Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare


3:20 pm - June 6th 2012

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Lorna Gledhill

Last month, a young female asylum seeker and her twelve week old baby received an eviction letter demanding that they leave their current house in Bradford and relocate to Doncaster.

With barely a week’s notice, she was forcibly evicted and transported 40 miles to a tiny flat in the South Yorkshire town. Her new ‘home’ had no cooker, no table and chairs, and only a tiny sink to wash all kitchen equipment and clothes.

The UK Border Agency’s own standards clearly state ‘self-contained accommodation’ must include a cooker, a sufficient number of chairs for all tenants and acceptable laundry facilities.

Only after sustained pressure from campaigners in Doncaster and Bradford, a UKBA inspector agreed to visit and audit the flat, subsequently declaring it “not suitable in its present state for mothers and babies” and “contractually non-compliant”. So UKBA have been told to relocate the young mother again. In the meantime she is still expected to travel 26 miles to Leeds or 20 miles to Sheffield every week to attend compulsory signing sessions for her Section 4 support.

The government’s cost-saving measures are placing the dignity, rights and safety of asylum seekers at the whim of a private company’s profit margins.

In March of this year, the company G4S were awarded a new multi-million pound contract to provide asylum seekers’ social housing across Yorkshire and Humberside and the West Midlands, with UPM as their partner for housing provision.

These new COMPASS contracts have turned asylum seeker’ social housing provision into a highly profitable business venture for some of the wealthiest security companies in the world.

Social landlords
G4S are now frequently social landlords for the very people they may have detained a week before. Last year, Jimmy Mubenga, an Angolan asylum seeker died on a forced deportation flight under the care of G4S guards. In the words of a Nigerian asylum seeker, “I do not want a prison guard to be my landlord.”

Whilst this is the first time we have seen such large, multi-regional contracts, private companies have been part of service provision since the Labour government’s instigation of the New Asylum Model in the late 1990s.

Campaigners who contacted G4S and UKBA about the case of the young mother in Doncaster found that both organisations distanced themselves from the issue, claiming that this eviction was part of the expiring TARGET contracts.

Many campaigners are far from optimistic about the future of asylum seekers’ social housing in the region.

John Grayson, a housing campaigner, is “urging the Border Agency to instruct G4S to cancel the UPM contract. In our view UPM is simply not a fit landlord for the sensitive job of housing asylum seekers.”

Unfortunately, we are now witnessing an expansion of the private ‘asylum-market’ (thank G4S for coining that term). The government’s dual focus on deficit reduction and entrepreneurship creates the perfect climate for private corporations to undercut existing public services.

As we reduce the size of the state, we increase the reach of multi-national corporations in our public lives. And when profit precedes people, the most vulnerable are set to lose.


Lorna Gledhill is a freelance writer and activist, interested in government spin and civil disobedience. She also organises an active media group of exiled journalists, asylum seekers and students in Leeds and is part of the Yorkshire-based No to G4S campaign. Also at PressGangLeeds // NotoG4S // @pressgangleeds

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Housing ,Our democracy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


The asylum seeking mother has a twelve week old baby, can anyone enlighten us as to where the father of the baby is? Is he with the mother and his child?

@Railbert

Does it actually matter?

Would having an asylum seeking father present alter the fact that the UKBA has judged the accommodation not fit?

Being an asylum seeker it could mean the father is dead, in prison ( in own country ), in another country seeking asylum, she could have been raped, he could have left the relationship voluntarily ( UK not got the best stats for marriages failing ). Point is none of that would / should / could affect the standards of the accommodation provided which is what this story is about.

It would have actually made the story worse as there would have been 1+ more person asked to live in a place not fit for purpose.

Also you do know babies in ladies gestate for 9 months before being birthed. A lot can happen in 9 months.

3. douglas clark

Does Lorna Gledhil have any insight into why Glasgow appeared to ‘give up’ on taking asylum seekers?

AFAIK we have lots of empties and there didn’t appear to be a social issue about taking them, rather the reverse.

Was it because it was social housing rather than landlord housing?

I am genuinely curious.

@MP

Yes, having the father present does matter – to have the father present could (maybe) have stopped the campaigners resorting to such emotive language as the mother and baby being “marooned”.

“Being an asylum seeker it could mean the father is dead, in prison ( in own country ), in another country seeking asylum, she could have been raped, he could have left the relationship voluntarily” – or perhaps not – remember the Fatou Felicite Gaye asylum seeker mother and child case?

Why relocate the mother and child – easier, and less expensive to the taxpayer, would be to install a cooker, table and chairs et al to make the flat fit for purpose.

