
Migrant policies ‘creating more barriers to child safety', says charity
Advocacy coordinator Kate O'Neill, based in northern France, told the PA news agency there has been a rise in police violence which is disproportionately harming children.
She said: 'Ultimately the children we're meeting every day are not safe.
'They're exposed to a level of violence, whether it's they are directly victims of it or the witness.
'We're ultimately at all times putting out fires… the underlying issue is these policies of border securitisation… that are creating more and more barriers to child safety and child protection.'
She said there was hope when the Labour Government took office a year ago that there would be some improvement, adding: 'This is not at all what we've seen.
'They continued to make conditions more difficult and more dangerous.'
She said: 'The smash-the-gangs narrative is not effective and it's harmful because ultimately the only way to put the gangs out of business is to cut the need for them.'
It comes as the grassroots organisation published a report that said at least 15 children died trying to cross the English Channel last year, more than the total of the past four years combined.
The charity that offers play services, parental support and safeguarding casework to children aged 0-18 living in sites around Calais and Dunkirk, documented rising violence, trauma and child deaths linked with UK border policies and funding to the French to ramp up enforcement in 2024.
In February this year, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper agreed to re-purpose £7 million of cash to French counterparts to bolster enforcement action on the nation's coastline to tackle Channel crossings.
'What we really need to see is some cross-border accountability for the incidents and the fatalities in the Channel,' Ms O'Neill said.
The campaigner said one of the main calls as a result of the group's research is for an official source of the number of deaths and information on these deaths to be recorded.
Figures for the report came from International Organisation for Migration, Calais Migrant Solidarity and other networks in northern France.
'We don't have the identities of all of them.
'In fact, these deaths are going unrecorded and unreported,' she said.
One in five crossing the English Channel between 2018 and 2024 were children, according to Project Play.
Meanwhile, Ms O'Neill said tactics for French police to intervene in crossing attempts in shallow waters is already happening despite the changes needed to the rules to allow this having not yet come into force.
She said: 'This is not a new tactic… it's something that has been happening for a long time in Calais and surrounding areas.
'My feeling is that this is increasing based on the number of testimonies we're receiving from children and their families recently.'
'It's really dangerous because the children often are in the middle of the boats.'
But on Friday, Ms Cooper said intervention in French waters was 'critical'.
'That's one of the big things that has changed, the way in which the boats operate in shallow waters,' she said.
'We have to have the action on those because that's that is where the prevention needs to take place.'
Ms Cooper also pressed the case for introducing the new criminal offence of endangering life at sea under the Government's Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, after seeing 'awful cases' of children being crushed to death in the middle of overcrowded boats.
Project Play worked with more than 1,000 children in 2024, and believes in the last few weeks there have been a 'very large amount' of children they worked with who were born and went to school in a European country, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden.
Ms O'Neill said families' visas granted five or 10 years ago in other European countries for refuge have since expired and they have not been allowed to stay, which she said is behind the increase in crossings to the UK.
She said since Brexit meant the UK left the Dublin regulation, the country is a 'viable option'.
The European Union law set out that the first EU country an asylum seeker entered was responsible for processing their claim, and the UK can no longer send asylum seekers back to other member states since leaving the bloc.
Ms O'Neill said: 'Most people we're speaking to, that is why they're going.
'They're not going to claim benefits from the UK or to do anything for free, but it's the next nearest safe place they can be.
'This needs to be addressed… as a European-wide issue instead of just a UK-France thing.'
A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We all want to end dangerous small boat crossings, which threaten lives and undermine our border security.
'Through international intelligence sharing under our Border Security Command, enhanced enforcement operations in Northern France and tougher legislation in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are strengthening international partnerships and boosting our ability to identify, disrupt, and dismantle criminal gangs.'
