Manchester: Refugees freezing in tents in city centre
Homeless refugees who face being forced to leave a camp of tents in a city centre have told of enduring freezing temperatures for months after escaping war-torn countries.Many of the group of mainly young men have been staying in the tents in St Peter's Square in Manchester after successfully applying for asylum in the UK. The camp is set to be cleared by Manchester City Council after a legal challenge by campaigners failed. Adel Youssef, 32, who also fled the civil war in Sudan, said his situation living in tents was "not good".
The BBC has talked to those living in the camp, many of whom struggled to speak English, and heard about the daily conditions they face.Mamadi Camara, who arrived in the UK from the West African country of Equatorial Guinea, said he had been rough sleeping in the tents over the winter.He said the past three months had been "very cold". Adam Abdullah, a 25-year-old refugee from Sudan, said despite the threat of being moved, he still planned to try and make a home in the city after spending months in the tents.
Mr Abdullah fled "lots of fighting" in the Darfur region of Sudan before he was successfully granted asylum.He said he felt safe in Manchester but the freezing temperatures had been a struggle.
Mimicia Titianu, 55 from Romania, said he had been sleeping in the cold with no money for the tram, the bus, or food and lived off "one sandwich and one coffee a day"."This is my life, day-after-day," he said. The council has not said when it plans to remove the camp next to the city's town hall, where people have lived for at least a year.Many of the refugees moved to Manchester after being granted asylum in other parts of the UK in the belief the city was cheaper and they were more likely to get support. But local authorities have said they are often low on the list for social housing and have arrived in a city where support for the homeless is already struggling to meet demand.
The council asked for a possession order to clear the site because the area was "not a safe or sanitary place" to access its support services, a spokesperson said. At a hearing on Friday, a judge described the refugees as "trespassers in law" when he ruled their tents must be removed as the square was a public amenity "available to all."The Greater Manchester Law Centre had tried to fight the order and argued that the council had not complied with its statutory duties to care for those in the camp under homelessness law and instead referred people to support charity Mustard Tree.The hearing heard the camp had become a "revolving door" where new refugees moved in after previous residents were housed by authorities. Jade MacDonald of the Greater Manchester Tenants Union said the ruling to clear the site had "done nothing to fix the issue of homelessness" in the city."This just feeds into the council's attempts to make the problem less visible. Manchester is in desperate need of more social housing," he said.
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Manchester on Sounds and follow BBC Manchester on Facebook, X, and Instagram and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
43 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Reflections on populism, as Tory political black hole puts democracy at risk
PA Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Putting Nigel Farage back in his box may require more than just exposing the shortcomings of populist leaders now causing electoral upsets and mayhem throughout Western democracies. The Hamilton by-election produced a Labour victory. The SNP identified the wrong opponent and lost. The Tories just collapsed. The Reform Party though, confirmed the danger that they pose to our country courtesy of an electoral system built for another age and a political black hole created by 14 years of a soulless and reckless Tory Government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Hidden from public view until polling day in Scotland, populism, a seemingly innocuous term and very much of English origin, via UKIP and the Brexit party, has now emerged as a frightening reminder of a political idea which is now tearing America apart and overwhelming any idea of democracy and justice. The Scottish by-election and the recent elections in England should be a wake up call for the traditional or progressive parties in the UK who are in need themselves of 'reform' based on a deeper understanding of a changing electorate. The political black hole left by the last Tory Government, reflects their running of Britain into the ground, souring the mood of electors and paving the way for populism to take hold. What is crucial, is not just the austerity, national decline, diminishing expectations, economic stagnation and the savaging of the public realm , but the erosion of trust and respect for politics resulting in a bitter, angry, insecure electorate exhibiting all the signs of low mood, a negative psyche, and a political Zeitgeist requiring a new spirit for a new age refurbishing our beliefs, attitudes, feelings and values, a new driving force reflecting new concerns and aspirations of a different future. This is vital if we are to deal with the much more frightening and damaging legacy. Rachel Reeves successfully used the term, financial black hole to fix in the minds of electors the extent of the financial carnage facing the new Government. Progressives now need to use and understand the term, 'political black hole' if we are to confront the crisis in our politics, and the stress being imposed upon our democracy. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Sounds alarmist but there is evidence everywhere of complacency and the familiar refrain of 'it couldn't happen here' despite populism and authoritarianism finding expression today in the form of American troops on the streets of Los Angeles. We need a vision of the future that inspires and offers solutions to our more intractable problems and restores trust in our politics and politicians. Any sense of alienation can find a home in Populist parties. For progressive parties, a period of reflection would make more sense than being tempted to drift to the right and compete with the divisive ideas of the Reform Party. The 'scunner' factor is creating doubts about the relevance of our traditional politics to the daily lives of electors. Entertaining the idea of a cult leader should be deeply offensive to supporters of democracy. Deep seams of discontent could be easily mined, by Farage who is the consummate opportunist, a predator circling for political prey. There are however other issues which may more reliably explain our vulnerable democracy and the ramshackle nature of our electoral system. Evidence abounds of an ancient electoral system not fit for modern day purposes and an electorate weary and dissatisfied with political outcomes. Too often we cast electors in a series of political dramas but they feel sidelined in what should be about them and at times feeling more like the victims of politics not the beneficiaries. Policies often lack stories or messaging or relevance of where people fit in? The discourse at Westminster is often perceived as too complex, technocratic, managerial, London centric, and lost in complex issues such as AI, Growth, Gender and GDP where a lack of inclusive or illustrative narratives are alienating people. Westminster is making few concessions to the idea of four nation politics. And we still live in an over centralised Union. The missteps by the Government in its early stages undoubtedly undermined the Labour Party creed and brand. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There are however deep seated long term issues that must be addressed, in particular the voting system. The 'First past the Post,' method of electing MPs is antiquated and undemocratic and could be a dangerous entry vehicle for populists. In July 2024, the Labour government was elected with a landslide of 412 MPs out of the total number of 650 MPs in the House of Commons. But this was achieved with only 9.7 million votes out of a total of 48 million people in the UK registered and eligible to vote. Labour gained 20 per cent of the total eligible vote and 30 percent of those who did vote: this means that nearly 40 million people didn't vote Labour or didn't bother to vote! Reform won 5 seats, with over 4 million votes the Conservative party with nearly 7 million votes won 121 seats. Our electoral process can deliver a huge majority of seats in the House of Commons on the back of a minority of voters in the country. None of this makes sense and remains a key issue in our weakening democracy. Westminster represents constituencies but doesn't reflect the people. It provides a reminder of what a party like Reform could achieve, with a deeply divided country, the collapse of Tory party and a fragile and less trusting electorate. This is why progressive parties must build consensus politics. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Turnout also matters. The 2024 Westminster election turnout of 59.4 was the second lowest since 1918. A record high of 83.9% was achieved in 1950. The Scottish Parliament by-election in Hamilton had a turnout of 44.2 percent of those eligible to vote. For some this was a decent outcome but surely after an intensely fought campaign, a figure of nearly 60 percent not bothering to vote is an indictment of a failed voting and political system and ultimately our democracy. Our electoral system favours the two main parties. What is happening in Europe requires a wake up call to recognise that populism inevitably leads to authoritarianism, and a threat to
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
How can ‘sanction' mean two opposing things?
Sir Keir Starmer said 'he could 'not imagine' the circumstances in which he would sanction a new referendum' on Scottish independence, the Times reported the other day. The Mirror said Amazon 'has agreed to sanction businesses that boost their star ratings with bogus reviews'. So we find sanction being used with completely opposite meanings: 'give permission' and 'enact a penalty to enforce obedience to a law'. The latter sense was extended after the first world war to cover economic or military action against a state as a coercive measure. That is the use we daily find applied to action, or the lack of it, against Russia. The diverging meanings both go back to the Latin noun sanctio, deriving from the verb sancire 'to render sacred', hence 'inviolable'. Such a sanctio came to mean a decree, as in that obscure beast of history, the pragmatic sanction, which looks neither pragmatic or like a sanction. The phrase had a good run for its money, though, labelling a decree attributed to St Louis of France against the Papacy in 1268 and a decree by Charles III of Spain in 1759, granting the crown of the Two Sicilies to his son. I would describe as an anxiety dream the thought of having to write about either. Here, pragmatic meant 'to do with affairs of state', a development of the ancient Greek word that, via Latin, also gives us practical. In English pragmatic acquired the meaning 'practical' only in the mid 19th century, allowing the Americans C.S. Peirce and William James to harness pragmatism to describe a kind of philosophy. As for sanction, it is now also deployed to label the removal or reduction of social benefits. In February this year, 5.5 per cent of claimants were being sanctioned. There is, too, the architect of Dublin's Heuston station (often misprinted as Euston station): Sancton Wood (often misprinted as Sanction Wood).
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
