We must investigate UK Border Agency allegations
Asylum claims should be treated professionally to ensure that people do not have their lives put in danger in places like the Congo if they are refused entry to the UK
YOU may have heard of Louise Perrett. She is the former UK Border Agency official who blew the whistle on her colleagues after witnessing widespread racism and other discrimination against asylum seekers at the government department’s offices in Cardiff.
She spoke about her experiences before a packed meeting last week of the Cross-Party Group on Human Rights that I chair in the Assembly. The audience comprised mostly people with first hand experience of the immigration system – asylum seekers and groups that work on their behalf – and when Louise had finished, we were all as equally shocked and disheartened that such appalling practices could lie at the heart of such an essential government service.
How has this been allowed to happen? In this day and age, how is it that staff from a government department (and the Government is supposed to lead on combating inequality and intolerance) can be go unpunished when they are so allegedly racist? Worse, such racism would impact on the lives of people that genuinely need our help, people whose lives are often in very real danger when they arrive in the UK. I know this from my postbag, and from the number of times I am asked to write on an asylum seeker’s behalf to the Home Office, or to an airline.
Louise worked for three-and-a-half months last summer for the UK Border Agency, having spent her working career in the public sector – including policy development for the Welsh Assembly Government. She admits she had reservations about beginning this new job, as she “did not relish the prospect of kicking asylum seekers out of the country for money”.
Working out of the agency’s Newport Road offices, Louise began by shadowing a lead case-owner for unaccompanied children. She says she had only been with this officer for 15 minutes when she said: “If it was up to me I take them all outside and shoot them.” When Louise told her that she found her remarks offensive and unprofessional, the officer replied: “Well, you’ll quickly discover that no one in this office is very PC. In fact, everyone is the exact opposite.”
Louise said: “Over the next week, I remained sat in this team. I have never, in all the years I have worked in the civil service, encountered such an unprofessional manner in the workplace. People would stand up and scream at each other or have very loud personal conversations, talk about claimants in a derogatory manner and continuously swear, regardless of who was in the room or on the phone.”
She puts this office culture down to “an undeniable sense of power” within the Border Agency. It has the power to arrest and detain anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant – in fact, Louise had those powers. Despite minimal training and very limited experience, she was able to detain a family for up to 28 days. She believes that such powers should be matched with responsibility, and that remains in short supply at the Border Agency.
She was given a live case to handle. It involved a 15-year-old girl who had left Bangladesh to escape an arranged marriage and had fled her father’s custody when he tried to have her wed to a suitor in the UK. But because the Border Agency had taken so long in processing her claim, the girl was approaching her 18th birthday and was to be returned to Bangladesh as an independent adult rather than claiming asylum as an unaccompanied child.
Louise did not agree with the deportation because, among other issues, she had fled abusive parents. But she admitted that her lack of training might have left her unable to make an informed judgement. At this point, she was given some interview tips from a team leader. He told her that when he interviewed someone claiming to be from North Korea he always asked if they ate chop suey. “If they say yes, they’re from China,” he added. “They don’t eat chop suey in North Korea, it’s a Chinese dish. That would be a material inconsistency and you’d know he was lying about where he came from. If he’s lying about his country of origin, he’s going to be lying about his claim for asylum.” Chop suey, as most people know, was created in the US.
Louise saw how this way of thinking permeated down to staff. She claims to have witnessed a case worker seek out the opinion of two team leaders and the legal department because she did not want to approve a Congolese woman’s application for asylum. An officer in the legal department, Louise says, responded by singing: “Umbongo, umbongo, they kill them in the Congo.”
She claims she continually heard comments along the lines of: “They shouldn’t bloody be here” “How can they afford a mobile phone?”, and “If you grant asylum to one, they’ve got the right to bring their whole family over.” But she suggests that it is institutionalised. Combat training was one of the first courses Louise attended, and believes it is part of the siege mentality prevalent at the Border Agency, that asylum seekers are generally bogus and often dangerous criminals capable of attacking staff.
