Activists disrupt Barnardo's fundraiser at Royal Albert Hall over child detention
No Borders | 23.04.2012 23:18 | Migration
No Borders activists took to the stage this evening at a prestigious fundraising concert organised by Barnardo’s in protest at the charity’s collaboration with the UK Border Agency in detaining children.
Barnardo's Young Supporters Concert at the Royal Albert Hall, where children from different schools take part in a mass choir, is a regular event to raise funds for Britain's biggest children's charity.
In the latest protest against the organisation's involvement in a new family detention centre in Sussex, two activists walked onto the stage and unfurled a banner reading “Barndardo's: 'We believe in [locking up] children'”, mocking the organisation's slogan.
One of the activists who took part in the protest said: “It is incredibly cynical and hypocritical of Barnardo’s to use children to raise funds that it then uses to pay for facilitating the imprisonment of other children. Barnardo's staff and supporters should be ashamed of its involvement in child detention.”
A member of the audience, suspected to be a Barnardo’s employee, soon jumped on the protesters, in a frenzied rage out of place, and ripped their banner, calling them 'scum'. The protesters were removed by aggressive security guards after a few minutes.
The action was the latest in a series of protests by anti-detention campaigners trying to dissuade Barnardo's from providing child welfare services at the Cedars family detention facility, near Crawley. Campaigners argue that the charity's involvement in the facility, officially described as 'pre-departure accommodation', is utilised by the government to legitimise the continued use of detention for children, which the government promised to stop doing in 2010. [1]
The converted school has all the characteristics of a detention centre but the name. With a 2.5m perimeter fence and 24-hour security, it is run under the Detention Centre Rules by the notorious security company G4S, which runs three other immigration detention centres. [2]
In July last year, Barnardo's set 'red lines' for its involvement in the pilot scheme, in what appears to have been a desperate attempt to reassure critics of its controversial decision. The conditions included withdrawing services if more than 10 percent of the families deported in the first year of the trial went through the centre; if any family has stayed at the centre more than once or for longer than the one week maximum; or if disproportionate force is used with a family on route to or from the centre. [3]
Campaigners say many of these conditions have been breached repeatedly but Barnardo's is 'simply ignoring' that and refusing to listen to anyone. Many families have reported suffering from trauma and being subjected to verbal abuse and physical assaults by the security guards. At least one family is known to have been held at the centre for over one week.
A recent investigation by the UKBA’s Professional Standards Unit into allegations surrounding the actions of Reliance security guards found that inappropriate force had been used in the case of one individual deported from Cedars.
A statement by Barnardo's said the charity has “raised our concerns about this directly with the Minister and have asked them to ensure that Reliance addressed their member of staff’s conduct.”
The statement adds: “When Barnardo’s decided to provide the welfare and care services at Cedars pre-departure accommodation, we also committed to speaking out if the level of force used with a family on route to or from the [centre] was disproportionate to family circumstance.”
Describing the statement as “cheap PR”, a spokesperson from No Borders London said: “The charity's condition to enter the contract was to withdraw its services if these conditions were breached, not to 'speak out' and write to the minister.”
This is not the first time that Barnardo's has been the target of protest over child detention. Since Cedars was opened, campaigners have picketed and leafleted staff and customers at various Barnardo's charity shops. In February this year, a group of activists occupied the charity's headquarters in Barkingside, Essex in a bid to speak to the chief executive Anne Marie Carrie about the organisation's involvement with child detention. Barnardo's managers refused to talk to them and instead called the police to remove them by force. [4]
-ends-
For further questions, please contact:
Email: noborderslondon[at-]riseup.net
Photos available on request.
Notes for editors:
[1] In May 2010, the new coalition government 'committed' to ending child detention for immigration purposes as part of a "new, compassionate approach to family removals." However, while families with children due to be forcibly deported are no longer held in normal immigration detention centres, they are instead placed in new secure facilities, euphemistically named 'pre-departure accommodation', until they are deported. The first such centre to open last summer was Cedars in Pease Pottage, near Crawley, West Sussex. For more on this and other planned family detention centres, see http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3881.
