [29], plus 2 jointly addressed.

But probably most damning of all:

There seemed to be no change in practice following the removal of the reservation to Article 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and no consideration of whether detention was essential or in the best interests of the child. - Childcare and child protection 4.28.

'Mafia' Provocation Behind 'Race Riots' In Southern Italy

More details have emerged since the 'riots' in Rosarno at the end of last week and it now appears that the attack by local youths on Friday was the final insult in a long line of provocations.

The migrants from sub-Saharan Africa have been a common site in Italy for decades. In southern Italy they move en masse from the grape harvest in Sicily, via the orange, tangerine and kiwi harvests in Calabria and the olive picking in Apulia. Local farmers have relied on them since the 'native' agricultural workforce evaporated. Instead, the 8000 or so 'clandestini' in Calabria pick fruit and vegetables for 12 to 14 hours a day for 20 to 25 euros and many are regularly forced to pay kickback of up to a quarter of their wages to local gangsters in the 'Ndrangheta, the regional version of the mafia.

They also have to pay for the squalid abandoned building that they are forced to sleep in. In Rosarno, for example, about 1,000 were living in a disused food warehouse with 8 chemical toilets, 3 showers, no electricity and, until last year, no running water. Many are paperless, are therefore illegally employed and therefore easy targets for exploitation by farmers and gangster alike. In the words of the anti-mafia priest Luigi Ciotti, "The mafia cynically exploits the immigrants. The criminal masterminds know that clandestine immigrants will not even try to revolt because they have no ID and no state protection." Robberies and beatings at gun-point are also common.


In December 2008, during the citrus harvest, an unidentified gunman walked into a factory where hundreds of the migrants were sleeping and shot 2 of them. One, a 21-year-old from the Ivory Coast, was seriously injured. As part of a peaceful protest in Rosarno, the 'clandestini' reported the attack to the police and complained about the routine robberies and shootings by 'Ndrangheta gangs they have to endure. Interestingly, one of the building they visited in that protest was the house of an old boss in the Pesce-Bellocco clan, a powerful local 'Ndrangheta, something the Calabrians would never do according to anti-mafia experts.

Now it appears that the local residents, who have for years lived peacefully alongside the seasonal migrants, turned to the 'Ndrangheta to try and drive the 'clandestini' out because of the lack of local field work. The violent reaction by the migrants to the provocation on Thursday allowed the towns people, who included a number of local 'Ndrangheta clan members according to the police, to exploit the situation and according to Luigi Manconi, a senator in the last Prodi government, turn Rosarno into "the only wholly white town in the world. Not even South African apartheid obtained such a result."

On Friday, ostensibly in response to the sit down protest by the migrants in the town square and to the cars damaged and the smashed windows, Rosarno residents occupied the town hall demanding the migrants be removed. Others armed with metal bars, wooden clubs and shotguns set up barricades and clashed with the police. Many conducted 'manhunts', beating up stray migrants. Two Africans were shot in the legs and 3 others ended up in hospital with serious injuries, one undergoing emergency brain surgery. In other incidents police arrested people for trying to run over migrants with cars and, in one case, even a bulldozer. All told, 67 people were injured: 31 immigrants, 19 police and 17 residents.

On Saturday townspeople cheered as the migrants left in buses laid on by the police, voluntarily at first but later police forcibly removed the remainder "for their own protection". Others left by train, many without collecting their pay. More than 800 were transferred to reception centres in Crotone and Bari. In Crotone, 170km away, more than half of those whose cases had been examined had temporary residence permits and will be released. The others however are destined for internment in CIEs and deportation. In scenes reminiscent of the 'Jungle' clearences in Northern France, the local Fire Brigade bulldozed the migrants' shacks and tents in the derelict factory, destroying the meagre possessions they had been forced to leave behind.

The locals were clearly happy to see the back of the 'clandestini', "We don't want them back," claimed one local landowner. "We gave the negroes clothes and food, we even gave them meals for Christmas." No one should "take us for racists" he added without recognising the irony of his comments. Also not recognising the irony of its comments, Il Giornale, the newspaper owned by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, asked on Saturday, "Rather than shooting negroes, shoot the mafia. Why won't Calabrians shoot the mafia? Immigrants are poor and weak, ugly and dirty, perfect targets ... Organised crime which keeps security forces in check is powerful, violent, revengeful and therefore must not be bothered." Clearly the Italian sense of humour does not translatte well.

Finally, on Saturday in nearby Gioia Tauro, a few miles from Rosarno, a group of men in a car shot another African man with an air rifle, showing that the 'problem' will not be solved by merely busing out the 'clandestini'. The locals may have wanted them gone but who will pick next year's harvest? Roberto Calderoli, a leading member of the Northern League suggests that with unemployment at 18% in the south, jobs should go to Italian citizens. Agricultural sector wages should be increased so that Italians would accept this type of work. Yet currently there is fruit rotting on the trees, fruit that the local farmers claim that they cannot afford to pay anyone to pick, even at slave-wage levels.

This Septic Isle

A new poll has revealed just how ingrained anti-immigration sentiment is in the UK. In the latest Transatlantic Trends survey on immigration carried out by the German-Marshall Fund in 6 European countries, including the UK, plus USA and Canada, the Brits come out 'top of the racism pops' or, as the Guardian would have it, "more anti-immigrant and xenophobic than the rest of western Europe".

In he survey, 55% of UK citizens felt there were too many immigrants, the highest in the countries polled. 66% also felt that immigration was more of a problem than an opportunity, the highest of all countries (up from 61% in '08). 54% of Brits also agreed with the statement "immigrants take away jobs from native-born workers", and the UK was the only country where a majority thought this. 48% also agreed that immigrants bring down wages, one of only two countries (the other being Spain) where a majority held that view.

