In the UK, on average, 50 people a day are forcibly removed from their homes and deported. In Cardiff, snatch squads leave from the UK Border Agency on 31-33 Newport Road in order to smash in peoples’ doors and drag them out of bed.
On Monday morning, UK Border Agency ‘Officers’ were at work early, busy at an address on Newport Road. The UKBA used dark blue anonymous unmarked vans, with blacked out windows. They kept a careful watch of passers by, as they bundled a family’s possessions into the vans and drove away.
With the vehicles were parked aggressively across the pavements they were, however, hard to miss. The UK Border Agency do this at dawn to ensure children are still sleeping so the whole family can be taken. Refugees seeking asylum are treated like this all over Cardiff, and it’s clearly happening on our streets.
Once families are grabbed, they are transported to a local police station, before being dumped in squalid detention centres. Children are taken away from their friends and schools. Worse still, the family’s links with their community, their support and their solicitors are broken, making it impossible for them to resist the actions of the UKBA.
The recent report by Childrens’ Commisioner for England after a visit to Yarl’s Wood detention centre describes how “dawn raids” involve up to 20 officers arriving in the early hours of the morning to seize families. In the report children describe how doors are broken down, how they are shouted at to get out of bed and are searched by Border Agency officials. An 11 year-old is quoted in the report as saying:
“They pushed me on the floor and got my hands behind me (demonstrated how he was on floor) then they took me to the van. I was on my own in the van. I didn’t know what was happening to my family.”
In 2006 the High Court awarded a family £150,000 compensation after they had been left traumatised by a dawn raid where immigration officials raided their home and took the couple and their one and eight year old daughters to Yarl’s Wood detention centre for 57 days.










3 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 13, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Maurice Frank
I was at No Borders’s do in Edinburgh.
This helps asylum seekers resist bent final decisisons. it invalidates those decisions, it proves there are no final decisions. This “court change” could have prevented all the deaths caused by deportations, all through the 0′s. But no big organisation involved in immigration or asylum has been willing to acknowledge it or use it. That is betrayal of their own people and guilt for their blood.
You need to pass on and use this “court change”. Chances of invaldiating and stopping these fascist-type horrors before the deportation has happened, depend on grabbing all breakthroughs and making use of them. Not on being hesitant about it and withholding any information at all from the oppressed and their supporters.
COURT CHANGE IN 159 COUNTRIES: decisions are not final.
Its shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures that it has been under a media silence. Nevertheless, it’s on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. “Open to open-ended fault finding by any party”.
This follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries’ laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.
Hence, the European Convention’s section on requiring a court to exist requires its member countries to create an ECHR that removes the original’s illegality, by its decisions not being final. It follows, this requires courts within the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries’ courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in the 47 Council of Europe countries.
The concept of “leave to appeal” is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.
World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system.
So the court change is of far-reaching international interest. Anyone can add to the list of court change countries outside the Council of Europe, showing autocracies, pending their freer futures, as well as democracies.
United States, Canada, Australia can be included through my ethical dispute about brain research with Arizona university in the late 90s, that was obstructed by a government office then. Obviously there will be many cases making these 3 countries court change, so I am not asking for the ego fantasy of personal credit for it , but slipping my case in just on grounds of it already existing when the court change began.
Israel and Lebanon through the case in Belgium on the Sabra-Chatila massacres.
Kosovo through war crimes cases overlapping Yugoslavia.
North Cyprus through Turkey’s UN legal challenge against South Cyprus joining the EU.
Belarus through its election dispute with OSCE election monitoring.
Vatican City through Sinead O’Connor’s ordination as a Catholic priest.
Cuba through Elian Gonzalez.
Haiti through objecting to receiving petty crime deportations from America.
Antigua through its constitutional crisis on capital punishment.
Trinidad through its Privy Council case on capital punishment.
Jamaica through claims on both sides of American linked arms trade background to its violence.
Mexico through the Benjamin Felix drug mafia extradition to America.
Belize through Michael Ashcroft.
Guatemala through the child stealing and adoption scandal overlapping America.
El Salvador through the trade union related factory closure there by Nestle that made Transfair, the Fair Trade organisation in Italy, reject the Fair Trade mark for Nestle coffee.
Honduras through the sex slave trafficking cases from Nicaragua.
Colombia through America’s supposed human rights policy intervention in training Colombian police and military.
Venezuela through Luis Posada Carriles.
Guyana through the £12m debt claim dropped by Iceland (the shop).
Brazil through EU immigration unfairnesses to its football players, necessitating a mafia trade in false passports.
Argentina through its ECHR case on the General Belgrano.
Chile through General Pinochet.
Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay through Judge Garzon’s citation of Henry Kissinger for the South American military conspiracy Operation Condor.
Chad and Senegal through a French action in Senegal obtaining Chad’s former dictator Habre for trial under Pinochet’s precedent.
Algeria through the Harkis’ case from the Algerian war.
Tunisia through the Lord Shaftesbury murder trial.
Liberia, Sierra Leone, Mali, Morocco through the Insight News case.
Ivory Coast through the chocolate slavery scandal.
Ghana through the World Bank’s Dora slave scandal.
Togo through the Lome peace accords for Sierra Leone, and their breaking as an issue in factional arms supply to there.
