The experiences and perspectives of overseas trained speech and language therapists working in the United Kingdom

There is a growing body of research which has investigated the experience of the migrant health worker. However, only one of these studies has included speech and language therapists thus far, and then only with extremely small numbers. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences and perspectives of migrant speech and language therapists living in the UK. Twenty-three overseas qualified speech and language therapists living in the UK completed an online survey consisting of 36 questions (31 closed question, 5 open-ended questions). The majority of participants came from Australia or the USA and moved to the UK early in their careers. Participants reported a range of benefits from working in another country and more specifically working in the UK. The findings were consistent with other research on migrant health workers regarding known pull factors of travel, finance, and career. This study suggests additional advantages to working in the UK were realised once participants had started working in the UK, such as the UK job lifestyle. Finally, the migrant speech and language therapists were similar in profile to other migrant health workers in terms of age and country of origin previously reported in the literature

From prison to detention: the carceral trajectories of foreign-national prisoners in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has taken an increasingly punitive stance towards ‘foreign criminals’ using law and policy to pave the way for their expulsion from the country. Imprisonment, then, becomes the first stage in a complex process intertwining identity, belonging and punishment. We draw here on research data from two projects to understand the carceral trajectories of foreign-national offenders in the UK. We consider the lived experiences of male foreign-nationals in two sites: prison and immigration detention. The narratives presented show how imprisonment and detention coalesce within the deportation regime as a ‘double punishment’, one that is highly racialised and gendered. We argue that the UK’s increasingly punitive response to foreign-national offenders challenges the traditional purposes of punishment by sidestepping prisoners’ rehabilitative efforts and denying ‘second chances’ while enacting permanent exclusion through bans on re-entry

The discourse of Olympic security 2012 : London 2012

This paper uses a combination of CDA and CL to investigate the discursive realization of the security operation for the 2012 London Olympic Games. Drawing on Didier Bigo’s (2008) conceptualisation of the ‘banopticon’, it address two questions: what distinctive linguistic features are used in documents relating to security for London 2012; and, how is Olympic security realized as a discursive practice in these documents? Findings suggest that the documents indeed realized key banoptic features of the banopticon: exceptionalism, exclusion and prediction, as well as what we call ‘pedagogisation’. Claims were made for the exceptional scale of the Olympic events; predictive technologies were proposed to assess the threat from terrorism; and documentary evidence suggests that access to Olympic venues was being constituted to resemble transit through national boundarie

Population Objects: Interpassive Subjects

While Foucault described population as the object of biopower he did not investigate the practices that make it possible to know population. Rather, he tended to naturalise it as an object on which power can act. However, population is not an object awaiting discovery, but is represented and enacted by specific devices such as censuses and what I call population metrics. The latter enact populations by assembling different categories and measurements of subjects (biographical, biometric and transactional) in myriad ways to identify and measure the performance of populations. I account for both the object and subject by thinking about how devices consist of agencements, that is, specific arrangements of humans and technologies whose mediations and interactions not only enact populations but also produce subjects. I suggest that population metrics render subjects interpassive whereby other beings or objects take up the role and act in place of the subject

