Photo: The Unity Centre, Glasgow

19 youngsters admitted to detention centre this year

Last Tuesday, Sulaiti Wahuyo and her two-year-old son Gabriel were fingerprinted, photographed, issued with a number and an identification card, which must be carried at all times – and then imprisoned.

While not convicted of any crime, as failed asylum-seekers, she and her child were incarcerated in Scotland’s notorious Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre. Their plight is an indictment of the UK government which promised the people of Scotland last year that no more children and their families would be held like prisoners behind barbed wire.

Wahuyo and her son are just one of many mothers and children to be held in Dungavel so far this year, the Sunday Herald has learned.

Wahuyo is no stranger to detention. Suspected of supporting a rebel group in her native Uganda, she was arrested by soldiers, and held incommunicado for two years from October 2006 without trial. She eventually escaped to the UK with her infant son.

During her incarceration Wahuyo was repeatedly raped and tortured. She did not see her son Gabriel until her escape in October 2008.

On Thursday, Wahuyo and her child were taken from Dungavel to Yarl’s Wood, in Bedfordshire, another holding centre, where she awaits her forcible removal to Uganda this Wednesday.

The Unity Centre in Glasgow, which supports refugee families, said: “Sulaiti is a law-abiding woman who is absolutely terrified of being sent back to Uganda. As a victim of torture and detention, it is unjust of the UK Border Agency to return Sulaiti.”

The Unity campaigners say this mother and child’s incarceration flies in the face of the UK government’s pledge to provide an alternative to the detention of families.

On October 23, 2008, Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy announced the introduction of a pilot scheme which would see up to four families at a time housed in former council flats in Glasgow, allowing them access to basic facilities for two weeks before being repatriated.

Murphy, a father of two, said: “One of the first things I did was to see whether we could bring this process forward. I would hope for it to be launched at the start of the new year.”

Six months on, nothing has changed. The Unity Centre has recorded at least 19 children being detained with their families in Dungavel since the beginning of 2009.

According to the Centre, since January 1 at least two single parent families with four children have been detained.

Alice Lithgow, a volunteer at the Unity Centre, said: “Detention is supposed to be the last resort for children and only used for families considered to be a high risk of absconding. Of all groups of detainees, single mums with young children are the group least likely to abscond.”

The Children’s Commissioner for Scotland has threatened to report the UK and the Scottish government to the UN, as the continued confinement of asylum-seeking children under the age of 16 contravenes the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

While the Scottish government has no authority to intervene in Dungavel, as asylum matters are reserved to Westminster, the Scottish Government and local councils are responsible for ensuring child welfare.

A spokesperson for the UK Border Agency could not confirm any time frame for implementing the new policy, stating that details were yet to finalised.

A spokesperson for Glasgow City Council echoed that uncertainty: “It is hoped the project will become operational in the near future.”

Concerns have been raised about the negative impact of imprisonment on children.

Following a surprise inspection at Dungavel in 2008, Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers said: “The plight of detained children remains of great concern. An immigration removal centre can never be a suitable place for children.

Any period of detention can be detrimental to children and their families.”

Published in the Sunday Herald Sunday April 19th, 2009 (Five star rated)

Photo: Gareth Harper

“People were shouting. There were crashing noises. I thought I was in a dream. Four people came in my room, told me get up, get ready. I didn’t know how to make myself dressed. I thought, ‘I’m going to wake up and this is a bad dream’.

“In the living room: my father, my brother in handcuffs. My father is crying. My mother is crying. I never saw my father cry. I told the lady, ‘What is wrong with you? I can’t go to detention. I am 13 and I am going to school today, and why are you putting handcuffs on my father? He is a human being’.

“My brothers were too quiet. They grabbed my dad and took him out of the house. Then my brother, Elvis. He is 18 and very quiet, and he did not want to go in handcuffs but they made him. Then they took me, my mother and other brother. I didn’t want our neighbours to see me.

“I want to come home now.  I was excited to go to school that day… I don’t want to be in Yarl’s Wood. We can’t go out. Too many people are sad. My brothers are quiet, my father and mother are too upset. Someone killed himself here.”

13-year-old Saida Vucaj’s account of her family’s forcible removal from their Drumchapel, Glasgow home in a dawn raid by immigration authorities and their subsequent journey to Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre in England has recurred hundreds of times with hundreds of different faces.

The continuing detention of failed asylum seekers and their families in immigration detention facilities has been the subject of debate in Scotland since the creation of Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre in 2001. Voices running the gamut from pressure groups to Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People have protested what human rights lawyer and Children’s Commissioner Professor Kathleen Marshall has labelled “a clear breach of human rights”.

“The argument is not whether a country should have control over its borders, but about the way in which they do it. There must be alternative ways of dealing with this than traumatising children and families in this way.”

With this milieu informing him, incoming Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy announced last October the introduction of an alternative to detention for failed asylum seekers with families. Rather than being incarcerated in Dungavel, a pilot scheme would see up to four families at a time being housed in former council flats in Glasgow, allowing them access to basic facilities such as a washing machine, fridge and furniture for around two weeks before being repatriated.

The proposed £150,000 pilot, a joint project between Glasgow City Council and the UK Border Agency, is similar to one trialled in Kent, although in England the families were held in hotel rooms away from the city centre.

