Rabar Hamad, 16, who is threatened with deportation due to administrative errors.

A campaign calling for the Home Office to reverse the decision has been organised by Rabar’s teachers and classmates. Teacher and campaigner Sally Hyman told MULE: “The aim of the campaign is to make sure Rabar has a future and that he’s allowed to stay living in his home where he’s happy.

“He should be able to continue his education and not be sent back to Iraq where his parents were murdered. We also hope that he and his nine year old sister can be reunited.”

Rabar’s future in Iraq would be uncertain to say the least. He has had no contact with his younger sister for two years and he has fears of returning.

“I’m worried for my safety.” he said, “I don’t want to go to Iraq, they will kill me like they did my parents.”

As of August 5 he will be made homeless and will no longer receive income support. The order for his deportation could be made within a fortnight. Yet the sequences of events leading up to this decision brings into question the actions of the authorities and agencies supposed to look after vulnerable migrants.

On arrival, aged 15, Rabar’s age was assessed by a social worker as 18. Campaigners allege that not only was the finding of the examination factually incorrect, but that many aspects of the process were erroneously carried out. In one meeting, Rabar was given an Arabic speaking interpreter, despite his first language being Kurdish. The difficulties in translation were later used in the case against him which raised ‘inconsistencies with his story.’

“They asked me questions,” Rabar said, “sometimes I understood and sometimes I didn’t.”

Rabar was instructed by social workers to live in a hostel where he stayed for one year, during which time he was assaulted by some of the adults in the house. With no understanding of English and still a child, he could not read any of the Home Office papers he was sent nor properly feed himself.

At a tribunal hearing in 2009 with a new solicitor, Rabar was found to be a minor in a new age assessment by a doctor of 40 years experience who declared that he was between 13 and 16 years of age. He was then placed in a children’s home and started attending Breeze Hill School, where he has been studying for his GCSEs. Besides performing well academically, teachers report that Rabar has thrived outside of the classroom as well. He recently attended a football training event at Fulham FC and was awarded “Best Player Of The Year” by his school.

However despite his successful integration Rabar has been judged to be an absconder after Wigan Social Services failed to notify the Home Office of his change of address. Due to a string of errors in his case, all evidence was deemed unreliable by the Home Office and in Spring 2010 he was subject once again to an age assessment. Contrary to the earlier finding by a doctor, Wigan Social Services decided that he was 20.

At a petitioning event in Oldham town centre on 21 June MULE caught up with Rabar’s fellow students at Breeze Hill who were dumbfounded by the decision. “How can they just lie about his age?” said one classmate, “it’s crazy.”

One local shopper, Eilleen Chamberlain, commented: “I read about this in the paper, it’s sad really. You can tell he’s too young.”

Public support for the campaign has been remarkable, with over 800 signatures for the online petition and over 200 signatures collected in the first two hours of the event in Oldham.

The case highlights major shortcomings in the practice of British asylum law. Under UN human rights treaties to which the UK is a signatory, any child under the age of 18 must be looked after by the host state, even if their asylum claim fails. However in a report on age assessment conducted by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association in 2007, it was noted that “there is strong evidence that the rise in age disputes is linked to prevailing cultures of cynicism and disbelief among immigration officers and some social workers.

“The decision to dispute age is often based on ill-informed assumptions about the appearance, behaviour and roles of children in other cultures and contexts.”

Home Office statistics show 720 claims assessed for children in the first quarter of 2010, of which only 85 were granted asylum.

Refugee Action said on Thursday that although they could not comment on Rabar’s case, they would like to see all age assessments carried out by independent bodies.

“Age assessments are very complex and it is vital that anyone undergoing an assessment understands the process and that it is as fair and thorough as possible,” said their spokesperson.

Meanwhile Oldham East and Saddleworth MP Phil Woolas has pledged his support for Rabar by requesting the UK Border Agency to conduct a further age assessment test, this time by a medical officer and not a social worker. The outcome of such an assessment would not determine Rabar’s asylum claim but would entitle him to education and care in the UK until adulthood.

