Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

imprisoning asylum seekers is wrong and out of order

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2083892,00.html


i'm fucking disgraced at what country is capable of, they're people who haven't done anything innately wrong who just want escape persecution and we treat them like prisoners, and wonder why they act like them

An investigation last year into conditions at Yarl's Wood found 70 per cent of women at the centre had reported rape, nearly half had been detained for more than three months and 57 per cent had no legal representation.

Conditions have not improved, according to campaigners. Assaults are said to be commonplace. One woman was stripped and thrown naked into a van taking her to the airport for deportation only for the pilot to refuse to allow her to fly as she had no clothes.

The women also allege staff regularly refer to them as 'black monkey', 'nigger' and 'bitch'. They claim vital faxes from solicitors are going missing and information on basic legal rights is being withheld. Detainees also complain they are given days-old reheated food in which they have found hair, dirt and maggots.

Campaigners are also concerned about conditions at Harmondsworth, where detainees rioted after being banned from watching news coverage of a damning report on the centre.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    this kind of stuff make me sick...no one deserves to be treated like this, let alone people that have fled there home country because of persecution and war...

    what can i do to stop this kind of thing? my MP is a labour arse kisser (i've met him numerous times, he's so far up his own arse, he can't see the light of day), so seriously waht can i do personaly to help stop completely inhumane treatment?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so seriously waht can i do personaly to help stop completely inhumane treatment?

    Nothing.

    Unfortunately the UK's position on asylum seekers has changed radically since around the late 60's/early 70's. We used to take them in from all around the world but the rising tide of nationalism and de-escalation of the Cold War means we just put them in centres until a resolution is made on their case.

    Btw I think this is disgraceful.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there has to be something surely?

    what happened to people power?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there has to be something surely?

    what happened to people power?

    :lol:

    What about it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    this is stupid...we are no longer living a democracy...the only chance you have of actually being listened to is if you have a lot of money or some power...us "normal" lowly people have no fucking chance...

    now i understand when people say that direct action empowers them...
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    this is stupid...we are no longer living a democracy...the only chance you have of actually being listened to is if you have a lot of money or some power...us "normal" lowly people have no fucking chance...
    Did it take you that long to figure?

    The way most countries are nowadays, the only thing a "simple" person can do is who will rule them. And most of the candidates are 99% lying, so it's not much of a choice at all.
    Calling this "democracy" is only a stupid euphemism to make people think they actually play a part. Search for the definition of "oligarchy".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    this is stupid...we are no longer living a democracy...the only chance you have of actually being listened to is if you have a lot of money or some power...us "normal" lowly people have no fucking chance...

    It is a democracy, just not a fair one. I'd rather live here than Sudan.

    What is the problem here? The way Asylum Seekers are treated or the system that puts them in this situation?

    I'm sure the authorities that overlook these things are already looking into the issue of improving the quality of these detention centres or prosecuting people involved in abuse.

    If you're angry that Asylum Seekers are put in centres in the first place then there's nothing that can be done for the reasons mentioned above.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Did it take you that long to figure?

    The way most countries are nowadays, the only thing a "simple" person can do is who will rule them. And most of the candidates are 99% lying, so it's not much of a choice at all.
    Calling this "democracy" is only a stupid euphemism to make people think they actually play a part. Search for the definition of "oligarchy".

    No, Russia is an oligarchy. The UK isn't, Tony Blair and his cronies weren't multi-millionaire businessmen before they came to power.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    No, Russia is an oligarchy. The UK isn't, Tony Blair and his cronies weren't multi-millionaire businessmen before they came to power.
    Did everyone who voted for Blair, or anyone else, agree with everything he did when he came to power? I think not.
    Since it's like this, then your choice doesn't really matter, therefore it's pretty much like you never had one, except what the name and face of the wanker who rules is going to be. Because no matter what else you choose, it's very likely it won't be as you wanted it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Did everyone who voted for Blair, or anyone else, agree with everything he did when he came to power? I think not.
    Since it's like this, then your choice doesn't really matter, therefore it's pretty much like you never had one, except what the name and face of the wanker who rules is going to be. Because no matter what else you choose, it's very likely it won't be as you wanted it.