When asked to estimate the number of immigrants living in their country, British citizens estimated there to be 27%, while in reality it is 10% i.e. 2.7 times higher than the true picture. In fact all countries overestimated the numbers of migrants but only France, who estimated. 2.9 times and Italy (3.5) had higher percentage errors than the UK.

On the crime front, the UK was towards the bottom of spectrum when it came to adverse perceptions of the effects of immigration, with 36% feeling legal migration increased crime and 59% for illegal migration. In comparison, Italy and Spain were much more concerned about the effects of illegal migration on crime with Germany and the Netherlands most fearful of both.

Despite that fact that 71% said the government had dome a bad job managing migration (against 27% who had said that they had done a good/fair job), the highest in Europe (versus a 71% approval rating in Germany), 53% still wanted that government (or more likely one with more restrictive immigration policies) to retain control of immigration policy. Needless to say, the UK was the only European country polled that did not favour an EU formulated immigration policy (30% for as opposed to an European average of 56%).

This anti-European sentiment was further reinforced by the 47% that said that there are “too many” citizens of other EU countries living in the UK. And not being a Schengen member correlated with the fact that reinforcing border controls was seen to be the most effective means of combating illegal migration (44%, nearly 50% higher than in the USA and 76% higher than in the next highest EU country, the Netherlands).

Other stand-out statistics were:

• 20% in the UK and 15% in Italy thought that immigration was the most important issue facing their country (versus 30% and 34% respectively who thought that the economy was more important);
• the Italians and British were most against giving 'illegal' migrants opportunities to normalise their status;
• apart from Spain and Italy, UK correspondents were most worried about illegal immigration (68%) but the most worried about legal migration (36%);
• along with the Netherlands, the UK was the least in favour of migrants being granted permanent leave to remain;
• the also UK had the lowest support rate (50%) and the highest opposition (47%) for the granting of social benefits to legal migrants, with 28% “strongly opposed” to the policy (Italy's figures were 87/11% pro/anti);
• but Britain had the lowest percentage (47%) of those who thought that “immigration negatively affects national culture” (whatever that is).

One of the few bright lights in the survey was that most people support allowing individuals displaced by events linked to global climate change to settle in their countries. However, the country with the lowest level of support (57%) and the highest opposition (38%) is, yes you guessed it, Britain - though the majority still support such migration, so we have something to be grateful for.

So, apart from having such expected truisms 'as those who had suffered increased financial problems in the past year claiming that they were now more worried about immigration' (except in the USA for some reason) and that 'contact with immigrants is the most important predictor of opinions about integration' confirmed, we now also know that the 'Little Englander' stereotype is true. And that the country* that in the past has "welcomed Danes, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Franks, Jews, Lombards, Roma, Huguenots, Palatines, Africans, West Indians, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Belgians, Poles and many others", to quote the Spectator, is even more racist than Italy!


* Or "This sceptical isle" as the Economist put it (more like septic isle if you ask us). Their take on some of the graphs is quiet amusing too...

UNHCR Hypocrisy?

In a startling piece of double-think Wilbert Van Hövell, the regional representative of the UNHCR in Western Europe, claimed yesterday that “the situation of the migrants in Calais improved overall”* in the 6 months since their Calais office has been open. What planet is he living on?

He claims that “since the end of the 'Jungle', one notices that the number of migrants in Calais fell, which is a positive point”, and that “the fact of preventing very new squat also plays in the favour of this fall...The situation improved since October and the care is always accessible to the migrants… it is well.” What care? Being brutalised and detained every night by the CRS? Loosing all your possessions, your sleeping bag, clothes, money, mobile phone, etc. Only to be turfed out on the cold and wet streets the next day with only the clothes on your back. That's progress?

"Moreover, the town hall will place at the disposal a room for the great cold plan. It is positive…” But that happens every year and only operated when the daytime temperature remains below OºC.

And of course the UNHCR is having more migrants through their doors forced to contemplate taking the 'voluntary' repatriation grants offered and return to the various war zones around the globe that they fled originally because they have gotten the incredibly heavy-handed 'message' that they are not welcome...and of course it justifies all those UNHCR jobs in to the bargain. Its even been busy in the Loon-Plage 'Jungle' recently, prior to its destruction this week, running the gauntlet of the traffickers as the try to persuade the migrants to take the offer of voluntary assisted return. Its either that or forced repatriation somewhere down the line unless they can make it across the Channel, or die trying.

So what does he think are negatives about the 'Jungle' destructions? Not enough 'reception facilities', especially for minors, unlike Belgium apparently, where he is based. Not enough charter flights of course, and the fact that there are fewer migrants in Calais "from one point of view is a positive. The concern is that the problem is in the process of moving not only in France but also Belgium, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. The situation is not resolved." Now that's a bit of realism on his part. As is the contradiction he highlights in saying "We urge these people to stop illegality by asking them to engage in, proceedings to which they will no doubt be refused. This is proof if any (were needed) of the difficult in applying EU asylum policy." Exactly.

In Wilbert Van Hövell's home city of Brussels some of those displace Calais migrants will no doubt be staying in the tent city recently built by 5 migrant aid groups in a public park near the city's Gare du Nord railway station. The action to erect the 15 tents to house refugees forced on to the streets by the lack of adequate housing is being "tolerated" by city authorities. There are a dozen "family" tents capable of sheltering 50 people, three tents for health care, legal and social advice, and food support. And by mid-afternoon Wednesday around 100 people were trying to enter the camp.