Speaking in October 2008, Murphy, father of two, said: “This is a trial based on the concerns raised in particular by churches in Scotland.

“As Secretary of State for Scotland, one of the first things I did was to see whether we could bring this process forward. I would hope to be able for it to be actually launched at the start of the new year.

“I want to see if we can do something that is sensible, but also sensitive, that looks after the children.

“The truth is that no politician of any party would ever like to see families being put behind the barbed wire in Dungavel.”

Six months on, and four months after the project was tentatively earmarked to commence, nothing has changed.

The Unity Centre in Glasgow has recorded at least 16 children being detained with their families in Dungavel since the beginning of 2009.

According to the Centre, since January 1st at least two single parent families with four children, a single mother from Botswana with a 14-month-old daughter, and a Nigerian mother with two infant sons, among others, have been detained. Of the 14 children recorded by the Centre, half have been forcibly removed from the UK with their parents.

Most recently, a 12-year-old girl and her mother were detained on March 18th after reporting at the UK Border Agency in Glasgow.  Another mother and two-year-old baby were detained on the 14th of April.

Alice Lithgow, a volunteer at the Unity Centre, said: 
”Detention is supposed to be the last resort for children and is only supposed to be used for families that are considered to be a high risk of absconding. It is difficult to understand how any single mum with four children, some of whom require medical treatment, could be considered to be a high risk of absconding. Of all groups of detainees, single mums with young children are the group that are the least likely to abscond.”

Phil (last name withheld), another volunteer, said: “Being detained is one of the most traumatic experiences imaginable. The reason why it’s called detention and not imprisonment is because these people aren’t criminals. They have not been convicted of any criminal offence when they are detained.

“In the UK we don’t detain the children of criminals, of violent gangsters or drug dealers or rapists. So we should not be detaining the children of people who have not been convicted of any crime.

“Think of what it does to a child’s self esteem and sense of identity to see their parents being handcuffed, to watch them being taken in that way. They issue all the children ID cards. The babies are fingerprinted and their photos taken.”

The Children’s Commissioner for Scotland has threatened to report both the UK and the Scottish government to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, as the continued confinement of asylum seeking children under the age of 16 contravenes several sections of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, which the UK ratified in part in 1991, and became a full signatory in September 2008.

While the Scottish government has no authority to intervene in Dungavel, as asylum matters are reserved to Westminster, the Scottish Executive and local councils are responsible for ensuring child welfare.

Concerns have been raised about the negative impact of imprisonment on children of any age.

Chief Executive John Wilkes of the Scottish Refugee Council said: “Scottish Refugee Council firmly believes that children, families and other vulnerable groups should not be detained for the purpose of immigration. Detention, even for a short period, is a traumatic experience for children, inhumane and has a serious impact on their physical and mental health, personal development and education.”

Criminologist and former prison governor Professor David Wilson of Birmingham City University said: “We know that any kind of coercive institutional environment is simply bad for children. It stigmatizes, it isolates, it increases their risk of self-harming, it removes them from pro-social environments in the community and ultimately it damages us all.”

Half a year after the preliminary announcement, even less details are available. A spokesperson for the UK Border Agency could not confirm any time frame, or the number of families to be involved in the pilot, stating that details were yet to finalized.

A spokesperson for Glasgow City Council echoed that uncertainty, stating: “
It is hoped the project will become operational in the near future.”

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales 2006-2007 Annual Report highlighted the simmering issues at UK detention centres.

“Children continue to be detained in considerable numbers and are held for a month before there is any social work assessment of their welfare. At Dungavel, we found that the incidence and length of children’s detention had increased during 2006.

“Detainees at Dungavel were routinely handcuffed in public areas, both on the journey there and at subsequent court appearances, without any individual risk assessment, despite our previous recommendations.”

Human rights activist and director of Positive Action in Housing Robina Qureshi, addressed a rally after receiving a 4:00 am phone call from a weeping and distressed Saida Vucaj from behind the bars of Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre.

“As the horrific treatment of our fellow human beings comes to light, charities, churches and ordinary Scottish people are expressing their outrage and using the word ‘ashamed’ repeatedly. The Westminster government and the Scottish Executive tells us that the treatment of asylum seekers is ‘reserved’, i.e. ‘none of your business’. Let the Scottish Executive and the Westminster government be under no illusion.

“This is our business. We will not stand by and allow such inhumanity to go on against our fellow human beings – even if they are ‘asylum-seekers’.” 

Photo: Gareth Harper

Scotland could invoke international law to block the UK government’s desire to maintain a nuclear arsenal, one of the world’s leading legal experts has stated.

In the run-up to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament’s 51st anniversary on February 17th, Judge Christopher Weeramantry, former vice-president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), told an Edinburgh conference that while defence matters are reserved to the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament has international humanitarian and legal obligations that weapons of mass destruction violate.

Weeramantry said: “Gross violations of international obligations aren’t excluded from the purview of the Scottish Parliament. The absence of power in the former area cannot cancel out its responsibilities in the latter.”

John Burroughs, executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, also addressed the conference on February 3rd, reviewing the developments in international law relating to the illegality of nuclear weapons since the ICJ delivered its advisory opinion that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law”.

