Rioting at Campsfield concentration camp

[Fruitloop]

A Home Office spokesman said seven immigration staff at the centre and two detainees were taken to hospital suffering from smoke inhalation after a fire broke out.

He said prison officers specially equipped to deal with riots had been deployed to the centre and were working to get it under control. The fire has now been put out.

"The perimeter of Campsfield has not been breached and all detainees have been accounted for," he added. He said it was too early to assess the amount of damage to the centre.

Bill MacKeith, one of the organisers of the Campaign to Close Campsfield protest group, said he understood that the incident had been triggered by the "violent" removal of a detainee.

He said: "That's a very likely scenario because it has happened before. In June 1994, there was a revolt at Campsfield when an Algerian detainee was violently removed.

"The number of cases taken out against guards for violence against detainees are increasing."

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/story/0,,2033734,00.html

This is against a background of ongoing criticism of this camp (amongst others) for the mistreatment of people interned there. This sort of thing is seriously the ugly face of the UK immigration debate - not that the UK is actually running it, of course, it's been farmed out to the decidedly spooky US-based company GEO: http://www. thegeogroupinc.com/advantages .asp

 

[Cobbles]

Bill MacKeith, said:
"The number of cases taken out against guards for violence against detainees are increasing."

Have any actually been upheld so far?

 

[Fruitloop]

I would have thought that would be pretty unlikely. Some interesting facts came to light in the trial of the Campsfield Nine, though (this was when the ever-excellent G4 were in charge):

Other Group 4 guards invented lurid stories. Caryn Mitchell-Hill said she had been alone in a corridor when a defendant took her by the shoulders and said 'Where are you going white bitch?'; 'I put my knee up, aiming for the groin area. In all honesty, I don't know whether I made contact'. Shown a video of herself at the same time in a different area with two other guards, she refused to identify herself though she identified the other two, surmised that she might have been another guard, finally admitted it must have been her but then suggested it must have been another day; 'at no point did I end up in the dining room area', she insisted. Various stories were told by different guards about Chris Barry, a 20 stone guard who collapsed in a corridor. He was said to have had a plastic bottle full of a chemical substance thrown at him, or been hit on the head by it, or not to have been hit at all, or to have fallen as he was being dragged through a door by a colleague. Barry himself said his shirt was soaked by a chemical and torn, that he was repeatedly hit and punched, and that he was 'concussed'. Videos showed him a few minutes later walking along in a clean and dry shirt, and then on a roof. Tim Allen, filmed on the roof with him, nevertheless continued to deny strenuously that Chris Barry had been on the roof.

Group 4 admitted to doing some damage themselves. Two of them, Mo Stone (stand-in supervisor) and Paul Bean (now a prison officer) admitted they had hit detainees with their batons on the head (although they had aimed for their arms as they were trained to do). Stone said he had not sought to discover who he had hit or whether the person was seriously hurt, had not made a report and that: 'I don't regret doing it, but I regret that it happened'. Paul Bean said he had drawn his baton because he had been hit by a dumbell and was 'scared'. In his police statement he had said that he drew his baton before he was struck. John Allen, supervisor, was questioned about the 'Control and Restraint' techniques used in the removal. Asked whether the detainee was held by the neck, he said 'No'. The defence then produced a video of the removal which showed the detainee being held by the neck. John Allen said: 'Like everybody who passes their driving test, they don't do it perfectly every time. ... It was not text book'.

from : http://www.barbedwirebritain.org.uk/articles/2003/jul/1057612087.shtml

 

[detective-boy]

It may be bad, but it's hardly a "concentration camp" now, is it, eh? Or are you belittling what happened seventy five years ago?

 

[Yossarian]

concentration camp - noun
a prison where people are kept in extremely bad conditions, especially for political reasons

Doesn't sound that far off the mark...

 

[Azrael]

It may be bad, but it's hardly a "concentration camp" now, is it, eh? Or are you belittling what happened seventy five years ago?

It's original meaning is a fair description of the asylum centre. Of course, as you say, the term has become rather more ... loaded since then.