@douglas clark

Glasgow City Council did not “give up” on taking (accommodating) asylum seekers via the £250,000,000 (sic) money deal with the Home Office / UKBA. There had been a two part agreement – third part was due.

After the first part, GCC threatened to send the asylum seekers back to England prior to the second part agreement if they didn’t get more money. They claimed they were losing money and the previous payment wasn’t enough. They got their extra money and Glasgow got more asylum seekers. GCC again asked for more money prior to the third agreement, the HO refused and GCC lost the contract.

The withdrawal by the HO wasn’t just down to money – the UKBA were experiencing too much trouble and provocation from asylum seekers and refugees and their support groups so the asylum contract was given out to private companies.

@Douglas – Glasgow City Council did not bid for the Home Office contract, after falling out with them during the previous contract over money, but Glasgow continues to house around 2000 people seeking asylum. The council wanted more money, to ensure decent housing and related services (health, education, community work etc), but the Home Office wanted to pay less. That was the previous contract. When the council withdrew, the management passed over YPeople (YMCA Glasgow), a charity also contracted by the home office since 2000.
For the COMPASS contracts, the Home Office were looking to spend even less money. YPeople were outbid by the big security firms, Serco and G4S. Serco were awarded the contract, and are now taking over, sub-contracting to a private landlord company, Orchard and Shipman, who are negotiating with housing associations to take over the YPeople leased properties.

@Raibert. Oh, it’s you, trolling again. Anyway, the stuff you wrote about Glasgow? Utter nonsense. It was UK Border Agency who threatened to relocate the people seeking asylum, not the council. The Minister for Immigration later wrote to apologise: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12228040 .

Anyway, how could the council send anyone “back to England”? The council was merely in a contract with the home office to provide housing management services, along with Ypeople and Angel Group. The council doesn’t even own the housing (it was transferred long ago to the Glasgow Housing Association Ltd).

Glasgow did not “get more asylum seekers”. As in the rest of the UK, there are half the number of asylum seekers in Glasgow now than there were when dispersal started in 2000.

@douglas clark – I’m not an expert on the situation in Glasgow, but after GCC lost the contracts, YPeople (formally YMCA) were given the contracts to house asylum seekers in the city. This charity made the decision not to evict refused asylum seekers (as not to collude with the government’s policy of enforced destitution post-negative asylum decision). SERCO have now been awarded the contract for the same service provision, but obviously without the extra ‘service’ of alleviating destitution. For more info on the current situation in Glasgow’s asylum housing, see this Institute for Race Relations article: http://www.irr.org.uk/news/glasgow-the-evictions-begin/

@railbert – I’m not going to question your knowledge of the relationship between the GCC and HO, and maybe part of the HO’s decision to contract out these services to huge corporations like SERCO, G4S and Reliance was the ‘hassle’ they received from asylum seekers and their support groups. However, this ‘provocation’ from support groups is often justified. Fearful of any confrontation having a negative effect on their status and often with faced threats of eviction from their housing providers, asylum seekers have very reduced rights as tenants.
And to think that a private company, especially with a terrible track record like G4S’, would not exacerbate this ‘provocation’ from asylum seekers and their supporters is incredibly naive. The UKBA will still receive complaints and challenges from those who campaign for the rights of asylum seekers in the UK. In fact, they’ll probably receive more.

Lorna: just to confirm, the pisspoor provision that the woman and baby in your post have experienced was delivered by UKBA, with G4S’s contract only having started at the end of May, correct?

@John B – The previous housing provider for the individual in question was United Property Management, the same company that has been chosen as prime-subcontractors by G4S under the new contracts. Whilst according to the G4S website, the new COMPASS contracts start in May, we’re in the problematic ‘transition’ period between the existing TARGET (locally-specific) and subsequent COMPASS (multi-regional) contracts. It seems as if evictions and re-dispersal are being conducted under the remit of the TARGET contracts. Thus responsibility for evictions, and the possible re-location of around 6,000 tenants nationally, is a little slippery.
G4S has gone as far as to threaten a journalist from social housing magazine 24-dash due to his ‘misrepresentation’ of G4S’ responsibilities to the tenant as new contract holders.
The UKBA will still remain as a ‘monitoring’ agency over the whole of the COMPASS contracts across the region. Housing has been privatised before, but not to such huge private companies, and especially not those who are better known for providing private security armies.

@Lorna

“However, this ‘provocation’ from support groups is often justified” – And how about when it is not justified” – when “provocation is illegal” and insulting towards other citizens ….

