Diplomatic leak shows 'cold' French opposition to LGBT asylum rights

Philippe Étienne

By Paul Canning

Leaked diplomatic cables obtained by the French news website Rue89.com show 'clinical' French government opposition to EU standards development for LGBT asylum seekers.

The Foreign Ministry cables classified as "RESTRICTED", are from the French representation to the European Union in Brussels, to the Quai d'Orsay, Paris Ministry offices, between June 22 and July 13, 2011. Written by various diplomats, they are all signed by Philippe Étienne, the permanent representative to the EU of France.

In April the European Parliament narrowly voted on including various LGBT asylum measures in a resolution on harmonising asylum procedures across the EU. This included expanding the definition of groups of asylum-seekers 'with special needs' to include people fleeing persecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The harmonisation proposal is now being negotiated amongst EU governments with a decision due next year.

According to a 5 July cable, "a large number of delegations" (including France) "expressed reservations" during these negotiations about LGBT being included in the 'special needs' definition.

It listed thirteen countries - France, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Austria, Portugal, Netherlands, Spain, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Sweden - as opposing inclusion in the definition. A fourteenth, Italy, criticised it while welcoming "the consideration of sexual orientation."

Gérard Sadik, coordinator of the National Commission for asylum, La Cimade, told Rue89.com that the Foreign Ministry's approach to the inter-government negotiations was "very homophobic."

Reviewing the cables, Rue89 described seeing a "clinical coldness with which French diplomats asked to remove some basic rights, or to prevent advances that seem obvious under international instruments."

Rue89 says France is not alone in its opposition to another provision, "which seems obvious, however, with regard to human rights", to not allow the detention of vulnerable people where it is established that their health and well-being will deteriorate.

The largest conservative grouping in the European Parliament, the EPP, which includes French President Nicholas Sarkozy's Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), has previously stated opposition to the harmonisation resolution. However the EPP have also said that there is agreement "amongst all groups" in the parliament on "the careful treatment of people with specific needs."

Read more »

Breakthrough: UK to record sexuality-based asylum claims

By Paul Canning

LGBT Asylum News has learned that information on sexuality-based asylum claims have been imputed into the Central Information Database of the UK Border Agency (UKBA) since 1 July.

The UK joins only five other countries which record data on the number of LGBT persons benefiting from
asylum/subsidiary protection due to persecution on the ground of sexual orientation: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Latvia and Estonia.

Correction: This information from the EU Fundamental Rights Agency is incorrect, according to research currently being conducted on LGBT asylum in Europe. Researchers say that only Belgium and Norway records sexuality-based asylum claims.

The Home Office say as well that:

"We are also reviewing all first asylum decisions in these cases taken between 1 April and 30 June to evaluate the success of our new guidance and training."

After the Supreme Court decision one year ago that ended 'go home and be discrete', the UKBA said they would collect data on LGBT asylum but Immigration Minister Damien Green said earlier this year that this wouldn't happen because of "disproportionate cost".

UKBA has made no official announcement but we understand that retiring manager Bill Brandon (Deputy Director, NAM+ Quality and Learning; Refugee Integration and Resettlement) told a event organised by the law firm Mischon de Reja last month about the developments on data and auditing.

UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG) Group Manager Erin Power said:

"I don't know why UKBA didn't say publicly that they were trying to find an accurate way to do this."

LibDem peer Lord Avebury has pressed the Home Office on the issue of recording data and auditing.

UKLGIG, which works with LGBT asylum seekers, have been lobbying on the issue for some time and in the last 12 months has held discussions with the Home Office on several occasions.

Power said that following the announcement last year that UKBA would record data attempts were made but failed because of IT problems and "because different areas of the country collated different stats."

"We were aware of the initial attempt to record LGBT claims that did not work well and of subsequent work on ensuring that recording was practicable and consistent.  We were also aware of the audit and will, like many others, be interested in the outcome."

"Of course we are delighted that UKBA is looking at the quality of decision making on LGBT asylum claims and we are hoping that it will reveal an improvement in initial decisions."

