Refugees: Professionals Pleading to Work

Refugee rights campaigners STAR protested Thursday night to change public opinion on asylum seekers in the UK.

 Using St. Paul’s church to camp out in the graveyard, facts, speakers and music, the small group of protesters entertained Covent Garden in hope of overturning the public’s view of refugees.

In the UK at the moment there are thousands of refugees that have fled from fear in their own countries that are living on £5 a day government hand outs. Some may argue as this is a charitable favour, what’s wrong with that? Why should we pay more tax to support the victims of other countries?

As Gladys Mabvira, 32, Asylum Seeker and political activist spoke in Covent Garden of her own experiences; being kept in detention for 6 months after fleeing from Mugabe interrogators accused her of being a spy, revealed to tentative listeners – most refugees in detention are professionals.

Gladys herself a dental nurse who studied in the UK, she recounted making friends with doctors and teachers while in detention - all of them wanting to work.

Campaign manager Michael Kaye outside St. Paul's church

Statistically 1 out of 4 decisions made by the government on refuge is wrong. There are situations were refugees from Zimbabwe are not being let in – but the government accepts the risk is too great to deport people.

Despite general public opinion that there are far too many asylum seekers, living in council housing and claiming mass benefits – the UK is 11^th in worldly terms of accepting those in need of refuge, there are not millions of asylum seekers, but under 20,000, and under government policy they are not allowed to work, to claim the same benefits or live in council properties. As Gladys asks the crowd:what is my crime? And how would you like it if it was you, or your family? It is hard to answer.

Gladys describes the bureaucratic, unsympathetic system after detention. No friends, no food and no home are not a situation anyone wants to be in, but it is what these usually qualified professionals are facing upon entering the UK. Managing to stay at a Hostel for five days before being evicted, Gladys is now staying with friends made from detention, living on hand outs and somewhere in the filing system towards receiving just £5 a day.

The £5 a day - on top of  (approximately) a £60 daily cost, per each refugee held in detention, is a massive cost to the tax payer – to keep doctors and teachers detained while their paper work is sorted out, if it is not sorted, they have no choice but to live on the £5 a day.

If you ask Gladys what would be the perfect asylum system, the general assumption is for more money, housing etc. to be given to asylum seekers – but all she asks is for the right to work and contribute – that is her dream.

Like many, Gladys thought she would be offered asylum, but faced barrier after barrier. Since trying to return home and being accused of spying Gladys has become more politically active, making it even more dangerous to return home, but as a trained dental nurse who speaks very good English and trained in England – surely she should be allowed to contribute to the economy as she desperately longs to rather than living on benefits like some useless charity-case?

More events are being held at universities around London, Leeds and Manchester. For more information on events and protests please e-mail: volunteering@star-network.org.uk or visit: http://www.star-network.org.uk/

Vote to Vote at 16

Alex Salmond is currently campaigning for 16 year old's to be able to vote. The Scottish national party leader who’s making political headlines in his struggle to make Scotland independent, may have some perverse reasons for backing young voters, (they’re polled to be more likely to vote for Scottish independence) but it raises an important debate on the rights of young people.

At 16 you can get married, have sex, join the army, have kids, move out - and most importantly pay tax. As it stands at the moment the unborn have already had their tax spent by irresponsible politicians - at least those of 16 should be able to vote on who gets to spend their tax contributions.

When I was 16 I moved out. I worked about 25 hours a week, went to college for 20 and rented a room. I paid tax and didn’t receive any benefits - including EMA. Although I’m aware I was in a very small minority of 16 year old's - I still meet 20 something year olds - even a few in their 30's and 40's who are less independent than my 16 year old self. What exactly gives adults the right to decide whether 16 year old's are 'capable' of voting when some of them don’t seem particularly able to themselves.

The current counter argument is that 16 year old's don’t pay enough tax as an age group, and that they don't understand all the complications of voting, having little life experience. History is repeating itself - these are the same reasons women weren’t allowed to vote for far too long, yet people still believe these arguments. Surely those that genuinely believe these to be good reasons to deny someone a democratic vote should also be campaigning against those on long-term benefits, dependent home husbands/wives and those that didn't finish school or are below a certain I.Q, to also be denied the right to vote?