When Home Office immigration officers are deliberately impeded/blocked and harassed from having to collect failed asylum seekers who have ignored requests to prepare themselves for legal deportation. When officers are publicly demonized as ‘‘brutal, humiliating dawn raids / immigration snatch squads / men in riot gear who arrive in their black people-carriers with the built in cages to carry out dawn raids / thugs with warrant cards and reference to doors being booted in by metal battering rams and children being dragged out screaming’’.

When asylum supporters resort to illegal tactics …. quote/ She got together with her friend and organised the residents into daily dawn patrols, looking out for immigration vans. When the vans arrived, a phone system would swing in to action, warning asylum seekers to escape. The whole estate pitched in, gathering in large crowds in the early-morning dark to jeer at immigration officials as they entered the tower blocks. On more than one occasion, the vans left the estate empty – the people they had come for had got out in time and were hidden by the crowd. We had our own little code to warn them it was a dawn raid and to get out. There’s more than one way of getting out of the flats – there’s two staircases and two lifts, so you could play games if you knew how. If we were a thorn in their flesh, then good, /unquote

And the illegal ceremonial burning of official Home Office / UKBA letters notifying the asylum seekers of the changes. The burning, organized by Ms Robina Qureshi, Director of tax funded Glasgow based charity, Positive Action in Housing, attended by asylum seekers, their supporters and schoolchildren was accomplished outside the Glasgow UKBA office.

Will we decide which laws to obey and which to ignore? Should we change our laws to suit yourself and the failed asylum seekers because you and they do not agree with the law. If so, which laws will we choose to ignore and which laws will we choose to obey? There lies anarchy, the loudest shouter, the hardest puncher, dictates the laws.

Work beckons – catch you later.

Lets hope all asylum seekers read this. It might be one way in stopping them flooding this country and thinking we are easy in handing out benefits. After all why should we help them when they have given nothing in return. Make it as tough as possible for them, with a bit of luck they might return to there country of origin. These people are a burden to this country and I’m sick and tired watching this country being turned into a dump.

As far as I’m concerned charity begins at home. Help the poor pensioners.

When officers are publicly demonized as ‘‘brutal, humiliating dawn raids / immigration snatch squads / men in riot gear who arrive in their black people-carriers with the built in cages to carry out dawn raids / thugs with warrant cards and reference to doors being booted in by metal battering rams and children being dragged out screaming’’.

Cap. Fits. Wear. It. Etc. You don’t wanna be a corrupt enforcer beating down terrified families’ doors and dragging them off to be deported and tortured, then quit the job and people won’t hate you for it. Hell, if all the scumbags doing the job were to quit, then we’d be somewhere where the above didn’t happen, and that’d be delightful.

Unless you’re someone like Phil, apparently. I imagine if he saw an abandoned baby in the street, he’d kick its head in, or at least leave it to starve. After all, why should we help it when it’s given nothing in return?

If you want to look after them. You bloody well pay for them.That’s why this country is in such a mess with so many scroungers.

15. Robin Levett

@Phil #10:

Lets hope all asylum seekers read this. It might be one way in stopping them flooding this country and thinking we are easy in handing out benefits.

It would be a corrective to the propaganda emanating from governemnts of both parties over the last 30-odd years to the effect that the UK is a land of milk and honey; propaganda which you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker but which is as true now as it has ever been – ie not at all.

So that’s a “yes” on leaving the abandoned baby to starve? If you ever do find an abandoned baby, let me know, and I’ll wire you the money for a cab fare to the nearest hospital. I imagine most of the people working there won’t be scum.

17. Chaise Guevara

@ john b

Beat me to it. Well said.

18. Chaise Guevara

@ 10 Phil

“After all why should we help them when they have given nothing in return.”

Because most of us aren’t cunts.

@ 11 john b

“Cap. Fits. Wear. It. Etc.”

Should have read; If the cap fits, wear it. The cap does not fit. The inappropriate and untrue branding of immigration officers as “thugs with warrant cards” etc., is libelous and it’s a continuing failure by our Home Office to protect our immigration officers from such hate-speech. The publication of such hate-speech comes from Glasgow “charity” Positive Action in Housing – publicly criticised because those at PAiH “provoke violence against immigration officers” and circulate “rumours and innuendo as fact”. Another false claim against immigration officers by PAiH; immigration officers board up doors of flats vacated by asylum seekers to prevent the asylum children getting their toys – utter garbage – most empty flats are boarded up to prevent vandalism. Fortunately PAiH has chosen to tone down their constant demonizing of our immigration officers.

Our immigration officers have a responsibility to carry out and they must be allowed to carry out their jobs without harassment or provocation. They are neither “corrupt” nor “scumbags” (your words, not mine) Bear in mind, immigration officers have children and the usage of such hate-speech against their parents can be directed by others against those children.