Anecdotal evidence is of increasing disbelief that applicants are lesbian or gay and this website has documented poor decision making in a number of cases. Power has acknowledged that this is a concern for UKLGIG, telling The Guardian: "It has always been difficult to prove but more frequently now, people are not being believed."

Last October, as a result of the Supreme Court decision, the UKBA introduced new Asylum Instruction guidance and at the beginning of this year ran a one-day 'case owner training' session for UKBA staff. The training was run by UKBA which consulted with UKLGIG, Stonewall and UNHCR

The Home Office say that:

"The government has made it clear that it is committed to stopping the removal of asylum seekers who have genuinely had to leave particular countries because of their sexual orientation or gender identification."

However data recording and the completed audit will only look at new claims and concerns have been raised about the treatment of cases already in the system. As well, there are serious concerns about a decreasing availability of specialised legal advice due to legal aid cuts and the collapse (due to those cuts, it is claimed) of the two biggest providers of legal services to asylum seekers.

The Immigration Law Practitioners Association told The Guardian that:

"The sensible thing to do would be to review cases of removal. When you get to a point where you have to put someone on a plane for removal, you should get their file out and make sure there's nothing of concern. They should check they have not claimed on the grounds of being gay, because they know that there was an important decision in the court which may be relevant."

Says Power:

"Obviously there is no point in collecting the stats if they don't look at them and see if there has been any change in decisions - hence the audit."

"There are still some concerns which we can look at when we see the results of the audit."

The government has specifically ruled out other measures which would help LGBT asylum seekers. It will not exclude sexuality-based claims from 'fast track' decision making - as some other categories of claim are - despite Damien Green in a letter to Dr Hywel Francis MP, the Chair of the House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights, accepting that they "can raise complex and specific issues based on cultural differences and the possible trauma of the individual concerned."

'Fast track' claims are far harder to win because legal options are dramatically reduced and people - often traumatised from torture and other bad treatment, as Green acknowledges - are invariably detained.

In the letter to Francis, Green refers to Stonewall's report 'No Going Back' - however that report made 21 recommendations, which went far beyond training of staff. For example, the report discusses the effect of the dispersal system on LGBT asylum seekers who are sent to towns where it is impossible to access appropriate and safe support. They are often forced to live with people who do not accept them and several reports have found that they can be at risk of violence. We are aware of  cases where UKBA has been asked to move LGBT asylum seekers closer to sources of support but has refused.

Green does acknowledge criticism of the crucial 'country information' on which many case decisions hang. In particular, he acknowledges the criticism made by the Shadow Foreign Secretary in the 'BN' Ugandan case that that country's information was two years old and made no reference to LGBT. In the letter he notes that at the time of writing only three country reports made any reference (since he wrote new Uganda guidance has been published which does include LGBT issues, however problems remain with its contents).

Green says in the letter that other work is "in hand" to address the (wide ranging) issues raised in Stonewall's report - but it is not in any of the plans published by the Home Office (and the department's business plan covers the entire life of this parliament).

Related articles

• In UK, legal aid cuts will make LGBT asylum even harder (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• The testimony of a veteran worker for LGBT asylum seekers (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• How one gay Tanzanian's asylum rejection shows the UK system's unfairness (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• UK's removal of gay tortured, imprisoned Ugandan stopped at last moment (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Is it getting worse for UK LGBT asylum seekers?

Image by doug88888 via Flickr

Source: Migrants' Rights Network

By Paul Canning

One year ago, on 7 July 2010, the Supreme Court unanimously handed down a landmark decision in LGBT human rights.

It said that it was wrong that gays and lesbians fleeing persecution should be forced back because of the Home Office's argument that it was "reasonably tolerable" that they 'behave discreetly'. This, they argued, would mean they'd avoid the persecution they had fled. The two cases they were considering were from the violently anti-gay Iranian theocracy and from the African country of Cameroon, where gays are arrested and imprisoned.

Lord Roger, who passed away last week, famously wrote in his comments about gays and lesbians right to "live openly and freely" comparing the example of a gay man's right in the UK to go to a Kylie concert, drink exotically coloured cocktails and speak about boys with their female mates to those of straight males.

The ruling was welcomed by the Conservative Home Secretary.

Yet one year on from this major legal shift, many working to support LGBT asylum seekers believe that the situation for them is actually getting worse.