I recall a discussion with my GCSE drama teacher - aged 15 - where as a class we discussed how actors can use their personal experiences in performance, and what to do when they didn't have any 'life experience' for acting roles. As the debate went on, it transpired that a large majority of the class had been to funerals - often more than one, for close friends or family. To which my respectful drama teacher sat back and said: 'wow, you guys are so young, I'm twice your age and I've never been to a funeral.' Showing that often 'life experience' is completely uncorrelated to age. I expect there are plenty of 16 years old's where it really is insulting to suggest they cannot comprehend the voting system - and plenty where even as adults they might not ever be, as deemed by the counter debate: ‘able to vote’.
The argument of young people not being somehow competent to vote, when young people are wells of ideas and energy, and students are renowned throughout history for leading political change is nothing short of offensive. To deny some of the young the ability to vote is like suffocating an essential life force of democracy.
A good case study of the 16 year old vote is Brazil. In 1988 after student movements against dictatorship and a new constitution, 16 year old’s were allowed to vote. The vote was a cherished right hard won. However, reported today by NPR, young voters are more relaxed on voting due to 'economic and political stability':

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130242022

As some 'adult's don’t take the right to vote, are indecisive or completely inactive in politics, if 16 year old's were allowed to vote, they could make this choice too, but not giving them the choice is straining already tight generation conflict.
Another relevant example is Austria. Austria gave 16 year old's the right to vote in 2008. The decision was made for 'demographic reasons': (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26886089/ns/world_news-europe/t/austria-will-allow--year-olds-vote/ ) as a victim of an ageing population, similar to the UK, younger people where given the right to vote to balance democratic decisions between generations.
I cannot think of a more significant point of the debate - currently young people very much feel they’ve been sentenced to certain constraints by older people, who are allowed to vote - because they have been. As mentioned in previous blogs, 15-17 year old's are the ones currently suffering the brunt of cuts - as voted for by those it has little effect on. Young people are losing the rights to free education, to be able to work for a living, to own homes and bring up families when they graduate. Quintessentially, they’re being prevented from growing up... an ironic circle upholding the argument of younger citizens being ill-equipt in life experience to vote…
 Lowering the age to vote would help target the lack of inter-generation understanding. Instead of young people being excluded and denied a voice (the exact reason for rebelling), they will be listened to. Being given a democratic vote - a voice, means politicians cannot ignore young people anymore, or make policies unchallenged by those it most directly affects. Politicians, who hear but do not act, can be held to account. Politicians can't be accused of not listening to young people unless young people are given a loud voice – a vote.

David Miliband to save us?

Well, yesterday was the 6 month anniversary of the summer riots, it is also National apprenticeship week - in anticipation, David Miliband spoke at a conference on Monday to highlight the changes, progress and issues surrounding unemployed youngsters:

http://www.acevo.org.uk/


Miliband highlights the alarming NEET figures and the UK economics situation, with future forecasts and opportunity costs.

Calling the current situation of the youth of today 'scarring', and singling London out as a major area needing help, he admits the lack of opportunities for those not going to university/post 16, and after, need urgent help and rejuvenation. One idea deliberated is a national data base for apprenticeships, similar to the UCAS system. Another great point discussed was the debilitating price of transport to youngsters on minimum wage (lower than the adult wage), or going to multiple job interviews.

Work experience, OFSTED and college incentives are also being looked at, most importantly - vulnerable young people. The money saving, but thoroughly innovative and generative idea of using young people to mentor others is one I hope is mentioned again, and bought to action. All good ideas, and it is good to see a politician actively admitting the flaws of the current system and working towards targeting the many barriers opposing the aspirations of young people, but is it enough?

So can David Miliband save the youth of today? We'll see...

R.I.P to over 3,000 Vocational courses

 

Over 3,000 vocational courses are to be cut from schools. Why - because schools have been offering them...to boost their league tables?! So, regardless as to whether or not these courses give students any skills or advantages, they are being offered and created for the wrong reasons - and if they are beneficial to educating students - they are being scrapped for all the wrong reasons still.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16813119 - BBC news source.)