@ 10 Phil

“As far as I’m concerned charity begins at home. Help the poor pensioners.”

Yep, I agree …. I’m alluding to Glasgow and Scotland here but the same deprivation applies throughout the UK ….

“NHS deem drug to prolong life of men with prostate cancer as ‘too expensive’ A DRUG which could extend the lives of men suffering from prostate cancer has been deemed too expensive for use on the NHS in Scotland.”

Scottish pensioners, and others, are keeping their own heat down or off whilst paying to heat the homes of asylum seekers – asylum seekers do not pay to heat and light their council tax free and rent free furnished accommodation – the British taxpayer pays their utility bills.

Our care homes and our NHS are deteriorating, more of our own people are becoming homeless.

More money is required, we have that money, but it is not being used to eradicate poverty within our own people. Obvious answer, stop funding refugees and asylum seekers. And stop squandering our money on their asylum and immigration support ‘‘charities’’.

I’d like to see everyone that wasn’t born in this country shipped back to their original country. Its about time this government started to look after its own. All these foreigners that sponge of this country should be forcibly removed if they don’t go voluntary.

Chaise Guevara
Using foul language just about sums up your ignorance.

22. Chaise Guevara

@ 19 Phil

“Using foul language just about sums up your ignorance.”

The fact that you think the use of “foul” language proves how much someone knows about a topic reflects your own ignorance.

Anyway, you asked a question and got an answer. If you want a more comprehensive answer, without any naughty words to offend your delicate sensibilities, try this: we help people who haven’t done anything for us because in doing so we can improve their quality of life.

Our immigration officers have a responsibility to carry out and they must be allowed to carry out their jobs without harassment or provocation.

Why? As with any other job that involves inflicting horrible injustice, if the people who did it were to stop doing it, then it wouldn’t happen.

I’m not talking about the chaps who do the bit at LHR where we stop terrible people being let in – I’m talking, as we were before you shifted it, at the chaps who knock on families’ doors at 4AM to bundle them in vans and have them removed from the country.

I know perfectly well, as you do, that those are different jobs. There is nobody currently planning to knock down a family’s door and bundle them all into a van tomorrow morning, who didn’t sign up willingly for that job. The ladies and gentlemen who inspect our passports at LHR did not sign up for that job, they don’t do that job, and it’d be a complete breach of work conditions if they were asked to.

Even if you think it’s a legitimate job, it’s still much closer to a slaughterhouse operative, a death-penalty-administering doctor, or a provider of judicially mandated whipping than it is to the kind of legit regular civil servant job. At best, it’s a Jack Bauer horrible-but-necessary-according-to-my-horrible-ideology-and-this-evil-world kind of gig. Which means it’s disgusting.

The fact you’re trying to class it as “normal admin that’d be fine if only these troublesome bastards didn’t get in our way”, rather than “admittedly horrible but we need to do it because otherwise the world would be ruined” speaks volumes. Even Jack Bauer would struggle to pull the latter excuse against a new mum and her three-month-old.

24. Robin Levett

@Phil #19:

I’d like to see everyone that wasn’t born in this country shipped back to their original country.

There goes half the Premier League…and any chance of external investment in our economy.

Its about time this government started to look after its own.

When did it stop?

@Railbert

Withdraw all support for asylum seekers in the UK? Well first you’d better erase half of British history – if you consider people seeking sanctuary in the UK a problem, then it’s pretty clear that we created a substantial proportion of that mess.

And equally, if you have such a problem with ‘hate-speech’ and harassment from asylum support organisations, it might be worth looking at the kind of complaints drawn against Reliance (private company contracted for deportation ‘services’) who in their own internal memo made the following statement: “Is there actually a problem with our business? The consensus was: yes. Is this a company where women, ethnic minorities and those of diverse religions feel comfortable? Evidence would suggest: no.” If UKBA officers deserve respect, surely that applies to asylum seekers too? Or is it only harassment and ‘hate-speak’ when it is directed against those in charge?

Finally, the changes being wrought on our welfare state are overwhelmingly ideological. ‘Cuts’ have become a easy excuse for propagating the traditional Tory small state, big business mantra. The idea that any money saved by (ridiculously) cancelling all state support for asylum seekers in the UK would be used to reduce cut-backs to the welfare state is pretty ridiculous.

18

As nearly 60% of doctors and consultants are from abroad and trained abroad (thus saving taxpayer’s money), the cost of drugs to treat prostrate cancer would be the least of Scotland’s problems if we deported them all back to their original country.

