• Efficacité de la vaccination : Il manque plus de la moitié des décès ! Décoder l’éco

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLARwm6jqbA

    Le 13 juillet 2021, la DREES, la direction réalisant les statistiques pour le ministère de la santé a sorti une étude récapitulant les données connus des résultats de tests Covid-19 pour les vaccinés et les non-vaccinés en France.
    Cette étude a été complétée le 23 juillet 2021 par une autre étude ajoutant cette fois-ci les données d’hospitalisations et de décès liées à la Covid-19.
    Cette dernière étude est utilisée en ce moment par le gouvernement et les médias pour justifier la politique vaccinale, puisqu’elle affirme notamment que :

    – Les non-vaccinés représentent près de 85 % des entrées hospitalières, que ce soit en hospitalisation conventionnelle ou en soins critiques.
    – Les patients complètement vaccinés comptent pour environ 7 % des admissions, une proportion cinq fois plus faible que celle observée en population générale (35 % en moyenne durant la période d’étude).
    – À tout âge, la part de patients vaccinés entrant à l’hôpital est nettement inférieure à celle qu’ils représentent dans l’ensemble de la population.

    Seulement, comme l’a relevé @NiusMarco sur Twitter et détaillé Patrice Gibertie dans un article, les données utilisées pas la DREES posent un énorme problème : il manque la moitié des décès Covid-19 français. Dans cette vidéo, nous allons détailler les données de l’étude pour comprendre d’où viennent les données, comment la DREES a pu retirer la moitié des décès de son analyse et ce que cela signifie pour les conclusions de l’étude.

    Sources :
    Etude DREES sur les tests : https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/note_drees_suivi_de_la_crise_sanitaire_.pdf
    Etude DREES sur les hospitalisations / décès : https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/2021-07-23_-_sivic-sidep-vacsi_premiers_resultats_-_drees-2.p
    Géodes pour les données SIVIC : https://geodes.santepubliquefrance.fr/#c=indicator&view=map2
    Fichier public des personnes décédées : https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/fichier-des-personnes-decedees
    Etude anglaise sur la mortalité Covid vaccinés / non vaccinés : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001354/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf
    Données israéliennes sur la mortalité Covid : https://data.gov.il/dataset/covid-19/resource/8a51c65b-f95a-4fb8-bd97-65f47109f41f?filters

    #france #angleterre #israel #DREES, #SIVIC #décès #vaccination #test_pcr #covid-19 #cas_contact #économie #coronavirus #santé #surveillance #confinement #covid #sars-cov-2 #pandémie #contacttracing #france #pass #pass_sanitaire #statistiques #chiffres #data #europe #données

  • The report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

    The Commission’s report sets out a new, positive agenda for change. It balances the needs of individuals, communities and society, maximising opportunities and ensuring fairness for all.

    The Commission has considered detailed quantitative data and qualitative evidence to understand why disparities exist, what works and what does not. It has commissioned new research and invited submissions from across the UK.

    Its work and recommendations will improve the quality of data and evidence about the types of barriers faced by people from different backgrounds. This will help to inform actions and drive effective and lasting change.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-commission-on-race-and-ethnic-disparities

    #rapport #UK #Angleterre #racisme #discriminations #inégalités
    #Commission_on_Race_and_Ethnic_Disparities (#CRED)

    pour télécharger le rapport :
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974507/20210331_-_CRED_Report_-_FINAL_-_Web_Accessible.pdf

    • Downing Street rewrote ‘independent’ report on race, experts claim

      Commissioners allege No 10 distorted their work on inequality, after conclusions played down institutional racism.

      Officials at Downing Street have been accused of rewriting much of its controversial report into racial and ethnic disparities, despite appointing an independent commission to conduct an honest investigation into inequality in the UK.

      The Observer has been told that significant sections of the report published on 31 March, which were criticised and debunked by health professionals, academics, business chiefs and crime experts, were not written by the 12 commissioners who were appointed last July.