Belgium is obliged under its own laws to provide housing for asylum seekers but more than 1,000 asylum seekers currently have nowhere to go but the streets with winter rapidly approaching but the NGOs accept their camp is hardly the solution. "Days and nights have gone by, and still no assurance has been given for taking care of people who are sent out into the streets every day, as a result of lacking capacity to house them," a joint press statement from Medecins Sans Frontieres, Medecins du Monde, Caritas International, CIRE and Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen claimed.


* Apologies for the poor French-English translation through out.

'Bosses Exploit Migrant Workers' Shock Horror

The BBC News have a story today, headlined 'Hospital cleaners 'blackmailed''* on their website, about three manages from ISS Mediclean who have been arrested during a raid at Kingston Hospital. It appears that these 'senior managers' were 'blackmailing' junior members of staff by threatening to report the cleaners to the UKBA, we assume because they did not haver the correct documentation and were easy targets for exploitation.

Shock Horror! This goes on all the time. That is the handy role 'illegal' workers have fulfilled for years and, despite all the government posturing and law-making, will fulfil for years to come. It is also prevalent in the service industries and in particular those that have been privatised, where 'outsourcing' companies pay very low wages and employ clandestine workers that they they know they can fire if they 'get out of line', trying to organise in a union or demanding the sort of wages and conditions (e.g.: the SOAS cleaners) that any ordinary worker would consider to be standard. That is how these companies make their massive profits and pay large dividends to their shareholders.

And what does the ISS PR stooge put up to comment on the case have to say? "ISS deeply regrets any adverse reaction this incident may have had on the patients, staff and visitors to the hospital. It is our responsibility to work within the law and to ensure that our employees do the same, which includes demonstrating their right to work legally." Pull the other one!

Racist organisations and dullard tabloid newspapers are also constantly banging on about foreign workers coming over here stealing 'our' jobs, working for cheaper wages. Yet it is the people that run these companies and that are paying the low wages that are exploiting these people for their own ends. The foreign and undocumented workers do not turn up at factory gates and persuade the bosses to cut wages so they can employ them. It is the other way round and it is the bosses that the people should be targeting not scapegoating 'foreign workers'.


* Typically the Mail's take on the incident was 'Hospital cleaning bosses at major firm arrested over 'migrant fraud'', despite using the same Press Association-written story as the basis for their article and the first sentence of their piece being: "Three managers at an NHS hospital cleaning company have been arrested on suspicion of blackmailing foreign staff." Being arrested for blackmail of workers, 'illegal' or otherwise, obvioulsy doesn't make for a Daily Mail sort of headline that arrests for immigration offences does.

Daily Mail Going Soft On Immigration?

Two articles in two days that that don't demand an end to all immigration or mass deportation or Alan Green to be made PM or the burka to be banned or all 'foreign criminals' to be hung or birched or castrated. What is the world coming to?

First we have Vince Cable slumming it and being very reasonable and very liberal:
"The politics of immigration is a minefield. Most politicians, therefore, avoid it, except for those on the extreme fringes who want to detonate a bitter argument on race."

He points up the misconceptions about lack of housing ('right to buy' policy to blame), Poles blamed for lack of building jobs (recession to blame), people who complain about 'illegal immigrants' when they mean black and Asians.

You can tell he's a politician when he brings out his "late wife was of Indian origin" to show what a caring, unprejudiced and experienced person he is, especially as he brought up a young family in the sixties and seventies when there were "Enoch Powell’s speeches and widespread hostility to non-white immigrants." Even though there was net emigration then, "the concern was really about the changing make-up of the British population."

But even now, "while most people are more comfortable about a diverse society, there is anxiety that immigration is ‘out of control’." Who's to blame? The government of course - claimed immigration was good for the economy, keeping wage inflation down and fuelled the economic boom.

Then he's back to the myths:
"One is that our ‘overcrowded’ island is absorbing population from the rest of the world. The opposite is true. There are more Britons living overseas – about 5.5million – than foreign-born people living in Britain.

A second myth is that the population will keep rising to 70million by 2030. But in periods of recession, as in the Seventies, as many people leave as arrive. A lot of East European construction workers have already gone back.

A third myth is that the immigrant population is an economic burden. Most, however, are young and of working age, so pay more in tax and take out less in healthcare and benefits. Many new arrivals create employment for others."

Then he points out both the students are the largest group on 'arrivals' (good for the economy again) but just in case you thought you'd stayed onto the comment page of the Guardian, we get a strange section of what can only be badly edited text (must be the Guardian): "But public anxiety is not without foundation. Illegal immigration is too high. In the decade to the end of 2008, only 114 employers were prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants." Yes, employers do get away with employing undocumented workers, despite the Labour government's claims to be putting the onus on the employer to police their own workforces' immigration status. But that is what undocumented workers are for sure? Keep the wages down.

But Vince thinks we shouldn't tolerate these 'illegals', its not cricket after all. They are "cheats". They shouldn't be "cheats getting away with it" and that's why "a blanket amnesty wouldn’t be acceptable." But then he goes and contradicts himself by claiming that "to avoid a permanent illegal underclass, there has to be scope for earned citizenship."

And his solution for this "far more tolerant country than it was" and that has "anxieties about immigration (that) have to be addressed"? The "politicians must engage with the issue." Er, but isn't that what they have always done?*

The second, rather longer, article 'Welcome to heaven, how about a cup of tea? Mail on Sunday special investigation into why asylum seekers head to Britain'. It features a David Suchet look-a-like (very photogenic and not 'off putting' in a Daily-Mail-photo-of-foreigner-sort-of-way) telling his story of why he fled Afghanistan.

We get a fairly accurate picture too of his journey half way around the world to England. But then it gets rather surreal. The lorry he and the other migrants had crossed the Channel in is stopped by police: "As we stepped off the truck, they shook our hands and said, "Welcome to England." I was given 13 cups of tea as I was so thirsty. I was happy."