Torture and the UK’s “war on asylum”: medical power and the culture of disbelief

When the now ‘iconic’ images of shackled, humiliated and dehumanised detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison complex in Iraq were broadcast globally, in the mid-2000s, the relationship between medical power and torture in the “war on terror” was also thrust sharply into focus. Graphic images of coalition troops photographing and posing in front of hooded, naked prisoners forced into a “human pyramid”, and of people made to wear animal collars, indicated a regime in which degradation had a defining role. The photograph of a soldier gloating over the corpse of a man who had died as a result of torture was just one picture of a network of interrogation camps in which detention by coalition forces could be fatal. Yet if there were any expectations that the presence of medical personnel may have checked this violence, these were shattered by the fact that clinicians – in some cases at least – were integral to its practice. «It is now beyond doubt that Armed Forces physicians, psychologists, and medics were active and passive partners in the systematic neglect and abuse of war on terror prisoners», wrote Steven Miles in 2009 (Miles 2009, X). And as he continued, this involved providing interrogators «with medical information to use in setting the nature and degree of physical and psychological abuse during interrogations». It involved monitoring «interrogations to devise ways to break prisoners down or to keep them alive». It involved pathologists holding back death certificates and autopsy reports in order to minimise the number of fatalities or cover up torture-related deaths as deaths by natural causes (Ibid). Procedures including «cramped confinement, dietary manipulation, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding» were among the practices that were «at times (…) legally sanctioned due to medical supervision» in the context of the “war on terror”, according to Hoffman (2011, 1535). He continued to suggest that doctors are not just important to «modern torture methods», they are «irreplaceable». In this context, the “war on terror” is no aberration. As the revolutionary psychoanalyst and philosopher Frantz Fanon documented in 1959, for example, certain medical practitioners had an integral role in the military occupation of Algeria, and «There are, for instance, psychiatrists … known to numerous prisoners», he suggested, «who have given electric shock treatments to the accused and have questioned them during the waking phase, which is characterized by a certain confusion, a relaxation of resistance, a disappearance of the person's defences.» (Fanon 1959/1965, 138). Indeed, in his analysis of the Algerian revolution, he discussed how resistance to and struggles over the meanings of medical power were integral to the revolution itself. However, while the role of medical power in the practice of torture has been subjected to sustained critique in the context of the “war on terror”, what follows examines the relationship between medical power and torture in the context of what has been depicted – metaphorically – as another (although to some extents related) “war”: the “war” on asylum. According to the UNHCR (2017, 3), between 5 and 35 per cent of those asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status have survived torture. And focusing on the UK as a case study, this chapter examines the institutional and legal structures prohibiting torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, particularly as they apply to those subject to immigration control in this context. But further, it also examines the ideological and political conditions within which claims by those seeking asylum that they have been subjected to torture prior to arrival can be (and have been) ignored, downplayed and denied. It examines how medical expertise has frequently been undermined in the asylum process when this expertise is utilised to add weight to asylum seekers’ claims to have experienced torture. It examines how there have been attempts to narrow the definition of torture in ways which exclude people from the protections to which torture survivors are entitled. But it also explores the ways in which segments of the medical profession have been complicit in riding roughshod over existing safeguards to prevent further harm to those who have experienced torture, thus potentially compounding its effects. In particular, it examines claims that in certain contexts clinicians have administered dangerous “care” in order to ensure the removal of people from the UK, despite them claiming that they – or their family members – face serious harm and persecution on arrival as a result of this. In a historical discussion of medical involvement in torture, Giovanni Maio (2001, 1609) has noted that from its earliest incarnations one of the features of torture has been its use as an «oppressive instrument used in the preservation of power». Furthermore, whilst methods of torture have certainly «developed», and continue to do so, he argues, this «function» of torture is «especially relevant today». This chapter argues that the (mis)treatment of those in the UK who say they have been tortured, preserves and is bound up with a particular manifestation of state power: the aims, rationale and dictates of immigration control. Its claims are perhaps much more mundane than the forms of direct medical complicity in torture alluded to above. But they are nonetheless important. For it is argued that the acts of omission and commission documented in this chapter expose the tensions between the rights of certain “categories” of migrants to be afforded adequate clinical care on the one hand, and the goals and aims of immigration control itself on the other. This poses profound questions about the functions of clinical care and the ethical duties, responsibilities and obligations of clinicians, it is suggested. But as this chapter also crucially explores, this is a form of power that many within the medical profession have historically challenged, and continue to do so

Survey of New Refugees, 2005-2009

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Analysis, Research and Knowledge Management section (ARK) within the UK Border Agency commissioned the Survey of New Refugees to provide a longitudinal study of refugee integration in the UK. The overall aim of the survey was two-fold: (i) to collect information on the characteristics of new refugees at the time of their asylum decision; and (ii) to provide data on the integration of new refugees in the UK over time. A postal baseline questionnaire was sent to all new refugees who were granted a positive decision of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain between 1 December 2005 and 25 March 2007. Three follow-up questionnaires were issued 8, 15 and 21 months later. The baseline questionnaire collected information on the characteristics of refugees at the time of their asylum decision, including their previous education and employment, English language ability, physical and emotional health, and their social support and service needs. Three follow-up questionnaires were used to collect information on how these refugees integrated in the UK over 21 months. Integration was considered in terms of the English language skills, employment and housing of new refugees, and how these changed over time. Over 900 refugees provided information at all four sweeps. The findings of this research have been published in two Home Office Research Reports (Nos. 36 and 37) and one Summary Report (No.35), all included in the study documentation. A further Research Report (No.43), The Migrant Journey, is also available (see Publications section for references and links). Main Topics:The data file contains information from all four sweeps of the survey: baseline, 8 months, 15 months and 21 months. Details include the characteristics of refugees at the time of the asylum decision (baseline), such as their age, country of origin, English language ability, education and employment history, health and support needs. Data from the follow-up sweeps provide detailed information on the experience of new refugees in the UK, including their housing, employment and changes in English language ability. The dataset includes cross-sectional and longitudinal weights which should be applied during analysis (details provided in the accompanying technical notes)