[2] Families and children held at Cedars are arrested and administratively detained under the provisions of the 1971 Immigration Act. They are subject to the Control and Restraint Techniques used across the detention estate. Detained children are only allowed out of the facility under strictly controlled circumstances. This clearly amounts to a continued use of the detention of children for immigration purposes. For more on this, see http://london.noborders.org.uk/node/473.
[3] See
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/news_and_events/media_centre/press_releases.htm?ref=70802
[4] For more details on previous protests against Barnardo's, see
http://london.noborders.org.uk/barnardos/timeline
In the latest protest against the organisation's involvement in a new family detention centre in Sussex, two activists walked onto the stage and unfurled a banner reading “Barndardo's: 'We believe in [locking up] children'”, mocking the organisation's slogan.
One of the activists who took part in the protest said: “It is incredibly cynical and hypocritical of Barnardo’s to use children to raise funds that it then uses to pay for facilitating the imprisonment of other children. Barnardo's staff and supporters should be ashamed of its involvement in child detention.”
A member of the audience, suspected to be a Barnardo’s employee, soon jumped on the protesters, in a frenzied rage out of place, and ripped their banner, calling them 'scum'. The protesters were removed by aggressive security guards after a few minutes.
The action was the latest in a series of protests by anti-detention campaigners trying to dissuade Barnardo's from providing child welfare services at the Cedars family detention facility, near Crawley. Campaigners argue that the charity's involvement in the facility, officially described as 'pre-departure accommodation', is utilised by the government to legitimise the continued use of detention for children, which the government promised to stop doing in 2010. [1]
The converted school has all the characteristics of a detention centre but the name. With a 2.5m perimeter fence and 24-hour security, it is run under the Detention Centre Rules by the notorious security company G4S, which runs three other immigration detention centres. [2]
In July last year, Barnardo's set 'red lines' for its involvement in the pilot scheme, in what appears to have been a desperate attempt to reassure critics of its controversial decision. The conditions included withdrawing services if more than 10 percent of the families deported in the first year of the trial went through the centre; if any family has stayed at the centre more than once or for longer than the one week maximum; or if disproportionate force is used with a family on route to or from the centre. [3]
Campaigners say many of these conditions have been breached repeatedly but Barnardo's is 'simply ignoring' that and refusing to listen to anyone. Many families have reported suffering from trauma and being subjected to verbal abuse and physical assaults by the security guards. At least one family is known to have been held at the centre for over one week.
A recent investigation by the UKBA’s Professional Standards Unit into allegations surrounding the actions of Reliance security guards found that inappropriate force had been used in the case of one individual deported from Cedars.
A statement by Barnardo's said the charity has “raised our concerns about this directly with the Minister and have asked them to ensure that Reliance addressed their member of staff’s conduct.”
The statement adds: “When Barnardo’s decided to provide the welfare and care services at Cedars pre-departure accommodation, we also committed to speaking out if the level of force used with a family on route to or from the [centre] was disproportionate to family circumstance.”
Describing the statement as “cheap PR”, a spokesperson from No Borders London said: “The charity's condition to enter the contract was to withdraw its services if these conditions were breached, not to 'speak out' and write to the minister.”
This is not the first time that Barnardo's has been the target of protest over child detention. Since Cedars was opened, campaigners have picketed and leafleted staff and customers at various Barnardo's charity shops. In February this year, a group of activists occupied the charity's headquarters in Barkingside, Essex in a bid to speak to the chief executive Anne Marie Carrie about the organisation's involvement with child detention. Barnardo's managers refused to talk to them and instead called the police to remove them by force. [4]
-ends-
For further questions, please contact:
Email: noborderslondon[at-]riseup.net
Photos available on request.
Notes for editors:
[1] In May 2010, the new coalition government 'committed' to ending child detention for immigration purposes as part of a "new, compassionate approach to family removals." However, while families with children due to be forcibly deported are no longer held in normal immigration detention centres, they are instead placed in new secure facilities, euphemistically named 'pre-departure accommodation', until they are deported. The first such centre to open last summer was Cedars in Pease Pottage, near Crawley, West Sussex. For more on this and other planned family detention centres, see http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3881.