@21 john b

I wasn’t talking “about the chaps who do the bit at LHR where we stop terrible people being let in” either – try and pay attention. My comments were in reference to immigration officers who have to call at asylum seekers’ accommodation to collect said asylum seekers whom have failed to prepare themselves for legal deportation. If the failed asylum seekers who did it were to stop doing it, then there wouldn’t be a need for our immigration officers to call and collect them.

“Chaps” (immigration officers) do not knock on failed families’ doors at 4am nor do “chaps” bundle them in vans. Correct, the purpose is to have them removed from the country – they are failed asylum seekers who have no legal right to stay in the UK.

“slaughterhouse operative”? – you really think so? – view this video, but be aware the video is graphic. http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/

“a death-penalty-administering doctor”? – you really think so? A Harold Shipman? A Josef Mengele?

Aaaah, the absurdity of the asylum supporter trying to keep the failed asylum seeker in the UK.

@23 Lorna

Same old, same old – Britain’s colonial past is responsible for a “substantial proportion” of the world’s “mess”. The usual garbage put about in an attempt to justify the arrival of any assorted migrant’s “right” to come to Britain. Any creating by Britain was carried out by the ruling classes. Any gains made by the ruling classes were distributed within their own class. Britain’s working-class people never benefited one iota from foreign gains – workhouses, disease, living in hovels, children working in factories et al was the lot of the lower class. Eight and a half billion £££’s in foreign aid annually given out to those poor, underdeveloped 3rd world dumps by the upper classes redirected from Britain’s working-class poor. And the £££billions thrown at the asylum industry – more cash siphoned from Britain’s poor. Do not ask me to consider Iraq or Afghanistan upper class invasions.

UKBA officers deserve respect, they do not deserve to be vilified by a foul-mouthed director (want more proof?) of an asylum support “charity” which is funded by the very government(s) who provide her salary, pension and perks. Nor should our officers be branded as being “closer to a slaughterhouse operative, a death-penalty-administering doctor, or a provider of judicially mandated whipping” / “scumbags” as witnessed by the hysterical, abusive, emotive ramblings published on this forum in an attempt to justify illegal asylum seekers sticking two fingers up at our legal decisions.

@24 steveb

“As nearly 60% of doctors and consultants are from abroad and trained abroad”

Would you care to back up your claim from credible sources?

Asylum activists spin more than the government I have found.
The asylum system was brought to it’s knees by false claims …. which people who had to make to be able to stay in the UK. But I won’t believe all the stories of brutality and racism by the likes of detention centre staff or G4S or whoever, because these claims have been used as part of the strategy of frustrating the implementation of the deportation policy.

27

‘Foreign Doctors prop up NHS’, The Guardian, Friday, 3rd September, 2005.

That comment should have been directed to @29

@31 steveb

I was unable to trace your circa 7 year-old reference.

Break your percentage into numbers, ie., numbers of foreign doctors, numbers of foreign consultants.

33

Google ‘foreign doctors prop up NHS, The Guardian’

There’s also a similar article in The Mail

@34 steveb

I require a break up of your percentage into numbers – “nearly 60%” is not enough information – actual numbers are required in relation to all doctors and consultants working in the UK.

36. Chaise Guevara

@ 35 Railbert

This might be the source: http://www.bmj.com/content/329/7466/597.full#ref-7

If so, it refers to doctors specifically and uses 2002 data (search for “58%” on that page). However, the source within the source is not hyperlinked and possibly refers to a hard-copy document, so further breakdown might not be easily attainable.

On the one hand, these sorts of threads are instructive. On other, they’re quite maddening.

I occasionally wonder if it might be best if liberal activists air these sorts of views in the most public fora available. That way, everyone would get to see exactly what’s in the sandwich that is being thrust into their faces.

It’s quite crazy, in my view, to hold the position that failed asylum seekers shouldn’t be removed from the country. The true purpose of such a principle is to break the asylum system full stop, with the ultimate goal of having no borders whatsoever. “No person is illegal”.

It’s also quite crazy to think that by giving away something which you do not own (Britain), you can atone for the real or imagined crimes of your ancestors (or indeed, someone else’s ancestors). Where else do we find this principle applied? Could we perhaps account for everyone’s (inherited) crimes and allocate current global resources accordingly?

Of course, neither argument is made in public, because they both logically imply the dissolution of Britain, and most people, unenlightened reactionaries that they are, don’t find the idea particularly appealing.

BTW, the idea that, just because some proportion of our doctors are foreign born or trained abroad, we can’t restrict immigration, is a straightforward application of the lump of labour fallacy by people who never learnt basic economics.