 

[Fruitloop]

Yeah, it was the earlier meaning I had in mind.

 

[Nigel]

No mention of camps during the Spansh-American war during the latter part of the 19th Century.

 

[The Black Hand]

Bill MacKeith, said:
"The number of cases taken out against guards for violence against detainees are increasing."

Have any actually been upheld so far?

I doubt it.

 

[The Black Hand]

Doesn't sound that far off the mark...

True true...

 

[Frank1]

Eastern European Immigrants are moving to Britain in unprecedented numbers nearly two years after the eight former Soviet countries joined the EU.

At least 579,000 have moved to the UK since April 2004, outstripping initial Government estimates for 13,000 arrivals each year.

Labour, MPs - and many others - have raised concerns over the impact of so many new arrivals on housing, education and health services.

Britain Should have imposed restrictions on the movement of labour from the new states.

The economic gains from migration do not outweigh the pressures on public services? Who has gained – or suffered – the most from the phenomenon? Do the migrants work harder than "native" Britains? No of course not, but they are cheaper.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Eastern European Immigrants are moving to Britain in unprecedented numbers nearly two years after the eight former Soviet countries joined the EU.

At least 579,000 have moved to the UK since April 2004, outstripping initial Government estimates for 13,000 arrivals each year.

Labour, MPs - and many others - have raised concerns over the impact of so many new arrivals on housing, education and health services.

Britain Should have imposed restrictions on the movement of labour from the new states.

The economic gains from migration do not outweigh the pressures on public services? Who has gained – or suffered – the most from the phenomenon? Do the migrants work harder than "native" Britains? No of course not, but they are cheaper.

Very nice, Frank, but what do legally-permitted EU workers have to do with detained non-EU immigrants in Campsfield Hse?

 

[Frank1]

The note was just show that the immigration system is under immense pressure from EU immigrants and that detained non-EU immigrants in Campsfield Hse are taking the brunt of what is happening.
If the government had imposed restrictions the needy would probably not have had to be detained in such a way.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The note was just show that the immigration system is under immense pressure from EU immigrants and that detained non-EU immigrants in Campsfield Hse are taking the brunt of what is happening.
If the government had imposed restrictions the needy would probably not have had to be detained in such a way.

Sorry, but that's balls. The two things are entirely separate issues. The "immigration system" has little pressure exerted on it by EU "guest workers" (immigrants is a leading term given that it means someone who comes and remains, whereas a majority of EU "guest workers don't stay) because they don't come under the remit of the immigration system, and therefore have no effect on occurrences such as those at Campfield Hse, and the detainees would still be there because the reason for their detention is to do with either a pending asylum claim or lack of papers on entry.

 

[Frank1]

Then I can only put it down to Labour policy on immigration and trying to use policies that pander to a certain majority in the country.

 

[Azrael]

Sorry, but that's balls.

Quite. This "riot" is very probably a direct consequence of a policy decreeing that asylum claimants can be "detained". (Interned, hang the euphemisms.) Flee tyranny to be detained without charge: welcome to a free country!

If people have dodgy papers along with no decent excuse, or appear fraudulent in some other way, by all means deport them or lay charges. Until that time, I find the thought of treating some of the most vulnerable people in the country as common criminals disgusting. No wonder they're rioting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Then I can only put it down to Labour policy on immigration and trying to use policies that pander to a certain majority in the country.

You'd do better putting it down to Labour and their predeccessors. I had the dubious pleasure of being at the Home Office when Michael Howard first dreamed the immigration detention centres up at around about the same time as he stirred up anti-immigrant feeling while doing nothing much legislation-wise.

It wouldn't have done to upset his party's City paymasters, who make quite a pocketful of readies from those cheaper immigrant workforces, same as they still do under Labour, you see.

 

[detective-boy]

Flee tyranny to be detained without charge: welcome to a free country!

The problem isn't the genuine asylum seekers, is it? Its the liars and the cheats who hide amongst them and use the "I'm an asylum seeker" line to evade the standard restrictions.