Many will find Woolas’ support somewhat hypocritical, given his record in office under the Labour government as Immigration Minister. Many migrant campaigners saw his position in the Labour government as a cynical ploy to placate the far-right. As the detention of women and children asylum seekers in centres continued and grew, hunger strikes were held in the notorious Yarl’s Wood in protest of indefinite incarceration and inhumane treatment of detainees. Woolas once accused asylum seekers and their lawyers of “playing the system” and alleged that most were ‘merely’ economic migrants. Despite several attempts to contact him Mr Woolas declined to speak to MULE.

Supporters are still holding out hope that the Home Office will overturn the original decision.  One member of the Facebook group left an uplifting and defiant message: “As if Rabar hasn’t been through enough in his young short life and yet he’s done so well to work hard at his studies and football. He’s a shining example of what can be acheived in the face of such terrible things. We must succeed with Rabar’s plight. Keep up the fight!”

You can sign the petition calling for Rabar to stay here: http://petitiononline.com/hamad93/petition.html

Joe Beech

Manchester City Council began the demolition at around 9am using heavy machinery. Local residents, complaining about a lack of consultation, took to the site. Yet despite the obvious health and safety implications posed by their presence work continued. Site supervisor Maureen Barrett said, “We did [seal the site] but people just walked over the fence”. However no attempt was made to stop the work with local residents just feet away from a large earth mover as it ripped apart a wooden structure.

The Council cited anti-social behaviour as the reason for the demolition but could provide no evidence of any anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) having been handed out for unruly behaviour in the park. Nor were locals aware of any such orders or similar charges issued when questioned by MULE. Local resident Leonie Nimmo said, “I regularly meet my friends here. The problem is that they didn’t do any consultation with local residents.”

When local residents questioned their Hulme Ward Co-ordinator, the Council representative present on the scene, she said that consultation was unnecessary as this was simple “maintenance work”and that it was not “officially a park”.

The Council representative was unable to explain how changing the physical landscape of the park could contribute to a positive change in anti-social behaviour. Despite claiming that there had been a number of complaints from local residents about the behaviour of people in the park she was nevertheless unable to provide any specific examples.

The Council stopped recognising the space as a park some years ago when the site was found to be contaminated. This was a double edged sword for the community – with the children’s play area removed the toxicity of the land also halted the development of the site into luxury flats.

The Council have said that there are no plans for the site and in the wake of the demolition and no arrangements have been made for alternative amenities for park users. Other residents have complained that the mounds acted as a screen from the busy and unsightly Princess Parkway dual carriageway. The same Council representative present at the site explained that she didn’t realise this but there were no plans to take replace the mound with any other form of screen. She added that she was simply “doing what the local councillors had asked”.

Another resident who wished to remain anonymous said, “People use the site to drink but by attempting to move the people on they are only shifting the problem and not dealing with causes. Here they weren’t doing anyone any harm and were in a safe environment. Now I fear for what might happen to them.”

It is unclear how much the extensive work is due to cost as none of the Council workers on the scene were prepared to comment on this.

When questioned the Hulme Ward Co-ordinator also said that the council would be offering grants to people if they had ideas for how the site could be used.

Tim Hunt

CEO Philip Green

Green took home £1.7 million in the last financial year, with half being made up of a £975,000 bonus, up from £471,000 the previous year. Outgoing MD Charlie Cornish – the new chief executive of Manchester Airport Group – doubled his bonus to to £435,000, while former Chief Financial Officer – now of Cable and Wireless Worldwide – saw his bonus double to £603,000, taking home more than £1 million in total.

The bonuses, rising share prices and dividends and all-round backslapping have been justified by the numerous multi-million pound sell-offs made by UU of many of its non-regulated businesses. Since Ofwat is forcing the company to improve its performance – which has never exactly been watertight – while lowering prices, it seems employees are once again to bear the brunt of the profit squeeze.

Bosses are starting to talk again of “performance improvement initiatives” for the future, but have been reluctant to offer a figure on how many jobs may be at risk this time round. No word yet from the unions, who strangely let out little more than a wimper last time as 500 of their colleagues’ jobs – up from the 250 they originally feared – were axed by the management .

Back in May, The Daily Telegraph reported that Green would be standing down by the end of the year. This was later put down to “speculation” by a United Utilities spokesperson, and the CEO himself was keen to tell the Manchester Evening News that he would not be stepping down.

