Wednesday, March 02, 2005
CAUGHT ON TAPE
The BBC reports:
However:
And obviously doing so out of camera view would make sense in the media-saturated world in which we live. After all, violence perpetrated off camera by a detainee would naturally end up lost and overlooked, well "below the radar". In stark contrast, any violence in response caught on camera would immediately bring forth cries of "Heathrow's Abu Ghraib!". . .
. . . Which, of course, we should begin hearing shortly. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 02, 2005
The BBC reports:
The Home Office has asked to see BBC undercover evidence of alleged racism and violence by security staff at an asylum seeker detention centre.One employee filmed was caught while:
The evidence was gathered against Global Solutions Ltd staff at Oakington Immigration Reception Centre, near Cambridge, by BBC One's Real Story.
Fifteen employees have been suspended from frontline duties over the claims, which GSL says it takes seriously. . .
. . . racially abusing an immigrant who refused to get out of bed.I'm not sure what one is supposed to say. Of course that's inappropriate. Duh.
"You think you're not going to do anything 'cos a white person tells you what to do. Well I'm afraid you're wrong.
"My great-grandfather shot your great-grandfather and nicked his f****** country off you for 200 years."
He then tips him out of bed.
However:
The BBC's Simon Boazman said most of the officers he met at Oakington did try their best to treat the detainees with dignity and respect.So, there is probably much more going on here than met the media eye. Indeed, reasonable behavior being filmed would hardly have made the program. No?
But there were a significant minority who were racist. . .A valid question is this: If "most" were decent, what actually constitutes the "significant minority" then?
. . . Another BBC researcher, Andy Pagnacco, worked for GSL at Heathrow on a contract to transport asylum seekers.I'm not defending such, but consider this. While that sounds bad, looked at dispassionately, what is especially inappropriate in responding to non-armed violence with proportionate non-armed violence?: He said "hit 'em"; he didn't say "shoot 'em".
He filmed colleagues advising how to act if a detainee turned violent. "As long as you can't see any cameras, hit 'em," one said. . .
And obviously doing so out of camera view would make sense in the media-saturated world in which we live. After all, violence perpetrated off camera by a detainee would naturally end up lost and overlooked, well "below the radar". In stark contrast, any violence in response caught on camera would immediately bring forth cries of "Heathrow's Abu Ghraib!". . .
. . . Which, of course, we should begin hearing shortly. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 02, 2005