And it isn't till a third of the way through the 3,000 word piece that MigrationBotch get a mention, which is a definite relief for a Mail article. But we wont spoil it for you. Just read the article but DON'T read the nasty vituperative and just plain stupid comments ("The reason Asylum figures have dropped, is because they are near enough all here in the UK").**


* By the way, there are some great comments on this article on-line, and not all your usual standard BNP-lite tripe (though there are a few of those). Its great when the Mail reader tries to engage their brains rather than their knees or spleen. Our two favourite short put-downs (for various reasons) are: "When I need advice from a Liberal, I'll ask, but don't hold your breath." & "There are lies, damned lies and statistics and your article contains lots of statistics." Outstanding.
Oh, and there's even an idiot who comes out with the line, "Just go to Migration Watch for the correct figures."
** A selection of two more favourite comments on the second article:
"what about our human rights?
what about the human rights of my diabled nephew and my sister who cannot be houses because of lack of housing caused by immigrants?
what about the human rights of british people to be proud of our nationality?
what about our human rights that we must allow everyone elses freedom of speech yet remain silent ourselves?
what about the human rights to display our religeon proudly yet be told we can't?
what about our future when there are not enough schools, hospitals, housing and prison places when were stretched to the limit already?
what about our budget deficit yet we pay for all these people who have no right to be here?
Britain has failed the British people."
&
"The hidden agenda is more scary than we think. They appear to be following the 1928 manifesto of The Frankfurt School. [Note: A sort of modern version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, except for communists rather than Jews]

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools' and teachers' authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us"

Swiss Style Self-Help

It is estimated that Switzerland is home to 100,000 to 200,000 sans-papiers, all of whom are victims of Switzerland's harsh new asylum policy introduced in January 2008. These sans-papiers, many of whom lost their jobs and homes because of the change in immigration laws, fall into 3 main groups: those who entered the country on work permits, didn't get them renewed but decided to stay; those who came to Switzerland looking for clandestine employment make up the second category; & a third steadily growing group containing migrants whose asylum request was rejected or not even looked into, and refugees who've lost their temporary admission when they were asked to leave because their countries of origin where considered "safe to return".

Like most European countries, life for sans-papiers in Switzerland is extremely precarious, no longer able to receive any form of social welfare and subject to the constant threat of being arrested and deported. The recent Swiss asylum legislation left a tiny door open for these marginalised migrants, hardship grants for those who have lived in Switzerland for at least five years and have "integrated very well". If they are then able to register with the Department of Migration they receive the equivalent of 60-70 Swiss francs ($60-70) per week in vouchers for the Swiss supermarket chain Migros. As in Britain, migrants support organisations, such as the Refugees Welcome Café in Zurich, have set up voucher exchange schemes where state aid can be exchanged for cash and used for transport and phone call costs.

For many years Switzerland had probably Europe's toughest naturalisation laws, stipulating a minimum 12 years residence before one could even apply, and being born in Switzerland also brings no automatic right to citizenship. On top of that an individual's citizenship application is handled by their town or village and is voted upon by the local community. One of the current major pitfalls the migrants come across is the applicant's ability to speak German. And of course it is impossible to pay for language lessons with supermarket vouchers. So some migrants and their supporters have open up a free language school in a squatted church in Zurich, and they have been giving German lessons to three different ability streams (A1, A2 & B1) for the past 10 months.

Irene Holliger, one of the teachers, says she's amazed by the students' motivation to learn and the joy in their eyes. She regards her engagement as an act of solidarity: "I'm retired. I have free time and want to support the refugees. All of us work as volunteers. Many students live in emergency centres far away from the school. We've raised some money with fundraising meals and a party. This allows us to cover travel expenses for many of the students, but it's not sufficient." Bah Saidou, another of the teachers at the school, came to Switzerland from Guinea in September 2002. He was swiftly refused leave to remain and told to leave. He chose to stay and ended up homeless and in an emergency centre following the changes in the law in 2008. As well as teaching German, he is active in the sans-papiers' campaign: "This is my way to struggle. We have realised that we have to stick together. The school is part of our struggle."

Many of the migrants are bemused that the Swiss politicians keep demanding foreigners integrate into Swiss society, but don't give them an opportunity to do so. "Integration consists of different aspects such as access to education, the labour market and decent housing. However, we have no chance to visit a school, are forbidden to work, and live in fenced-off emergency-centres often far away from towns and villages," says Berhanu Tesfaye, one of the students at the school. Born in Ethiopia, he fled to Switzerland in 2000 and was issued a NEE twice. Then he filed a request under the hardship provision, but failed: "My application was rejected because my German language skills weren't good enough. Then I came to the school. Three months later I successfully passed an exam in A2, and four months later in B1. The certificate allows me to hand in an application again."

Anti-Islamic sentiment is also rife in the country, especially since the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP) more than doubled its share of the vote in the 2007 federal elections (we are sure you remember the infamous 'black sheep' election poster). Earlier this year the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) published a report on the progress made Switzerland in implementing recommendations for action in curbing racism made by the Council of Europe in 2004.

Needless to say the SVP were slatted for their "racist and xenophobic tone" and racist generalisations: "Repeated attacks by Swiss People's Party members against foreigners' fundamental rights and against the prohibition of racism and xenophobia have created a deep sense of unease in Swiss society generally and especially in minority communities." The report also warned about the Swiss media reinforcing racist stereotypes and the rise of neo-Nazi and far-right groups in the country.

Also criticised was the general level of discourse about asylum: "Public opinion is so poisoned by this dialogue that asylum and refugees are a problem that it is very difficult to get away from this. You need to start again with a totally new communication. If you want to stop asylum seekers being seen as a problem then you need to communicate in a totally different way, you need to show positive examples of integration."