    That still doesn't make it an oligarchy.

    The PM just can't make new laws. He has to pass them in the House of Commons, you delegate your vote to the person you think will best represent you in the House of Commons and they vote on Bills that may eventually become law. It's not perfect but it's better than most countries in this world.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    It's not perfect but it's better than most countries in this world.
    And that's all I'm saying, apart from the naming issue.

    As for that:
    "From the Greek for 'rule of the few', this is a form of government in which power is centralised in the hands of an organised élite and is used for their social and/or economic benefit (note: don't tell me this is not how they're using it!). Their power is maintained by force or by the shaping of the law to restrict the people and/or remove any need to consult them or be accountable to them. Many of the monarchies established in Europe during the Middle Ages began as oligarchies, with one family eventually gaining ascendancy over others."
    Oligarchy means "rule by a few". If these few are the most rich ones in a country it's a statistic, and if they're not it doesn't mean it's not an oligarchy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    your wrong....with the anti terrorism bill he can just bring new laws in and not pass them by the houses...only when a state of emergency is called, but he does that so, his emergency could be that he's not getting his own way...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    his emergency could be that he's not getting his own way...

    :confused:

    I'm laughing away here at your posts. :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And that's all I'm saying, apart from the naming issue.

    As for that:
    "From the Greek for 'rule of the few', this is a form of government in which power is centralised in the hands of an organised élite and is used for their social and/or economic benefit (note: don't tell me this is not how they're using it!). Their power is maintained by force or by the shaping of the law to restrict the people and/or remove any need to consult them or be accountable to them. Many of the monarchies established in Europe during the Middle Ages began as oligarchies, with one family eventually gaining ascendancy over others."
    Oligarchy means "rule by a few". If these few are the most rich ones in a country it's a statistic, and if they're not it doesn't mean it's not an oligarchy.

    So how is Tony Blair et al manipulating the population and national resource for their own social or economic wealth? We have a thing in the UK called accountability, leaders just can't go about their dirty deeds and get away with it like Russia.

    All Governments in the world are ruled by few people in relation to the general public. Are you suggessting every country in the world is an oligarchy because not every single person in the country is represented in the government? That's the impression I'm getting from your posts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i'm sorry but i donp;t see what so funny about that, blair uses policy like he's a spoilt child in spite of everyone else...
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    leaders just can't go about their dirty deeds and get away with it like Russia.
    Really? Blair seems to be getting away with it just fine. Maybe he won't be elected again, but as far as I can tell he doesn't need to.
    Are you suggessting every country in the world is an oligarchy because not every single person in the country is represented in the government? That's the impression I'm getting from your posts.
    Precisely. It's a matter of definition, I just like things called by their name.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with Yerascrote, our government and the way it rules the country leaves a lot to be desired... but even the asylum seekers I know from Sudan and other countries deemed unsafe would rather be being regarded as no-class citizens in the UK than "at home" where they would be being tortured beyond belief.

    It's hard to believe but they are a lot more able to put things into that kind of perspective than we are. It's difficult to understand but it's also really humbling to work with - and know - them. Lots of them have been blinded, tortured on racks so that merely walking down the street leaves them in crippling pain, many of them have seen their entire families butchered. That justifies nothing, but it's something to bear in mind. They know that they are better off living a half-life here being chased through town by drunken louts screaming at them to "go back where you came from you" (credit The Daily Mail, who took drunken lout's side... that must've been a coin toss situ for them) than they are being returned home. In degrees of fairness and decency the UK is country mile after country mile ahead of the countries these folk have come from. Once again, not that that justifies a thing.

    It only drives home the point that sending these people back to certain death is not justifiable. I would say send the Daily Mail journalists in their place... but that wouldn't really be in the spirit of the Human Rights bill, would it ;)

    twisted_trinity if you're interested at helping at the level of the individual rather than in strictly political terms then there are a lot of asylum seeker advocacy charities and societies both locally and nationally that would be immensely grateful for whatever skills you have to offer! :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Really? Blair seems to be getting away with it just fine. Maybe he won't be elected again, but as far as I can tell he doesn't need to.

    Get away with what? How is he manipulating the people and resource of the nation for his own economic wealth?
    Precisely. It's a matter of definition, I just like things called by their name.