39. Chaise Guevara

@ 37 vimothy

“Of course, neither argument is made in public, because they both logically imply the dissolution of Britain”

Let’s see that logic. What, does Britain sink when population figures reach 80 million or something?

40. Chaise Guevara

@ 38 vimothy

“BTW, the idea that, just because some proportion of our doctors are foreign born or trained abroad, we can’t restrict immigration, is a straightforward application of the lump of labour fallacy by people who never learnt basic economics.”

True, but did anyone actually say that? The only references to foreign-born doctors I’ve seen on this thread were a reaction to someone saying we should deport EVERYONE who wasn’t born here. Which would put a pretty major crimp in NHS services.

Obviously, in a discussion about unpleasant work that’s carried out under the auspices of the law by someone who believes it will make the world a better place, “a death-penalty administering doctor” refers to physicians who participate in legal judicial executions, not to serial killers or genocidaires.

Britain’s working-class people never benefited one iota from foreign gains

Utter bullshit. The Empire was a huge factor in allowing and driving the industrialisation and economic growth that had made the British working class extremely wealthy by global standards by the start of WWII.

UKBA officers deserve respect

Respect has to be earned, not just demanded.

The true purpose of such a principle is to break the asylum system full stop, with the ultimate goal of having no borders whatsoever. “No person is illegal”.

I’m 100% in favour of that ultimate goal and 100% agree with that quote. In the meantime, I’ll support anything which brings the world closer to it and oppose anything which takes the world further away from it.

Chaise,

The logic of “open borders” is the logic of the dissolution of particular nation states, since the border distinguishes the state from what it is not. If this border has no practical meaning, then the distinction between any particular state and what it is not has no practical meaning, and likewise for the citizens and non-citizens of that state. Indeed, this is the whole point of open borders / no person is illegal.

43. Chaise Guevara

@ 42 vimothy

“The logic of “open borders” is the logic of the dissolution of particular nation states, since the border distinguishes the state from what it is not.”

It’s a step in that direction. But you’re conflating “open immigration borders” with “no borders whatsoever”. Borders would still count in other ways: law would be different on either side of them, voting rights would still depend on citizenship, and so on.

If we declared tomorrow that anyone could walk into the UK and gain citizenship upon application, Britain would not cease to exist. We have pretty open borders with the rest of the EU and, melodrama aside, we are still the UK, not a state of a sovereign Europe.

There’s also a vast difference between legal right to remain and citizenship, which the likes of Vimothy entirely elide.

I’m strongly in favour of extending the former to everyone; I think the latter should be earned by demonstrable ties and cultural integration.

(if I were The Management, I’d remove the right of Commonwealth citizens who are not UK citizens to vote in UK elections, since that blurs the distinction in an unhelpful fashion)

36

Thanks for the link.

35
Of course, it isn’t just foreign doctors who prop up the NHS, also other healthcare professionals such as dentists and nurses, indeed the NHS would not have been viable without the input of foreign professionals.

31 steveb

“Foreign Doctors prop up NHS’, The Guardian, Friday, 3rd September, 2005.” – Maybe the lead should have read Foreign Doctors prop up NHS’, The Guardian, Friday, 3rd September, 2004. – figures not your forte?

What is it you’re attempting to prove – without foreign medical workers the NHS would collapse? So what happened prior to the non-white sign up? Why didn’t it collapse then?

The NHS is experiencing a serious decline in standards. The working-class public are fearful of having to use the NHS. Outbreaks of disease are occurring in hospital wards – diseases can be contracted by patients whilst in hospital. Foreign doctors, foreign consultants, foreign et al must accept their percentage for that decline.

Governments should have paid our own medical workers a decent salary to retain their services in our NHS instead of allowing Canada, Australia et al to grab them.

@41 john b

In any discussion, associating any group of workers with “slaughterhouse operative, a death-penalty-administering doctor” / “scumbags” is unacceptable.

The British working-class were never wealthy. The Industrial Revolution made the bosses wealthy – working-class were living in sub-standard, crowded homes – some specially built to house the workers.

“Respect has to be earned, not just demanded.”

You certainly will not earn respect, nor do you deserve any – “scumbags” “slaughterhouse operative, a death-penalty-administering doctor” “Utter bullshit” “provider of judicially mandated whipping” “troublesome bastards” – all from your comments on this forum.

Good article Lorna.

As to whether this eviction was carried out under the new COMPASS or the old TARGET contract: G4S’s response when we asked was that they were “mobilising the COMPASS contract” whatever that means. Our enquiries continue…but I think I hear the sounds of dirty hands being quickly washed. Let’s not forget that G4S have claimed that “G4S Care and Justice” (responsible for privatising asylum housing) is “an entirely separate company” from G4S Security (investigated for the manslaughter of Jimmy Mubenga).