Unfortunately what that means is that all "asylum seekers" have to be detained in some way (and how it is done is another debate) until the genuineness of the claim is determined (and how that is done, and how speedily, is yet another). Otherwise you may as well abandon all pretence at border control.

You say the frauds should be charged or returned ... but that cannot be done instantly. And detention whilst it is done is the only practical answer isn't it?

 

[Kaka Tim]

The problem isn't the genuine asylum seekers, is it? Its the liars and the cheats who hide amongst them and use the "I'm an asylum seeker" line to evade the standard restrictions.

Unfortunately what that means is that all "asylum seekers" have to be detained in some way (and how it is done is another debate) until the genuineness of the claim is determined (and how that is done, and how speedily, is yet another). Otherwise you may as well abandon all pretence at border control.

You say the frauds should be charged or returned ... but that cannot be done instantly. And detention whilst it is done is the only practical answer isn't it?

Thats bollocks. The incarceraction and abuse of innocent people (including children) is an unnaceptable breach of basic human rights.

IME immigration staff and the sort of people who work in these camps have a very high proportion nasty, violent, racists amongst them. These institutions dehumanise the inmates and the staff treat them accordingly.

Its britains hidden shame. I hope the inmates reduce them to ash. And give some of the screws a well deserved kicking in the process.

 

[audiotech]

Eastern European Immigrants are moving to Britain in unprecedented numbers nearly two years after the eight former Soviet countries joined the EU.

I was approached by an Eastern European migrant the other day in a local branch of Halfords. She was very helpful.

 

[Luther Blissett]

The Labour Govt. have outsourced the control of our immigrant detention centres to the US-based group 'GEO'? That's 'GEO' as in 'formerly Wackenhut Corrections' right?

Think y'all better read this:
http://www.idyllopuspress.com/meanwhile/?p=133

 

[Azrael]

You say the frauds should be charged or returned ... but that cannot be done instantly. And detention whilst it is done is the only practical answer isn't it?

No. If they government deported failed claimants rapidly, and stopped tossing claims into a sea of dodgy IT systems and bureaucracy, the innocent need not suffer for the actions of the guilty. Universal detention of people fleeing persecution is obnoxious in principle and disastrous in practice.

A genuinely efficient government would be capable of keeping track of asylum claimants and immediately flag up claimants who go missing. Open accommodation could be provided for everyone. Claimants could report to a local police station (if it hasn't been shut down in some cost-cutting nonsense) on a regular basis. If there really is no other way, electronic tags could be used, although I'd be loathed to support such a solution.

But locking them up in some privately-run "detention centre": no. I see no reason why heated debates on immigration (a separate matter to asylum) can't be set aside so that this is treated as a clear-cut civil liberties issue.

 

[Mr Smin]

For all the reports of racism and animosity, it was interesting that the 2 detainees I treated at the scene were on first name terms with even the local riot squad and vice versa. Not saying the reports are false but the place is not entirely dehumanised.

 

[denniseagle]

No. If they government deported failed claimants rapidly, and stopped tossing claims into a sea of dodgy IT systems and bureaucracy, the innocent need not suffer for the actions of the guilty. Universal detention of people fleeing persecution is obnoxious in principle and disastrous in practice.

A genuinely efficient government would be capable of keeping track of asylum claimants and immediately flag up claimants who go missing. Open accommodation could be provided for everyone. Claimants could report to a local police station (if it hasn't been shut down in some cost-cutting nonsense) on a regular basis. If there really is no other way, electronic tags could be used, although I'd be loathed to support such a solution.

But locking them up in some privately-run "detention centre": no. I see no reason why heated debates on immigration (a separate matter to asylum) can't be set aside so that this is treated as a clear-cut civil liberties issue.

Give me a clue as to where you would 'deport' a failed claimant given the usual lack of documentation of said claimant?

For example, Mr X says he comes from Rwanda and is fleeing persecution.
He actually comes from elsewhere but with no documentation to verify his real nationality why should Rwanda accept him as a deportee?

