Bernard Dineen: No limit to the lunacy over asylum seekers

THE BBC's Crimewatch programme last week spent time with the immigration officials trying desperately to curb the invasion, via Calais, of young men from Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe.

Road-haulage drivers are being driven to distraction by immigrants creeping on to lorries: in some cases, as many as 30 hiding behind the cargo of a single lorry. If they are caught and removed, they will simply try again tomorrow. For the drivers, discovery of immigrants inside their lorry could mean a heavy fine when they disembark in England, even if they were unaware.

The young men are not escaping from persecution. If they were, they would be happy to settle in any European country. But they are not stupid. They are determined to get to the haven which offers a soft touch: Britain.

The French are justifiably angry. The Mayor of Calais accuses Britain of turning the port into a staging post for illegal immigration by offering generous benefits.

She says: "Requesting asylum is easier in Britain than in France. The asylum seeker is given accommodation and £31 to £40 a week in benefits. When the annual salary of the average Eritrean is £140 a year, that seems enormous."

Our Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, whose capacity for inane comment extends from immigration to Gurkhas and beyond, says: "The illegal migrants in Calais are not queuing to get into Britain – they have been locked out by one of the toughest border crossings in the world." Make of that what you will.

On the sound principle that no situation is so bad that Brussels cannot make it worse, there is now talk of creating a European Immigration Service to let migrants claim asylum for Britain while in another member state.

Once they set foot in Britain, the migrants are home and dry. The magic word "asylum" opens all kinds of doors. No matter how bogus their claims, they will get £42 a week in cash, accommodation, education, NHS treatment and payment of their utility bills.

Ninety per cent of failed asylum seekers are not removed and there is a massive army of lawyers and lobbyists to fight for their rights. Even the National Lottery has given £75m to support asylum campaigners and fight deportations. It may seem odd for a government to establish a state lottery which then hands out cash to undermine government policy. But there is no limit to the lunacy that surrounds this subject.

THERE was a major riot in Brighton the other day by thousands of self-styled anti-capitalist protesters. Windows were smashed, cars damaged and buildings vandalised, while shoppers and tourists ran for cover. The anarchists dragged along recycling bins full of bricks and bottles to throw at police. Several officers were injured and those on horseback were forced to retreat: some of the horses were injured by missiles.

Prominent in the police ranks was a paramedic, with a large sign "Ambulance" on his shield. You thought he would be immune from attack? How naïve. While he was trying to help an injured policewoman, he came under attack from a hail of missiles.

What is remarkable about all this is that the riot was virtually ignored by the news media. No photographs of the policewoman's injuries. No outraged calls for the thugs to be brought to justice. No demands for a public inquiry. No sign of Max Clifford.

It is not the sort of event that interests the anti-police campaigners, or the media fools who dance to their tune. When one anarchist rioter was arrested for assaulting an officer, there was shouts of "Are you going to kill him?" and "Was he selling newspapers?", referring to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 demonstrations.

Dozens of the rioters filmed the Brighton arrest on their mobile phones. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they will manage to concoct some charge against the police. Can you think of a better way to undermine the rule of law?

A BIZARRE attempt is under way to build up Boris Johnson as a rival to David Cameron. The Spectator magazine, which he used to edit, gave lavish treatment to the first anniversary of his reign as London's Mayor.

Johnson is a clever chap and would be the first to admit it. If you are seeking a snappy Latin quotation from Virgil or Catullus, you need look no further. As Mayor, he has performed better than expected.

Even the most biased observer has to admit that Cameron has done a remarkably efficient and disciplined job as leader, confounding expectations. Any talk of undermining him now would be plain idiocy. Johnson is not a disciplined politician.

Attempts are being made to compare Gordon Brown's demise with that of John Major. The comparison is bunkum. Membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism certainly played its part – though Gordon Brown was more in favour of ERM membership than Major, even rebuking the Tories for not joining sooner. continues here

Adult asylum seeker 'raped girl,13, after he lied about age and was placed in children's home'

An asylum-seeker has been arrested after the alleged rape of a young girl from a children's home where he had been placed after apparently lying about his age.

The Afghan presented himself to Birmingham Social Services and claimed he was a 13 year-old minor, but staff suspected he was really over 18.

He was placed at the council-run children's home after producing medical evidence at an immigration hearing which seemingly backed his claims of being a child.