    No it's not. The UK is not an oligarchy, end of story.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i'm sorry but i donp;t see what so funny about that, blair uses policy like he's a spoilt child in spite of everyone else...

    I think your confusing the powers of the US President and the PM.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Get away with what? How is he manipulating the people and resource of the nation for his own economic wealth?
    Don't you think he has more money now than before he was elected? Do you think it's money he deserves, or even he acquired legally?
    No it's not. The UK is not an oligarchy, end of story.
    By the barest definition, "Rule of the few", the UK is an oligarchy. End of story.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't you think he has more money now than before he was elected? Do you think it's money he deserves, or even he acquired legally?

    I'm sure he is, not only does he get his pay as a PM plus privelidges, he can also demand money for doing speeches and lectures so I'm sure he's richer. If he has required money illegally then it'll come out eventually, all these leaked memo's and stuff end up in the public eye eventually. It was something that plagued the Tory governments of the 70's and 80's and even Labour with Peter Mandelson and all those people, we have accountability...other countries don't.

    By the barest definition, "Rule of the few", the UK is an oligarchy. End of story.

    :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

    Go look up the definition of oligarchy beyond "rule of a few" and come back to me.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Go look up the definition of oligarchy beyond "rule of a few" and come back to me.
    I did. Look a few posts back. Most of what it said was common characteristics of an oligarchy, but not requirements.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    That still doesn't make it an oligarchy.

    The PM just can't make new laws. He has to pass them in the House of Commons, you delegate your vote to the person you think will best represent you in the House of Commons and they vote on Bills that may eventually become law. It's not perfect but it's better than most countries in this world.

    not under the civil contingency act, the PM has the power to suspend any law, and the regulatory reform act means a law can be changed in it's entierity by a minister without parliamentry consent

    strangely both were passed without much editing, during things like the fox hunting debates
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's all well and good to moan about asylum seekers being "imprisoned", a very questionable assertion in itself, but not one of you has answered this question - what's the alternative?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there has to be something surely?

    what happened to people power?
    People could start by stop voting Tory, UKIP and BNP. And follow by boycotting the S*n, Daily HateMail and Express 'newspapers'- or even better torch their HQ to the ground.

    Seeing as they're the ones who have been waging the decades-long campaign or lies, disinformation and hatred towards immigrants and asylum seekers and who have succeeded in persuading the the government and indeed the country that jailing asylum seekers is necessary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    It's all well and good to moan about asylum seekers being "imprisoned", a very questionable assertion in itself, but not one of you has answered this question - what's the alternative?

    well as long as any possible criminal record checks come back negative, let them live in the community and actually get on with their lives whilst their application is processed? rather than waste money on private prisons
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    It's all well and good to moan about asylum seekers being "imprisoned", a very questionable assertion in itself, but not one of you has answered this question - what's the alternative?

    Letting them live among us, integrate, become part of the society which they will enter eventually anyway... assuming that we don't deport them... perhaps a little work for income which they can use to pay for the food/education/housing which they need...

    radical huh?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    jailing asylum seekers is necessary.


    they are not Jailing them up, they are being put into centre until they can Processed, most of these people have no forms of ID or paper work, they could be anyone, so they have to be dealt with before releasing them into the general public,


    ok the system may not be great but its there to protect the public first.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ... perhaps a little work for income which they can use to pay for the food/education/housing which they need...
    I like that suggestion. Being able to work whilst their claim is processed instead of sitting around in a prison would probably be better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think there are two points here; if people are arriving undocumented and there is a perceived threat to national security (potential) yes then putting them through processing centres may well be justified.

    However until it has been proven that they are a threat or are guilty of some other wrong-doing, there is absolutely no reason that confinement and treatment should be anything more than restricting their movement into general society.

    It completely does not justify the atrocious treatment they are receiving, and something urgently needs to be done. Although I accept that there may be reason to restrict their movement initially for processing reasons, within that environment they should be presumed to be nothing more than what they are presenting as (i.e: people in need) until it has been proven otherwise.

    Apart from anything else, if you believe in human rights then you believe in it for everyone, top to bottom.
Sign In or Register to comment.