In an ideal world claimants would report to their local police station, funnily enough most of those who aren't genuine seem reluctant to want to do that, ergo 'detention centers'.
Where is this 'open' accommodation you mention?
Local councils don't have enough housing stock to accomodate untold numbers of 'claimants' awaiting decisions,and I can just envisage the headlines in the media if 'claimants' were given preferential treatment.
The private sector would rub their hands with glee and charge fortunes to the Government to house them.


And as for efficient government lol get real.
No matter what party is in power inefficiency reigns, mostly down to the fact that those who actually do the hardest work in any department are usually those at the very bottom of the pay scale and are the least appreciated.

 

[Azrael]

For example, Mr X says he comes from Rwanda and is fleeing persecution. He actually comes from elsewhere but with no documentation to verify his real nationality

In those instances they'd obviously have to be detained. (Or better, if it's provable, swiftly convicted of a crime and offered a very unpleasant penal regime until they 'fess up which departure gate they should be sent to.) But I've not seen any evidence that the government deportations are non-existent because they don't know where they send people. Gross inefficiency is the most likely culprit.

In an ideal world claimants would report to their local police station, funnily enough most of those who aren't genuine seem reluctant to want to do that, ergo 'detention centers'.

There seems very little discrimination as to who gets interned and who doesn't. If a failure to show up at a police station results in immediate deportation, that's an incentive. Criminal suspects (often for very serious crimes) are required to attend a police station. Don't see why asylum seekers need harsher treatment.

Where is this 'open' accommodation you mention?

Erm, to my knowledge not built, that was my point.

Local councils don't have enough housing stock to accomodate untold numbers of 'claimants' awaiting decisions,and I can just envisage the headlines in the media if 'claimants' were given preferential treatment.
The private sector would rub their hands with glee and charge fortunes to the Government to house them.

I would not suggest farming it out to the "private sector" and pissing more money down the bottomless PFI/foundation hospital/city academy Third Way pit.

And as for efficient government lol get real.
No matter what party is in power inefficiency reigns, mostly down to the fact that those who actually do the hardest work in any department are usually those at the very bottom of the pay scale and are the least appreciated.

Yes, well, whatever truth there is to such pessimism, it's hardly a practical solution is it?

The Victorians took corrupt, disease-ridden private jails into state hands and improved them beyond measure. It should not be beyond the wit of man to repeat that fine example.

 

[Pigeon]

The problem isn't the genuine asylum seekers, is it? Its the liars and the cheats who hide amongst them and use the "I'm an asylum seeker" line to evade the standard restrictions.

Unfortunately what that means is that all "asylum seekers" have to be detained in some way (and how it is done is another debate) until the genuineness of the claim is determined (and how that is done, and how speedily, is yet another). Otherwise you may as well abandon all pretence at border control.

You say the frauds should be charged or returned ... but that cannot be done instantly. And detention whilst it is done is the only practical answer isn't it?

Mealy mouthed bullshit. Where's the evidence of this systematic defrauding? There isn't any. Look at the countries where the majority of asylum seekers come from: Iraq, Somalia, Zimbabwe, iran, Sudan, Congo: countries either in the grip of civil war or with a well-documented history of human rights abuses. The 'problems' of the asylum system aren't created by the hordes of 'bogus' chancers: they're the result of the fact that the majority of people with need to claim asylum are genuine refugees.

 

[rocketman]

I'm with Aneurin Bevan when asked at the end of WW2 what the next step to a peaceful world should be. In order to avoid a resurgence of nationalism, he argued, we should "abolish passports".

Nationality is an accident of birth. It's one planet, we all deserve the chance to see all of it, if we so choose.

 

[Pigeon]

Give me a clue as to where you would 'deport' a failed claimant given the usual lack of documentation of said claimant?

For example, Mr X says he comes from Rwanda and is fleeing persecution.
He actually comes from elsewhere but with no documentation to verify his real nationality why should Rwanda accept him as a deportee?

.