On another course, her trainer said that she had worked for the department for three years and in all that time had granted just three applications. “And she was one of the good ones,” added Louise, who managed to equal her number in the short period she worked there. She also refused two, but found herself berated and ridiculed when she offered asylum.
This manifested itself in one of the most shocking allegations of bad practice at the Border Agency – the ‘grant monkey’, a stuffed gorilla that was placed on the desk of any officer who approved an asylum application, as a mark of shame.
Apart from portraying an office in a timewarp – “like something from Life on Mars”, as Louise puts it – we have to ask where the direction is coming from where this department is concerned. Louise says there were examples of professionalism and a duty of care demonstrated by staff, but that they were few and far between. Who is responsible for ensuring that the Cardiff office is run properly, and what is the Government prepared to do about it?
Apart from a call from Keith Vaz, the Home Affairs select committee chairman, for a full investigation into Louise’s claims, we have heard little except that the Border Agency “takes these claims very seriously”. But we are all forgetting the most important consequence of this appalling set of events – asylum seekers with legitimate claims could be bring returned to persecution and perhaps even worse as a result of what has happened in Cardiff.
To that end, we now need to call a halt to any deportations planned as a consequence of the casework completed at the Cardiff office. There needs to be a full investigation into Louise Perrett’s claims, and every case before the department here in Wales must be reviewed. Officers should be assessed for retraining or disciplinary action. And this needs to happen now. I am also calling on the Equalities Committee at the National Assembly to look in to this matter.
Too many people’s lives could be left in the balance by racist unprofessionalism. Racism isn’t tolerated on our streets, and it should certainly not be accepted within a UK government department.
30 Comments
Trackbacks
- Bethan Jenkins AC/AM Blog » Blog Archive » UK Border Agency
- UKBA Whistleblower shocks packed CPGHR meeting « Cross Party Group on Human Rights: National Assembly for Wales
- Protest outside UKBA on Friday 26th February « No Borders South Wales
- UK border agency racism allegations 27-2-2010 « The Celtic League
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Bethan Jenkins, You are living in an ideal world, not the real world.
For example, the UK’s resources have been so stretched by almost seemingly unlimited immigration over the last ten+ years, that a halt has to be applied. We are a very small island with vey limited resources. If an underpopulated island ike Australia has to do this, then surely the UK has to learn from their experience.
Have you lived and worked in Africa, as I have, where there are economic refugees by the tens of thousands, not just asylum seekers who may or may not have been mistreated due to inter-tribal conflicts?
Why are there hundreds of refugees at Calais who do not wish to stay in France – a perfectly civilised country according to my experience? Is it because that under a Labour government that it is believed by the refugees that once they are in the UK they will get free housing, healthcare, education and income provided?
You speak of human rights, what about the rights of the UK residents who do not want to see vast and rapid changes to their culture – as has happened in many urban districts.
Also you do not seem to want to look at the source of the attitude and anger in the Cardiff office – is it because orders from HMG are giving these people an impossible job – i.e. letting in immigrants and trying to solve the problem in the UK, rather than requiring that a UK visa is a valid requirement before entry into the UK. After all we have embassies and consulates in or near most major cities in the world where it is much easier to judge the local situation and true needs of an individual raher then in a Cardiff office that is remote from the real situation.
Is it not that your anger is raised just because other people’s action do not fit your own political beliefs and idealism. Also please do not confuse racism with culture. The most racism I have ever met has been whilst working in certain African and Caribbean countries – which has been black upon black, not Eutropean upon black – and that was in the 1970s!
The Cross-Party Group on Human Rights meeting was most informative, I will attend again in future. In terms of reaction to Louise Perrett’s experiences I think the ‘shocked but not surprised’ cliché rings true.
Pleased to hear the call for a halt to deportations and a review of previous cases, but there is something more fundamentally wrong with the UK border regime that can not simply be fixed by the removal some of the more racist members of staff in Cardiff. Report after report has condemned the workings the UKBA from unsuitable detention centres that indefinitely incarcerates babies to deportation techniques that break international human rights law.