Burroughs stated that use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity, which the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court defines as murder, extermination, and other inhumane acts of a similar nature, when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. As crimes against humanity can be committed during times of peace, he explained couching nuclear weaponry in this language would allow for the case to be made that peacetime readiness to launch a nuclear attack is unlawful.

He continued: “What we sometimes lose sight of, is that doctrines of so-called ‘deterrence’ – even if they will indefinitely not result in use of the weapons – are wholly incompatible with achievement of the world governed by principles of peace, law and disarmament promised by the UN Charter.”

Judge Weeramantry sought to illuminate the dangers posed to Scotland by “a weapon that makes them targets and imperils their children and their children’s children, a weapon that endangers their environment, their fishing grounds, their food chain and their cultural heritage”.

He said: “Scotland will be a target for retaliation if the Trident missile should ever be used. The people of Scotland will be the sufferers. When the International Court heard the nuclear weapons case, the evidence placed before it in regard to the human sufferings caused by the nuclear weapon was so harrowing.

“A woman from the Marshall Islands said that Marshallese women after exposure to nuclear weapons testing ‘give birth, not to children as we like to think of them, but to things we could only describe as octopuses, apples, turtles and other things in our experience. We do not have Marshallese words for these kinds of babies because they were never born before the radiation came.

“‘The most common birth defects have been ‘jellyfish’ babies. These babies are born with no bones in their bodies and with transparent skin. We can see their brains and hearts beating. Many women die from abnormal pregnancies and those who survive give birth to what looks like purple grapes which we quickly hide away and bury.’

“The people of Scotland have every right to protest against the possibility of this experience being repeated in Scotland.”

Weeramantry served as vice-president of the ICJ at The Hague when it delivered its historic 1996 opinion on the illegality of nuclear weapons.

The UK government’s plan to replace the Trident missile system could breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Created in 1968 and ratified by 189 countries including Britain, the treaty has three ‘pillars’: non-proliferation, disarmament and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

A paper from Mohammed Bedjaoui, a former president of the ICJ, presented to the conference ‘Trident and International Law: Scotland’s Obligations’ said any “bolstering” of nuclear warheads would infringe the treaty’s disarmament stipulation.

This was echoed by British legal expert Phillipe Sands QC, author of a legal opinion for Greenpeace, which stated replacing Trident was likely to be against the law.

Westminster SNP leader and Foreign Affairs and Defence Spokesperson Angus Robertson opened the event.

“This conference underlines our commitment to a safer world by ridding ourselves of weapons of mass destruction. Majority opinion in Scotland is opposed to the Trident weapons system.

“The time is right to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland.”

The convention, organised by the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Resource Centre and the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy among others, sought to place Scotland’s nuclear responsibilities within a larger international legal framework.

Janet Fenton of the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Resource Centre said: “We are looking to encourage the Scottish government to look at the options of what can be done from an international law and ordinary Scots law perspective. At the present time Scotland is taking all its advice from Westminster.”

Weeramantry also asserted that non-violent resistance to nuclear weaponry could be justified in international law.

“Anti-nuclear civil resistance is the right of every citizen of this planet. For the nuclear threat, attacking as it does every core concept of human rights, calls for urgent and universal action of its prevention.”

John Ainslie, co-ordinator of the Scottish CND, said: “It’s reassuring for someone with that legal status to reaffirm his line. He has a strong legal argument stating that not only threat or use of nuclear weapons is contrary to international law, but also the possession and deployment.

“One of Weeramantry’s main points was the need to increase awareness amongst the public and the legal profession not only about the use of nuclear weapons being illegal, but the wider role that international law has.”

Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons system, consists of four nuclear-armed submarines, one of which is on constant operational patrol. Each submarine is equipped with up to 48 nuclear warheads. A single warhead has the explosive power of up to 100 kilotons, equating to 100,000 tons of conventional high explosives. Each warhead contains eight times the explosive power of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, which killed an estimated 140,000 people.

The current Trident submarines will reach the end of their service life in 2024. While a 2006 White Paper ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’ argued for an eminent replacement, 161 MPs voted against the government’s motion to continue with a replacement in March 2007.

In June 2007, the then-foreign secretary Margaret Beckett condemned the “sense of stagnation” engulfing disarmament efforts. She advocated further reductions in nuclear states’ warhead stockpiles in an allegedly Brown-endorsed speech.

Brown denounced the Trident system in a 1984 Commons debate, declaring it was “unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful and militarily unsound”. However, he supported the renewal of Trident in the March 2007 motion. 

Fenton said: “The Scottish government has a clear anti-nuclear stance. It is also a view shared by the majority of elected representatives in Scotland, including MPs in Westminster. The majority of Scottish MPs oppose the replacement of Trident.

“There was also a motion passed in the Scottish Parliament a year and a half ago that strongly recommended the UK government should not go ahead at this time with replacing Trident.”

Newly appointed Scottish Minister for the Environment Roseanna Cunningham said: “The Scottish Parliament has confirmed its opposition to plans for a new generation of nuclear weapons.

“Those around the world opposed to nuclear weapons are looking to Scotland to lead the way. That is a role we must fulfil.”