But the Afghan was later arrested following the suspected rape of a 13-year-old girl from the care home and police found an immigration card which appeared to confirm that he was really 19.

Social services have now begun an investigation after the asylum-seeker was quizzed about the suspected sex attack, a case which has seen another adult charged with rape.

'The Afghan presented himself some time ago as a minor, seeking asylum,' said a source. 'He claimed to be 13 years old but from the outset social services had doubts.

'Yet if someone's an asylum-seeker and a minor then social services are duty bound to look after them.

'Birmingham social services' experts were involved in challenging his claim that he was 13 at two immigration hearings and at one hearing he was legally declared an adult.

'But at an appeal he produced a letter from a doctor claiming he had some characteristics of a child, so the court had to accept he was a child.'

The asylum-seeker is currently on police bail after being arrested on suspicion of the rape, which is alleged to have occurred in Birmingham last month.

Two youths in their late teens were also detained by police. One was later charged with rape and remanded in custody after appearing before Midland magistrates, while the other has also been released on police bail.

The Afghan has now been moved to a 'specialist placement' while police inquiries continue into the alleged rape, as well as his true age.

'The truth is we just don't know how old he is for sure,' said one source. 'Most think he is an adult over the age of 18. It's proving it that has been the problem.'

A Birmingham City Council spokesman said: 'We are cooperating with police investigations in relation to a young person and these investigations are ongoing.

'People referred without documents to support their age present difficulties to all local authorities. continues here

Should this individual be deported?

Sneinton sex attacker was Afghan asylum seeker

AN ASYLUM seeker from Afghanistan has admitted he was the sex attacker who brought terror to the streets of Sneinton.

A sudden wave of incidents in December, 2006, sparked police warnings for women to be vigilant and repeated appeals for information.

Police issued a CD-fit of the sex attacker and put up posters appealing to local people to help them catch him.

”He was completely out of control and very violent”

Self-defence classes were held in the area and more than 250 attack alarms were handed out by police.

But yesterday, at Nottingham Crown Court, Nooroz Hameed Khan, formerly of Kimberley Street, Sneinton, admitted he was the sex attacker. He pleaded guilty to three charges of sexual assault on the women.

He first struck at 4pm on Thursday, December 21, 2006, when a 29-year-old Sneinton woman was on her way to meet her sister in Trent Lane. Khan struck up a conversation with her and then groped her.

In Meadow Lane 50 minutes late, a 16-year-old girl was seriously sexually assaulted. She managed to push her attacker off and ran away.

And on Christmas Day he targeted another victim, a 24-year-old woman, in Dale Street. He began talking to her, but she kicked him and escaped.

In an exclusive interview with the Post at the time, the Trent Lane victim said: "He was completely out of control and very violent.

"I am scared to go out on my own, even in daylight. Until he's caught I won't rest.

"I hate the thought of him still out there waiting to attack someone else."

After hearing he had pleaded guilty, she said she was relieved. "I can put this behind me," she said.

Khan had lived in Rotherham since he applied for asylum in January, 2008. He said he had fled the Taliban.

He was arrested in July last year and originally accused of five offences, but prosecutors decided to drop a fourth charge of sexual assault and an allegation of assault causing actual bodily harm.  continues here

Asylum seeker family wins £150,000 compensation

A family of asylum seekers who have had three claims for shelter turned down have been awarded £150,000 damages after being detained.

The compensation is believed to be the largest payout for such a case and has been handed to a Congolese family after the Home Office accepted their detention was unlawful. 

The damages were agreed at the High Court after the family argued they had been left traumatised after immigration officials raided their home and took them to Yarlswood Detention Centre for 57 days in 2006. 

The case centred, in particular, on the couple's eight-year-old daughter who had psychological problems. 

The family's barrister, Stephanie Harrison, told Mr Justice Mackay that the Home Office now conceded that their detention was "unlawful from the outset". 

The mother arrived in the UK with her eldest daughter in 2002 but had her claim for asylum rejected three years later. The father arrived later but had his claim for asylum also turned down in 2005. 

The couple had another daughter while here and put in a third claim as husband and wife which was refused in 2006. 

Although the mother was still appealing her individual refusal in June of that year, she, her husband, and daughters, aged just eight and one, were woken in the early hours at their home in Dudley, West Midlands, and taken to Yarlswood Detention Centre, where they were held for 57 days. 