MailWatch #4 Part 2

Part 2 of the latest instalment of our occasional service debunking migration stories in the Daily Mail, self-styled 'Last Bulwark Against The Tide Of Filth That Is Threatening To Engulf Civilisation'™

Yesterday saw the first new MailWatch post in nearly a month and the simple reason for its absence till now has been that the Mail has been laying off the immigration and 'race' stories lately. They seem to have been loathe to feature Calais migrants stories as well, which may or may not be linked to a current Press Complaints Commission investigation into their Calais coverage - they even failed to do their worst when provided with the 'Jungle' eviction story. (see Part 1)

Calais

In fact, the only stories in the past month directly related to Calais have been 'Border Agency sniffer dog uncovers three Vietnamese immigrants in a lorry heading for Britain' [23/08/09]*, rehashed by the Mail's ubiquitous Paris correspondent Peter Allen as 'Vietnamese illegal immigrants hidden among speciality food on truck bound for UK' the following day.

And that was it more or less until Besson announced what the Mail has been campaigning for for years - ' 'The Jungle' may be closed by French Immigration Minister within a month' [04/09/09] - and again the paper wasn't trumpeting the possibility! Then, as D-Day approached (again, strange that the paper wasn't gloating with D-Day-style headlines), we had 'When 'The Jungle' is razed, how many migrants will Britain take from Calais this time?' [19/09/2009] regarding the suggestion, made by UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres, that Britain take some of the displaced Calais migrants which, according to the Mail, "raised the prospect of a repeat of the British humiliation when France closed the Red Cross refugee camp at Sangatte seven years ago."

After 'D-Day', we did however see some gloating (tempered with a hefty dollop of cynicism, as it dawned on even this reactionary blow-hard tabloid that the destruction of the 'Jungle' was not going to change much), 'Razed to the ground: Jungle migrant camp emptied after raid by Calais police (but will it stop asylum-seekers flooding into Britain?)' [22/09/2009]. This article was itself a rewritten version of 'Next stop UK: As riot police storm The Jungle migrant camp at Calais, a defiant message from the asylum seekers' that was discussed at length yesterday and also found favour with a number of fascist websites (Google it ans see!). This was followed up yesterday and today by 'We'll STILL reach the UK, insist migrants evicted from Jungle' and 'Pictured: New squalid migrant camp pops up in Calais hours after the Jungle is razed' respectively.

Yesterday's piece contained some priceless lines. For example, "Many of the immigrants, encouraged by a group of anarchists chanting, 'We will fight, we will fight', refused to go. Some had to be dragged out kicking and screaming", clearly a dig at No Borders activists there. This was followed by a bit of Muslim extremism, "The worst trouble took place around the makeshift mosque, which the mainly Afghan Muslim residents of the camp had promised to defend 'at all costs'. 'It is the centre of our camp, and leaving it pains us massively,' said Omar, a 26-year-old originally from Kabul, shortly before he was arrested." All topped off with this dire warning to its readers: "'The police can try to stop us as much as they like, but nothing will stop us getting to England.'"

Stout stuff, then throw in a few photographs of violent arrests - sorry, that should be protesters resisting arrest: "One of the migrants is hauled away by French riot police" "Screaming defiance". Then there's the photo of 3 activists holding a banner with the words 'Human Rights Have No Borders' and the caption "Some of the would-be immigrants protest as the clear-out operation begins"! The usual high standard of journalism there then.

Some of that tosh was contributed by our friend peter Allen again and he struck again today with, 'Pictured: New squalid migrant camp pops up in Calais hours after the Jungle is razed'. In this not only does he get to use one of his favourite migrant-related word 'squalid' again and again, but he also drops this bombshell: "Just 24 hours after a mile-square stretch of wasteland was cleared of hundreds of mainly Afghan young men, the town’s mayor said she had ‘spotted between fifteen and twenty squats’ nearby". Except she had said this 6 days ago "Combien de squats avez-vous comptabilisé sur Calais ? « J'en ai repéré entre 15 et 20... » " in a Nord Littoral interview. So either there are in fact no new squats or this is old news.

Not Calais

One of the Mail's favourite tricks is placing photos of Calais migrants in stories that ostensibly have nothing to actually do with Calais or the Calais migrants. So, recently we have the same stock photo by Mail staff photographer Jamie Wiseman of Calais migrants sitting on a fence at what looks like the quai Paul Devot eating a Salam-provided meal. The first occurrence is in 'Britain must take more war refugees as Brussels wants us to open the doors to thousands' [03/09/2009], where it bears the caption "Asylum seekers in Calais queue for food handouts distributed by local charity workers", except they are not in any queue and they already have their food!

The next caption is even more ludicrous. The story was, 'France dumps controversial plan to DNA test all new arrivals into the country' [13/09/09], referring to the news that Besson had announced the scrapping of a bizarre plan to test migrants' DNA to determine their country of origin "because it was 'damaging' his country's image".** This article featured the same picture, this time with the caption "Asylum seekers gather at a refugee centre in France." You can draw your own conclusions on that one. Interestingly the Mail offered Besson a bit of encouragement the next day with, 'France's hardline immigration minister Eric Besson calls for 'debased' burkha to be banned'. This is a theme the Mail has featured before, and may well be due to jealousy of the ability of the secular French state to consider banning Islamic dress, but they still manage to defend good-old Anglo-Saxon Christian values with stories like 'Christian hotel owners face ruin after 'defending their faith' in row with a Muslim guest' [21/09/2009].