One small correction Lorna: it was an asylum seeker from Zimbabwe (not Nigeria) who told us “I don’t want a prison guard as my landlord”. He also told us about how G4S are received in townships of South Africa while they are doing their “security” work there. Apparently, it’s too dangerous for them to drive about in marked/logo-ed vans. When I asked him how he knew they were G4S vans he told me: “because of all the bullet holes”. They don’t have a great reputation there, particularly amongst black South Africans.

46

You obviously do not know the history of the NHS, or noted my comments @45, the NHS Act was introduced in 1948 and could never have been viable without the input of a large number of health professionals from abroad. It never collapsed because there has always been a large input from foreign doctors, dentists and nurses, all trained by other countries who could ill afford losing those staff, however, it saved the taxpayer a considerable amount of money. Best estimates for training a doctor in the UK is currently £500k

The NHS is not suffering a serious decline in standards, not least because there is a constant flow of new treatments and interventions that have no past precedent in order for us to make a comparison.

Perhaps you can provide a reference which shows that we are losing doctors, in any significant number, who have trained in the UK.

@49 steveb

Yeah, yeah, yawn, yawn, I know all about the Bevan’s ’48 NHS. What are you trying to claim now, that the NHS would never have gotten off the ground without foreign doctors? At foundation, nearly all of the present medical profession became a part of the NHS. The NHS would never have dipped if successive governments had trained and kept our (yours?) own people. The continuing enrollment of foreigners whose qualifications (and their English) required being brought up to NHS standards has brought the NHS into freefall – disaster looms.

Hospital wards in the NHS are being closed down to be cleansed of infections. Patients are contracting diseases whilst in hospitals – do a bit of googling on hospital superbugs – care homes are operating well below required standards whilst asylum support groups shout and scream because a foreign mother and baby don’t have a free cooker and not enough free chairs to sit on in a rent free, council tax, repair free flat! And if the mother was facing an uncertain future, why did she get herself pregnant – why bring a baby into an uncertain future. At the time of accommodating asylum seekers in Glasgow there were reports of “seven thousand Glasgow pre-war homes, inhabited by Glaswegians which are unsanitary and riddled with damp and rot.” There were also reports of thousands of homeless people in Glasgow. Nobody complained about their dignity, rights and safety”.

Too many patients and potential patients in our NHS – part remedy, round up the estimated circa one million illegals, which includes circa 400,000 absconded asylum seekers – and deport them. G4S, UPM, UKBA should relocate the ungrateful foreign tenants back to their own countries and forget about relocating them elsewhere in the UK.

Cheerio, aff tae watch the fitba’.

50

I doubt if you knew about the NHS until you looked it up on wiki or some other site.

The problem with cleanliness and hygiene in hospitals is absolutely nothing to do with the employment of foreign professionals, it’s about the contracting-out of cleaning services to private companies (a throw back from the Thatcher/Major years) Superbugs are the result of the use/overuse of antibiotics and, to some degree, inappropriate cleaning processes.

Now where is the reference I asked for @49 or is your last post, making more unfounded claims, a substitute for the lack of a reasoned debate?

@51 steveb

You can doubt as you wish, that’s your choice – even a child at primary school knows of the NHS. If you are of the opinion you hold some higher intelligence in knowing of the NHS then obviously you are incapable of a “reasoned debate”.

Cleanliness and hygiene nothing to do with foreigners? – don’t be daft – cleaning services use foreign (cheap) labour, y’know, the jobs our (yours?) people don’t want to do.

Superbugs are germs which have built up a resistance to certain antibiotics – they are not created by antibiotics – poor hygiene within hospitals and care homes assists the germs to multiply.

Now where are the figures I asked for @33, @35?

Here’s a thought for you steveb,
When cancer invades a body, it lives off the body’s resources. The host body cannot sustain itself and when the host body dries up and dies, the cancer dies. The cancer has committed suicide. Do you understand? – probably not.

G’nite.

In any discussion, associating any group of workers with “slaughterhouse operative, a death-penalty-administering doctor” / “scumbags” is unacceptable.

In any discussion, people who use the word “unacceptable” have lost the argument and resorted to whining. When a group of workers are *in the same moral position* as slaughterhouse operatives and death-penalty administering doctors, it’s completely legitimate to compare the groups.

@53 john b

It’s completely legitimate to compare your usage of unacceptable language on this forum with the unacceptable intoxicated drunk who, in any discussion, resorts to argument in place of debate and wins neither.

This is my last post on this thread, my apologies to the moderators et al, it was never my intention to invite insulting replies – all of course carried out under the anonymity of the internet.