It is clear the political will is to squeeze the number of successful asylum claims so the government can boast of ‘tough’ immigration controls. The likes of the Daily Mail have been allowed to set the agenda and the ‘asylum seeker’ (usually with the ‘bogus’ prefix) has become a modern day bogyman. That people in need have been engineered into hate figures is the sign of a sick society, fundamental change is required.
Financier,
I’m sorry, are you actually condoning this alleged behaviour?
“Is it because that under a Labour government that it is believed by the refugees that once they are in the UK they will get free housing, healthcare, education and income provided.”
Go back and read the story. This office stands accused of refusing entry to almost everyone.
This office needs to be investigated, even if it means clearing people of allegations and restoring the reputation of this government department.
And what has living in Africa and racism in the 1970s got to do with anything? This is a reaction to allegations made by someone who worked IN the Border Agency office.
Lastly, the reason this country has stretched resources is because the Government, whom you seem to blame for almost everything, bailed out the private sector. Any issues we have with immigration (and most of them are based on myths, not statistics) are but a drop in the ocean by comparison. That’s the real world.
Financier seems to think that because an individual holds certain views about recent immigration levels they are excused from treating people with respect. I am sure that many individuals working for the UK border agency would be appalled by the suggestion, that such behaviour is understandable.
He/she goes on to say “Is it not that your anger is raised just because other people’s action does not fit your own political beliefs and idealism”. What the hell are you on about? People are angry because individuals who are employed to deal fairly with applicants, in difficult circumstances, are letting their own “political beliefs” cloud how they perform their duties.
Financier finishes by saying “Also please do not confuse racism with culture. The most racism I have ever met has been whilst working in certain African and Caribbean countries – which has been black upon black, not European upon black – and that was in the 1970s!”
The first line about racism and culture makes no sense at all; no one is confused if these allegations are proven we are clearly dealing with racism.
Finally I am sure you have encountered racism in other parts of the world but the inference that it in some way excuses racism in the UK is ridiculous. Yes financier even if it was observed in the “1970s.”
Thankfully WalesHome is largely free of the sort of completely repulsive comments that we sometimes see being made elsewhere on the web about immigration. Unfortunately Financier has today lowered our high standards.
First and foremost, to echo Duncan’s words – please read the article and try to understand it before you comment. Secondly you do seem to be implying that the sort of alleged behaviour outlined in the article is acceptable. That is, you are defending clearly racist behaviour, is this really what you mean to do, or is it just clumsy expression?
It’s perhaps worth reminding you that the subject you are discussing is about real people. You admonish Bethan for not being in the real world whilst occupying an aloof distanced position removed from the reality of those who struggle daily to make a life for themselves whilst seeking asylum in this country.
You need to get real.
Thanks to Bethan for writing such an impassioned article – the system is rotten through and through, and the sooner an investigation is launched the better.
Intensely and predictably patronising comments from Financier. It’s probable that Bethan Jenkins has actually met more asylum seekers and refugees than he/she has. Talk about “living in the real world”.
“For example, the UK’s resources have been so stretched by almost seemingly unlimited immigration over the last ten+ years, that a halt has to be applied. We are a very small island with vey limited resources. If an underpopulated island ike Australia has to do this, then surely the UK has to learn from their experience.”
Come on…there has not been unlimited immigration into the UK during the last ten years.
I’m not aware that Australia has applied a halt to immigration. Furthermore, comparing Australia’s immigration laws with the UK’s is a waste of time as they are countries with completely different historic and economic circumstances, not to mention the geography.
I don’t know quite what to say to Financer.
Its a shocking attitude to have indeed. The fact is in an ideal world, Financer, I would not need to write about racism happening at all, let alone talk about a whistle blower’s experience from within a Government department regarding racism.
In an ideal World, such attitudes would not exist. Sadly, they do, therefore I feel it is my duty to report on them and to act on them.
You seem to imply, as others have responded to, that racism is somehow excused because of the pressure on staff, and the rise in immigration. This cannot be an accepted line of thinking. This type of action is not excusable at all.
And as Duncan Higgitt mentioned, it seems the ‘culture’ in the office was to deport asylum seekers regardless of their circumstances. I hardly think therefore that the free housing, health service argument stands here.