[2] Families and children held at Cedars are arrested and administratively detained under the provisions of the 1971 Immigration Act. They are subject to the Control and Restraint Techniques used across the detention estate. Detained children are only allowed out of the facility under strictly controlled circumstances. This clearly amounts to a continued use of the detention of children for immigration purposes. For more on this, see http://london.noborders.org.uk/node/473.
[3] See
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/news_and_events/media_centre/press_releases.htm?ref=70802
[4] For more details on previous protests against Barnardo's, see
http://london.noborders.org.uk/barnardos/timeline
No Borders
Homepage:
http://http://london.noborders.org.uk
Comments
Hide the following 23 comments
poor target
24.04.2012 07:32
Poor target imo.
?
Nice one!
24.04.2012 07:54
anon
Well done!
24.04.2012 07:59
noborderer
Very Well Done!
24.04.2012 09:08
They target the bleeding hearts with politically acceptable campaigns and ignore those who really need help because it might rock the boat.
Charities only have to donate a small percentage of the money they collect.
Good to see someone is challenging this grubby little scam.
Travis
Absloutely superb!
24.04.2012 09:12
As to the the suggestion that it was a poor target made by the first commentator...
(funny how the first comment is almost always negative or disruptive on UKIMC some people are very studious in their observation of site they appear to despise?)
..Barnardo's provide the veneer or legitimacy to these child prisons. It is precisely because UBKA and G4S can hide behind Barnardos "good deeds" that Barnardos supporters (of all ages) need to wake up to the abuse of children their organisation condones.
Incidentally did anyone else notice that Barnardos are one of the companies signed up to exploit forced labour through workfare?
Bob from Brizzle
re: poor target
24.04.2012 09:16
Also, it's very patronising to suggest that young people aren't capable of assessing situations, having opinions, being thoughtful, questioning the status quo and their own privileges.
anon
Mixed feelings about this protest
24.04.2012 09:22
While I think its good for Barnardo's legitimising of the Governent's shameful behaviour to be highlighted, I understand the position of other parents who were annoyed that a children's concert was targetted. Apparently some of the younger children were quite scared by the disruption.
I can't see why the children participating should feel any guilt whatsoever about taking part. Surely any guilt lies with Barnardos for letting schools get involved with a charity that, unbeknown to them, is involved with contraversal practises.
BTW, I know one of the people who pulled the banner out of the protesters' hands & they are definitely not a Barnardos employee.
AndrewR
Re: mixed feelings
24.04.2012 09:32
S
re: mixed feelings
24.04.2012 09:42
We will continue to take our protest wherever Barnardos peddles its hypocrisy, because we DO care about children.
@
suffer the little children?
24.04.2012 10:55
Whether or not the guy who ripped the banner out of peoples hands was a Barnados employee*, there was no reason to resort to violence, regardless of the fact that he thinks it appropriate to make a stand FOR locking up kids.
*I too suspect that some of the comments that appear here are not genuine, but are part of a systematic attempt to attack posts on this site .
also a parent
No "frenzied rage"; bad judgement to target a young children's event
24.04.2012 21:12
If you want to make your views heard, please target the politicians and the CEO of Barnados; don't sabotage an evening where children were practising all day to sing their hearts out to help other children less fortunate than themselves.
A Barrett
Response from the audience.
24.04.2012 21:13
a Mother
@ a Mother
24.04.2012 22:53
Families are being deported to war zones with the help of Barnados. Please get some perspective. If you care about children other than your own, you should appreciate that this is a little more serious than a momentary disruption of a concert. If you don't like these tactics, how about starting a campaign of your own against Barnardos using alternative means?
The above commenter is right, if you follow the link in the article you will see that there has been a series of less disruptive protests against Barnardos as well as attempts to meet with senior members of staff, which have simply been ignored.
Well done to all involved - Barnardo's, if you care about your reputation I would pull out of Cedars now.
D Locke
@D Locke
25.04.2012 08:11
I am not saying that there shouldn't have been a protest, I am saying that it was an inappropriate protest. As for accusing me of not caring about children other than my own, did you read my comment properly, that I have discussed it with my daughter and explained that the protesters had their reasons for acting the way they did?