“I am fully engaged in a big agenda, we have achieved a lot over the last four or five years but there is still plenty to do. Will I move on at some point? Absolutely, but it will not be in the short term,” he said.

Of course Green has no reason to leave UU, the Northwest’s only FTSE 100 company, at the moment. One of his shareholder-friendly policies in his four years at United Utilities is that of “targeting real dividend growth of 2 per cent per annum”, 100,000 of which he will receive for free (on top of the £650,000 worth of shares he invested of his own money) when he reaches five years in charge.

United Utilities workers meanwhile are looking nervously over their shoulders, wondering when and where the axe will fall in the next bid to boost those share prices. Maybe they’ll fight a bit harder this time round.

Joe Beech

Using grassroots groups

Last month cycling group I Bike MCR, who pride themselves on their radical edge, also engaged in a promotional event with the company. They jointly hosted a bike ride and give-away that took place on June 5th.

Nes and Ed from the group said, “If we had known who it was we wouldn’t have done it. The marketing company that approached us, Mad Media, said it was the Clever Jelly Company who wanted the promotion doing. They offered us £350 and as we’re in debt we took the money.”

“Initially they had tried to hijack Critical Mass but we were clear to them that this wasn’t appropriate. In the end we only had to send out an email and sort out a route and we refused all joint branding with them. In the past we’ve turned down corporate sponsorship. Red Bull approached a while ago but we said no,” continued Nes.

The iconic Afflecks Palace was also part of the launch, with its website proudly stating: “Afflecks is pleased to participate in the launch.”

After talking to MULE Tony Martin of Bruntwood, the company which owns the Afflecks building, said the material would be taken down from the site. He added that this was a one-off promotion and that Afflecks would not be participating in anything similar again.

“If we’d have known beforehand we wouldn’t have gone ahead with the promotion and to be honest it didn’t go to well, most of the product was wasted and on the second day of the two day event they moved outside the building because of the mess,” said Martin.

Underhand tactics

Both I Bike MCR and Afflecks felt that the marketing companies employed directly by Tata had played a big role in getting local support. One of these, the London-based Mad Media, told I Bike MCR that it was working on behalf of a “small local company”. They painted it as a small brand, similar to the Burnley-based GO organic drink company. Nes said she had looked into the company but there were no links between the brand and their parent company on the official website so after taking advice from friends had gone ahead.

We asked Mad Media for a comment, whose previous clients include Nestle, Unilever and Nike, but they failed to respond to our email. Manchester’s Key 103 is currently taking part in an online promotion. We asked them how they felt about supporting a company that had known links to the military dictatorship. They also declined to comment.

Boycott calls

There has been a boycott of Tata in place since June 2008 when the Burma Campaign UK updated their ‘Dirty List‘ of companies that are directly or indirectly helping to finance Burma’s brutal military dictatorship. BCUK call on people to contact companies listed to sever business ties with Burma. A new Facebook group has now been established calling for a boycott of this new Sukk brand.

Tim Hunt

Iain Hilton from Manchester Climate Action and Sonny Khan from Earth First! North West were accused under Section 4a of the 1986 Public Order Act for allegedly causing “harassment, alarm or distress” against employees of Joseph Metcalfe Horticultural Ltd and AW Jenkinson Forest Products Ltd for their part in a peaceful protest on Thursday 15 April 2010.

During the protest, the court heard how Khan climbed up and locked onto a JCB digger to prevent it loading peat into a delivery lorry. Hilton meanwhile scaled and locked himself to the deliery lorry to prevent it leaving the site. The two defendants were protesting against the environmental impacts of peat extraction – which causes 3 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year in the UK according to Natural England – the equivalent to the average emissions of 350,000 households.

Upon hearing evidence from three employees who appeared in court as prosecution witnesses, the magistrate said that while the protest was “certainly an irritation and certainly cost [the companies] money” he had seen no evidence that the defendants intended to, or did cause harrasment, alarm or distress as the prosecution had alleged and found them not guilty without waiting to hear evidence from the defence solicitors.

A request for a restraining order banning the two defendants from peat bog site in Chat Moss was also rejected by the magistrate.

The protestors were joined inside and outside court by local campaigners from Save Our North West Greenbelt.