After they were released, the Home Secretary again signed a removal order against them and another "dawn raid" followed in September the same year. This time the family was held for three days. 

Miss Harrison said the Home Office had failed to abide by "its own stated policy" on asylum seekers, or take account of the impact of the raids on the children. 

She said the entire family had been traumatised by the raids and detention. 

The Home Office agreed to pay £46,500 damages to the father, £39,000 to his wife, £45,000 to the elder girl and £19,500 to the baby girl, who was born in the UK. 

Mr Justice MacKay, who ordered that the family should not be identified, said: "This is a fair and reasonable settlement for the wrongs that were done to them." 

A UK Border Agency spokesman said: "The UKBA is actively working on alternatives to detaining families with children. 

"During detention or removal from the UK, we take the welfare of families with children extremely seriously. 

"Officers involved in family removals receive thorough training in procedures to minimise the distress caused. All members of the family are treated as sensitively as possible." 

Children's Commissioner for England Sir Al Aynsley-Green said: "I am particularly pleased that the two children have also been awarded compensation by the court. It goes some way to righting this wrong.  continues here

Asylum seekers should get benefits, says leading Tory think-tank

Asylum seekers refused permission to live in the UK should continue to receive benefits to prevent them turning to crime, a report by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith's think-tank said today.

The Government's 'nasty' policy of refusing to support failed asylum seekers in an effort to force them to return home has failed, Mr Duncan Smith said.

The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) report recommended sweeping changes to encourage failed asylum seekers to voluntarily go back to their country of origin.

The think tank found at least 26,000 failed asylum seekers in the UK are surviving on Red Cross food parcels.

There is a backlog of 280,000 failed applications which could take 20 years to clear, the CSJ warned.

The report said the existing system forces many refused applicants to face destitution or disappear off the authorities' radar and drift into illegal employment, prostitution or crime.

It said: 'Making refused asylum seekers homeless and penniless is hugely counterproductive.

'It is much more difficult to work with them to encourage voluntary return or to ensure timely removal.'

The UK lags far behind countries such as Sweden or Canada in persuading failed asylum seekers to leave voluntarily, the report found. A forced removal costs around £11,000, 10-times as much as a voluntary return.

Mr Duncan Smith said: 'The policy of making asylum seekers destitute is mean and nasty and has not worked.'

In a preface to the report, he said: 'The evidence gathered for this report shows that the welcome offered today falls far short of our traditional standards.

'It also appears that a British government is using forced destitution as a means of encouraging people to leave voluntarily.

'It is a failed policy. UK policy is still driven by the thesis, clearly falsified, that we can encourage people to leave by being nasty.

'The result is that we rely heavily on forcible return, which is both very costly and time-consuming, and engages only a small proportion of those whose claims are refused.

'This system gives refused asylum seekers good reason to abscond and little reason to engage with officialdom.'

The report recommends speeding up the asylum system so that those rejected are returned home within six months, either forcibly or voluntarily, compared with the existing process which takes an average of 13 months.

Unsuccessful applicants should continue to receive housing and financial support for up to six months pending their removal.

Asylum seekers who are refused permission to remain but are unable to be returned should be given a temporary licence to enable them to work and to access health care.

The report proposes setting up a new independent body to rule on asylum claims made up of a panel of magistrates, with charities and voluntary groups contracted to provide support for immigrants until they are returned home or integrated into society if allowed to remain in the UK.  continues here

Extra judges drafted in to hear immigration appeals

Asylum backlog delays other cases ‘for a year’

Extra judges are being drafted in to deal with more than 8,000 asylum and immigration appeals a year that threaten to overload the courts. 

The move is one of a series of steps to tackle the rise in appeals that have delayed other cases for a year or more. 

Lord Justice May, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, told The Times that as well as drafting in extra High Court judges, senior barristers and circuit judges had been appointed to sit as deputy High Court judges, doubling the normal number of judges on this work to 15. 

The extra judicial manpower, which has already reduced delays, is an interim measure pending more drastic action by the Government. Ministers are expected to announce plans to move the bulk of immigration work out of the High Court altogether and into the new Tribunals Service, probably by next June.

That will lead to High Court judges being relieved of thousands of cases a year, which will instead be heard by senior immigration judges and only occasionally, where absolutely necessary, by a High Court judge. 