The Supreme Court's four new rules on how asylum claims should be judged starts with asking if a claimant is gay - and it is this point on which many claims are floundering.

This is not always for lack of evidence. UK Border Agency (UKBA) rejection letters I have seen have dismissed up to twelve witness statements as well as other evidence. One woman pictured and named as lesbian in an infamous tabloid newspaper from a dangerous African country is still being rejected. UKBA attitudes to someone's 'credibility', the lengths some officers go to dismiss claims, as shown in these letters, would amaze most fair minded people. The test they are supposed to apply is "reasonable likelihood".

The biggest specialist group, the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG), handling sexuality based claims told The Guardian that they had a similar experience to myself and that of others working with claimants - it is becoming more difficult for asylum seekers to "prove" to the authorities that they are homosexual.

"It has always been difficult to prove but more frequently now, people are not being believed," said Group Manager Erin Power.

Not all officers appear to have this approach. One lawyer who has successfully won numerous LGBT asylum cases told me it "depends on the case worker". But others have "become hardened", perhaps because the Supreme Court decision has led to more cases coming forward as it gave them hope of being judged fairly.

After the Court decision the UKBA said they would collect data on LGBT asylum but Immigration Minister Damien Green said earlier this year that this wouldn't happen because of "disproportionate cost". So we have no hard facts on which to judge whether the promise made 13 months ago in the Coalition government's agreement to stop removing LGBT asylum seekers "at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution" has been met.

Unfortunately, in May, Nick Clegg proudly claimed that his promise had been met. Yet all that has been done is one day's training for border agents, new written guidance and a session for immigration judges on who lesbians and gays are.

The government has refused to take LGBT cases out of 'detained fast track', which is supposed to be for straightforward cases from 'safe' countries, despite most LGBT ones not being simple and the places they are fleeing - like Uganda - not being safe. Last week it lost a test case for Jamaican lesbians where the Home Office lawyer made many of the same arguments on 'discretion' it has been making for years.

As Jamaica is now legally not 'safe' for lesbians, neither should be Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda. But don't expect Green to change the rules without a fight.

A change announced last week by Kenneth Clarke's department to how deportation cases are handled, moving them from the High Court to the Immigration Tribunal to 'save money', will, I am told, disproportionately effect LGBT.

When UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group reviewed 50 cases last year it found all bar one being rejected by UKBA. This means they're disproportionately reliant on safeguards like review by the High Court because Immigration judges "make mistakes", a lawyer told me. Cases could end up back before the same judge who previously rejected someone or judges are, essentially, to be asked to rule that their mates got it wrong. He believes this move is another marker of how for LGBT asylum seekers "it is getting worse."

When Stonewall issued its 'No Going Back' report in May 2010 it made 21 recommendations because there are a wide range of issues which effect LGBT cases - like being housed with homophobes, which has led to harassment or worse for example. Or being 'dispersed' to some town with no LGBT community support. Only three have been acted on and we have no evidence - and neither does the government - that anything is actually improving.

Green says in a letter to Dr Hywel Francis MP, the Chair of the House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights that other work is "in hand" to address Stonewall's recommendations - but that work is not in any of the plans published by the Home Office (and the business plan covers the entire life of this parliament).

According to the front line, the Supreme Court decision has had little impact and my feedback is that for an individual fleeing persecution on account of their sexuality for British sanctuary their chances are more down to luck than design and, if anything, the indications are that they're getting worse.

Related articles

• The testimony of a veteran worker for LGBT asylum seekers (madikazemi.blogspot.com) 
• Put your hands up (if you feel love) (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Major campaign launched for LGBT asylum seekers in UK, call for their removal from 'fast track' to removal (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

In UK, "excessively long" detention at one 'removal centre'

Image by StephenMitchell via Flickr

Source: The Guardian

By Alan Travis

Ministers have been warned by an official immigration watchdog of the "excessively long" periods, including cases of more than three years, that detainees are being held at Europe's largest removal centre.

A "snapshot" taken last December showed that 35 detainees at Harmondsworth removal centre, near Heathrow airport, had been waiting more than 12 months to be deported, including seven who had been waiting more than two years.

