Asylum seekers in north-east claim they are identifiable by red doors

[T_i_B]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/20/asylum-seekers-north-east-claim-identifiable-red-doors-houses?CMP=share_btn_fb

The Home Office has launched an investigation into the housing of asylum seekers in the north-east of England after claims that they are identifiable by their red doors.

James Brokenshire, the immigration minister, ordered an inquiry after the Times found asylum seekers in Middlesbrough claiming their distinctive accommodation was making them targets for abuse. Brokenshire said: “I am deeply concerned by this issue and I have commissioned Home Office officials to conduct an urgent audit of asylum seeker housing in the north-east. I expect the highest standards from our contractors. If we find any evidence of discrimination against asylum seekers it will be dealt with immediately as any such behaviour will not be tolerated.”

The properties investigated by the newspaper are owned by Stuart Monk, whose company Jomast, a subcontractor for G4S, holds the asylum contract for the north-east. Jomast and G4S, which have a contractual duty to “recognise that the safety and security of (asylum seekers) must not be jeopardised”, have denied that asylum seekers are singled out by a “red doors policy”.

John Whitwam, a G4S director, said last week there was “absolutely no such policy” and that fewer than 20% of Jomast’s properties were used to house asylum seekers. The Home Office began an audit after the report found asylum seekers claimed they had been targeted with dog excrement, eggs, stones and a National Front symbol on their doors.

[TexasProgresive]

1. "I see a red door and I want to paint it black"

If this is true it is reprehensible.

[Denzil_DC]

2. Weird.

Applying my first port of call in these situations, cock-up theory rather than conspiracy theory, I must admit my first thought was similar to the local Tory MP's: "Suspect they got a job lot of doors or paint and just didn’t think about it."

Which doesn't help those singled out for abuse, of course (we're talking about asylum seekers from longstanding programmes rather than the recent relatively small influx of Syrian refugees, in case any of our American chums get confused about that). The rest of the article picks out some of the joys of dealing with these issues via private contractors:

{Council leader} Forbes said the council had received numerous complaints about Jomast since it received the Home Office contract to house asylum seekers while their claims are being processed.

He said: “One of the problems we’ve had is the entirely haphazard way in which Jomast pepperpots asylum seekers without any consideration for their welfare or the effect on the local community.

“Jomast has a track record of buying up the very cheapest housing, which tends to be in the areas of social deprivation. Over the years there has been tension as a direct result. In my ward, in west Newcastle, people complain it’s poor being dumped on the poor.”

I'm not in the habit of relying on testimony from random names on comments sections, but the Guardian Pick comment obviously jumped out:

ID6166102 PheasantEater

I live in stockton on Tees and work in the local community. I was party to a report comissioned in the area that examined the needs of asylum seekers in the tees valley. In addition to painting asylum seekers doors red, until just over a year ago door jams of asylum seekers had coloured stripes painted on them which corresponded to the area of the world the came from.

Green for Africa, yellow for middle east etc. It was so that jomast employees could drive around an area and single out all of the asylum seekers from one particular region to inspect without having to go to the trouble of generating tenant lists.

Concerns over the red painted doors have been known for years. Jomast have repeatedly refused to change the colour, even when new doors have been fitted.

Not content with this, jomast regularly separate families, housing the men in Middlesbrough and their wives and children in stockton, usually 14 miles apart. They are meant to provide support and direction to local services, including the charity sector, but in the past 4 years our services have had two referrals from jomast. When approached to be party to services which would be fully free for them, they have refused.

I honestly wish I could say that this was rumour or rabble rousing. But I've experienced first hand the casual indifference and offhand dismissal asylum seekers in Middlesbrough and stockton are treated with by jomast.

And despite that, jomast are considered one of the better housing providers for asylum seekers. What a sorry state.

[Bad Dog]

3. I heard it on the radio this morning.

And I think you're right about it being a case of not thinking through the consequences than deliberately trying to identify refugees.

The end result's the same, these people have been egged, let's just hope it doesn't get any worse.