The rise in immigration work is partly because of the increased volume of immigration decisions made by the UK Border Agency, which is dealing with record numbers of applications. In 2006 it removed 16,330 failed asylum seekers, excluding dependants, and in 2007 deported more than 4,000 foreign prisoners. 

Another factor is the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004, which replaced a two-tier system of appeals with a single-tier system. The High Court therefore became the only place of appeal from a tribunal. 

The volume of cases reflects that people do not accept the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and seek to have the decision reconsidered or apply for judicial review. 

A previous attempt by the Government to end the right of judicial review in immigration cases prompted widespread criticism and was thrown out of Parliament. 

But this move to devolve the work to the Tribunals Service could achieve the same result, although in a way that Lord Justice May, who took up his post in October, hopes will not be “controversial”. He said: “This was a problem in terms of work overload because important cases were not being heard promptly and we had delays of up to a year.” 

The emergency measures have been in place for a few months, with judges being found from other areas to tackle the backlog, he said. “It was a matter of concern but it has improved.” 

Between December 2007 and last month, the tally of cases waiting to be dealt with was cut by about 1,100 to 3,500, although that figure does not include hundreds not yet on the list as they are awaiting final decisions. 

Philip Havers, QC, a leading specialist in judicial review challenges, said: “I had one case that was waiting nearly two years, involving a challenge by a doctor to the Health Service Commission. The Administrative Court was completely snowed under by immigration and asylum cases.” 

But the delays have improved, he said. Now he was being offered a date next month or in February for a one-day case; or from February on for a two-day case. “That’s as it should be — it has completely transformed.” 

Steps would need to be taken to ensure that the problem did not arise again, he said. 

Four regional administrative courts will be set up next year in Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Although driven by a wish to move work outside London, it will also relieve immigration cases. Senior judges have described the pressure on the High Court’s Administrative Court, which hears the asylum and immigration cases, as “intense” and given warning that it is causing “unacceptable delays to the court’s work”. 

The appeals backlog is adding to pressure on the Court of Appeal. Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, has said that since 2005 the Court of Appeal has had a 77 per cent rise in applications to appeal in asylum and immigration cases. 

The increase has put “significant pressure” on the resources of the Court of Appeal both in terms of numbers of staff and lawyers who prepare the cases and in terms of judicial time, he said. 

It was “wholly disproportionate” for “such cases to be considered by the most senior judges who sit in the Court of Appeal,” Sir Anthony said. 

The Lord Chief Justice, then Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, first flagged up the “unacceptable delays” because of the pressure of asylum and immigration work in April. In 2007, the Administrative Court received 6,694 claims for judicial review – challenges to decisions by government or other public bodies. Asylum and immigration cases made up two thirds.  continues here

Homeless players aim for extra time at world cup

They came; they scored, they scarpered. It may not have been a complete surprise for the hosts of the annual Homeless World Cup football tournament but it was still a little embarrassing for the Australian organisers.

At least 15 footballers from Zimbabwe and Afghanistan who travelled to Melbourne to participate in the games decided that they just did not want to play ball. At least, not on the football pitch.

Instead they walked off the field and into the immigration department, where they applied for visas to remain in the country.

A spokesman for the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship told The Times that it had received 15 visa applications from the international teams. She would not confirm their nationalities.

In addition the entire Liberian women’s team were also believed to have missed flights out of the country after the tournament closed and a Kenyan player was still missing, Australian newspapers reported.

The Homeless World Cup, which has been going for six years, offers hope to thousands of players, most of whom come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds in the world. It is aimed at raising awareness of the plight of one billion homeless people and to help them to improve their lives.

While some use it as a step up, others use it as a step out. This year 56 countries took part in the games and 400 visas were given out.

None has expired yet, according to immigration officals.

Organisers of the Homeless World Cup said they could not confirm the asylum reports. Steve Persson, the executive director of the event, said that he thought it would be naive “not to think that it was a possibility”. “This is an international event and this occurs on all international events, including the Olympics, including the Commonwealth Games, including World Youth Day,” he said. continues here

Back door' amnesty for 180,000 asylum seekers who slipped through the net

Up to 180,000 asylum seekers are to be granted a 'back door' amnesty to live in Britain. 