Burkina Faso through an arms trade case of smuggling through it from Ukraine to civil war factions in Sierra Leone and Angola.
Niger and Rwanda through Oxfam’s case of buying an arms trade “end user certificate” for Rwanda in Niger.
Burundi through the war crimes trial of Rwanda’s 1994 head of state.
Tanzania and Japan through the 2000 G8 summit, because Tanzania Social and Economic Trust broadcast a contradiction in implementing both its wishes for economic advance and its debt relief terms.
Mozambique through its cashew nuts dispute with the World Bank.
South Africa and Lesotho through a WHO case against American pharmaceutical ethics there.
Nigeria through reported Nigerian drug mafia crime in South Africa.
Dahomey and Gabon through their slave trafficking scandals overlapping Nigeria and Togo.
Zimbabwe through its land finances dispute with Britain in 2000.
Equatorial Guinea through the charges in Zimbabwe of a coup conspiracy.
Malawi through its arrests of Zimbabwean refugees callously deported from Britain.
Zambia through Cafod’s collection of objections to food supply and health violations in its IMF structural adjustment program.
Namibia through the Herero genocide case against Germany.
Angola, Congo Kinshasa, Ecuador through arms trade smuggling to them from Bulgaria and Slovakia.
Congo Brazzaville through the Jean-Francois Ndenge case in France.
Sudan through Al Shafi pharmaceutical factory suing America for bombing it.
Madagascar, Mauretania, Nicaragua through the complaint by Jubilee USA and Africa Action that the IMF is breaking the agreed debt relief terms for them.
Ethiopia through the same, as well as earlier aid sector comment on its conditional debt relief.
Eritrea through its border dispute with Ethiopia.
Somaliland through its problem with Russian and South Korean coastal fishing.
Kenya through the Archer’s Post munitions explosion case overlapping Britain.
Somalia through the UNHCR coordinator in Kenya protesting and exposing refugee deportations back to Somalia during the 2006-7 crisis there.
Uganda through the Acholiland child slave crisis and Sudan’s agreement to return children.
Mauritius through the Ilois rights judgment on the Chagos clearances.
Yemen through its problem with Spain over the missile shipment.
United Arab Emirates through Mohammed Lodi.
Saudi Arabia through the lawsuit by families of 911 victims.
Qatar through its SS Dignity aid boat turned away from Gaza by Israeli authorities for having peace activists aboard.
Bahrain through the call for American witnesses in Richard Meakin’s case.
Kuwait through the terrorism arrests in Saudi Arabia.
Iraq through the weapons inspection dispute before the invasion. NB this does not mean the dispute or invasion were right!
Jordan through its threat of “unspecified measures” in its relations with Israel.
Egypt through its disputes with Tanzania and Kenya over use of Nile water.
Libya, Syria, Iran through the Lockerbie bomb trial. that is on grounds of case content overlapping into then, no implications of guilt whatever, Iran also through the Bob Levinson disappearance, so mroe tactful to cite that case now than the Lockerbie case.
Turkmenistan through Ukraine’s gas pipeline dispute with Russia.
Kazakhstan through the American court action on oil contract corruption at government level there.
Uzbekistan through the ambassadorial exposee on evidence obtained by torture there and used in Western courts.
Kyrgyzia through its anti-terrorist border operations with Uzbekistan.
Afghanistan through the pursuit of Bin Laden after 911.
Pakistan through a dispute between supporters of enslaved women and the British embassy for not helping them escape.
India, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia through the World Wildlife Fund’s campaign for tiger conservation, conflicting western romanticism with local populations affected by the homicidal absurdity of conserving a human predator.
Nepal through the Gurkhas’ lawsuit for equal pay and pensions.
Vietnam through a church publicised refugee dispute overlapping China.
Cambodia through its enactment for a trial of the Khmer Rouge Holocaust.
Laos through Peter Tatchell’s application to arrest Henry Kissinger.
Thailand through Sandra Gregory.
Burma through the Los Angeles judgment on the Unocal oil pipeline.
Sri Lanka through its call for the Tamil Tigers’ banning in Britain.
East Timor through public reaction to the judgment against trying Suharto.
Papua New Guinea through WWF’s Kikori mangrove logging affair.
New Zealand through its ban on British blood donations.
Vanuatu through the Raymond Coia investment scam case.
Nauru through the Australian civil liberty challenge on the Tampa refugees.
Fiji through its land crisis’s nonracial solubility by a Commonwealth constitutional question on rent and mortgages.
Tuvalu through environmentalist challenges to America’s rejection of international agreements on global warming and sea level.
Marshall Islands through the Nuclear Claims Tribunal cases.
Philippines and Malaysia through the international police investigation in the Jaybe Ofrasio trial in Northern Ireland.
South Korea through its jurisdiction dispute with the American army.
North Korea through its apology to Japan for abductions.
October 22, 2009 at 9:32 am
…and the other is the leader of the British National Party - Chicken Yoghurt
[...] has his thugs break down foreigners’ doors at dawn, and the other is the leader of the British National [...]
October 28, 2009 at 3:51 pm
What’s the difference between Nick Griffin and Gordon Brown? « Neocontrarian
[...] towards immigration, and the other is the leader of the British National Party. One has his thugs break down foreigners’ doors at dawn, and the other is the leader of the British National Party. One has his thugs intern foreigners and [...]