An opinion poll conducted in May 2007 by YouGov found that 58% of the Scottish public opposed Trident, a four to six point rise from four other opinion polls over the previous ten months.

These developments come as the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office publishes its Policy Information paper ‘Lifting the Nuclear Shadow: Creating the Conditions for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons’.

Robertson said: “Scotland can help lift the nuclear shadow by deciding to end the presence of Trident weapons.”

Photo: Bill Joseph

Pressure groups and industry bodies hit out at “sledgehammer” legislation and the potential for police to wield those laws to prevent photography, curtail civil liberties and dampen dissent in the wake of Ian Tomlinson’s death during the G20 protests in London.

Crucial footage has emerged showing a police officer striking Tomlinson with a full-force baton blow. Tomlinson later collapsed and died from a suspected heart attack.

Campaigners hope this incident will highlight the dangers of police suppression of photography in public places under terrorism laws.

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, which came into force February 15^th asserts: “A person commits an offence who elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s forces, a member of any of the intelligence services or a constable which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”.

There is apprehension that this vague legislation will be used to smother legitimate photography. Anyone snapping a photo of those people faces an unlimited fine and ten years in jail.

Neil Turner, Vice Chairman of the BPPA, said: “Section 76 is a loosely worded sub-section to a piece of legislation that is, in itself, something of a sledgehammer. In giving Section 76 such loose wording we feel that the likelihood of there being improper use of it is greatly increased.

“There is a real danger that sooner or later mistakes will be made and a test case will be brought to establish what this law actually means.”

Dr Geraint Bevan, coordinator of the Convention on Modern Liberty for Scotland, said: “There’s a chilling effect on freedom of speech and the rights of people to protest and talk about what’s going on. If the police can deter people from taking photos and deter them from protesting or reporting what’s happening, then that’s a very serious effect on freedom of speech, which is very unhealthy for our society.

New Scotland Yard was the scene of a “mass picture-taking session” on February 16^th. The photo call, organized by the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), protested another restrain on the right to take pictures in public places, what the NUJ branded a “precious freedom”.

Speaking at the protest, comedian and political activist Mark Thomas said: “It’s a crass piece of draconian legislation. Suddenly, [photographers] can be arrested for doing their work; they can have their work confiscated. Secondly, it means that at demonstrations you can be arrested for taking photographs.

“There’s a history of police misbehaving at demonstrations. It’s important to record that. It’s part of the democratic process. It’s called holding the state to account.”

Photojournalist Marc Vallée, hospitalized in 2006 after injuries sustained by police action while covering a Parliament Square demonstration, pointed to use of previous terrorism legislation to prevent journalists from reporting on protests.

“I know journalists that have walked out of a tube station on the way to a protest. They’ve got their press card hanging around their neck. They’ve got all their equipment. Officers have walked up to them, addressed them by name, said ‘Hello, are you going to cover the protest?’. The journalist replied yes, and the officer said ‘Right, we are going to stop you under section 44’. How is that appropriate use of terrorism legislation?”

Turner said: “In meetings with senior police officers and other bodies, we have been assured that Section 76 will not be used to stop press photographers doing their jobs. Nor will it be used to retrospectively block the publication of images gathered in a lawful way.

“Our fear is that this will not be honoured by more junior officers on the ground and there will come a time when the legislation is misused in the heat of the moment and photographers will be impeded.”

Home Office minister Vernon Coaker told a Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Human Rights on policing and civil liberties “memory cards may be seized as part of a search but officers do not have legal power to delete images or destroy film.

“We must not put ourselves in a situation where photographers, journalists or others feel that they do not have the right and do not believe that they can pursue their professional job and the public interest”.

Activist Val Swain is a member of FIT Watch, a collective that photographs Forward Intelligence Teams – police squads who monitor and photograph protesters. She has experienced numerous altercations with police.

“On a ‘No Borders’ protest, a Metropolitan Police officer grabbed hold of my camera and tried to wrestle it out of my hand.  When I did not let go, he squared up to me, shoved me hard, and told me he would arrest me if I didn’t stop taking photographs of him and other police officers. 

“He later threatened to arrest me for taking unauthorised photographs of children, even though I had taken no pictures of children whatsoever.

“At the climate camp in Kent last year, I was arrested as I tried to take a picture of an officer carrying out stop and search operations at the gate of the camp.  I was asked to photograph the officer because he wasn’t displaying his identifying numbers. 

“When I lifted my camera, his colleague came and stood in front of the lens so I couldn’t take the shot.  When I walked to the side and lifted my camera again, I was grabbed, dragged across the road, thrown against a van, and arrested for obstruction. Both my colleague, who was arrested for intervening, and I were denied bail and held for four days in Bronzefield Women’s Prison.  The charges were later dropped.”

As security is a reserved matter, powers granted under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 differ in Scotland.

Dr. Bevan said: “The British Transport Police are under the direct control of the Home Office, rather than the local police force. In all of Scotland there is no area designated under the Terrorist Act as a place where you can stop and search.”

“Railway stations are different because they’re policed by council police, who are governed by the Home Office. You can walk through Glasgow or Edinburgh with no problem at all. The police don’t have the power to detain you. You walk into a railway station – they do.”