They include failed refugees who should have been deported, and migrants whose claims were never even concluded by the Home Office. 

Instead, their files were lost or left unfinished as the asylum system went into meltdown.

Now officials are finally wading through the backlog, and have already granted more than 50,000 approvals. 

Based on the current rate at which cases are being rubber-stamped, the total number to benefit from the amnesty will be around 180,000. 

The approval rate is 40 per cent and rising, with all those who are successful gaining access to housing and other benefits. Local councils will be expected to find homes for many of them. 

The major reason why so many of the claims are being approved is the Human Rights Act. 

Under it, those who have been here for many years can claim Britain is now their home and that they no longer have links to their country of origin. 

If their claims had been considered when they were first submitted, many might have been sent home. 

The HRA, passed by Labour a decade ago, also prevents the removal of asylum seekers to countries where they could face torture or persecution, which is likely to apply to thousands of cases in the backlog.

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'Whilst the Minister for Immigration tries to talk tough, the reality is that the Government is prepared to grant what amounts to an effective amnesty just to get the figures down. 

'Despite all the spin, it is clear that Labour is no closer to getting a grip on illegal immigration.' 

The 450,000 so-called 'legacy' cases were unearthed by former Home Secretary John Reid during a clean-up of the department he described as 'not fit for purpose'. 

He said he wanted all the cases - some of which date back to the mid-1990s - resolved by around 2011. 

Lin Homer, chief executive of the UK Border Agency, said that of nearly 130,000 cases concluded so far, 51,000 - or 40 per cent - had been approved. 

A further 53,000 had been closed because, for example, the claimant could not be contacted. Only 23,500 applicants have been removed. 

Town halls have been warned to make the migrants a priority for council housing. They have been given a 'transitional grant' of £1.1million of taxpayers' money to help towards the cost, but the final bill is likely to be far higher. It is expected to be passed on in council tax rises. 

The list of countries with most beneficiaries of the 'legacy' policy is headed by Turkey, with 2,400 successful claimants. 

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the pressure group Migrationwatch UK, said: 'We are only now getting the measure of the disaster that befell the asylum system in recent years. 

'It is frankly absurd that tens of thousands of people should be given full access to the welfare state for no other reason than the administrative chaos that ruled in the Home Office.' 

It also emerged yesterday that seven of the most dangerous criminals involved in the foreign prisoner scandal have been given permission to stay in Britain. They are rapists, killers and paedophiles. 

One of the main reasons for being allowed to stay is that under human rights law they have a right to a family life. 

In total, out of 1,000 offenders involved in the Home Office fiasco, only 336 have been deported to date. 

Tory MP James Clappison said: 'The fact that even the most serious criminals have been allowed to stay makes a mockery of Labour's original promise that they would be found and deported.' 

The revelations, made in a letter to Parliament's home affairs committee, came as a study showed that allowing every illegal immigrant living in the UK to stay would cost £2billion a year.  continues here

'It's like winning the lottery': Jobless Afghan mother of seven gets £170,000 benefits and lives in £1.2million council house

An Afghan family living in a £1.2million home paid for by the taxpayer admitted yesterday they felt as if they had won the lottery. 

Mother-of-seven Toorpakai Saiedi, 35, receives £170,000 a year in benefits. div>

A staggering £150,000 of that is paid to a private landlord for the rent of a seven-bedroom house in West London.

The detached property in Acton has two large reception rooms, two kitchens, a dining room and a 100ft garden. Ealing Council is picking up the £12,458 a month bill - which is nearly five times the rent for a similar property in the same road.

Outside the house yesterday, Mrs Saiedi's son Jawad said: 'When the council chose to put us here we did not say no. If someone gave you a lottery jackpot would you leave it?

'When I heard how much the council was paying I thought they were mad.'

Neither the landlord nor the family, who have lived in Britain for seven years after applying for political asylum, have done anything illegal but have benefited from an extraordinary series of loopholes in Whitehall guidelines introduced in April for housing allowances.

Incredibly, under the Local Housing Allowance Scheme areas such as Acton are in the same rent band as wealthy Westminster. It also means landlords know the maximum they can charge.

Last night, as the Saiedi family joked about their good fortune, the Government was urgently reassessing the scheme amid calls for an overall of the system.

Ealing Council has sacked three officers involved in the case.