Speaking outside court after the verdict, Iain Hilton said, “We’ve very pleased with the verdict. Our actions were reasonable, peaceful and justified. The entire democratic process of the City of Salford from the Council to local MPs is against peat extraction and have called for it to stop. The people of Salford don’t want the peat to be extracted, so all we did was enforce everyone’s wishes.”

Peat bogs are formed over thousands of years by the decaying remnants of plant matter and actively soak up carbon from the atmosphere, making them extremely valuable in the fight against climate change.

Over 94 per cent of the UK’s lowland peat bogs have been damaged or destroyed, mostly in the last 50 years. The protestors argue that protecting the remaining intact peat bogs and restoring damaged or degraded ones could lock carbon in the soil and help to actively reduce the UK’s carbon footprint, as well as helping to protect many rare species of plants and animals, protecting biodiversity and a wild and rare habitat.

Salford Council agree that peat extraction must stop and are proposing a ban on future extraction at Chat Moss. Planning lead member Councillor Derek Antrobus said: “Curbing climate change is a central aim of the planning system and peat bogland is an important carbon sink. The Government has announced the phasing out of peat for gardening so there can be no justification for its continued exploitation.”

The site at Chat Moss, as well as other peat extraction locations in the area, is owned by corporate giant Peel Holdings, the empire of tax-shy billionaire John Whittaker. Backed by oil money of the powerful Saudi Olayan family, the group variously owns: the Trafford Centre, Manchester Ship Canal and three other ports, four airports and MediaCityUK in Salford, just a few famous names within a huge property portfolio. They also have a large stake in UK Coal, involved in the controversial Carbon Capture and Storage coal power plant proposed in Ayrshire in Scotland, where a direct action campaign is also expected by environmentalists. Peel are disputing the ban, which they claim is unjustified.

Rachel Dawes from Manchester Climate Action said, “Peel Holdings have huge political power in the Northwest. Financial gain is their only interest and this comes at the expense of the environment, locally and globally. Taking direct action is an essential part of the struggle against big business and in situations like this we have to stand up and say enough is enough.”

Hilton added, “The release of greenhouse gases through peat bog extraction has a devastating effect on the world’s climate and the destruction of green belt land is deplorable. These are places that should be enjoyed by everyone and not carved up for the sake of profit.”

Also speaking outside court Khan said, “We’re happy with the support of the local Save Our Northwest Green Belt group. We hope it encourages more people to stand up and take action to stop environmental destruction.”

Robbie Gillett

The motion for strike action was passed on 11 June. UCU, which represents teaching staff at TMC, says it is fighting against the strict imposition of new contracts, which employees say are “unnecessary and unworkable” and will worsen working conditions and quality of teaching, and against the principal’s de-recognition of UCU.

“UCU members here at Manchester have been left with little option but to take strike action. We are proud that members are taking this action and they have the full backing of the national union,” said UCU president, Alan Whitaker, who spoke at today’s rally.

Staff say they are not even being told by the College what will happen to their pay packets once the controversial contracts come into force on August 1.

Employees are also complaining that the College’s management team has been deploying tactics of bullying and intimidation against those questioning the terms of the new contracts. Before today’s strike for instance MULE was told that an unnamed manager had sent an email round staff telling them there was no need to sign in as senior management would be going around the picket lines to take a note of those involved.

Staff also said that they were dismayed by the lack of voice they have been given by the mainstream press, and since they are fearful of the repercussions of talking about the dispute in the workplace, many are now anonymously sending their stories to MULE and posting comments on the MULE website.

“I was given a new role by the Manchester College and my line manager said to me ‘I don’t like to call this or see it as a demotion, its more of a revision of your role and regrading.’

“20 per cent less pay and three weeks holiday removed which we will not be compensated for seems like a demotion to me.

“We are scared to rock the boat as we have been made to feel lucky we have kept our jobs,” said one anonymous TMC worker.

Many of these comments go beyond the claims made by UCU. One describes the moves by the College as “fairly overt sex discrimination”, especially after crèche workers faced compulsory redundancies, one of the reasons for last year’s set of strikes: ”It is an undisputed fact that most childcare arrangements fall onto the shoulders of mothers in society. By changing working hours, holidays and increasing working hours the College has not taken childcare needs into account.