The British Transport Police are unable to divulge if anyone has been cautioned or moved on under Section 76, as “it is an operational police matter”. They were also unable to state how many suspected or planned terrorist attacks they have prevented. The Association of Chief Police Officers for Scotland (ACPOS) could not be reached for comment on either matter.

A parliamentary question asking for clarification from the Home Office on the policy of “police preventing members of the public from taking photographs in public place” on November 26, 2008 has not been answered.

According to the BPPA, they have not had any reports of photographers being impeded under Section 76.

Speaking at the Convention on Modern Liberty, director of Liberty Shami Chakrabati spoke of a “death by a thousand cuts”, the slow demise of civil liberty by encroaching legislation.

“It is said by former Government chief scientist Professor David King that if you introduce live frogs into a sauce pan of boiling water, they sensibly and instinctively jump out and save their skins.

“If, on the other hand, you introduce the same live frogs to a pan of tepid water and gently apply heat, the frogs will splash around and have a merry time and feel warmer and happier, and gently and slowly boil to death.

“That is how freedom dies.”

Photo: Wikicommons

Veritas gets down in the dumpster in the hunt for free food

With the country now ‘officially’ in recession, after the worst slump in gross domestic product (GDP) since 1980, unemployment is on the rise in all industries with predictions of two million jobless in 2009. Though quarterly student loans means that Scottish students are less affected, a high proportion of Napier’s international students relying on part-time jobs are less lucky.

But instead of focusing on the recession, and predictions that it’s only going to get worse, Veritas has hit the streets in its first instalment of ‘how to live for free…’ This month we look at food and the practise of ‘dumpster-diving’ – where people go through supermarket chain bins filling their fridges with food waste.

Starting back in the mid-‘90s in New York, the ‘freegan’ movement has gathered momentum in the past year in the UK, with research figures revealing a high proportion of the 6.7 million tonnes sent to landfill annually is  ‘avoidable’. The movement in Edinburgh has also grown in popularity, with numerous online forums organising meet-ups as well as positive media attention.

Instead of taking the ‘easy’ positive observant angle that we’ve seen by local reporters, Veritas decided to live on urban waste for three days to see if the practise has any real merit.

It’s 11pm on a Thursday night. Dressed in black with large rucksacks, we start in the city centre, in the laneways behind Princes Street where High Street food stores Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury’s are sure to dump at least some proportion of the annual 6.7 million tonnes in their bins.

Upon closer inspection in the dingy deserted service streets, the bins are mostly empty. So with a few pastries and a loaf of bread we move on to Tesco’s – Britain’s largest supermarket chain.

Circling around the building on Nicolson Street, and mistakenly sifting through domestic waste bins, we find that Tesco is ahead of the game – its rubbish safely locked away behind a one-storey tall, four-metre wide metal roller door with the Tesco logo emblazoned on its side. Tough luck for some.

The next stop is Waitrose in Morningside, following a recommendation by a former employee. We get there at 1am – and we’re too late. Beyond the stench of the red metal container, each bag has been ripped down the middle and little is left but some avocados, three vegetarian lasagne ready meals and some sweet potatoes.

After our somewhat disappointing plunder we head home, stopping behind Lothian Road where we find three packets of donuts and more loaves of bread. With enough food for a few meals and a couple of snacks, we decide that if there’s any loot to be had it isn’t in the smelly inner city alleyways.

It’s a Friday night and the Real Mackenzies are playing at Bannermans, the wind is freezing and exams are over. But a challenge is a challenge.

We head to an outer Edinburgh retail park, a twenty minute bus trip from the centre. A deserted car park framed by three strips of shops is illuminated in the blackness and a burglar alarm echoes off the walls from all directions. Between us we figure out a story to tell the police when they turn up in the empty lot to find two students dressed in black and carrying big rucksacks.

The siren keeps on, but the police never show.

We head straight for Marks and Spencer, a rectangular block of concrete in the corner. The alleyway behind the building is orderly and well-lit, with four clean red wheelie bins at its centre. We open the first bin and it’s packed with garbage bags filled with M&S own brand ready meals, fresh fruit and vegetables, desserts, chocolate, packaged meat and boxed salads.

A few items are more than a week old so we leave them, but to our surprise most of the stuff is either just within its use-by-date, or has a week or more to go. Our rucksacks fill up quickly, with a high-quality range of foods – some covered in blue food dye to deter bin scavengers like ourselves. Considering the amount of colouring in everyday food, and the impenetrable dense packaging, the dye only adds to the irony of our excessive waste – and the current global food shortage.

At home we lay the stuff out on the table and as far as Marks and Spencer prices go, we figure that the retail price for the lot is around £60. The food from both nights gave us enough to live on for around three more days, bring the total number of ‘free food days’ to five.

Rather than the bin scavenging of the night before, this night’s food hunt felt more like someone had decided to leave us a buffet of pre-packaged goods in a treasure hunt without a map. Or put simply, rather than ‘consumer waste’, it was just free food.

 Or almost free. The bus cost us £2.60 return.

Napier University bottomed out in a UK-wide ranking of universities, according to a survey of students’ perception of their experience at university.

The survey, the second of its kind and commissioned by The Times Higher Education Supplement, placed Napier University at 93 out of 101 universities in a poll designed to showcase universities offering the top student experience.