The Pas-de-Calais Prefecture was contacted for comment.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Leading KC raises concerns over accused rights in rape trials
However, Mr Ross believes that he should draw attention to the situation for fear of the impact of silence upon the delivery of justice. "We have reached the stage where the victim has lied about things and the court has not allowed the defence to put that before the jury. "How can it be said that someone has had a fair trial when it's been proved that the complainer lied about something important in the course of the inquiry and that was not allowed to be introduced as evidence?" he told The Herald. "There are serious concerns that people are not getting a fair trial when they are not being given the opportunity to provide evidence which might support their innocence". He added: "The lawyers who are taking on these rape and sexual assault cases tend to be less experienced, more junior members of the bar. It's difficult for them to come out and make a claim of this type. "They have their whole career in front of them. At some point they might want to go for a role as a sheriff or a judge, and they will understandably be concerned that if they speak out or are seen to be publicly critical of the criminal justice system that will damage their chances. "But many many lawyers are raising the matter with me. When you hear a lawyer complaining in court about some decision that has gone against them, 90% of the time it's this issue. It is a massive concern." READ MORE: The situation revolves around what evidence is allowed to be heard in open court before a jury. Sometimes known as "rape shield" laws, specific provisions to regulate the use of sexual history evidence were first introduced in Scotland by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985. These provisions were later repeated in sections 274 and 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. In response to concerns about their operation, the provisions in the 1995 Act were replaced by new sections 274 and 275 in 2002. The High Court in Glasgow (Image: PA) The provisions are designed to protect complainers giving evidence from irrelevant, intrusive and often distressing questioning. Sections 274 and 275 of the 1995 Act were intended to protect complainers in sexual offence trials from inappropriate questioning about their sexual history and wider character and lifestyle when giving evidence in court. In particular, they were designed to discourage the use of evidence seen as of limited relevance, where the primary purpose of the evidence is to undermine the credibility of the complainer or divert attention from the issues that require to be determined at trial. There are strict rules over what evidence can be heard in rape trials (Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto) However, Mr Ross said the manner in which the rules have been interpreted by the court has been problematic with debate centring on what evidence is judged to be relevant or not. An application to lead evidence of the type struck at by Section 274 must be made at a preliminary hearing – almost always before full preparation for the trial had has been completed - putting the defence at a huge disadvantage. "In the 1985 act the thinking was - why should you be allowed to ask the woman about sex with another man or sex with the accused on a different occasion but in 2002 the scope was extended to include non sexual behaviour," he said. He continued: "At the preliminary hearing you might not have all the case papers, won't know for sure what the complainer is likely to say in evidence, as it might be a year before the trial. "The need for an application within a strict time limit made it very difficult for defence lawyers." He said further restrictions to rules over the admissibility of evidence had since been made in case law. "In short it became extremely difficult to know what you were allowed to ask," said Mr Ross. "Every day you were hearing examples of people saying they thought a piece of evidence was relevant but the judge has ruled that it would not be allowed. "Defendants would be going around with messages, photographs, things they thought would prove them to be innocent and the judges would not allow them to tell the jury about those pieces of exculpatory evidence." Mr Ross went on to say a number of Scottish rape cases relating to the admissibility of evidence were currently before the Supreme Court having had appeals against conviction dismissed. A number of Scottish cases are before the Supreme Court for consideration. (Image: Dan Kitwood) In one of the cases the victim alleged that the accused had raped her when she was 13, claiming she became pregnant and given birth to a child. However, there was no evidence that she had become pregnant or given birth - a matter that the accused wanted to present to the jury. His lawyer had taken the view that it was extremely unlikely that the trial court would allow such evidence to be presented – and the Scottish appeal court agreed with that assessment and refused his appeal. Mr Ross said a second case at the Supreme Court revolved around a man convicted of rape following a work night out. The man was with the woman, whom he supervised, in a pub where both were drinking. "There was apparently CCTV evidence showing the complainer beckoning the accused into a disabled toilet where they had sex," said Mr Ross. "They both later left the bar, got a taxi to his house and woke up next morning in bed together." The woman alleged she was raped. "He was interviewed by police and explained that events at the pub exactly as they had been captured by the CCTV. "He was then charged with rape in the disabled pub toilet and rape in the house." "But the prosecutor became aware that the judge may allow CCTV evidence from the pub, so dropped the pub charge, with the result that the defence was not allowed to lead evidence about what had happened in the pub. His account of what happened in the pub was entirely supported by the CCTV evidence. "It supported his credibility but he wasn't allowed to put the CCTV evidence before the jury as the court ruled that it wasn't relevant to the charges at his house." Mr Ross went on to say that he didn't "accept there is a low conviction rate for rape or sexual assault" as there is a lack of relevant data. He addition he suggested that it was misleading to compare conviction in rape cases rapes to those in other types of crime such as murder. "In a murder case there might be 15 sources of evidence, from eyewitnesses, DNA, finger prints in murder cases, while in a rape case just there is very often only one source of evidence - namely the person making the complaint. "So it's entirely unsurprising that there are lower conviction rates for rape than murder." A spokesperson for Rape Crisis Scotland said: 'We wish Thomas Ross KC would express equal concern about ensuring justice for survivors of sexual violence. 