      The 258-page document was not made available to be read in full or signed off by the group, which included scientist and BBC broadcaster Maggie Aderin-Pocock and Samir Shah, former chair of the Runnymede Trust, nor were they made aware of its 24 final recommendations. Instead, the finished report, it is alleged, was produced by No 10.

      Kunle Olulode, an anti-racism activist and director of the charity Voice4Change, is the first commissioner to condemn the government publicly for its lack of transparency. In a statement to the Observer, Olulode’s charity was scathing of the way evidence was cherrypicked, distorted and denied in the final document.

      “The report does not give enough to show its understanding of institutional or structural discrimination … evidence in sections, that assertive conclusions are based on, is selective,” it said. “The report gives no clear direction on what expectations of the role of public institutions and political leadership should be in tackling race and ethnic disparities. What is the role of the state in this?”

      One commissioner, who spoke out on condition of anonymity, accused the government of “bending” the work of its commission to fit “a more palatable” political narrative and denying the working group the autonomy it was promised.

      “We did not read Tony’s [Sewell] foreword,” they claimed. “We did not deny institutional racism or play that down as the final document did. The idea that this report was all our own work is full of holes. You can see that in the inconsistency of the ideas and data it presents and the conclusions it makes. That end product is the work of very different views.”

      The commissioner revealed that they had been privy only to the section of the report they were assigned, and that it had soon become apparent the exercise was not being taken sufficiently seriously by No 10.

      “Something of this magnitude takes proper time – we were only given five months to do this work, on a voluntary basis,” they said. In contrast to the landmark 1999 #Macpherson_report (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/22/macpherson-report-what-was-it-and-what-impact-did-it-have), an inquiry into the death of #Stephen_Lawrence, or the 2017 #Lammy_Review, both of which took 18 months to conclude, the report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (Cred) was not peer reviewed and was published just seven months after the group first met on a videocall.

      The group, led by Sewell, was set up by #Samuel_Kasumu, No 10’s most senior black special adviser, who resigned from his post on the day the report was published, aghast at its final findings. Accusations that #Munira_Mirza, director of No 10’s policy unit, was heavily involved in steering the direction of the supposedly independent report were not directly addressed by a No 10 spokesperson, who said: “I would reiterate the report is independent and that the government is committed to tackling inequality.”

      A source involved in the commission told the Observer that “basic fundamentals in putting a document like this together were ignored. When you’re producing something so historic, you have to avoid unnecessary controversy, you don’t court it like this report did. And the comms was just shocking.”

      While the prime minister sought to distance himself from the criticism a day after its publication, unusually it was his office rather than the Cred secretariat which initially released the report to the press.

      A spokesperson for the race commission said: “We reject these allegations. They are deliberately seeking to divert attention from the recommendations made in the report.

      “The commission’s view is that, if implemented, these 24 recommendations can change for the better the lives of millions across the UK, whatever their ethnic or social background. That is the goal they continue to remain focused on.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/11/downing-street-rewrote-independent-report-on-race-experts-claim

      #récriture #modification #indépendance #contreverse

    • voir aussi les critiques dans la page wiki dédiée au rapport :
      Reactions

      Political:

      Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, said that he was “disappointed” by the Commission’s report.[10][11]

      Isabelle Parasram, vice president of the Liberal Democrats, issued a statement that the Commission had “missed the opportunity to make a clear, bold statement on the state of race equality in this country”. Parasram said that the “evidence and impact of racism in the UK is overwhelming” and that “whilst some of recommendations made in the report are helpful, they fall far short of what could have been achieved”.[12]

      The Green Party of England and Wales issued a statement condemning the summary of the report as “a deliberate attempt to whitewash institutional racism” and that “Institutional racism in the UK does exist”.[13]

      Other:

      David Goodhart welcomed the report as “a game-changer for how Britain talks about race”.[14]

      Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the Bishop of Dover, described the report as “deeply disturbing”; she said the “lived experience” of the people “tells a different story to that being shared by this report”.[15]

      The historian David Olusoga accused the report’s authors of appearing to prefer “history to be swept under the carpet”.[16]

      A Guardian editorial quoted Boris Johnson’s intent to “change the narrative so we stop the sense of victimisation and discrimination”[17] when setting up the commission, and as evidence of the reality of racial inequality listed five recent government reports on different aspects:[18]

      - the criminal justice system (the David Lammy review of 2017[19][20]);
      - schools, courts, and the workplace (the Theresa May race audit of 2017[21]);
      - pay (the Ruby McGregor-Smith review of 2017[22][23]);
      - deaths in police custody (the Elish Angiolini report of 2017[24]);
      - the Windrush scandal (the Wendy Williams review of 2020[25][26]).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Race_and_Ethnic_Disparities

  • UK to deny asylum to refugees passing through ’safe’ third country

    Immigration rule will also prevent migrants from making a claim in UK territorial waters

    Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.

    From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.

    The changes will also prevent asylum seekers from being able to make a claim in the territorial waters of the UK.

    The UK government will be able to remove refused asylum seekers not only to the third countries through which they have travelled, but to any safe third country that may agree to receive them, an explanatory memo states.

    A 10-page statement (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943127/CCS207_CCS1220673408-001_Statement_of_changes_in_Immig) outlining the changes to the rules was published online without a press or public announcement.

    However, the changes highlight a significant hurdle for the UK government: claims will only be treated as inadmissible if the asylum applicant is accepted for readmission by the third country through which they have travelled or another safe state agrees to take them.

    Immigration law experts have said this could render the new policy “pointless” and would most likely delay asylum applications and leave refugees in limbo in the UK.

    Colin Yeo, a leading immigration barrister with expertise in asylum law, wrote on Twitter: “The policy is pointless because the govt has negotiated no such return agreements, so all it does is delay decisions on all claims, which is cruel to genuine refugees, and delay removal of non genuine cases.”


    https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1337069616078721025

    The Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesperson, Alistair Carmichael, said the changes were “yet another breach of international law”.

    He said: “The UK has a proud history of providing sanctuary to those in need, but now the Conservative government is turning its back on refugees. This latest nasty policy from [the home secretary] Priti Patel goes against our commitments under the refugee convention and against everything the UK stands for. It’s yet another breach of international law by this irresponsible tory government.”

    Beth Gardiner-Smith, the chief executive of Safe Passage International, a charity that help refugees access safe and legal routes to asylum, said: “The government’s changes to the immigration rules are a direct assault on the fundamental human right to asylum. These chilling changes on International Human Rights Day do a disservice to the UK’s proud record of providing safety to those fleeing persecution and violence.”

    The number of small boat arrivals across the Channel has surged to record levels this year, with more than 8,000 migrants and refugees travelling across the Dover Strait, compared with less than 2,000 in 2019. However, total asylum applications are down year on year as the Covid-19 pandemic has cut off other methods of travel and limited migration flows.

    Patel has been accused of responding haphazardly with kneejerk proposals ranging from sending asylum seekers thousands of miles away to islands in the South Atlantic, to using giant water cannons to repel boats. The prime minister has reportedly become frustrated with Patel’s handling of the situation.

    The UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 protocol, a piece of international law designed to protect refugees.

    The Home Office provided a statement through the immigration compliance minister, Chris Philp. He said: “We are determined to fix the broken asylum system to make it firm on those who come here through illegally facilitated routes and fair on those who play by the rules. There is no reason to leave a safe country like France to make a dangerous crossing. These measures send a clear message and are just one of the steps th​e government is taking to tackle the unacceptable rise in small boat crossings.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/10/uk-to-deny-asylum-to-refugees-passing-through-safe-third-country

    #UK #Angleterre #asile #migrations #réfugiés #droit_d'asile #Manche #eaux_territoriales #pays_sûr #transit #pays_tiers_sûr #brexit #EU #Europe #UE #renvois #expulsions #01_janvier_2020 #inadmissibilité #attente #limbe #accords #droit_international #Priti_Patel

    ping @isskein

  • Restrictions on outdoor gatherings, including prohibiting large events
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925856/S0770_NPIs_table__pivot_.pdf

    Les bénéfices sont « faibles » si on élimine les “grands rassemblements”

    “Low impact.
    Small reduction in transmission (reduction in R likely to be <0.05). SARS-CoV2 does not persist in well-ventilated outdoor areas for long. High confidence.”

    #contamination #transmission #sars-cov2

  • Leave to remain as a stateless person in the UK

    A stateless person, as defined by the 1954 Convention (https://www.unhcr.org/uk/un-conventions-on-statelessness.html) relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is “a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”.

    Although the UK signed up the 1954 Convention, there was no formal mechanism for recognising and providing protection to stateless people until 2013.

    After tireless campaigning from Asylum Aid and other organisations, the UK government introduced a procedure through which people could be recognised as stateless and granted the right to remain in the UK because of their statelessness.

    Initially, there was an incredibly low rate of success on applications under the new procedure. As of April 2016, only 39 applications had been granted.

    Legal aid is not generally available for the procedure in England and Wales. You may, however, be able to apply for Exceptional Case Funding which would mean a legal aid lawyer can take on your case.
    The immigration rules

    The Immigration Rules (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-14-stateless-persons) set out the criteria and requirements the Home Office will use when making decisions on application for leave to remain as a stateless person.

    The rules define a stateless person as:

    - a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law;
    – is in the United Kingdom; and
    – is not excluded from recognition as a Stateless person (see section below).

    Since 6 April 2019, the Immigration Rules also says that you have to have:

    sought and failed to obtain or re-establish your nationality with the appropriate authorities of the relevant country; and
    in the case of a child born in the UK, has provided evidence that they have attempted to register their birth with the relevant authorities but have been refused.

    Statelessness and asylum

    The Home Office guidance says

    “If you can’t return to another country because you fear persecution there, you should claim asylum first.”

    Read more about claiming asylum in the Right to Remain Toolkit here: https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/asylumintro.

    If you’ve already claimed asylum or have an outstanding human rights claim, the Home Office says you must wait until you have a decision on that claim before applying for the right to stay as a stateless person.

    You can apply to stay as a stateless person if the claim refused.

    How to apply

    To apply for leave to remain as a stateless person, you apply online here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-extend-stay-in-uk-as-stateless-person-form-flrs.

    There is no fee for the application, and you do not need to pay the immigration health surcharge (read more about the surcharge here: https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/enteruk/#ihs).

    You will need to submit evidence to show why you believe you are stateless and any evidence to show that you are not a national of your country of birth or ancestry (or any other).
    Documents to include

    As well as including 2 passport photos, the application form states that you must provide certain documents – if you have them – for you and your dependents:

    – current passports and other travel documents, such as visas; and also any national identity cards you have and expired passports/travel documents
    – official letters confirming your immigration status in the UK (with the reference number ASL.2150, ASL.2151 or ASL.2152)
    – marriage certificates

    Documents about your life before coming to the UK:

    – documents that prove where you lived before coming to the UK
    – identity documents (for example, birth certificate, extract from civil register, national identity card, voter registration document)
    – documents regarding applications to acquire nationality or obtain proof of nationality, and any previous responses by States to enquiries about your nationality
    – certificate of naturalisation
    - certificate of renunciation of nationality
    – military service record/discharge certificate
    - school certificates
    - medical certificates/records (for example, attestations issued from hospital on birth, vaccination booklets)
    – sworn statements from neighbours:
    - identity and travel documents of parents, spouse and children
    documents from your applications for citizenship or requests for proof of nationality in other countries – the application form specifies that you need to provide a letter from the Embassy/High Commission (of the country in which you were born or any other country with which you are connected by residence) showing that they have refused to recognise you as a citizen and/or confirmed that you are not entitled to reside there.

    The process

    After submitting your application, you may be interviewed.

    The Home Office Policy Instruction (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/843704/stateless-leave-guidance-v3.0ext.pdf) has this to say on the issue of interviews:

    An interview will normally be arranged to assist the applicant to fully set out t heir case for being considered stateless and to submit any other relevant evidence. In other instances, questions about evidence submitted as part of the application may be resolved through additional written communications. Where the applicant does not complete all relevant sections of the application form, caseworkers may request the missing information by writing to the applicant or their legal representative if they have one.

    A personal interview will not be required if there is already sufficient evidence of statelessness, it is clear that the individual is not admissible to another country, and is eligible for leave to remain on this basis.

    An interview will not be arranged, and the application may be refused, where recent and reliable information including the applicant’s previous evidence or findings of fact made by an immigration judge, have already established that the applicant is not stateless or is clearly admissible to another country for purposes of permanent residence and where no evidence to the contrary has been provided.

    So far, the Home Office has been slow in making decisions on statelessness applications.

    If you are destitute (homeless and/or without money) at the time of making the application, you may be entitled to accommodation and financial support provided by the government, known as Section 4 support. Read more here: http://www.asaproject.org/uploads/Factsheet-2-section-4-support.pdf.

    If you are refused

    There is no automatic appeal right for Home Office refusals of applications for leave to remain on the basis of being stateless.

    You have the option of an administrative review. Read more about administrative reviews here: https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/refusal/#adminreview.

    It may be possible to pursue a judicial review of the refusal. Read more about judicial reviews here: https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/jr.
    Barriers to succeeding with an application

    As was mentioned above, there is generally no legal aid available for the applications in England and Wales (though exceptional legal funding might be a possibility: https://publiclawproject.org.uk/what-we-do/current-projects-and-activities/legal-aid/exceptional-funding-project).
    A case at the Court of Appeal established that someone who cannot immediately be admitted to any other country but could be if they took certain steps is not entitled to leave to remain as stateless. Read more in this Free Movement blog post: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/stateless-child-uk-refused-leave-to-remain.
    The Home Office Office will consider “findings of fact established in previous decisions on any applications you have made for international protection, leave to enter, or leave to remain, together with the information about your circumstances which you submit with “. This means that “poor credibility” findings by the Home Office (read more on this here: https://righttoremain.org.uk/credibility-in-asylum-claims) or by a judge in a previous asylum claim for example, may count against you if the decision is reliant on your testimony; or documents submitted for a stateless application may be doubted if the Home Office or judge stated that false documents had been submitted in a previous application.
    It is useful to review all the documents/evidence you have submitted to the Home Office (including for previous immigration applications if applicable), and to request a copy of the Home Office’s file on you. This could be useful if it turns out the Home Office has internally already made a finding of statelessness in your case; or alternatively if you need to deal with previous statements you might have made that suggest you have citizenship somewhere.
    There is a lengthy section in the application form about criminal convictions. This, and information obtained by the Home Office from elsewhere, could be used to refuse applications if they can argue that your convictions would exclude you from stateless recognition (on the basis of “war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious criminality” – see below), and/or “danger to the security of the UK or a risk to public order” (again, see below) OR even through the “general grounds of refusal” which include convictions of certain lengths. See the grounds here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-9-grounds-for-refusal.
    The Home Office’s criteria for excluding someone from protection because of statelessness goes beyond the criteria of the 1954 Convention. The UK immigration rules (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-14-stateless-persons) state:

    A person is excluded from recognition as a stateless person if there are serious reasons for considering that they:
    (a) are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations, other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, protection or assistance, so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;
    (b) are recognised by the competent authorities of the country of their former habitual residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country [even if you do not have nationality of that country];
    (c) have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes;
    (d) have committed a serious non-political crime outside the UK prior to their arrival in the UK;
    (e) have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

    AND

    The Home Office policy instruction states that you will be refused if you do not meet the definition of statelessness but also if they think:

    there are reasonable grounds to consider that you would be a danger to the security of the UK or a risk to public order; or
    you fall under any of the general grounds for refusal that are set out in the Immigration Rules.

    If your application is granted

    You will receive leave to remain for five years. Before 6 April 2019, the leave to remain granted was a period of 30 months, which was then renewable.

    With this leave to remain, you are allowed to work and have access to public funds (such as benefits and homelessness assistance).

    After five years, you can apply for indefinite leave to remain.

    After that, you can apply for British citizenship, but there are significant financial obstacles to this. Read more here: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/citizenship-for-sale-at-a-cost-stateless-people-can-ill-afford.

    Travel document

    If you are recognised as stateless and given leave to remain in accordance with this, you can apply for a Travel Document (like a passport) which will be issued in accordance with the UK’s obligations under the 1954 Stateless Convention.

    Read more here: https://www.gov.uk/apply-home-office-travel-document.

    Family members

    The application form says that you must include your partner and children under 18 (your “dependants”) in your application if they’re already in the UK with you (they do not have to be stateless).

    If they’re outside the UK, they can apply for permission to come to the UK (“entry clearance”) once your application has been approved.

    Family members will be granted leave to remain for the same period as you.

    Further help

    You can find a best practice guide produced by ILPA and written for lawyers making stateless applications, here: http://www.ilpa.org.uk/resource/32620/statelessness-and-applications-for-leave-to-remain-a-best-practice-guide-dr.

    Liverpool Law clinic have a specialist service for stateless applications (though are limited in the number of cases they can take on). Find out more here: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/law/liverpool-law-clinic/immigration-and-asylum.

    Asylum Aid have a referral form for legal advice for people who are stateless here: https://consonant.org.uk

    https://righttoremain.org.uk/leave-to-remain-as-a-stateless-person-in-the-uk
    #UK #Angleterre #apatridie #apatrides #loi #asile #migrations #réfugiés

  • #Windrush compensation: call for evidence - GOV.UK

    https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/windrush-compensation-call-for-evidence

    Open consultation
    Windrush compensation: call for evidence
    Published 10 May 2018

    From:
    Home Office and UK Visas and Immigration

    Summary

    This call for evidence process will run until 8 June 2018 and is the first step in making sure that the government provides redress for financial losses.

    This consultation closes at
    11:45pm on 8 June 2018

  • First Sea Lord’s Gallipoli Memorial Lecture 2017 - GOV.UK
    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/gallipoli-memorial-lecture-2017

    Over the coming decades, more and more of the world’s population will be concentrated in coastal regions; and with growing population comes the opportunity for greater economic, political and military power.

    This is where the conflicts of the future will happen, and if governments wish to influence events then they must be prepared to act in this space.

    The inherent mobility, flexibility and capability of maritime forces provides military and political choice, which is why it remains the favoured means of power projection for western governments, and for aspiring military powers.

    I certainly sense no appetite in the West to commit forces ashore in large numbers; whatever the dangers found at sea, the risks of enduring land operations are greater still.

    But in any case, the distinction between all these domains is becoming more blurred

    We have no choice but to operate across all these domains and to meet conventional and unconventional threats in equal measure.

    #guerres

  • New agreement strengthens UK-Saudi Arabia Defence relationship - GOV.UK
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-agreement-strengthens-uk-saudi-arabia-defence-relationship

    The governments of the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have announced a new Military and Security Cooperation Agreement, signed today in Jeddah by the Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon and the Saudi Crown Prince HRH Mohammed bin Salman.

    #alliances

  • The number of people entering detention in #2016 decreased by 11% to 28,908 from 32,447 in the previous year.

    Over the same period there was a 14% decrease in those people leaving detention (from 33,226 to 28,661). The proportion of detainees being returned or voluntarily departing the UK on leaving detention increased slightly from 45% in 2015 to 47% in 2016. Conversely, the proportion of detainees granted temporary admission or release (TA/TR) decreased slightly from 43% to 42%.

    As at the end of December 2016, 2,738 people were in detention, 5% more than the number recorded at the end of December 2015 (2,607).


    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-october-to-december-2016/detention?platform=hootsuite
    #détention_administrative #rétention #asile #migrations #réfugiés #statistiques #chiffres #UK #Angleterre