Asylum seekers can’t claim any benefits in their first year of asylum in the UK anyway, and they must rely ( humiliating though it is) on a token system to be able to pay for food, and they cannot get paid for work.
Many of the asylum seekers, or those in the process of seeking asylum that I meet volunteer in their local communities, and are integral to many charities weathering the economic storm. They are frustrated that the CANNOT contribute to our economy, and show how hard working they are.
If Financer wants to discuss immigration policy then that is all well and good, but I urge him not to confuse this with what is currently happening in the UK Border Agency, or to take away from the urgency of investigating the matter. We need to get to the bottom of how this type of attitude has been allowed to be accepted as a norm.
BTW – some fabulous immigration myth-busting from Wales Home contributor Barry Curtis here: http://bit.ly/cfuqLC – worth a look.
Thanks, Rob.
According to Home Office statistics, the number of applications for asylum in the third quarter of 2009 (the most up-to-date figures I could find) across the whole of the UK was 5,055, a fall of 24% from 6,685 for the same period in 2008.
The number of initial asylum decisions made during the same period was 7,240, an increase of 38% compared with 5,230 in the third quarter the year before. Some 79% – nearly four in five – of initial decisions were refusals, 12% – just over one in 10- were granted asylum, while the remaining 9% were granted Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave.
According to my maths, just over 1,500 people, or 500 a month, were given asylum. Hardly swamping the country, is it?
(English translation at bottom)
Annodd yw credu fod y fath yma o beth yn dal i ddigwydd – fel meddai Louise, mae e fel rhywbeth allan o “Life on Mars”. Wrth i mi ddarllen dy flog di, Bethan, ‘roeddwn yn teimlo fy hun yn mynd yn grac tu hwnt ar y syniad o’r fath gasineb, a’r fath amharch.. ond llawer mwy nag hynny, y fath annynoldeb tuag at gyd-ddynion a -dynesi.
Mae sylwadau Financier yn fy synnu yn fawr iawn – fel ‘rwyt ti’n dweud yn dy ymateb iddo, nad yw pwysedd gwaith yn unrhyw esgus i ymddwyn yn warthus fel hynny.
Serch sylwadau rhyfedd Financier, balch ydwyf i weld y sylwadau adeiladol ac addawol gan rai o’r pobl eraill sydd wedi darllen dy flog ac wedi synnu ar yr hyn sy’n mynd yn ei flaen yn yr UKBA – mae dy waith di, a sylwadau eraill, mae’n siwr, yn rhywbeth i fod yn falch ohonnynt.
——————
It’s difficult to believe this sort of thing is still happening – as Louise said, it’s like something out of “Life on Mars”. As I read your blog, Bethan, I felt myself becoming very angry about the idea of such hatred and disrespect… but far more than that, the complete absence of humanity to other people.
Financier’s comments shock me greatly – as you say in your response to him, the pressure of work is no excuse to behaving in such an appalling way.
Despite the absurd comments by Financier, I am pleased to see constructive and sensible comments by some others who have read the piece and who are stunned by what has been going on at UKBA – your work, and the comments of others, is something to be proud of.
Are the police investigating these matters?
It appears to me that a crime has been committed, so what’s the point of calling on the Equalities Committee to investigate? PC Plod should be on the case
There’s an internal investigation, that’s why the Equality and Human Rights Commission is being called on to act. I thought of that committee ( as did others present at the cross party group) so as to update the work that was done following their report in to when asylum seekers were jailed in Cardiff prison. I think its important for committees to perform that role. I would seek advice as to whether the Police would be involved at this stage, but its certainly very serious.
This is not just confined to a single UKBA office, or even to one country but this is an attitude that is prevelant throughout the whole European community. The culture of racism is everywhere, from Greece where migrants frequently drown trying to cross into Europe and where the chance of getting asylum is 0.7% to Denmark where Iraqi’s are evicted from a church with horrendous brutality, to Italy where African migrants are shot by white gangs (see Rosarno riots). In Calais right now people are forced to sleep on the street and risk death crossing a border that is firmly shut!