[Denzil_DC]

4. Funnily enough,

just after I'd hit "Post", it was covered on Radio 4!

If that commenter above's right, it sounds like there might be a little more to it than that, but who knows at this stage?

The treatment of asylum seekers is another general humanitarian aspect of the problems that have, erm, occupied a number of DUers in the string of posts about refugees/immigrants on General Discussion lately.

We obviously can't let all and sundry claim aid and succor willy-nilly without checking them and their circumstances out thoroughly, but the UK - and even Scotland, which is a little more relaxed about the whole thing for a variety of reasons - has a pretty bad record.

In Scotland, many asylum seekers are confined in Gartnavel Detention Centre, a secure unit that used to be a lunatic asylum, awaiting decision, and their treatment at times borders on or surpasses the brutal. Dawn raids by private contractors to literally drag unsuccessful asylum seekers out of private accommodation and straight onto planes have often met with protests. Some of these people have genuinely appalling stories, but don't fall within legal strictures that would grant them the right to remain.

I'm married to an American - still a US citizen rather than a UK one after 30 years because she's needed to be sure she can get home and stay long enough to care for ageing close family if the need arises - and we recall our experience of gaining her right of residency when we first got married. We witnessed the attitudes toward people of colour while we waited to be seen at the immigration desk (my wife's caucasian, of exiled Irish stock), and we had a relatively easy ride in comparison. She was almost refused entry at Birmingham by an ultra-officious hungover jobsworth a few years ago because some official had neglected to stamp her passport on re-entry from France on one occasion. She technically wasn't allowed to work during the six weeks it took to get an appointment at Glasgow airport to sort it out. The staff there despaired at what had happened and it was a rubber-stamp process in the end, but it was educational to sit in the stark interview room with chairs and table bolted to the floor so they couldn't be flung around while we awaited the decision.

We've watched as regulations have tightened over the years. As things stand nowadays, I seriously doubt she'd be allowed to remain if we were in the same situation. She had to renew her passport recently, and will have to go for an interview and be fingerprinted at the local police station before she gets the residency permission required. "Permanent" on the original letter we were issued is evidently no longer guaranteed to mean permanent.

So all these issues strike rather close to home for me.

[Bad Dog]

5. Permanent has always been open to interpretation.

Last edited Wed Jan 20, 2016, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

My driving licence was supposed to last for 70 years, now I need to renew it with a fresh photo every ten years. I know it's not the same, just a minor inconvenience, but it does say something about the fluidity of official language.

[Denzil_DC]

6. Related.

Not worth its own post as the policy - at least by this contractor - has now been shelved after intervention by Cardiff Labour MP Jo Stevens:

Asylum seekers made to wear coloured wristbands in Cardiff

Asylum seekers in Cardiff are being issued with brightly coloured wristbands that they must wear at all times, in a move which echoes the “red door” controversy in Middlesbrough and has resulted in their harassment and abuse by members of the public.

...

“If we refused to wear the wristbands we were told we would be reported to the Home Office. Some staff implemented this policy in a more drastic way than others. I made a complaint about the wristbands to Clearsprings but nothing was done. We had to walk from accommodation about 10 minutes away to Lynx House to get food and sometimes when we were walking down the street with our wristbands showing.

“On the road we had to walk down there is often heavy traffic. Sometimes drivers would see our wristbands, start honking their horns and shout out of the window, ‘Go back to your country.’ Some people made terrible remarks to us.

“If you take off the wristband you can’t reseal it back onto your wrist so if you want to eat you have to wear it all the time. Labelling them on a daily basis with silver, red or blue tags only serves as a reminder that they are still wearing the garments of an outcast.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/24/asylum-seekers-made-to-wear-coloured-wristbands-cardiff?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. This sounds much more serious

It was believable that G4S didn't mean to mark out the asylum seekers with the doors. This, however, is explicitly about making them identifiable, and forcing them to wear them in public.

[LeftishBrit]

8. That is really horrible

And a symptom of what happens when such matters are contracted to private firms.