Harmondsworth's officially appointed independent monitoring board (IMB) said one man had been held in detention for three years and seven months at a cost of £110 a night. The bill is already more than £144,000.

"This is not only emotionally costly to detainees but expensive for the taxpayer," says the IMB's annual report to the immigration minister, Damian Green. It adds that the latest national figures show that as of 3 March, 170 detainees around the country have been held more than two years waiting for their removal.

The watchdog raises the problem of "hidden children" being held in immigration detention centres despite the coalition's pledge to end the practice. The IMB's annual report reveals that six children who were held last year at Harmondsworth were removed by social services when it had been established they were children.

The watchdog said they were part of the problem of young people being detained by the UK Border Agency as adults despite claiming to be under 18.

"Arrangements should be made for the rapid assessment of those claiming to be under 18," the IMB reported.

Harmondsworth, which is run by a US private security company, GEO, became the largest immigration detention centre in Europe last year when four prison-style wings were opened, trebling the total capacity to 615 people.

Read more »

Papers please! Officials roaming British streets in 'illegals' hunt

UK border agents at work

Source: Migrants Rights Network (MRN)

By Awale Olad

A number of highly visible enforcement officers are reported to have stopped and searched black and Asian people randomly, requiring that they produce documents proving their identities and immigration status. Further reports of arrests of Pakistanis and raids on Asian restaurants in West London have surfaced on blogs and newspapers.

Damian Green MP, the minister responsible for immigration, said:

“The UK Border Agency officers across the country have carried out a major enforcement crackdown which has generated a large number of arrests, cash seizures and prosecutions."

The raids and checks are postulated under the guise of strong evidence, which, according to Home Office rules, justifies the actions of enforcement officers. The No Borders South Wales group reported on Saturday 23 April 2011 that a number of highly visible UKBA officers carried out random checks on unsuspecting Black and Asian shoppers in the city of Cardiff in the popular shopping district of Queen Street.

MRN made immediate contact with Jenny Willott MP, the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Cardiff Central, where the incident took place. Ms Willott contacted the Wales UKBA office requesting further clarification on the expansion of Home Office intelligence-related operations recently deployed in her constituency. When police have been heavy-handed in the past, which on occasions caused a tense atmosphere in Cardiff, locals complained to Ms Willott, but not on this occasion about UKBA officers descending on the area.

UKBA responded to Ms Willott by confirming an operation had taken place 19 April “as a result of specific intelligence” and that protocol was followed to the letter of the law. However, UKBA Guidance prohibits ‘fishing expeditions’ that involves questioning random individuals on the grounds that they might be found to be in an irregular situation. Section 31.19 of the UKBA’s Enforcement and Guidance Instructions provides a good perspective on what constitutes “intelligence-led” and fishing expeditions.

The requirement that immigration inquiries be pursued on an intelligence-led* basis has provided an important safeguard against speculative forays into communities with high proportions of ethnic minority people. At a time when the coalition government has promised a substantial ramping up of enforcement activities it is essential that the border between enquiries prompted by specific intelligence should not be breached by officials running what amounts to crude ‘fishing expeditions’.

Parliament has an important role to play in monitoring these developments. In the interests of race equality and good community relations it should ensure that the highest standards are maintained in this area of immigration policy at all times.

*What does the UKBA mean by intelligence-led? These are the questions that UKBA officers need to be able to answer in relation to recent operations in Cardiff:

1. Was this Crime Reduction Operation (CROP) or Street Operations (StOp)?
2. What intelligence does UKBA possess which supports the belief that this was a location in which suspected offenders gathered at certain times? 
3. What sort of activities did UKBA’s claimed intelligence suggest the suspected offenders were involved in?
4. What types of behaviourdid suspected offenders exhibited which justified being made inquiries by UKBA officers?  
5. Observers at the scene have reported that the action was directed either mainly or exclusively at Asian or black people: can this be refuted?
6. Did the action lead to the identification of any immigration act offenders? If it did, how many?

Related articles

• In UK, new report says asylum system failing lesbians (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Has the UK government met its promise on LGBT asylum? We don't know

By Paul Canning

During last year's election campaign LGBT voters may have been surprised to notice the Labour government outflanked in the progressive stakes by the Conservative Party.