I leave the last foul-mouthed? word to john b – thankfully I will not be reading it.

Cheers, deadlines to meet.

Anonymity? Fuck’s sake, man, the reason my name is in red is because it links to my personal blog, which is under my real name, from which my oh-so-anonymous pseudonym is derived.

56. Chaise Guevara

@ 50 Railbert

“And if the mother was facing an uncertain future, why did she get herself pregnant – why bring a baby into an uncertain future.”

The future is always uncertain. So that’s no new babies ever, right? I don’t know the particulars, but this woman could have had her contraception fail, or should could have decided to have a baby then shortly after lost her job, or broken up with the man who was helping to raise it. It’s very easy to look back with 20:20 hindsight and say “oh, that was obviously going to happen”.

At the time of accommodating asylum seekers in Glasgow there were reports of “seven thousand Glasgow pre-war homes, inhabited by Glaswegians which are unsanitary and riddled with damp and rot.” There were also reports of thousands of homeless people in Glasgow. Nobody complained about their dignity, rights and safety”.

Did they not? How do you know?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/HOPmji9j

  2. Jason Brickley

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/mx11soca

  3. Press Gang Leeds

    #G4S asylum housing – a multi-million pound privatisation nightmare @libcon http://t.co/rOb4eh2i

  4. Press Gang Leeds

    @James_Legge – another bit of coverage for the #notog4s campaign – http://t.co/rOb4eh2i

  5. Press Gang Leeds

    @SYMAAG …. and i forgot the link! http://t.co/rOb4eh2i

  6. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/b7o9WFLh

  7. Press Gang Leeds

    @SYMAAG another bit of #notog4s coverage – http://t.co/rOb4eh2i

  8. Press Gang Leeds

    @James_Legge … after a bit of downtime… here it is again – http://t.co/rOb4eh2i

  9. Press Gang Leeds

    @JantelaPartners more on the #notog4s campaign! http://t.co/rOb4eh2i

  10. David Gillon

    If #G4S behave as slum landlords to vulnerable asylum seekers, how bad will they be with #disabled #PIP applicants? http://t.co/mnFX1rKE

  11. sunny hundal

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  12. Lukey Stanger

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  13. Ferret Dave

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  14. Art Minx

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  15. Paul Southworth

    Private system w/ no concern for welfare of people it's serving. Sound familiar? Housing for asylum seekers nightmare http://t.co/0aWWvDLQ

  16. Jane Basham

    Where is the social conscience please? Housing for asylum seekers Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/NdAUqiYG via @libcon

  17. NCADC

    RT @libcon: Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/JDMn37pz #refugees

  18. Justice1st

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/1npzILDL via @libcon

  19. Francis N

    RT @libcon: Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/JDMn37pz #refugees

  20. Wendy Hibbs

    NB last para Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/KOEkmTNG via @libcon

  21. Louise Zanredasilva

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Q6tVybz1 via @libcon

  22. Duncan Stott

    The appalling housing situation asylum seekers face http://t.co/tvE2ofeB

  23. Press Gang Leeds

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  24. Louise Crouch

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  25. I.R.A.N.

    G4S disaster: RT @ncadc: RT @libcon: Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million £ privatised nightmare http://t.co/gKzKtmOC #refugees

  26. B'ham Law Centre

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  27. John Catley

    RT @libcon: Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/QQje8onj

  28. Nearly Legal

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  29. Nearly Legal

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  30. Zena Soormally

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  31. Michael Marziano

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  32. Arthur Schopenhauer

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  33. End Child Detention

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/8WDbYuE6

  34. Jonathan Calder

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/8WDbYuE6

  35. Press Gang Leeds

    One of the reasons #G4S had 70 angry protesters outside their AGM this morning – http://t.co/2zhTIuxx

  36. Ray Corrigan

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/8WDbYuE6

  37. RefugeeTalkCTBI

    Via @stop_child_det: 'The asylum housing market' run by G4S- A multi-million £-privatised nightmare:http://t.co/rmFMuNT2"

  38. David Davies

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare ~ http://t.co/a5vaws5J

  39. Ben Gidley

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/ZdKEp1Rv

  40. Jason Bergen

    “@sunny_hundal: Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare http://t.co/JWoAb80J”national protest glasgow Jun 16

  41. Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised ...

    […] this article: Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised … This entry was posted in Blog and tagged british, business, charity, countries, history, […]

  42. Jantela Partnership

    @JantelaPartners more on the #notog4s campaign! http://t.co/rOb4eh2i

  43. rob is

    Housing for asylum seekers – a multi-million pound privatised nightmare | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/bM73sPSX via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.