'The conviction for rape cases involving a single complainer is only 24%. The overall conviction rate for all crime is 86%. Too many women are being completely let down by the Scottish criminal justice system. "We continue to hear from women about how distressing their treatment is at the hands of some defence lawyers.' Mr Ross responded: "I've met many women who feel completely let by the Scottish criminal justice system. I've met many men who feel completely let down by the criminal justice system too - including men who believe that the court's interpretation of section 275 deprived them of a fair trial. "With so many people feeling completely let down by the system - maybe its time to have another look at the way it operates." A spokeswoman for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service said it would be inappropriate for the Judicial Office to comment on Mr Ross's personal views. A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Everyone has the right to a fair trial and to appeal against a conviction or sentence. There are well-established rules on what evidence can be led in sexual offences trials, and clear routes to challenge how these are applied.'


Wales Online
2 hours ago
- Wales Online
Tell us what you think of Starmer's Labour party after one year in UK government
Tell us what you think of Starmer's Labour party after one year in UK government One year has passed since Keir Starmer was elected to power on July 5, 2024 Today marks a year since Sir Keir Starmer became UK prime minister (Image: PA ) Labour may have ruled Wales for 26 years in the Senedd, but when the UK party won the 2024 General Election, it marked their return to power in Westminster for the first time since 2010. It was a landslide victory, Keir Starmer's party securing one of its biggest ever majorities in the House of Commons. In Wales, they won the majority of seats but saw its vote share fall in many areas and the party lost key target seats to Plaid Cymru. A year on there are many causes for concern in the party, dividing party members and politicians both in the UK and Welsh branch. You can read our political editor Ruth Mosalski's report of the Welsh Labour conference this week here: Fear and loathing in Labour: A party on the edge, angry at Drakeford, Morgan and Starmer. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here . Add to the debate in our comments secton below. Article continues below Tell us how you feel in our poll below or you can open it here:


Glasgow Times
5 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
What is a proscribed organisation?
On Thursday the House of Lords backed proscribing the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 without a vote. But what is proscription and what does it mean for an organisation to be proscribed? – What is a proscribed organisation? According to the Government website, under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do so. Yvette Cooper is Home Secretary (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Under the law this means the organisation commits or takes part in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism), or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Once an organisation is proscribed it is illegal to join or show support for it. – What does terrorism mean when talking about proscription? As defined in the Act, terrorism means the use or threat of action which involves serious violence against a person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person's life (other than that of the person committing the act), creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The definition also sets out that the use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Additionally, it must be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. – What factors are taken into consideration when determining whether proscription is proportionate? According to the Government website, the Home Secretary will take into account the nature and scale of an organisation's activities, the specific threat that it poses to the country, and the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas. Protesters outside the Royal Courts of Justice amid a hearing over whether the proscribing of Palestine Action should be temporarily blocked (Lucy North/PA) The Home Secretary will also consider the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK, and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. – Which other groups have been designated as proscribed organisations? There are currently 81 international terrorist groups proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 14 organisations in Northern Ireland proscribed under previous legislation. The most recent proscription orders concerned Hamas, the Wagner Group, Hizb ut Tahrir and Terrorgram. Other organisations on the list include Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), and various aliases, and al Qaida. – Once an organisation is proscribed, what becomes illegal? It becomes a criminal offence to belong, or profess to belong, to a proscribed organisation in the UK or overseas, or invite support for a proscribed organisation. It is also illegal to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation, express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation. Other offences include arranging, managing or assisting in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, or publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances. – Once proscribed, will an organisation remain banned forever? No. The Home Secretary will consider deproscription on application only. The law allows any organisation or any person affected by a proscription to submit a signed, written application to the Home Secretary requesting that they consider whether a specified organisation should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations.