Police say British anarchists are whipping up trouble: THE TIMES FRONT PAGE: ‘Calais erupts in violence as migrant camp closed’
Calais burning: Huge flames rise over the Jungle as police fire tear gas at migrants after anarchists issued ‘call to arms’ to defy the controversial clearance
- Huge flames seen burning in Jungle camp, where thousands of migrants are due to be removed tomorrow
- Riot police fired tear gas in clashes, amid fears anarchists have infiltrated camp and want to spark violence
- Comes as Clare Moseley of Care4Calais compared French to Nazis dealing with Jews in Second World War
- Charity opposes plans by authorities to demolish the Jungle, where exclusion zones were set up tonight
Flames raged in the Calais Jungle camp and police shot tear gas into crowds of migrants amid violent clashes on the eve of plans to dismantle the settlement.
Migrants had lit fires and threw rocks at officers in full riot gear,who set up ‘exclusion zones’ amid fears that anarchists were trying to hijack the evacuation and spark violence during planned evacuations.
Charity No Borders – which authorities fear has infiltrated the camp – issued a ‘call to arms’ to all its followers, leading to an unusual statement from French Police banning them from the site.
UK: Immigration Officials Erect 15ft Fence to Hide ‘Child’ Migrants
The entrance to the immigration centre welcoming busloads of ‘child’ migrants every day from Calais has been obscured by a 15ft high scaffolding and canvas fence, hiding the identities of new arrivals.
The giant barrier appeared overnight, 24 hours after the migrants began arriving with blankets over their heads. It was unveiled on the same day the first ‘child migrant’ was proven, with hard evidence, to be over 18.
“Child” so-called migrants arrive in UK but 15ft screens are in place so public cannot asses their true ages
ABOUT 100 more Calais “children” have arrived in Britain but the Home Office has installed a massive screen outside the London processing centre so no members of the public can assess their ages.
Three coaches carrying migrants with no links to the UK arrived yesterday at the HomeOffice building in Croydon.
Last week, the Home Office came under fire after welcoming adults apparently pretending to be ‘vulnerable children’ to get fast-track asylum treatment.
Now a 15ft screen has been installed outside Lunar House where the migrants are processed by officials.
The guidance by the Home Office suggests that asylum seekers should only be challenged about their age if they are found to be ‘significantly over 18’.
HOW JUDGES RULED AGE CLAIMS WERE FALSE
A children’s home in Birmingham questioned the age of an Afghan asylum seeker after the 12-year-old was found to be shaving – and was noted to have a ‘deep broken voice’.
Birmingham City Council ordered an age assessment which ruled he was over 18 and one assessor said he appeared to have been coached to parrot stock phrases in a deliberate bid to dupe officials.
Publicly-funded lawyers took the case to an immigration tribunal, which ruled he was probably a month short of his 18th birthday when he arrived in Britain in 2008, but 22 at the time of the tribunal in 2013. His asylum claim was rejected.
An Afghan asylum seeker who claimed to be 13 when he arrived in Britain in 2008 was challenged after social workers spotted grey hairs.
The teen claimed he had fled his home in Helmand Province after being injured in an airstrike.
Croydon social workers noted he was shaving and had ‘a few grey hairs ’ but assessed his age as 16.
When he was put in a young offenders’ institution in 2012 for theft, criminal damage and assault, he said he was ‘over 19’, so at least 20, and did not want to be treated like a child. An immigration tribunal ruled there was ‘no reasonable likelihood’ he was 13 on arrival, but was probably then 16.
And an Iranian asylum seeker who said he was 14 when he arrived in Britain later applied for benefits saying he was really two years older.
The teenager, who said he was fleeing political unrest in 2008, told social workers in Liverpool he was born in 1994, but claimed income support saying he was born in 1992. He was assessed as being 18 or 19, but a second assessment estimated 16.
Publicly funded lawyers took his case to the High Court in 2010, and argued he was entitled to claim benefit owing to his official age of 16, despite his previous 14 claim. The judge ruled he was probably 16 but noted he had ‘manipulated’ the system.