Labour's promise to LGBT voters had nothing to say on the treatment of LGBT asylum seekers. This was perhaps unsurprising as to say anything would have required saying something which was bound to draw attention from the anti-asylum seeker tabloids and on the other hand would have reminded LGBT voters of a record which involved defending a policy of telling those seeking sanctuary to 'go home and be discrete'.

Following the election, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats produced a Coalition agreement document which actually said nothing more than the status quo - those at proven risk wouldn't be returned - but politically drew a line under Labour's record and promised something better. A few weeks after the election came the landmark decision of the Supreme Court which ended the 'go home and be discrete' policy of Labour - and see S.Chelvan's article which explains exactly why the decision was LGBT legal history - which was welcomed by the Conservative Home Secretary.

Page, turned?

Read more »

In UK, the scandal of the refugees forced to live on just £5 a day

Image by Fulla T via Flickr

Source: Herald Scotland

By Jasper Hamill

She is the human face of a government policy that stands accused of condemning refugees to a life of enforced poverty.

Maryam doesn’t wish to give her surname as the story she has to tell is so degrading: she is forced to live on just £5 a day by the British state.

The sum can’t be spent as she likes because it is loaded on to a Government-issued card which can only be used in certain supermarkets.

It means she can’t get a bus and cannot get the halal food she requires as a Muslim, and the card is often not recognised even by staff in the stores where it should be used.

Like many her application for asylum has been refused, but the state accepts that it cannot send her back to her home country as her life would be in danger.

That is when the humiliation starts. They make me feel as if I am a thief.
Maryam, asylum seeker

Read more »

In Glasgow, dispersal of asylum seekers is set to start in days

Watch video report from today's protest

Source: Herald Scotland

By Gerry Braiden

Asylum seekers living in Glasgow will start to be moved to other areas of Scotland as early as today, The Herald understands.

The move comes after the city council and the UK Border Agency (UKBA) failed to agree a new contract to house 1300 asylum seekers in the city.

With pressure mounting on the UKBA to reverse its stance, the leaders of all but one of the political groups within Glasgow City Council called on the agency to enter into a “genuine dialogue” over its plans.

The joint statement says: “To now have families, some of whom have been settled in the city for years, threatened with eviction and relocation with minimal notice is unacceptable.”

The statement comes as questions are raised over UKBA’s handling of the matter in the past week, particularly a letter it sent to about 600 households informing the asylum seeker residents that they could be moved with just a few days notice to somewhere else “within the Scotland region”.

The letter provoked fear and alarm among those who received it, but there are also concerns about the impact of the contract cancellation on a number of services.

Read more »

Asylum seeker support: Food but no hair cuts, bus tickets

Source: Leicester Mercury

A group which helps asylum seekers has sent a petition to the immigration minister after a change in the rules on food vouchers.

Since July 1, asylum seekers with an Azure card have been forbidden from buying supermarket gift cards.

The cards – for people who are appealing a failed asylum claim or who have agreed to return to their country of origin but are unable to do so – replaced a voucher or supermarket gift card system in February.

Asylum seekers could swap the vouchers in exchange but can now only use the cards' £35 credit per week in supermarkets.

Bessie Hayes, from Leicester City of Sanctuary said the changes were cruel.

She said: "It's already become a huge problem.

"These cards can only be used in the supermarkets so if someone needs a few pounds for the bus or to have their hair cut they can't do that now.

"One woman had to walk from Beaumont Leys to the city centre with a broken ankle because she had no access to money for the bus.

"We've managed to pair up some volunteers with asylum seekers so they can go shopping together and use the card to pay for some of the other person's items in exchange for money."

The group collected a petition containing 142 signatures urging that the rules be changed, which has been sent to immigration minister Damian Green.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The asylum seekers who survive on £10 a week (guardian.co.uk)

Scottish group ask for LGBT asylum change

Source: UK Gay News

The Glasgow-based campaigning LGBT Network is asking the Government in London what action it is taking to address the serious issues on LGBT asylum in the UK.

Today, the group has written to Damien Green, the minister for immigration in the new coalition government.