Will Brooks, the council's cabinet member for housing, said: 'The sums of money involved will offend people's feelings of fair play, especially as so many are having difficulties paying bills at the moment.

'The story highlights some of the absurdities of the housing and benefit system. What will surprise and anger people is that these rent levels are published so landlords are fully aware of the maximum levels that can be paid.

'In cases such as this, where there are very few seven-bedroom properties, landlords will obviously seek the absolute maximum as set down by the Government.'

Mrs Saiedi, who had her first child aged 13, came to Britain with her seven children in 2001, a year after her husband Haji Rahmat Shah Saiedi, 45, had arrived in London and claimed asylum.

The family, who were granted leave to remain, say they were wealthy farmers near Bagram airbase, 20 miles from the Afghan capital Kabul, and were forced to leave because of Taliban threats.

Since arriving in Britain, they have lived in property paid for by local authorities - first in a three-bedroom terrace house in Enfield, North London, and then in a five-bedroom semi in Ealing.

They were there for nearly three years until the landlord of the property told the council the family would have to move out because he wanted to live in the house.

Mr Saiedi, a taxi driver, and his wife live separately but the size of the family - Nasir, 22, Jawad, 20, Fawad, 18, three girls aged 15, 13 and eight and another boy aged ten - meant they were entitled to a seven-bedroom home.

An Ealing spokesman said: 'As the Department for Work and Pensions told us, it was appropriate to put them in a seven-bedroom property because of the ages of the children. So we went to the private sector. The rents in the private sector were set in the new system in April.'

The property was bought in March for £1.2million by Ajit Panesar. He insisted: 'I have done nothing wrong. I can't help it if the law says I should get paid the amount of money.'

If Ealing had got a mortgage for £1.2million to buy the house itself it would be paying £8,102 a month in repayments - a third less than it is paying Mr Panesar.

Jawad, a student who admits he spends most of his time driving around in cars and playing snooker, said: 'We are very lucky to live here, maybe the council made a mistake. It is a lot of money to pay and the landlord is the one who is really lucky. He must be getting rich.'

He added: 'The property had been refurbished before we arrived, but there were certain aspects that I was not happy with so I phone up the council and it sent people to fix the drive and clean up the garden.'

He added: 'We do like living here. But my mum has said she is not happy because the house is so big and she doesn't like cleaning. It is much smaller than our house in Afghanistan.

'Some of the rooms in England we would not even put our chickens in because they are so small.'

Mrs Saiedi said: 'I always thought the housing benefit was a lot, but I am told it is what it is for homes like this here.' She added: 'I'm happy in England. The education is better and I like Ealing.'

Details of the case have caused anger in the road where the family live, not least in the house opposite where 94-year-old Jozeph Pawlica, a former prisoner of war, has to pay for his own care despite living in Britain since 1948. His daughter Elizabeth de Rozarieux, 51, said: 'I think it is diabolical.'

There was anger too from the sacked housing officers, David Lewis, Gemma Calliste and Salma Khan, who accuse Ealing of making them scapegoats. Mr Lewis, 37, said: 'We are shocked and stunned that we've lost our jobs as we were just doing what we were told.

'We were told to find this family a seven-bedroom house and that's what we did. People raised their eyebrows at the figure of £12,000, but it is set by the Government. If there was a problem with it, the Government shouldn't have set it so high.'

Cashing in on the loopholes

The extraordinary scheme under which Toorpakai Saiedi can make her massive claim for housing benefit was introduced in April and has been described as a licence for landlords to cash in.

The Local Housing Allowance allows landlords, such as Ajit Panesar, to know the maximum a council can pay for any property even before opening negotiations.

It also allows tenants to receive a weekly cash bonus to their benefits if they can broker a rental below the area's average rate.

LHA rates are calculated for individual areas, known as Broad Market Rental Areas, and are based on where the claimant will live, the household size and the number living there.

One of the major problems is that the bands cover several council areas - in the Saiedi case most of West London. This means that Acton where she lives is placed in the same bracket as Westminster - and Acton prices are inflated by those in Westminster.

A landlord or tenant merely has to visit the LHA's website to see what the potential for a property is and calculate the possible amount of housing benefit available.

Landlord and tenant can agree the rent between one another and then refer it to the council for approval.

In the Saiedi case, Ealing was obliged by law to provide her family with accommodation. No council home was available so it had to turn to the private sector.