Still on the 'wrong side' of the English Channel (and proud of it), other stories that caught our eye over the month were 'Paris police evict hundreds of Britain-bound migrants from gardens dubbed 'Little Kabul'' [20/08/09] by the Mail's Paris correspondent, one Peter Allen; along with the non-French 'Muslim lovers to be caned for trying to have sex in a car' [22/09/2009] and 'Iran bans curves: Police order shop owners to cover mannequins up' [23/09/2009] - I don't know, those crazy sex obsessed Muslims!

Nearer Home

Clearly the story that takes the prize seems to combine all that is Mail journalism
at its very worst, 'Revealed: The areas of Britain where there are more migrants chasing jobs than locals' [21/09/09]. In this we get a 'those bloody foreigners over here stealing our jobs' story together with the most stupid use of statistics that you are ever likely to come across, all neatly tied up with a ribbon in the guise of yet another bloody MigrationSquint-and-you-might-just-see-a-reasoned-argument quote in something that claims that "The true extent of the huge influx of foreign workers into Britain is revealed in an investigation by the Daily Mail." This tawdry piece of an insult to 'investigative' journalism has more holes in it than the proverbial string vest and, if you are interested in finding out why, we highly recommend the aptly titled 'Mail Compares Apples With Oranges Comes Up With Bananas'***

Of course there has been the Attorney General Patricia Scotland and her Tongan ex-cleaner story, goldmine stuff for the Mail. She's black, a woman in high office, a Labour appointment and there's an 'illegal' immigrants involved (except she is in fact a legal immigrant who has overstayed her visa, not quiet the same thing), what more could you want? 15 articles and comment pieces since the story broke last week!

We could go further with 'Feral youths: How a generation of violent, illiterate young men are living outside the boundaries of civilised society' [19/09/09] - "Round here, Poles do all of the work" - or 'Visa sham as just 29 out of 66,000 applicants from Pakistan interviewed despite supposed 'crackdown'' [10/09/09], or maybe 'Romanian fraudsters use trafficked babies and children for multi-million pound UK benefit scam' [23/08/2009] and that good old stand-by 'Local hero turns villain after she rents out her field to gipsies' [24/08/2009]. Then again there are the 'Overseas student surge hits 110,000: And all but a tenth decide they'll stay in Britain' [25/09/09], 'The migrant baby boom: Foreign mothers help push Britain's population past 61m' [28/08/2009] and the ''Immigrant baby boom' to cost taxpayers £1bn in new primary school places' [07/09/09] stories. But we wont, too much of this sort of thing tends to leave a rather nasty taste in the mouth.


* NB: on-line version has since been edited.
** Britain has recently announced that it is continuing to go ahead with this form of modern-day Eugenic analysis.
*** No, it's not what you're thinking. We hadn't come across this website until researching a piece on the Mail last month. A case of great minds think alike and fools never differ?

MailWatch #3

Instalment number three of our occasional service debunking migration stories in the Daily Mail, self-styled 'Last Bulwark Against The Tide Of Filth That Is Threatening To Engulf Civilisation'™

Since the last edition of MailWatch, the intervening two weeks have been incredibly quiet on the vilification-of-Calais-migrants’ front. In fact there have only been two Calais-related stories, 'Migrant hid in Border Agency bus to reach UK... and twenty immigration officers failed to spot him' [02/08] and 'Calais people smugglers 'more likely to be British'' [03/08], and both of those were at the beginning of the month. Of course that doesn't normally stop the Mail reminding its reader that there are still 'dangerous hordes of filthy foreigners' just waiting to cross the Channel to 'steal our jobs/homes/benefits/women/etc.'. So on 4 August, in a story entitled 'Lesson One in Britishness: Migrants taught how to claim benefits', there was a photo of, yes you've guessed it, Calais migrants.

Now forgive us for being obtuse, but where is the link between the following:

"Immigrants are to be given instructions on how to claim benefits as their first step in a new life in Britain…The instructions were set out in a Home Office paper on how immigrants will in future be asked to qualify for a British passport by earning points and credits." ... “At present those allowed entry into Britain gain citizenship almost automatically after five years.”

and a photograph with the caption 'Asylum seekers in Calais: The government is suggesting a points-based system for migrants who want citizenship (file picture)' that appeared between the two sections of text?

If the article is meant to be about so-called 'legal' migration, those arriving through official channels or who have legal status as approved asylum seekers, why put a photograph of Calais migrants in it? Obviously some of the migrants in Calais will be applying for asylum status when they make it across the Channel (and many are likely to fail as they will already have been fingerprinted in France or a third country and, as a consequence, will be denied asylum in the UK). However, the vast majority will not bother to gain 'official' status, either because they have some naive belief that Britain is a land of freedom and opportunity or, more likely, because they know that they have not got a snowball's chance of remaining in the country legally. So we ask again, why put that particular photograph in the article?

Anyway, in the ten days since those three articles the paper has been suspiciously quiet on the Calais migrants’ front. Why, you might be asking? Well, as we understand it, at least one complaint has been submitted to the Press Complaints Commission about the very same areas of press coverage that we have been highlighting in this blog. Now this may just be coincidence but the fact is that the Mail has turned its target of xenophobic spleen from the Calais migrants on to gypsies/travellers and bloody foreigners in general.

So we get, 'Councils spend £250,000 on consultants because they can't find anywhere to put travellers' [03/08]; 'How gipsies got £5m of Lottery cash to beat planning rules... and fund course on assertiveness training' [11/08]; 'Gypsy convoy invades site... just hours after council evicts travellers following six-year battle costing £400,000' [14/08]; and '£1m neighbours from hell: Meet the gipsy family terrorising an entire street' [15/08], four gypsy-related stories in less than 2 weeks instead (as opposed to three in the whole of July).

