WRITTEN ON January 24th, 2006 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Foundation of Trust, What do we want?
The euphemism is “contact management”. A Manchester-based NGO called the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC) reports on routine tagging of asylum seekers.
A reversal of Home Office policy means that no one will be able to *refuse to be tagged if the Home Office requires it, a refusal is certain to result in detention.
Contact Management (CM): This is the Home Office term for controlling an asylum seeker from the moment they notify the Home Office of their arrival in the UK, till acceptance or rejection of their claim. Tagging is part & parcel of CM and the Tag will remain on the person for the duration of the claim.
All eleven reporting/enforcement centres in the UK now have a person called the ‘Electronic Monitoring Champion’ (Wonder horses) who will be responsible for overseeing ‘Tagging’. NCADC has contacted a number of centres to try and obtain written material on Electronic Monitoring; on each occasion we drew a blank. We spoke to some of the ‘wonder horses’; they were clueless as to what their job entailed. These posts seem to be a very recent creation by the Home Office and no training as yet that we know of has been given to the staff.
NCADC would like to make it clear that we are totally opposed to ‘Tagging’, this ‘*stigmata’ is an unacceptable invasion of an asylum seekers person. Further, where the monitoring device is installed in a house/flat/hostel, it turns that person’s home – a place of privacy and safety, into a detention centre.
. Fuller extract from NCADC’s newsletter below: Subject: Every UK home is now a potential detention centre!
==========
NCADC News Service
==========
Every UK home is now a potential detention centre!
NCADC has received a number of calls in the last two weeks from people who went to Lunar House in Croydon to claim asylum. They told us that they have been *’Tagged’ fitted with an electronic monitoring device around their ankle. A monitoring unit has been installed in the accommodation address where they ‘must’ reside. When they are required to be at home, the tag will send a signal to a monitoring unit and the monitoring unit sends a signal to the monitoring control centre. Those ‘tagged’ have also been required to comply with reporting restrictions, that is weekly/monthly visits to their nearest immigration reporting/enforcement centre.
We have checked around and ‘*Tagging’ Electronic Monitoring of new asylum seekers has arrived in the UK. A reversal of Home Office policy means that no one will be able to *refuse to be tagged if the Home Office requires it, a refusal is certain to result in detention.
Contact Management (CM): This is the Home Office term for controlling an asylum seeker from the moment they notify the Home Office of their arrival in the UK, till acceptance or rejection of their claim. Tagging is part & parcel of CM and the Tag will remain on the person for the duration of the claim.
All eleven reporting/enforcement centres in the UK now have a person called the ‘Electronic Monitoring Champion’ (Wonder horses) who will be responsible for overseeing ‘Tagging’. NCADC has contacted a number of centres to try and obtain written material on Electronic Monitoring; on each occasion we drew a blank. We spoke to some of the ‘wonder horses’; they were clueless as to what their job entailed. These posts seem to be a very recent creation by the Home Office and no training as yet that we know of has been given to the staff.
NCADC would like to make it clear that we are totally opposed to ‘Tagging’, this ‘*stigmata’ is an unacceptable invasion of an asylum seekers person. Further, where the monitoring device is installed in a house/flat/hostel, it turns that person’s home – a place of privacy and safety, into a detention centre.
John O for NCADC
Background: Section 36 of the Immigration and Asylum (treatment of claimants etc) Act 2004 allows for the electronic monitoring (Tagging) of those liable to be detained under the Immigration Acts. This includes asylum seekers, illegal entrants, those found working in breach of their conditions of stay, overstayers, people subject to further examination at a port of entry, and those refused leave to enter.
Consent of an individual to be tagged was not a statutory requirement of the Act but consent was introduced as a matter of policy outside the rules.
However, in November of last year Tony McNulty rescinded this concession and changed the policy to allow the Immigration Service to draw up ‘contact management’ plans without first seeking the consent of the individual. This means that an asylum seeker on applying for asylum will be told he will be tagged, if an individual refuses to be ‘Tagged’ they will be detained. The same applies to anyone else in breach of immigration rules; accept tagging or be detained.
People in detention can apply for ‘Tagging’ to their Immigration Case Officer, however there is no information packs available to detainees as to how they would apply and the conditions of the ‘Tagging’.
Fact Sheet: Electronic Monitoring – Tagging
http://www.ncadc.org.uk/resources/tagging.htm
Immigration: Electronic Monitoring
Allow the Immigration Service to draw up contact management plans without first seeking the consent of the individual – Hansard link
Contact Management (CM) is the means by which the Immigration Service (IS) maintains contact with asylum seekers & other applicants throughout the application process – link to HO contactmanagement policy
*Stigmata: a mark of disgrace associated with a particular circumstance
End of Bulletin:
Source for this Message:
—
Disclaimer:
NCADC’s email bulletins are an important part of our work in educating the public on immigration, asylum and anti-deportation issues. As part of that work our bulletins hosts news and views from different individuals, organisations and campaigns working in the same field as us.
The contents of this bulletin are the sole responsibility of the author/s and should not be taken as endorsement of any kind by NCADC.
NCADC takes no responsibility for the content of external websites linked from our bulletins and links should not be taken as endorsement of any kind.
NCADC reserves the right to omit or edit the whole or any part of material submitted for publication.
Viruses: Although NCADC take great care in scanning all emails and attachments with the latest Anti-viirus software before sending. It is no guarantee that the message is uninfected. We advise all recipients of our messages that they should have the latest Anti-virus software installed.
NCADC cannot accept liability for any damage your system sustains due to software viruses.
To remove your address from this mailing list return a blank message to:
unsubscribe@ncadc.org.uk
and in the subject line put: Remove
========================
National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC)
1 Delaunays Road
Manchester
M8 4QS
General enquiries 0121 554 6947
ncadc@ncadc.org.uk
http://www.ncadc.org.uk/
========================
6 Responses to “Every home a detention centre”
Unfortunate use of the word “stigmata.”
(As unfortunate as Bush’s use of “crusade.”)
In our Christian country “stigmata” means something very different: The authors should have used “stigma” or “stigmatize.”
1. Yes, or as someone suggested to me this am, we put ALL our biometrics in the public domain, with some charity of trust perhaps, and then they have no value because anyone can get them.
2. I quite liked stigmata and associations of victimhood leading to beatification. But isnt it the plural for stigma?
In recent years, too many once great charities have been subverted and wrecked by government contracts or by politicisation.
The word “stigmas” is an acceptable plural and much less likely to cause unnecessary offence which may damage the intended impact of the article.
The author would not have dared to misuse any word of significance to a non-Christian faith.
Well, I wouldnt shy of asking about e-gov nirvana, or a state of enlightenment, or describing logging on to the Gov Gateway as purgatory.
But underneath that, is tagging people unobtrusive and cost-effectivem, or is it an easy way to spread evil tentacles of control. Anyone know anyone who has been tagged? My mate Dave was…I’ll ask him.
Just had another run-in with the UK government and its agencies over very poorly informed and unreasonable decisions to not grant temporary visitor’s and temporary student visas; contrary to all publically declared policies.
There are many strange stories circulating: Odd granting of visas and odd refusals of visas: Widespread rumours of corruption and offers of “help” – at a price.
Overseas, Britain’s name is being badly tarnished, in our name. A proper judicial investigation into the facts and policies is long overdue.
Why not simply “tag” the whole legal population of the UK: Then anyone without an official tag would stand out and trigger alarms.
(Ordering 60 million tags would attract a good discount.)