There is no legal way for people to enter the UK, you cannot just apply for a VISA in Kabul or Asmarah, anyone who wishes to enter the country (who isn’t a rich buisnessmen) has to do so illegally. Unless you are white and rich. Consider the fact that anyone born in Wales or the UK in general can travel anywhere in the world, but if you are from Africa or Asia or the Middle East then you can’t.
The reality is that Border controls do nothing more than destroy lives and force people to live in destitution. The myth that everyone wants to come here, or that we are being swamped simply isn’t true. People in this country travel backwards and forwards to other countries all the time but no-one cries about Brits swamping Spain.
People come here because they have a connection. Guess what, when you go out into the world and dominate with the English language, when you colonise most of the world, what language are those people going to grow up speaking, what are they going to be taught in school- English. In Eritrea all schooling is taught in English. So suprise suprise, when people want/need to move then they are going to choose a country with a common language, so the people of Iraq, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Egypt, Palestine are going to come here. People from Cote d’Ivoire or Algeria are going to go to France, people from Indonesia are going to go to Holland. Simple.
We need to create a culture of solidarity with migrants, where people don’t just sit by when families are deported on their flight, where people exchange those vile vouchers for actual cash so families can go on the bus, where people teach english to their neighbours. No Borders is a real concept, people do it everyday, no border is impermeable.
Freedom of Movement and Equality for all (not just the rich)
I feel I’ve been spreading myself a little thinly today, and have only just got round to reading this post and the comments.
I’m very saddened by what I’ve read. Both by the general attitudes that seem to be rife among staff in the UKBA as described by Louise, and perhaps more so by the amplification of those same attitudes by Financier. Both attitudes stink, and there certainly seem to be sufficient grounds for an investigation. Soon.
I would draw attention to this part of the Guardian article that Bethan linked to:
If a case was difficult, Perrett claims, she was simply advised to refuse it and “let a tribunal sort it out”. Only cases raised by MPs appeared to be dealt with properly.
I don’t want to make accusations or assumptions, but this suggests to me that the general policy direction of the office (and therefore other offices?) was to refuse every application regardless of the merits of any case, and to only do investigations properly if someone from outside was “looking over their shoulder”. By refusing everything else as a matter of course, they made life easier for the office and shifted the burden of decision making onto a tribunal instead. Essentially a “pass the buck” exercise, probably done in the hope of filtering out all but the most persistent or articulate applicants.
My fear is that an inquiry will concentrate only on the bad behaviour of individuals in one particular office, but not adequately investigate the overall policy the office was pursuing, a policy that might well have been passed down from people at higher levels.
The behavior identified by Bethan is shocking (I would add that such behavior is not only unthinkable in other parts of the public sector, but would not be seen in any of the private sector workplaces I have known.)
Financier’s comments are depressing (not least because I was expecting something along those lines – pretty much the usual tone for discussions on many blog sites)
And as to the comment that Bethan (and presumably all us non-racists) is living in an ideal world – in an ideal world there there would be no refugees, here in the real world they are and they deserve a fair deal.
It was quite indicative that on the only occasion when the whistleblower’s allegations have been questioned at length (during her interview on BBC Wales radio), she was forced to admit that she has no evidence to back up those allegations.
Furthermore, it could just as equally be that more than a little of what she says are the utterances of an ex-employee with a very large axe to grind.
Perhaps you should have asked yourself questions such as these:
- Is there possibly a reason as to why the whistleblower was only in employment there for a few months?
-And, if there was such an endemic anti-immigration and xenophobic atmosphere prevalent in the UK Border Agency, then don’t you think there would have been at least one other person (ex-employee or otherwise) who would have spoken up in her support?
“How is it that staff from a government department…can be (allowed to) go unpunished when they are so allegedly racist?”
It could it possibly be that nobody has been punished because those unsubstantiated allegations of racism are simply that, unsubstantiated allegations?
There is an investigation going on. Why are you taking these allegations as true, before the investigation’s conclusion? You are damning the name of public servants, claiming them to be racists, on the say so of one individual. I know for a fact that most of her claims can be easily dispelled and disproven (and no I’m not going to tell you how, but if you’re prepared to take Perrett’s word, why not mine?).
