Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Our lives in their hands

The death of an Angolan deportee raises questions about government use of private sector security firms.

The death this week of Jimmy Mubenga, who died while being deported to Angola, has thrown the spotlight on to the private security company that was employed to carry out his deportation. G4S, a FTSE 100-listed company that has operations in over 100 countries and is contracted by the British government to run prisons and carry out deportations on behalf of the Home Office.

Over at OpenDemocracy, Clare Sambrook details a catalogue of concerns about the safety record of G4S and other similar companies:

This year, in March, a report by Baroness Nuala O'Loan into allegations of abuse by G4S and other contractors found, "inadequate management of the use of force by the private sector companies", and made 22 recommendations for change.

Sambrook also highlights the company's links to government:

Under Labour, G4S enjoyed a charmed relationship with government, manifested in the £50,000 a year paid to former Home Secretary John Reid after he had left the Home Office but while he was still a serving MP.

Civil servants, too, seem remarkably loyal to their commercial partners.

The Home Office response to Baroness O'Loan's findings of "inadequate management of the use of force" was to criticise the people who had brought the company's abuses to light. Lin Homer, chief executive of the UK Border Agency, accused doctors and lawyers of, "seeking to damage the reputation of our contractors".

The seeming untouchability of G4S is especially worrying given government plans to outsource more rather than less.

Tags: privatisation  asylum  Justice  security

5 comments

Richard Mullens's picture

Ultimately it is or MPs who set the agenda and who are responsible for this death.

swatantra nandanwar's picture

It begs the question whether a public sctor agency would have done this particular bit of work any better. We have had instances in the past of police restraint leading to 'deaths'. But its up to the coroner to decide whether undue force was used. Very diffcult when an emotional detainee refuses to cooperate.

hongcheng's picture

welcome to :
http://www.shoeswholesale.us
This is a shopping paradise

Assia W.'s picture

Your comment is simply chilling, horrific, disgusting.
What do you mean ' had he gone quietly"? We're suppoused to be a country that allows people the freedom of individual response and action, no matter what.
Deportation too, is very messy, muddy territory. Those who are deported are not necessarily being deported fairly. Why should people be punished thus, forced into such desperation because their fears are not respected?
This man should quite obviously been granted leave to stay, in the first place.
The sinister overtones, let alone undertones of your phrase " had he gone quietly' has echoes of some awful fascist regime. Maybe you would just rather people went quietly to be lined up against the wall and shot? Or gassed to death? Quietly? The whole point of living in a democracy is that anyone has the right to disagree at any point at what is being done to them. That's all Jimmy did, in a way.

John's picture

Had he gone quietly, this would not have happened. From this unfortunate incident, one only hopes other illegals in the process of deportation learn to behave, then some good might come of Jimmy Mubenga's suicide.

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets