Let's give these guys a good old fashioned Anglo Saxon welcome before they're caught.

Reminds me of Planet of The Apes.

You know gorillas on horseback rounding up humans etc.

And Oxford is such a "civilised" place dear.

They should be easy enough to spot- unless they make it to East Oxford of course.

Seriously, I put my two daughters in Cygnet Nursery and I want to know if I should pull them out. Does anyone know anything from those who work at Campsfield? I'm very worried and I don't want these people anywhere near my daughters, especially when I am not there and the only people who are there are women.

Appreciate any insider advice.

Their crimes are of immigration, not violence . Why wouldn't you want them near your daughters if they only broke immigration law?

One , they said, has a conviction for a minor crime . Being a failed asylum seeker most certainly and absolutely doesn't mean they'll go on a murder spree, they probably just don't want to go home to face possible further persecution, ethnic cleansing, etc. Fair enough.

Again:

"Three of the escapees were awaiting deportation at the immigration centre and had not committed any crimes ."

Why wouldn't you want them near your daughters if they only broke immigration law?

These guys are in a pretty desperate situation, let's hope this doesn't drive them to do anything silly.
I do understand Andrew's concerns, pressure/desperation often have terrible effects on otherwise rational people.

they probably just don't want to go home to face possible further persecution, ethnic cleansing

To be fair, you don't know that, just as those voicing the opposite view don't know for sure either.

think harder wrote:

Why wouldn\'t you want them near your daughters if they only broke immigration law?

These guys are in a pretty desperate situation, let\'s hope this doesn\'t drive them to do anything silly.
I do understand Andrew\'s concerns, pressure/desperation often have terrible effects on otherwise rational people.

they probably just don\'t want to go home to face possible further persecution, ethnic cleansing

To be fair, you don\'t know that, just as those voicing the opposite view don\'t know for sure either.

They may be desperate, but people have a fundamental decency which they tend to uphold. They're immigrants, not demons.

Would you want to live in Palestine at the moment? Take from a absolutely hypothetical view:

Say these gentlemen opposed Hamas. This would put them at risk in their homeland, thus the desire to seek asylum here. Refugee status is very difficult to achieve in this country, despite popular protest, and if you don't have good representation, you're sent back. Heck, if you don't know the phrase 'asylum seeker', you're sent back.

They're my children, and it's fair to say they are 100 yards from people (some of whom have criminal records) who are desperate enough to escape and go on the run. I'm fairly open minded on most things, but when it's your children it requires proper risk management.

I'm going to talk to a chap who went to train at Campsfield as a guard there and left after a week after decribing how the other guards treated the inmates to little kicks and prods. If this is true, this means the escapees have a point in trying to escape, but the degree of their desperation cannot be determined with any sort of clarity, which means I do think my daughters are at more risk than if the camp wasn't within a 100 yards of the nursery.

On that basis, and subject to the conversation I am going to have tonight with the trainee guard, I think I am going to have to remove them.

Thanks for your comments though.

Informed wrote:
Their crimes are of immigration, not violence . Why wouldn't you want them near your daughters if they only broke immigration law? One , they said, has a conviction for a minor crime . Being a failed asylum seeker most certainly and absolutely doesn't mean they'll go on a murder spree, they probably just don't want to go home to face possible further persecution, ethnic cleansing, etc. Fair enough.

Assuming the 'minor crime' was being a failed asylum seeker, is it not enough that the person was one of the 87% (2005 data) of applicants who were refused asylum?

That's 25,710 people who could not prove a good reason to be admitted to the UK.

http://www.icar.org.
uk/?lid=5292

He would join more than QUARTER OF A MILLION people here in the UK who have no right to be here and are awaiting deportation.

Despite promises to clear a backlog of up to 285,000 foreign nationals, fewer than 1,000 were deported in September.



Fewer than 1,000 were deported in September
At the same time, the number of asylum seekers arriving in the country was double that figure.

In the three months to September, there were 3,120 removals - an 18 per cent fall on last year and the lowest number since the second quarter of 2002.

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/1
569863/Failed-asylum
-seekers-'not-being-
deported'.html

Or it could be that he's one of the undoubtedly many chancers, opportunists or outright criminals who seek a better class of victim here in the UK.

Of course, none of these facts will prevent the hand- wringers bleating on about how 'misunderstood' eevryone is and how any Tom. Dick or Abdul who turns up at our border should be given sympathy, tax payers money and a right to set up in OUR Country, often bringing with them the very problems of crime, disease and discrimination that they've allegedly fled from- for example the Somali crime gangs in the UK.

Now many people would have thought that forming violent, criminal gangs is strange way to respons to being given a second chance in someone else's Country- perhaps they're homesick?

So much for being 'informed'...