When these allegations get shown to be utter distorted nonsense, are you going to publically apologise for your actions, and for allowing this person a stage, and by associated credibility, before appropriate investigation of the allegations (made through the media rather than the proper channels) had taken place? Let’s be clear, her comments would be shocking IF TRUE. They are not.
@GDavies – The article makes clear that these allegations are just that. It is also clear in its call for an investigation. It also does not identify any specific individuals and the focus of the piece is that these matters need to be urgently investigated – I would expect that this is an uncontroversial position.
Whilst these matters are under investigation and are not proven it is clearly in the public interest that they are reported and discussed. And that is what Bethan has done.
Rob Williams
I must take issue with your last comment, this ‘article’ (and i use the word very loosely indeed), is entirely myopic and subjective.
It does not in the slightest illustrate that these are allegations are totally unsubstantiated without the slightest bit of hard evidence attached to them.
Bethan’s standpoint on the issue is highly evidential throughout the article – she has clearly made up her mind (on nothing but TOTAL HEARSAY) that workers at the governement department concerned are racist:
” In this day and age, how is it that staff from a government department (and the Government is supposed to lead on combating inequality and intolerance) can be go allowed to go unpunished when they are so allegedly racist?”
The above, being one of many glaring examples of her naivety and subjectivity.
Rob, the problem is that with the exception of the title, the tone of the article implies that the allegations are fact and proven. This is not the case.
I would expect newspapers and news agencies who need sensational stories to report in this way but not an Assembly Member.
Bethan Jenkins is in a position of authority and allowing Ms Perrett to speak at an Assembly meeting and publishing this article has given yet more credence to what are unsubstantiated allegations. With authority comes a great deal of responsibility and in my view, it is utterly irresponsible to provide Ms Perrett with such a platform before an investigation has been concluded
Like G Davies, I look forward to Bethan Jenkins’ public apology if and when all the facts of this case come to light. I expect that she may be somewhat embarrassed and think twice before acting in this way again.
@Paulie – I disagree. The tone of the article is certainly one that indicates Bethan takes the allegations seriously. I see the article as a strong call for an investigation into the allegations. The headline on the piece refers to allegations. Even the section you quoted at me uses the word allegedly. I would argue that even though the allegations are just that at the moment, the failure to properly respond to them, and the worrying details of them, mean they should be discussed. Once again I would argue that it is in the public interest to do so. I have no idea whether Bethan believes the allegations to be true or not, I am just keen to see the discussion take place.
@AJ – I think the tone of the article is certainly passionate about the subject. But the allegations are referred to as allegations throughout, and also as you say, in the headline. Bethan in her role as an elected representative is surely entitled and, indeed, required to raise this issue in the public interest isn’t she? As I said above, all I found when reading the article that the tone was angry and insistent that the issue be investigated. Nothing more nothing less.
Rob – in what way has there been a failure to properly respond.? The appropriate course of action has been followed – UKBA have immediately put in place an investigation by the appropriate body and not engaged in a media battle before the facts of the matter have been properly established.
Speaking of due process, one must question why, if Ms Perrett’s claims hold credence, she did not follow the internal complaints procedures of the Home Office? Should she, as she claimed, have raised the issue with one manager and received an unsatisfactory response to her concerns, there are readily available procedures for taking one’s grievance to the highest levels. Instead, she chose to go to the media (well, the media who would accept her account, not those who declined to run her story) and conduct a public trial, one in which those who have been implicated will never have a right of response in the media as they are bound by the rules of civil service (some people actually take such obligations seriously). It speaks volumes how quickly this story died in the media.
Before you respond that individuals have not been named in the media, consider two things. They have been named within their organisation and are (rightly – whether it is just or not) subject to investigation. And how would you feel if the organisation you work for was blanket-labelled ‘Racist’ on the say so of one temporary agency member of staff? Shame on you, Bethan Jenkins, for propagating Ms Perrett’s allegations in this way instead of supporting the investigation and witholding judgement until the results of the investigation. Please consider holding your tongue until you are in possession of the facts, rather than subjective opinion from one side.