Then of course there are the usual items such as 'Top judge faces sack for speaking out about immigrants abusing benefits system' [05/08], about their favourite Judge of the moment Ian 'Itchy Finger' Trigger (immigrants are always a good alternative to hoodies and hanging for a judge to publicly pontificate on); more foreigners-are-the-bane-of-our-existence stories like 'English-speaking pupils are a minority in inner-city London primary schools' [12/08] and the usual rampant sensationalism: 'Illegal immigrant rapes woman twice after escaping from Heathrow cell' [08/08]. And last but not least, the inevitable can-you-believe-those-crazy-foreigners stories; 'Merde! Paris reveals the reason it lost the 2012 Olympics to London... dog poo' [12/08] and 'Muslim woman banned from wearing a 'burkini' in a French swimming pool' [13/08]. The latter is a classic Daily Mail-style story, as it hits so many of the right buttons: crazy foreigners, Muslims, the French, the nanny state and, on top of all that, the chance to publish 2 pictures of women in swimwear, although I'm sure the average Mail reader would not rate the burkini particularly high in the titillation stakes.

MailWatch #1

The first of an occasional service debunking migration stories in the Daily Mail, self-styled 'Last Bulwark Against The Tide Of Filth That Is Threatening To Engulf Civilisation'™ i.e. those filthy foreigners wanting to steal our jobs, our women and our homes.

Yesterday the Snail published a scoop, 'Calais migrants mutilate fingertips to hide true identity' trumpeting "Migrants massed in Calais in hopes of getting into Britain are mutilating their fingerprints so that their true identities cannot be established, it emerged today." Wrong, this "sinister development" is a widely documented practice that has been going on since Eurodac, the centralised EU computer fingerprint data system, was introduced in 2003. That the Mail has only just found out about it merely reflects the level of 'research' that goes into the smears, sorry 'stories', it publishes about the Calais migrant situation in particular and migrants in general. [See previous post ]

Peter Allen, the paper's Paris correspondent and 'author' of this piece, well known for researching his stories from the comfort of his office desk, claims that "the most common method was to place all ten fingers* on an oven hob and turn up the heat." Of course the migrants all live in nice little pied-a-terres where they have kitchen stoves on top of hot and cold running water and all the other creature comforts that scrounging asylum seekers are meant to have.

He then goes on to conflate Eurodac with Europol and claim that the hiding of fingerprints circumvents a system that "turn(s) back [known criminals] at borders, preventing them living in countries like Britain on benefits while they claim asylum, or else disappearing into the black economy", especially as "Police in Calais believe that some of the 2000 odd UK bound migrants sleeping rough in the town are repeat asylum seekers with criminal records."

Outstanding, except the logic falls down on a number of points. One, if you have been refused asylum in the UK once, then you are not going to apply for it a second time and therefore cannot be a "repeat asylum seeker". Two, asylum seekers cannot claim 'benefits' in the sense that he and other anti-immigration obsessives believe. The National Asylum Seeker Support Service (NASS) is the only form of 'benefits' open the asylum seekers and it provides low quality housing, mostly in dispersed shared accommodation, and £42.16 per week in cash (or a weekly voucher worth £35 for 'failed' asylum seekers). Hardly the lap of luxury. And NASS assistance is usually only available for asylum claims submitted at a port of entry not 'in country' i.e. will not be available to people smuggling themselves into the UK.

In another story entitled 'Calais migrants ambush Britons at knife-point in terrifying highway robberies', the paper that once said "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" claims that "Migrant gangs in Calais are targeting British holidaymakers in terrifying 'highway robberies'. Would-be illegal immigrants are forming human roadblocks to force motorists passing through the French port town to stop. Travellers are then robbed at knife-point by the migrants, who are desperate for funds to help them sneak into the UK."

Yes, the paper that brought us the Zinoviev letter appears to have landed yet another scoop, this time one that seems to have evaded everyone else including both main papers in the area Nord Littoral and La Voix Du Nord, neither of which would shrink from printing such a story if it were true. They even managed to get some juicy quotes quotes from the local police but then all of the Mail's quotes are not always kosher.

During the run up to the Calais No Border camp Peter Allen managed to interview (again probably by remote viewing as he wasn't actually seen in the area for the entire duration of the Camp) a French anarchist called Thierry who "has already pitched a tent next to the CRS’s temporary quarters next door to Calais port." Strangely, Thierry's location mysteriously disappeared from the story on the Mail's website as quickly as it went up and we were forced to question his existence as no one in their right mind would camp anywhere near the CRS HQ, especially a lone anarchist in the run up to a Camp where 3,000 up-for-it riot police officers were to be deployed.

A third article under the banner 'A million failed asylum seekers will get free NHS care in human rights U-turn' claimed that "NHS treatment will be available for tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers to ensure their human rights are honoured, it was announced yesterday."

So how do we got from 'tens of thousands' to the figure of 'millions'? Ah yes, it's all down to MigrationWatch (why don't they just say Phillip Green? He is MigrationWatch after all**) who believes "it could open the floodgates to 'up to a million' illegal immigrants." And this story displayed yet another standard Mail trope, the use of a stock photograph of migrants in Calais, now standard practice for almost all articles on migration with the Mail (sort of makes their agenda transparent really).

The piece then continued, "There are understood to be around 450,000 failed asylum seekers who have not left the country, although only 10 or 20,000 are directly affected by the new rules." So where does the millions come from? It's far from obvious. What does Andrew Green have to say? "Sir (sic) Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch, said the rules gave the green light for up to one million illegal immigrants to get free NHS care. This is possible because GPs can put patients on their books without checking if they are entitled to free care."