HA!
Do any of you actually have ANY clue as to what goes on at Campsfield House? As to what kind of people are in there? As to what a hard job the staff and officers that work at Campsfield House do?
I think not.
There are people that have done crimes, and there are people that haven't. All people that are held at Campsfield are indeed held under immigration law however who is to say what they have done previously? Although, the powers that be dictate what 'type' of detainee ends up at Campsfield and all are assessed on whether or not they are suitable to be held there.
The officers DO NOT kick and prod the detainees, as Andrew likes to think. I'm sorry sir, but your friend who apparently trained there for a week is very misinformed.
Not only do officers keep these men secure in the locks and bars sense of the word but they also help them emotionally. Dealing with their day to day needs - feeding, clothing, teaching them, playing sports with them, talking to and counselling them.
I truly do have a friend who has worked at Campsfield for several years, and I am thoroughly fed up of the place being given a bad name. She is sometimes afraid to say what she does as a job for fear of having the PC Brigade breathing down her neck and accusing her of abusing these 'poor innocent human beings'!

Recruiting?

With luck their bodies will be found on the M40 with lorry tracks across the back of their heads.

Alan Page wrote:
With luck their bodies will be found on the M40 with lorry tracks across the back of their heads.

Thanks for the plug. Personally I wish them all the best.

Having established that Campsfield is neither ethical or PROFITABLE (the bourgeois case) the best answer would simply close it down.

Not likely of course, what WOULD the shareholders say?

DanOxford wrote:

Informed wrote: Their crimes are of immigration, not violence . Why wouldn't you want them near your daughters if they only broke immigration law? One , they said, has a conviction for a minor crime . Being a failed asylum seeker most certainly and absolutely doesn't mean they'll go on a murder spree, they probably just don't want to go home to face possible further persecution, ethnic cleansing, etc. Fair enough.

Assuming the 'minor crime' was being a failed asylum seeker, is it not enough that the person was one of the 87% (2005 data) of applicants who were refused asylum? That's 25,710 people who could not prove a good reason to be admitted to the UK. http://www.icar.org. uk/?lid=5292 He would join more than QUARTER OF A MILLION people here in the UK who have no right to be here and are awaiting deportation. Despite promises to clear a backlog of up to 285,000 foreign nationals, fewer than 1,000 were deported in September. Fewer than 1,000 were deported in September At the same time, the number of asylum seekers arriving in the country was double that figure. In the three months to September, there were 3,120 removals - an 18 per cent fall on last year and the lowest number since the second quarter of 2002. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/uknews/1 569863/Failed-asylum -seekers-'not-being- deported'.html Or it could be that he's one of the undoubtedly many chancers, opportunists or outright criminals who seek a better class of victim here in the UK. Of course, none of these facts will prevent the hand- wringers bleating on about how 'misunderstood' eevryone is and how any Tom. Dick or Abdul who turns up at our border should be given sympathy, tax payers money and a right to set up in OUR Country, often bringing with them the very problems of crime, disease and discrimination that they've allegedly fled from- for example the Somali crime gangs in the UK. Now many people would have thought that forming violent, criminal gangs is strange way to respons to being given a second chance in someone else's Country- perhaps they're homesick? So much for being 'informed'...

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Yaaaawwwwwn.

Are you worried about all of the illegal white immigrants (Americans, Kiwis, etc) or do you merely concern yourself with the brown ones?

A 'chancer', by the government's standards, would never be classified as an 'asylum seeker' and would be deported.

This country has these asylum laws partially as a result of the Jewish refugee plight of WWII. OUR country turned them away, and wishing never to have the blood of millions of innocents on their hands again, ensured that any person fleeing persecution / certain death (NOT economic migration) would be taken in and helped. Personally, I find this a far more noble, God-like, compassionate and democratic thing to do that jumping up and down shouting that you have to pay another 5 bob in taxes.

I do agree that all failed asylum seekers (provided they have been given a 'fair' trial, which is an entirely different story) and illegals should be deported. But to deny somebody the right of appeal, to send them back to certain death just because you don't like the look of them or because you have to pay slightly higher taxes? That's sick.

To Ha!

I don't like to think anything, it's not a question of preference. I'm seeking the truth. The guy I know is called David and did train there for a week 9 months ago. He saw two guards kick an inmate. Don't shoot the messenger, but he sounds genuine. Hi girlfriend currently works as PA there and confirms what he claims.

Regardless: how on earth would you know whether the guards do abuse the detainees unless you work there yourself?

Don't get me wrong, some might need a prod and why not if they get out of line. But that's a separate issue.

Hi
i am doing some research on Campsfield for my dissertation. I am a 3rd year geography student at Loughborough University. I am very interested in interviewing people and getting their opinions of the centre. Would any of you be interested in being interviewed? It would be informal and your identity would remain hidden.
Many thanks,
Rachel Vine
r.vine-06@lboro.ac.u
k