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, said: “While some cynics may be quick to dismiss the results as ‘just another league table’, what makes this survey stand apart is that students themselves determine the factors important in delivering a high-quality experience.”

The poll, performed by student market research company Opinionpanel, distinguishes itself in that students select the qualities most significant to their university experience. Overall, key concerns were the quality of staff and lectures and the helpfulness of staff, as well as social life, community atmosphere and campus environment.

This research jars with the findings of 2008’s Napier Student Satisfaction Survey, which claimed “the overall results [showed] that [students] were satisfied with [their] Napier experience”.

Raw survey data from the Napier survey has not been made available, with a press release on the Napier University website simply providing a short summary.

There is no mention of dissatisfaction with the Student Union, the category in which Napier scored the lowest in the Times survey.

This sentiment is echoed in Napier student interviews conducted by Veritas. Kirsty-Lee Kerr, 19, Publishing Media student, told Veritas: “I’ve been to the Student Union three times, and two of the times it was closed. The other time it was dead.  It’s hidden, it’s tiny and it’s blocked by a wall so no one can get to it easily.”

Napier University scored badly in the Times’ categories for cheap shop/bar/amenities, good sports facilities and good accommodation, its second lowest score.

Speaking to Veritas, Claire Charras, 22, Journalism student, said: “I can’t believe I had to paid £300 for student accommodation. I paid much less later on for a much better quality flat.”

Discontent with student accommodation received no reference in the Napier survey, with the only areas of improvement highlighted being the quality of its Merchiston campus, lack of computer facilities in Craiglockhart, and delays in receiving feedback on work.

Napier’s dismal ranking in the Times survey, seven from the bottom, stands in glaring contrast to other Edinburgh institutions’ positions, although all have slipped. Heriot-Watt was highest placed at 24, down from 11 in 2008. University of Edinburgh ranked at 43, a fall of 11 from 2008. 2008’s results only published the top 50 universities, within which Napier did not fall. Queen Margaret University and Edinburgh College of Art were not featured in the survey due to an insufficient number of respondents.

The highest scoring Scottish University, St. Andrews, attributed its success to its creation of a Student Experience Office and the launch of Student Experience Week. The week, overseen by Chris Lusk, director of student services, included a consultation of over 7,000 students and 12,000 alumni, special events celebrating the university’s diversity, and a grand finale celebration where students performed dance, fencing and musical presentation for their guests.

Heriot-Watt and the University of Edinburgh issued statements either reacting to or acknowledging the publication of the survey findings. Napier University has yet to comment on the research.

The Napier Students’ Association could not be reached for a response to the results, which paint a bleak picture of students’ estimation of the “Napier family”, as referred to by Professor Joan Stringer, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of Napier, in a September 2008 welcome video.

Ashley Anderson, 23, a Journalism student, told Veritas: “I’ve heard people saying the drop-out rate is high. I think they need to do more to keep students involved. I know in first year when I didn’t go to many lectures, nothing was ever done about it. They seem to let you drift away… If you fall behind it’s so easy for you to go ‘Oh well, I’m just not going back’.”

Published in Veritas February 6th Issue 101

Scotland could invoke international law to block the UK government’s desire to maintain a nuclear arsenal, one of the world’s leading legal experts has stated.

In the run-up to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament’s 51^st anniversary on February 17^th, Judge Christopher Weeramantry, former vice-president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), told an Edinburgh conference that while defence matters are reserved to the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament has international humanitarian and legal obligations that weapons of mass destruction violate.Weeramantry said: “Gross violations of international obligations aren’t excluded from the purview of the Scottish Parliament. The absence of power in the former area cannot cancel out its responsibilities in the latter.”

Weeramantry served as vice-president of the ICJ at The Hague when it delivered its 1996 historic opinion on the illegality of nuclear weapons.

The UK government’s plan to replace the Trident missile system could breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Created in 1968 and ratified by 189 countries including Britain, the treaty has three ‘pillars’: non-proliferation, disarmament and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

A paper from Mohammed Bedjaoui, a former president of the ICJ, presented to the conference ‘Trident and International Law: Scotland’s Obligations’ says any “bolstering” of nuclear warheads would infringe the treaty’s disarmament stipulation.

This was echoed by British legal expert Phillipe Sands QC, author of a legal opinion for Greenpeace stating replacing Trident was likely to be against the law.

Westminster SNP leader and Foreign Affairs and Defence Spokesperson Angus Robertson opened the event.

“This conference underlines our commitment to a safer world by ridding ourselves of weapons of mass destruction. Majority opinion in Scotland is opposed to the Trident weapons system.

“The time is right to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland.”

The convention, organised by the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Resource Centre and the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy among others, sought to place Scotland’s nuclear responsibilities within a larger international legal framework.

Janet Fenton of the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Resource Centre toldVeritas: “We are looking to encourage the Scottish government to look at the options from an international law and ordinary Scots law perspective. At the present time Scotland is taking all its advice from Westminster.”

Weeramantry also asserted that non-violent resistance to nuclear weaponry could be justified in international law.

“Anti-nuclear civil resistance is the right of every citizen of this planet. For the nuclear threat, attacking as it does every core concept of human rights, calls for urgent and universal action of its prevention.”