Seven bedrooms were needed because under guidelines boys and girls cannot share the same room after the age of ten.

A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions said: 'The new LHA is a system of allocating housing benefit which is fairer and more transparent than before. It works to localise boundaries, to give people on low incomes rental choices where they live and set a fair level of rent for each area. continues here

British journalism student gang-raped by asylum seekers in Calais squatter camp they call 'The Jungle'

A British student has been gang-raped by illegal immigrants in Calais, it has been revealed.

The woman was writing a story on asylum seekers for her journalism course when she was attacked, police said.

Up to 100 men have been rounded up as potential witnesses to the crime, which is alleged to have taken place in a notorious squatter camp nicknamed 'The Jungle'.

Police said the attack was of a particularly 'brutal nature'. The victim is still in Calais.

The victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was described as 'a London student who had travelled to France to highlight problems surrounding clandestine immigration'.

A police spokesman added: 'She appeared to be working alone, which was clearly a very dangerous thing to do. 

'We fear that the men she was reporting on attacked her in the wood where they were staying.' 

The woman, who is thought to be in her twenties or early thirties, told locals she wanted to spend time with would-be illegal immigrants who were attempting to reach Britain by stowing away on lorries.  

The squatter camp is part of a disused an industrial zone called 'The Dunes' and is a short walk from the ferry port.

Up to 500 men live there, supported by local charities.  

Father Jean-Pierre Boutoille, of the refugee charity C’Sur, said: 'There are lots of journalists, including students, who come here to get to the heart of what’s going on, to write reports and produce films.

'When reporters contact us, we always ask to accompany them. We know the refugees as we see them everyday.

'We would never allow a young female adventurer in this wood, especially not at night. 

'On Tuesday we did not receive any requests for assistance, and nor did any other charities.' 


Yesterday some 100 would-be immigrants to Britain were rounded up by a force of French riot police.

Most of the men claimed to be from Iraq, Afghanistan or the Middle East, although police believe many were from eastern Europe and the Balkans.  

One, who asked not to be named, said: 'Yes, I saw a young journalist with a camera. Lots come this way.

'I don’t know who she was exactly, but she was young, perhaps 30, and a student from London. 

'The word is that something happened to her in the woods.' 

In 2005 a gang of immigrants was implicated in the rape of a resident of Oye-Plage, near Calais.  continues here

They shall allow them in, these predators, these dangers, lest their human rights be infringed but what of the potential victims, what rights have they, what rights have we, we must put up and shut up, we must permit the fox access to the hen-house. I cannot even comprehend the misery of the victim, the debasement she suffered, her fears now for her health, I hope, no I pray, that life will be kind, that she shall find a real man, not a monster, a fiend, as these men were, I hope that happiness comes her way, enough to at least help her find peace.

Yet why, why must this happen, why bring the jungle to the west, why must we, we of the west now face crimes once unimaginable, yes we have our own monsters, our own fiends, the tragic events in Jersey tell us that, yet never the prevalence, never the dangerous community as now. Once community was home, safety, now there is nothing left; now woods become places one must fear to trend, women assailed and childhood smothered by worried parents, because evil stalks the young.

Yet they say nationalism is evil, this power that would sweep away the criminal, the sexual predator, the purveyor of drugs, rip their world asunder and make anew this country, there would be no camps in Calais, no woods filled with alien danger, the people would again feel safe, be safe, whilst the criminal runs headlong. What a twisted world, what a twisted vision of human rights, when civility must play second fiddle to savagery, when the law-abiding must fear every corner , every shadow, scared to holiday and scared to walk, cities lost to crime and inhabited by marauding predators.

We can stop it, I promise you, we can, should fate give us chance place fear in the heart of evil and joy in the heart of our people, we can shake down this house of cards and run them out of office but we need you, the frightened, the victim, the angry, the disenfranchised, the stranger in their own land. We need the peoples mandate, the people’s permission, with that and only that change can come, I cannot lie, it won’t be easy, they have destroyed so much. Yet even now at such an eleventh hour there is chance, slight chance, take it or lose it, no more victims, no more lives destroyed by animals, by savages, by monsters.

Freedom from victim-hood is our offer, we united against any and all aggressors, be they from without or within, let’s stop letting such as they into our countries, let’s finally close the door and begin the much needed healing. 14