Rob, I don’t know how anyone could read the below segment of Bethan Jenkins’ response without feeling that she has already made up her mind.
“And as Duncan Higgitt mentioned, it seems the ‘culture’ in the office was to deport asylum seekers regardless of their circumstances. I hardly think therefore that the free housing, health service argument stands here.
Asylum seekers can’t claim any benefits in their first year of asylum in the UK anyway, and they must rely ( humiliating though it is) on a token system to be able to pay for food, and they cannot get paid for work.
Many of the asylum seekers, or those in the process of seeking asylum that I meet volunteer in their local communities, and are integral to many charities weathering the economic storm. They are frustrated that the CANNOT contribute to our economy, and show how hard working they are.
If Financer wants to discuss immigration policy then that is all well and good, but I urge him not to confuse this with what is currently happening in the UK Border Agency, or to take away from the urgency of investigating the matter. We need to get to the bottom of how this type of attitude has been allowed to be accepted as a norm.”
Furthermore, it is evident that Bethan Jenkins is completely ignorant of the asylum process. Contrary to what she has written, asylum seekers are entitled to ‘benefits’, including cash, accommodation and free healthcare, in their first year of asylum and throughout the process until their case is concluded.
The token system is only used when the asylum seeker’s claim has been refused and they have no further right of appeal, i.e. when they have no legal right to remain in the UK and should be making arrangements to return to their home country.
It is also worth noting that an asylum seeker has never been deported as it would be against the law. The only people deported from the UK have either never claimed asylum or are FAILED asylum seekers, i.e. their claim has been refused and this decision upheld by an independent body, namely the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
If Bethan Jenkins is criticising the Home Office for deportations, she is also criticising Senior Immigration Judges who are undoubtedly more qualified and experienced to make decisions of this nature than her. So much for the ‘culture’ of deporting asylum seekers.
I wonder if Bethan Jenkins even knows how many failed asylum seekers were deported from the UK in the last year? If she took the time to find out, I think she may realise the weakness of her argument.
Yet more irresponsible comments from our elected representative!
AJ – Thanks for your comment. I can’t respond to the points made regarding the benefits that are or are not available to Asylum Seekers as I actually don’t know. The point must be made, however, that there are a lot of myths perpetuated about the UKs treatment of asylum seekers and the suggestion is regularly made, particularly in the media, that they get an easy ride. Having worked myself in a social services department before becoming a hack I can guarantee that’s not the case. A bit of balance to this bias is most welcome.
On the subject of the substantive content of the article I am still comfortable that the piece presents the allegations as allegations and nothing more. As I said previously I honestly don’t know Bethan’s perspective on whether they are true or not and there is a degree to which that is not relevant – the piece presents the allegations as allegations and that is all.
Incidentally, regardless of the content of the article, the point has been made repeatedly in this thread that these are only allegations and are not yet proven. And, I repeat, the article headline in particular and its wording in general make that clear.
There should be an opportunity for fair comment on matters of great public interest such as this and I for one was pleased to have the allegations brought to my attention.
I just want to comment and say that i have witnessed members of staff in that office being very rude to asylum seekers including my partner. My partner who is claiming asylum goes every month to that office to sign and one member of staff said to one man claiming asylum in a very rude manner “you shouldn’t even be here” and when that man answered “i’m going to report you” she then answered ” Go ahead but who will they believe me or you?” i was so shocked to even hear such racism and foul behaviour.
In my opinion that is truly unproffesional and should take immediate action against them. My partner came hear needing help as he was in danger in his own country and felt he was safe in this country, nothing about getting free housing or benefits because he also like many others receives a voucher card, thats not exactly luxury is it?? So that statement is so untrue. I’m glad that there is an investigation about the allegations of what louise perrett have said and treat the staff as they treat the asylum seekers ( like criminals)…
Far left-wing admin temp on £7ph, comes in for 2 months then applies for a £55kpa job and gets turned down.
Stops turning up to work, gets fired, sob story in the media.
Waaaaah my heart bleeds.