John Ainslie, co-ordinator of the Scottish CND, told Veritas: “It’s reassuring for someone with that legal status to reaffirm his line. He has a strong legal argument stating that not only threat or use of nuclear weapons is contrary to international law, but also the possession and deployment.”

The current Trident submarines will reach the end of their service life in 2024. While a 2006 White Paper ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’ argued for an eminent replacement, 161 MPs voted against the government’s motion to continue with a replacement in March 2007.

Fenton said: “The Scottish government has a clear anti-nuclear stance. It is also a view shared by the majority of elected representatives in Scotland, including MPs in Westminster. The majority of Scottish MPs oppose the replacement of Trident.”

Newly appointed Scottish Minister for the Environment Roseanna Cunningham said: “The Scottish Parliament has confirmed its opposition to plans for a new generation of nuclear weapons.

“Those around the world opposed to nuclear weapons are looking to Scotland to lead the way. That is a role we must fulfil.”

This comes as the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office publishes its Policy Information paper ‘Lifting the Nuclear Shadow: Creating the Conditions for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons’.

Robertson said: “Scotland can help lift the nuclear shadow by deciding to end the presence of Trident weapons.”

Published in Veritas Issue 102 Wednesday February 18th, 2009

Photo: Pirate Bay

The word ‘pirate’ is derived from the Greek word peira, which roughly translates to ‘to find luck on the sea’. Language lessons aside, it seems Swedish-hosted file sharing site Pirate Bay is no longer sailing through untroubled waters. In a court case that has bordered on farcical, three of the website’s co-founders, Fredik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi and the site’s donor, Swedish dotcom millionaire Carl Lundström, stood in the dock in Stockholm charged with copyright infringement and staring two years in prison and a fine of £98,000 in the face.

The trial has been the scene of comical moments: when asked if he wished compensation for appearing, part of Swedish court procedure, one of the defense witnesses quipped he would like flowers sent to his wife. This resulted in £3,000 worth of flowers sent via the internet by Pirate Bay supporters.

The defense also introduced what has been dubbed the ‘King Kong’ defense, similar to the nonsensical ‘Chewbacca’ defense used in an episode of South Park, itself a parody of Johnnie Cochran’s “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit” closing argument defending O.J. Simpson.

Defense attorney Per Samuelson’s argument: “ EU directive says that he who provides an information service is not responsible for the information that is being transferred. In order to be responsible, the service provider must initiate the transfer. But the admins of The Pirate Bay don’t initiate transfers. It’s the users that do and they are physically identifiable people. They call themselves names like King Kong …. According to legal procedure, the accusations must be against an individual and there must be a close tie between the perpetrators of a crime and those who are assisting. This tie has not been shown. The prosecutor must show that Carl Lundström personally has interacted with the user King Kong, who may very well be found in the jungles of Cambodia…”

Plantiffs to the case, adjourned on March 3rd, include Warner Bros, MGM, Colombia Pictures Industries, 20th Century Fox, Sony BMG, Universal and EMI: all music and film industry heavyweights. They have also filed a claim for damages of £9 million, contending that as Pirate Bay is a source of content, it should have obtained worldwide licenses for the material it distributed. If content isn’t officially available online, which is the case for the Beatles catalogue, it should be charged at ten times the going rate. The usual multiplier is two times.

Speaking to Veritas, Mr. Andres Guadamuz, Edinburgh University’s resident expert on P2P, weighed in: “ This means very little to file sharing. Pirate Bay
 already operates its servers abroad, so even if the four accused are
 found guilty, the service should continue to operate. If history teaches us
 anything, it’s that another service will rise to take its place. There
 are already hundreds of Torrent search and tracker services around, so
 file sharing will continue.”

Duncan Spiers, lecturer in Law at Napier University, spoke to Veritas of the impact this case may have in Scotland: “New legislation has been considered for the UK. It has been suggested that the first time people download copyright material an email could be sent out to them warning them about illegal downloading of copyright material without paying, the second time they do so their internet access would be suspended. If they persisted, their internet access would be stopped.

“This places responsibility on ISPs who would need to be able to discover the incidents of downloading and take the required action. If ISPs didn’t comply, they would suffer the legal consequences. Of course the downloader could move to another ISP or possibly even carry out downloading using anonymous encrypted connections (the technology is readily available). I don’t think this is an enforceable response to the problem. There is also the problem that the Data Protection Act 1998 prohibits ISPs and others from reading their subscribers electronic communications.”

Graphic: Original research conducted March 2009

Published in Veritas Issue 103 Monday March 9th, 2009

Photo: Will Andrews

In a case of preaching to the unconverted, Scottish comedian The Reverend Obadian Steppenwolfe III has been accused of “grossly crossing a line of decency and respect” by the Stirling University Students Association (SUSA), who are campaigning to have him banned from 16 student unions

The Reverend, real name Jim Muir, joked about the appearance of a transvestite student sitting in the front row of a recent student union gig in Stirling.

Mark Cullen, Vice President Services and Treasurer of SUSA, said: “There is nothing that the student movement takes more seriously than equality and he was essentially a bully. We all accept that comedy will often be cutting edge and controversial but there is a line of decency and respect that was grossly crossed.”