Er, yes. But again, where does the million figure come from? If there are 450,000 failed asylum seekers in the UK, of which "only 10 or 20,000 are directly affected by the new rules", and last year there were 25,000 asylum applications (30,000 in 2008 and 28,000 in 2007), all people who previously have had the right to free health care (until the time ones asylum application is denied), where are the extra 550,000 coming from?

The problem with this fiction is not only do the figures not add up but when registering with a doctor, the receptionist (this is the person who actually registers the patient not the doctor Mr Green) will require you to fill out a GMS1 form, as well as checking to see if you have a NHS Card or number and address of your previous GP. The form asks for date of entry to UK (if non-UK citizen) and would require you to show your passport as a further check of EU citizenship. If not, then one would have to show one's Application Registration Card (ARC), which everyone making an asylum application in the UK receives and which contains a photograph of the holder and fingerprint on an embedded chip. Therefore anyone who has not made an asylum application and does not fall into these categories would be unable to register anyway, irrespective of the new changes.

Green goes on to say, 'This is yet another capitulation to the immigration lobby. No wonder they are queueing up in Calais.' And this from a man who claims he has no political axe to grind. The Mail however clearly does have an axe to grind except it's not obvious whether it is against the migrants or all foreigners. These articles on Calais constantly praise the stance of the Calais Mayor Natacha Bouchart***, their new Iron Lady, but the French themselves are also a frequent target of the Mail's ire, ''Go back to your disease-ridden country!' What the French said to British schoolchildren with swine flu' and 'Thousands of French chipmunks carrying potentially fatal diseases ready to invade Britain'**** being just 2 of the stories in recent days.


* All foreigners are mutants with an extra finger on each hand!
** Has anyone else ever seen or heard of anyone else from MigrationWatch? They have a list of members of their Advisory Council on their website but as far as one can see no one else is mentioned except this ex-professional diplomat, who since retiring has "devoted his time to voluntary work" including this "independent organisation" with "no political axes to grind." After all, he only presents the facts...in a comprehensible form."
*** No doubt we'll be seeing a photograph of her in the paper as soon as they find one of her in a swimsuit.
**** "French experts warn that the animals, which can also carry rabies, could soon reach Calais and sneak aboard vehicles and vessels heading to Britain. Many carry ticks infected with the Borrelia bacterium that causes Lyme disease, a nerve illness that can disable and even kills victims if not treated early enough." No they are not talking about Afghans.

SOAS Anti-union Busting Occupation

Yesterday morning the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) director's office occupied by students and supporters in protest against detention of 9 University cleaners, who had recently won living wage representation in a dawn raid on Friday (June 12).

Five have already been deported, and the others could face deportation within days. One has had a suspected heart attack and was denied access to medical assistance and even water. One was over 6 months pregnant. Many have families who have no idea of their whereabouts.

The cleaners won the London Living Wage and trade union representation after a successful “Justice for Cleaners” campaign that united workers of all backgrounds and student activists. Many believe the raid is managers’ “revenge” for the campaign.

Immigration officers were called in by cleaning contractor ISS, even though it has employed many of the cleaners for years. Cleaning staff were told to attend an ‘emergency staff meeting’ at 6.30am on Friday.

This was used as a false pretext to lure the cleaners into a closed space from which the immigration officers were hiding to arrest them.

More than 40 officers were dressed in full riot gear and aggressively undertook interrogations and then escorted them to the detention centre. Neither legal representation nor union support were present due to the secrecy surrounding the action. Many were unable to communicate let alone fully understand what was taking place due to the denial of interpreters.

SOAS management were complicit in the immigration raid by enabling the officers to hide in the meeting room beforehand and giving no warning to them.

The cleaners were interviewed one by one. They were allowed no legal or trade union representation, or even a translator (many are native Spanish speakers).

The cleaners are members of the Unison union at SOAS. They recently went out on strike (Thursday 28 May) to protest the sacking of cleaner and union activist Jose Stalin Bermudez.

The occupation has issued a list of demands to SOAS management:

1. We call on the directorate to request the secretary of state to immediately release the detainees and to prevent the deportation of the three cleaners who are still in detention in the UK.
2. For the directorate to release a public statement condemning what has happened to the SOAS cleaners and calling for their immediate release and return.
3. To campaign for the return of the cleaners who have already been deported.
4. To bring all contract staff in house. SOAS should not use contractors, ISS or others.
5. To keep immigration officers from entering campus under ANY circumstances or other forms of collaboration with immigration or police. Universities are for education not for state violence and oppression.
6. A year's wage as reparations for all detained and deported staff.
7. To hold accountable SOAS managers who were complicit in facilitating the raid and detention of the cleaners, refusing to aid a sick worker and a pregnant woman.
8. To reinstate Jose Stalin Bermudez, the SOAS UNISON branch chair.
9. To respect the right to organise in Trade Unions unimpeded.
10. To provide space and resources for a public meeting to build support for the SOAS 9 and other migrants, in education and beyond, affected by immigration control and racism.
11. Amnesty for all those involved.

One of the detained cleaners stated, “We’re honest people not animals. We are just here to earn an honest living for our families. SOAS management are being unfair.”

The same tactic has been widely used against undocumented migrants in low paid jobs. The fact is that the private sector companies that bid for sub-contracting tenders in the service sector rely on employing people on minimum wages (and even below that if they can get away with it, as they often do) at unsociable hours. And the people that tend to go for these are undocumented workers who can get no other work. The companies know this and employ them specifically because they are marginalised and vulnerable; ripe for exploitation as they cannot stick up for their rights. And when they dare to do just that, these companies feel no qualms about turning the workers into the UKBA, just as the cleaning contractor ISS did with tube cleaners in their employ when they went on strike, with the result that key activists were deported. This is the use of immigration law for union busting.