LGBT Network claims that the situation facing gay men and women who claim asylum in the UK is “only getting worse by the day”.

“Most gay people know of the horrific cases of LGBT people escaping persecution from Iran to Zimbabwe, coming to Britain and finding only more discrimination and in the vast majority of cases, deportation,” they say.

“I see the emails come in to us every day from gay people from all over the world, and it’s heartbreaking because there is simply nothing we can do,” Alison Burton, a LGBT Network volunteer, said this afternoon.

“We can’t suggest that they seek asylum in Britain, because it seems that every gay person that does make the awful journey here just ends up being sent back again.

“I just don't know what to say,” she admitted.

Last week, Stonewall published a report that found 98% of all asylum claims based on sexual orientation were refused.

The letter from LGBT Network asks the Government how the Network should respond to the painful requests for help it gets from distraught gay people around the world, and what the Government is actually going to do about gay asylum.

Read more »

Urgent asylum issues for the new government; Lobby for UK detention reform

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Source The Refugee Council

The Refugee Council wants to see a fair, humane and effective asylum system that provides protection and enables refugees to rebuild their lives in safety. As we approach the sixtieth anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention next year, we are asking the new government to seize the opportunity to create such a system.

We’ll build on the success of the asylum election pledge signed by 1,031 parliamentary candidates, 219 of whom were successfully elected to parliament, including nine members of the cabinet. Pledge signatories include the Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, as well as Immigration Minister Damian Green.

We’re highlighting to key ministers and all MPs the urgent need for positive, swift action across government, and calling for:

• Politicians to show leadership in defending and promoting Britain as a place of refuge for the persecuted, and using fair and accurate language about asylum and refugees.
• The UK Border Agency to get decisions on asylum claims right the first time round. High numbers of initial decisions by the UKBA are overturned on appeal. Poor decision-making is unfair on applicants, slows down the system and leads to money being wasted.
• Early access to good quality legal advice for asylum seekers. Professional, timely legal advice is essential to ensuring that asylum seekers have access to justice. This would improve the overall quality of the process, build trust in the system, and support those without protection needs who can safely return to do so.
• All asylum claims to be processed in the community. Ending the injustice of the detained fast tracking of asylum claims and processing asylum claims in the community will avoid unnecessary and inhumane treatment, lead to fairer decisions and save money.
• Immediately implement the commitment to end child detention. We are delighted that the Coalition negotiations agreement reached on 11 May 2010 includes this commitment, which should be fulfilled without delay, and in a way that keeps families together.
• Immigration detention for adults who have claimed asylum to be minimised. Detention at the end of the asylum process is massively over-used and is without essential safeguards. It must be used only as a last resort where independently shown to be necessary.
• Access to mainstream benefits and permission to work for asylum seekers. The separate ineffective and expensive system of asylum support should be replaced with access to mainstream benefits, and restoring permission to work for asylum seekers.
• An end to destitution among refused asylum seekers. Destitution is destroying lives. There is no evidence that destitution leads people to return to their home countries. Those who cannot return should be granted temporary, formal status with permission to work. Where asylum seekers do receive support, it should be in the form of cash and not a restricted payment card or vouchers. People who have sought asylum should be entitled to free healthcare and a decent standard of accommodation until they get status or return home.
• Permanent status for refugees. Refugees want to integrate, offer their skills and contribute to the UK but since 2005, most people recognised as refugees are given permission to stay in the UK for five years only. This policy is a waste of money and creates a further administrative backlog for UKBA who from August 2010 will have to review upward of 7000 cases a year. This situation should be resolved by returning to the granting of permanent status for refugees.

We look forward to working with refugee community organisations, partners and members to ensure that the UK continues to be a place of sanctuary for those fleeing persecution.

If you want to keep up to date with current campaigns, you can register to receive campaign support updates.

You can follow our work in parliament and keep track of parliamentary questions, debates and All Party Parliamentary Group meetings by receiving the free Parliamentary Asylum and Refugee Network newsletter, the PARN. To subscribe, email parliamentary@refugeecouncil.org.uk with the word PARN in the subject line.

Lobby for UK detention reform

Read more »