Incidentally I have contacted Barnardo's because I am concerned in their involvement. While I imagine this might help those in favour consider the protest a success, I still consider it to have been a highly inappropriate sabotage of a children's event.
A mother
@ a mother
25.04.2012 12:43
D Locke
Agree with "D Locke"
25.04.2012 13:19
I'm not sure you are even fit to be a mother with an attitude like that. Sod off back to the tennis club with the other Daily Mail readers.
A mother who cares
Barnado's - gaolers of little kids and traumatised parents.......
26.04.2012 07:17
‘We Sympathise with your Cause, but...’ - Non Violent Civil Disobedience in the 21st Century
Little Tabitha is apparently traumatised cos some guys held up a banner at her concert for the 'charity' that locks up little Ahmed. But Tabitha's mummy doesn't think Ahmed is a real child with fellings just like Tabitha's.
a job well done
Where does class come into it?
26.04.2012 08:05
Are you trying to say that all all middle class people are selfish, or all selfish people are middle class? It's not made clear.
For the record, the list of participants in the programme lists far more Ahmeds participating than Tabithas, Ffions or Ruperts.
It's true that ‘you can’t evict an idea whose time has come’, but you can do a great job in preventing it from spreading by telling people to sod off back to the tennis club
AndrewR
seriously?!?!
26.04.2012 10:03
Actually no I'm a committed anarchist who bothers to think and speak up about people outside my own clique.
I was musical as a kid, performing at the albert hall would've been the biggest moment in my life to date, and if anyone had come up on stage with a banner denouncing the event I was performing at, yes I would have felt guilty. So would virtually every kid involved. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that a big crowd of kids could have their event targetted and not feel any guilt. Yes I understand you don't THINK or WISH your actions were targetted at the kids. That really doesn't change a single thing.
Here's an example. I was watching a programme the other night that interviewed a taxi driver who'd been mugged at gunpoint while at work. They asked him what he was feeling, experiencing, and his first response was 'guilt'. He was mugged by 5 or 6 people wearing masks and holding guns and knives, and he felt guilty for what had happened. But no, you're right, it's the responsibility of the children performing at this concert to make the leap and understand that it's the company being targetted and not them.
To the people defending this action - do you think more animal hurt has been relieved than child hurt caused? And who are you to make that call? I understand that you made attempts to get an interview etc etc, but if the right course of action is blocked, that doesn't make bullying kids a legitimate option. I can't believe I have to explain that to anyone. It seems that considering the feelings of a bunch of innocent kids is pretty unfashionable these days.
I'm not one of those who argues against any action and ultimately maintains the status quo. I believe in all forms of action to achieve justified ends. It's hardly unusual that an action reported on here is unable to reach the people it really should be targetting - that's the basis of our society, the people in control are so far removed and defended by a wall of people that it's virtually impossible to actually reach them in any effective way. What I found unusual enough to comment negatively, was this decision to protest a bunch of kids singing and their proud parents. This is like PETA showing up in that south park episode. This is where people build their stereotypes of us.
?
//
26.04.2012 10:05
AAA
Jailing children is bad for the Barnado's Brand
26.04.2012 12:37
Of course you don't.
The target was Barnado's. Have a look at their website and see if they mention their role in detaining kids awaiting deportation to abusive regimes.
Once they understand that their fundraising shindigs will be targetted for as long as they are performing this role, they may well decide not to lend the enterprise their name any longer.
NGOs are part and parcel of the corporatist oligarch state
research
26.04.2012 13:02
any of the parents/children who took part could have found this information out for themselves with very little effort, as we did. if any of the parents posting above feel regret at taking their children along then they should take responsibility for it themselves, for allowing their children to be used in this way by barnardo's, for faling to check what they were letting their children get involved in, and further should be glad that they now know the truth about what's going on in this world a bit clearer thanks to these protestors. this was an opportunity for our children to LEARN some real lessons about the world, nothing scary about that at all. if adults failed to explain the protest properly to the children and left them feeling scared that is not the fault of the protestors, who i admire and feel grateful to.
please keep up your good work, i and my children may well be joining you soon!
a parent
the children at the concert
26.04.2012 13:25
S