 Personally I think these courses are brilliant. As in my other blog 'I NEET a job not a degree' we don't need to push teenagers into being 'academic' when they have so much potential in practical, useful, employable skills.

I have a sneaky theory David Cameron is like those parents you see pulling their children to dance/karate/chess club/reading club etc. by a noose. And he's now imposing his own wants onto the kids of the nation. By all means, every child should have at the very least basic Maths, English and Science secondary education certificates - but last time I checked that is why they are compulsory. I do think a language, and either history and/or geography should now be compulsory to make sure our children do not fall behind internationally. (Everyone I know from another country can speak more than one language, which makes me feel incredibly cheated by my education.) ...but I sat 13 GCSE's, most people sit at least 11...so: 11-6 = FIVE other subjects to study! If they want four of them to be in horse care, because it is unlikely they are going to do amazingly well in the other subjects (or even if they are) - but know their horse care - why shouldn't they be given the opportunity to do so?

In all experiments of education (e.g Jamie's dream school: http://www.channel4.com/search/?q=jamie+oliver+dream+school ) I'm aware of, practical activities engage and excite children - it keeps them in school, enjoying their studies, it shows them that school and learning isn't just reading books and writing essays and sitting exams...(that sentence just made my stomach turn, and I love reading and writing!). These vocational courses and their subjects are crucial to some children that simply are not going to be academics - not because they're not capable (especially with the noose dragging tactic) but because they don't want to. Everyone knows you're more likely to do well in  a subject you enjoy, so as long as the other core subjects are kept compulsory, I see absolutely no reason why these other courses should be taken from students.

When I was at school I chose to do music and drama instead of history, if I had not been given the choice, and had been made to study history, I probably wouldn't of done as well, as at the time I had no interest in history, even though I was very good at it. Imagine a kid that isn't good at any of the academic subjects - but knows their fish husbandry. Students, that want to study these courses, and carry those skills onto college or employment.

Now, this is quite an important part of the debate: further education and employment. I am very sure one of the reasons these courses count as four GCSE's (now some are being changed to only count as one or two), is because that is the minimum requirement to get into college; four GCSE's at grade C or above (courses varying). For very nonacademic students, this is the only gateway to getting to college. I'm not justifying giving up on their other subjects (many colleges have GCSE courses for students lacking in one core subject - and schools run re-sits) students should be made to re-do GCSE's in core subjects if they fail, but at the very least that student can say to themselves - 'I can still go to college to do what I want to do...I'll just have to re-sit my Science GCSE as well.' Instead of - 'I failed my Science GCSE, I have to re-sit it or I can't go to college, whilst all my friends can go...I failed and will always be a failure, what's the point in doing anything?' Confidence in one subject can lead students to have better confidence in other subjects and themselves - in school in general! Why take that opportunity to enjoy learning from a 14 year old?

Of course one of the governments main points of argument is that employers doubt the worth of these qualifications, which is a very good argument for improving the courses - not for scrapping them altogether! Time and effort, probably a lot of tax payers money, teachers and students have put effort, time and money into these courses. What a waste to get rid of a bike that simply needs oiling.

These children should not be getting second-rate teaching, and employers should not be receiving under qualified school leavers. Make the courses better and reputable - don't just scrap over 3,000 of them - because you want your child to read Shakespeare and go to Chess club, when he/she wants to do fish husbandry - and is pretty dam good at it too, (look at what Forest Gump achieved! O.K, he's a fictional character...) why not support our students in what they want to do, instead of grinding the axe of academia and the completely bogus idea we need MORE, uncomfortable, awkward, university students? No, we need more highly skilled practitioners, who can actually do something useful. For a lot of students it just isn't right to push them into college and uni when they'd rather earn money, be productive and independent, not living off their parents and a student loan/government hand outs, so why shouldn't they be given the qualifications in a range of subjects so they can do so?

Forget about league tables (seriously?) and think about what is best, for improving the chances a child has at doing something they enjoy - as well as having all the necessary skills to add up invoices, write their C.V's and an employable skill with a relevant, college worthy qualification.