“When confronted by someone who says it looks like they cannot continue in their job due to the changes, the College just say there is ‘no negotiation’.”

Another member of staff reported to MULE how the management has been responding to employees who asked for time to arrange representation after receiving letters requesting their attendance at a meeting “to discuss any objections you may have to the contract”.

They received emails saying: “You do not have a statutory right to be accompanied at this meeting and you do not have the right to postpone the meeting. Therefore we expect you to attend the meeting for this week, if you continue to refuse to attend the meeting this could result in disciplinary action being considered.”

According to the member of staff: “It is apparent that HR advisors and managers do listen to objections and try to address them during these meetings. However, it is clear that any points, not matter how valid, are disregarded as following the meeting staff are given a further five working days to sign. Failure to sign means that staff are then given three months notice.”

On the same day as strike action was announced principal of TMC Peter Tavernor took the unprecedented step of officially de-recognising UCU after it took an advert out in the Manchester Evening News which he called “a direct and blatant attack on the reputation of The Manchester College” and accused the union of focusing “all attention on attacking the College in an unprofessional way, trying to agitate staff and misrepresent the facts.”

Before today’s strike UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said: “The current dispute at Manchester College is in nobody’s interests. We have made it quite clear from the very start that we want the whole mess sorted out. We are repeating our calls for the college to talk to us to resolve the issue. We remain confident that a negotiated settlement can be achieved.”

The College has an extremely poor record with its staff and the management’s reputation – and Tavernor’s in particular – in many quarters known as one of belligerence and ruthless anti-unionism. That is not to mention numerous accusations of incompetence and high-profile investigations into claims of “institutional fraud” within TMC, which refused to go away after the College destroyed crucial documents and gagged would-be witnesses.

The management – ten of whom, including Tavernor, have just awarded themselves pay rises – remains in negotiation with UNISON, which represents support staff at the College, but as the UCU strike goes ahead prison educators also employed by TMC are balloting for industrial action. The College employs around one third of all prison educators in the UK having successfully bid to become the largest provider in the country, but earlier this year staff were told they were to be made redundant months into new contracts after the principalship said TMC did not have the money.

Hunt responded at the time: “Even by Manchester College’s low standards this is a truly shocking announcement. Prison education is vital in stopping re-offending and these savage cuts will be a hammer blow to offender learning throughout the country.”

One prison worker for TMC told MULE that if the proposed contract changes go ahead in that sector on 1 August, literally thousands of jobs will be at risk. They say the College’s management “are currently making all full time positions redundant and filling the positions up with part time and sessional/hourly paid staff, replacing Lecturer titles to trainer or tutor titles, increasing teaching contact time and reducing holidays.”

It was rumoured that Labour MPs Tony Lloyd and Graham Stringer visited Tavernor on 18 June to discuss the situation having received complaints from constituents. However MULE was unable to confirm this as neither would reply to emails. The College also refused to comment on the allegations put to it. Manchester City Council – with its own staff problems it emerged today – declined to respond to questions, and so far appears to have put out no statement on the dispute.

Staff on the picket line expressed little surprise, and one said that Lib Dem MP John Leech had also failed to respond to their emails. Many suggested Tavernor’s “very close relationship” with the City Council and local Labour Party partly explains the refusal of local politicians to get involved. Tavernor was former Council Leader Graham Stringer’s parliamentary election agent many years ago, while his wife Rita Tavernor is a sitting Labour councillor in the Town Hall.

According to the councillors’ register of interests there are two sitting members of UCU, Labour’s Joanne Green of Harpurhey and Lib Dem David Sandiford of Didsbury East. It seems though that neither of them have had anything to say on the issue either.

UCU is considering further strikes in September if the College’s management refuses to back down, but many are worried that Tavernor and his team are determined to destroy the unions whatever the financial and reputation cost to TMC. While some staff have already handed in their notice and are considering legal action against TMC, others say they will fight to the end, and expect they will also have to take the principalship to employment tribunals.

The protests, called by the No to Welfare Abolition coalition, began in Portland Street outside the Beaver House office of A4E, a company contracted by the government to run “workfare” schemes which place benefits claimants into poor-paying temporary work placements. After being tipped-off that Minister for Disabled People Maria Miller was speaking at the Town Hall, the group then headed there, questioning her for 20 minutes after cornering her in a corridor.