More clueless shite. FYI, the majority of asylum refusals aren't made on the basis that the Home office suspects an applicant's from a country other than the one claimed: very very few people aren't able to demonstrate precisely where they're from, notwithstanding the inaccuracy of the HO's own Country Guidance information.

The majority of refusals I see- and trust me, I see a lot- are made on the basis of such nonsense as: 'The Secretary of State believes that you have entered into a homosexual relationship in the UK (for 2 years!) purely to bolster your claim to be a homosexual and, consequently, at risk of persecution in Iran' or 'The Secretary of State considers that you have inflicted the burn marks on yourself purely to bolster your claim to have been a victim of torture' (this to a guy with severe scarring on his arse).

It's a fucking obscenity.

 

[denniseagle]

In those instances they'd obviously have to be detained. (Or better, if it's provable, swiftly convicted of a crime and offered a very unpleasant penal regime until they 'fess up which departure gate they should be sent to.) But I've not seen any evidence that the government deportations are non-existent because they don't know where they send people. Gross inefficiency is the most likely culprit.

There seems very little discrimination as to who gets interned and who doesn't. If a failure to show up at a police station results in immediate deportation, that's an incentive. Criminal suspects (often for very serious crimes) are required to attend a police station. Don't see why asylum seekers need harsher treatment.

Erm, to my knowledge not built, that was my point.

I would not suggest farming it out to the "private sector" and pissing more money down the bottomless PFI/foundation hospital/city academy Third Way pit.

Yes, well, whatever truth there is to such pessimism, it's hardly a practical solution is it?

The Victorians took corrupt, disease-ridden private jails into state hands and improved them beyond measure. It should not be beyond the wit of man to repeat that fine example.

Eh?

Where would they be detained if not in detention centers?

And what precisely do you mean with..

'better still convicted of a crime and offered a very unpleasant penal regime till they fess up.........'

Define 'unpleasant' in the context of your post.


A failure to show up results in immediate deportation rofpmsl.

Deportation to where? ( remember no documentation)
Please explain how the UK Government persuades , to use my previous example of Rwanda, to accept a person who has no documentation?
Why should they?
The person claiming to be from Rwanda could be from absolutely anywhere on the African continent.
And I'm guessing that those who 'don't show up to the Police station' are hardly likely to have given the Police their home address.
I also think you may find that those on Police bail often don't attend as often as they should either.

So who is going to build the accomodation then?????
And where precisely is all this accomodation going to be?

Not really sure that many votes would be won if the Government (of whatever hue) built homes/houses soley for potential illegal immigrants/failed asylum seekers.
And I can guarantee even fewer votes would be forthcoming to whichever Government decided to build such accomodation in communities anywhere in the country.
Nimbyism is alive and very voiciferous.

Never offered any solutions, just practical reality.

 

[Azrael]

And what precisely do you mean with..

'better still convicted of a crime and offered a very unpleasant penal regime till they fess up.........'

Define 'unpleasant' in the context of your post.

Hard labour regime.

Deportation to where? ( remember no documentation)

Erm, their country of origin. If they provide the right country, presumably someone will have some record of their existence, and if not, someone who knows them and can vouch for them. If Pigeon is right this isn't a major problem.

So who is going to build the accomodation then?????

Builders, who normally build accomodation. Odd question.

Not really sure that many votes would be won if the Government (of whatever hue) built homes/houses soley for potential illegal immigrants/failed asylum seekers.

Watch me not give a toss. Not many votes in violating another country's sovereignty and launching an aggressive war, but that never stopped them. They're government, they're supposed to govern, which means they're supposed to deal with unpopular but necessary matters like this effectively.

Those Victorians didn't have many votes sorting out the dilapidated prison system but they got on with it. If this lot can't, why don't they do us all a favour and sod off.

Never offered any solutions, just practical reality.

I offered some solutions, or at least, solutions beyond "lock 'em up!". And while criminal suspects might skip bail/fail to report, it's still considered appropriate for them. I see no reason why asylum seekers should expect worse treatment than a robbery suspect.