Muir refutes the row, pointing to the fact that the complaint did not originate from the student in question, but from a feminist group within Stirling University and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) officer for Stirling University Mark Charters.

Charters, who proposed the ban, said: ‘Humour is humour but at the point when you base your whole comedy sketch on one specific part of society, the LGBT community, and then victimise one person for being a transvestite that’s just wrong. We believe that the union should place a permanent ban on the comedy act in question and NUS Scotland should inform other unions about this act and how it breaks the equal opportunity policy.”

Charters has not explained how the show broke the equal opportunity policy.

Muir told Veritas he was first advised the row was due to jokes he made about women during his set, and was then informed it was due to the interaction with the student in the front row.

The self-defined transvestite in question said: “I really didn’t mind that much but I suppose he went a bit far. But he’s a comic, he’s trying to get people to laugh and it’s an opportunity. I was more offended by the Islamic jokes to be honest. He was quite rude to a lot of people.”

Speaking to Veritas, Muir said: “It’s just factually incorrect. Outwith the fact [Charters] doesn’t really have a point, because it’s a comedy club, it’s just incorrect. I refute all these allegations.”

Comedian Tom Stade, who also performed at the gig, hit out at the student groups fuelling the quarrel. He told Veritas: “With that frame of mind, you shouldn’t go to a comedy club. Go to a UN meeting. You’re picking on the Reverend, who is an easy target. Your women’s rights are alive and well here. If you want to further women’s rights, go to Iran or Saudi Arabia, where they actually need your help. See how far your letters get you there.

“Just because you are a feminist doesn’t mean you are immune to being made fun of. This is actually getting in the way of free speech.”

Jen Lavery, Assistant Press Officer at The Stand Comedy Club, said: “What is extremely notable about this case is that the ‘victim’ themselves is not actually the person who complained, nor do they seem particularly upset by what occurred. There seems to be a climate at the moment – kicked off by the Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross affair – of people jumping all over comedians the second they say something controversial, despite the fact that that is in part what comedy is about. When comedians are afraid to say something in case they might offend then comedy as an art form and as a cultural force is stifled, and that cannot be allowed to happen.”

Muir has invited the complainants to an open debate at the Stand Comedy Club in Glasgow on March 23^rd. Frankie Boyle, Tom Stade and Raymond Mearns, all classically trained debaters, will be lending their support. Muir has stated whoever wins the debate can lay claim to the ticket money.

When approached for comment on the debacle, the Ministry of Steppenwolfe stated: “The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he didn’t have tits.”

 Published in Veritas Issue 103 Monday 9 March 2009

Photo: Emma McDowell

It’s usually the only place in Edinburgh where you can watch a businessman in a sharp suit gobbling a 99 cone like a sunburnt child at the seaside, ice cream smeared across their face and dripping on their double breasted pockets. 

But the lawns of East Princes Street Gardens won’t be playing host to this and other sights until after Easter as work commences to repair the damage to the grass caused by the city’s winter festival events.

Both sections of the garden will be returfed under orders from Edinburgh City Council, after assessments of the grass declared it failed to recover from the impact made by the winter tourist attractions.

A spokesperson for the City of Edinburgh Council told Veritas the Winter Festival is liable for the damage, and would foot the bill for the returfing entirely.  Early estimations place the cost at a hefty £40,000.

Speaking to Veritas, Councillor Robert Alridge defended the winter events, which expanded this Christmas to include an indoor Spiegel Tent venue.

“Close to half a million people visit Princes Street Gardens during Edinburgh’s month-long programme of Christmas festivities, generating £33m in economic benefit to the city in 2007/08 - an increase of 7% on the previous year - from a direct Council investment of only £532,000.  This is particularly important in these challenging economic times.”

Pressure Group Friends of the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links have been pressing the council for a coherent policy to govern the city’s green spaces.

Convener Chris Wigglesworth of Friends of the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links told Veritas: “We have been pressing for a year for an events policy. The problem Princes Street Gardens is having is the same problem we are having on the Meadows. You get these commercial events lasting a day or two and the grass doesn’t recover. Take the quagmire in the Meadows in August.

“Four community councils and the Friends of the Meadows are going to launch a campaign fairly soon called Save our Meadows. These are the people’s Meadows, not the council’s. Now that there is an issue with Princes Street Gardens, we will link it to our wider campaign.”  

He also scorned the council for placing commercial interests above those of its citizens.

“We feel it’s a kind of commercial exploitation and it’s also destroying the ground. The council should regard these green areas not to make money out of but as a fundamental part of Edinburgh and what attracts people here. We want a sensible policy with limited commercial events, but they should be subordinate to the greenery and the beauty.”

Rebecca Mackenzie-Smith, a fourth year Journalism student, told Veritas she feels the sight of brown churned soil will impact the level of economic activity in Edinburgh, already hampered by incessant tram work construction.

“I work in the centre of town and it’s a mess anyway and I just don’t think they should be doing any more work. It will simply deter people from coming into town and it’s bad enough as it is. Its not as busy, people aren’t coming in, they are avoiding the town centre, and it’s driving business away.”

Published in Veritas Issue 1o4 March 25th, 2009.