Maria Miller, Minister for Disabled People, is questioned by protesters.

Rebecca Young, one of the protest’s organisers, said of the meeting with Miller:  “We told her that the jobs that are being produced are quite often meaningless, almost always at minimum wage and occasionally below – under the auspices of ‘training’.

“The whole exercise doesn’t result in a real job with a real working wage. It takes people away from activities in the community such as voluntary work and sends them off to earn next to nothing doing a job that sometimes they can’t actually do for physical or psychological reasons.”

The protesters argued that disability leads to unemployment because of social and systematic problems, not because the disabled cannot or do not want to work. Said Young, “Most people on benefits are on them because there are no suitable jobs for them to do.” Disabled people are currently 7 times less likely to have paid employment, 23 per cent have no qualifications compared to 9 per cent of non-disabled people and the gross hourly pay for disabled employees is £1.22 less on average than a non disabled employee. As many as 7 million people of working age in the UK have a disability.

The protest comes in an increasing climate of hostility towards claimants of incapacity benefits. Chris Grayling, Minister of State in the Department for Work and Pensions, announced last week that by 2014, all 2.5 million incapacity benefits claimants will be removed from the scheme under plans to “crack down on the workshy”.

He told MP’s that claimants will be moved onto other benefits, with stricter requirements to find work. David Cameron pledged during the General Election to test every recipient on their capacity to work, but the piloting of the fitness to work trials  in Manchester has proved controversial.

Joe Beech

image by stephenbroadhurst on flickr

According to reports, the vans were immobilised and defaced with spray paint, while the access gate to the car park was also put out of action. Stickers reading “This vehicle has been tampered with” were left at the scene to notify staff.

In a statement the group said: “The action was taken in solidarity with detainee resistance. In the past months media reports have covered the hunger strikes in Yarl’s Wood, protests in Harmondsworth and struggles against chartered deportation flights. These are acts of resistance against an arbitrary system of control and surveillance policed by the UK Home Office and European immigration authorities.”

Dallas Court is home to officials from the UK Border Agency. The snatch squads which operate from the centre often head out in blacked-out vans early in the morning to detain those asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected. They are known for kicking in doors before the children go to school in order to catch the entire family at once. Asylum seekers are also made to sign in at Dallas Court at regular intervals, not knowing whether or not they will be detained on the spot.

When arrested, detainees are taken to detention centres such as nearby Pennine House, the holding facility at Manchester Airport, where they wait indefinitely until their cases are resolved. After long periods of incarceration, despite having committed no crime and having had no trial or sentence, most detainees can expect deportation back to the countries from which they fled.

This is the second time in recent years that Dallas Court has been targeted by campaigners seeking to obstruct dawn raids and disrupt the centre’s day-to-day activities, which today’s protestors described as a symbol of the “constant uncertainty and fear” that asylum seekers and migrants live under.

They said: “Every person has the right to fight against these conditions irrespective of circumstance, and as long as these policies exist people will struggle against them. New arbitrary controls such as the immigration cap proposed by the new government will only intensify resistance. Such resistance will centre on the frontline of border security at sites like Dallas Court and Pennine House.”

Manchester College Principal Peter Tavernor

On the same day as the union announced strike action against what it calls “worsening terms and conditions” of new contracts being imposed by the principalship, Tavernor posted an internal memo on the College intranet telling staff that TMC was “unilaterally withdrawing from the Trades Union Recognition Agreement” with UCU.

The UCU ballot, which ended on Friday 11 June yielded 68 per cent of members voting for strikes with 86 per cent calling for action short of strikes.

Employees have told MULE that TMC regards non-signing of the new contracts as tacit acceptance of the terms, and have complained of “bullying and intimidation by managers” during negotiations.

UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said: “Our members don’t want to take strike action but have been left with little choice. Staff at Manchester perform a range of duties and teach a variety of people, they do not operate in separate silos. The disarray that will be created by this unworkable two-tier system will leave the college with potential discrimination and dismissal claims and consequently unable to defend itself in the face of likely government funding cuts. Nobody wants this. This situation can still be resolved.”

The decision by Tavernor – who has recently awarded himself and nine other members of the College’s management significant salary increases – to cut off ties with the union which represents the majority of TMC employees was supposedly taken in response to an advert taken out by UCU in the Manchester Evening News.

The principal is said to be thoroughly rattled by resistance among staff, and it is rumoured that even TMC’s management are now questioning his heavy-handed approach.

In his message to staff Tavernor called the advert “a direct and blatant attack on the reputation of The Manchester College” and accused the union of focusing “all attention on attacking the college in an unprofessional way, trying to agitate staff and misrepresent the facts.”

He continues: “Regardless of UCU’s behaviour, we have continued to attempt to engage effectively with the union, but these recent underhand tactics have clearly indicated that it is not going to be possible. I therefore want to let you know that the college is no longer prepared to continue to recognise UCU for the purpose of consultation and negotiation purposes.”

The College though has an extremely poor record with its staff and the management’s reputation in many quarters is one of belligerence and strident anti-unionism. That is not to mention high-profile investigations into claims of “institutional fraud” within TMC, which refused to go away after the College destroyed crucial documents and gagged would-be witnesses.

Employees this time round say they are being given an ultimatum and threatened with the sack if they refuse to sign. Despite Tavernor’s further statement that “within the core college more than 500 staff have already signed” MULE’s main source says that “many of those feel they have done so under duress and lodged accompanying letters of complaint.”

Hunt responded to Tavernor’s memo: “It is deeply regrettable that rather than focusing on a resolution, Manchester College management have chosen to de-recognise UCU, the chosen union of academic staff. I can assure people that our members will continue to seek a solution so that we can carry on providing first-class teaching to learners in Manchester.”

The new contracts are set to come into force on 1 August. The strikes are expected later this month and employees have vowed to continue the fight.

Andy Lockhart

Changes to legal aid rules that only provide funding once a case is completed could leave the charity waiting between six months and two years to receive payment, according to a RMJ spokesperson.

Caroline Slocock, the charity’s chief executive, said the new funding regulations will make the charity’s work unsustainable, stressing that RMJ was “not asking for new money, simply prompt payment of legal aid for the work it has carried out.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury has joined a campaign to save the charity, alongside representatives from Amnesty International, the children’s charity Bernardos and Shami Chakrabarti of the human rights group Liberty. On 1 June they sent a joint letter to Justice Minister Kenneth Clarke and are urging supporters to do the same demanding due payments be made immediately.

The Ministry of Justice is claiming that the charity has had three years to prepare and that the funding changes are necessary to increase efficiency.

“The resources for legal aid are finite and therefore we must make the best use of those available. Other organisations have successfully made this transition and it is only reasonable to expect Refugee and Migrant Justice to do the same,” a Ministry spokesperson.

Slocock responded that RMJ had made “strenuous and successful efforts to live with reduced levels of payments,” pointing out that the problem of delayed payments was a separate issue:

“Until recently we were given regular, ongoing payments for the work we do. As a not-for-profit organisation we cannot expect to make sufficient profit to finance millions of pounds of working capital.”

In addition to the humanitarian costs the Government’s stated justification of financial efficiency might not add up, according to a report published by the RMJ.

Legal aid is paid at a fixed rate rather than by the hour under rules set by the previous government. Furthermore, minimum standards are set so low that they “do not require that tactics and strategies are employed to receive the best quality for clients.”

As a result, the report argued firms are effectively penalised for putting in good work and often face “a choice between financial survival and responsibility for clients.” This was despite findings of a correlation between the length of time spent on a case, the quality of the work and quick and cost effective resolution of cases.

Past experience appears to corroborate the study.

In 2007 a government policy experiment called the Solihull Pilot guaranteed quality legal representation to asylum seekers from the beginning of the asylum process. During the pilot the number of asylum seekers recognised as refugees rose, with the official report noting that the asylum claimants were able to better understand the process and be more engaged with their claim.

However, the cost to the taxpayer fell sharply due to cases being concluded more quickly with a significantly lower number of appeals.  The report predicted that there would be “a tremendous saving to the public purse” if the same results could be implemented nationally. Three years on, that has yet to happen.

Richard Goulding

The Red Cross are holding a free event in Manchester on refugee and asylum issues in the UK. It takes place in the Martin Harris building at the University of Manchester on 22 June.