South Asian 'slave brides' causing concern in UK

 Hundreds of women who came to the UK from South Asia to marry say they have been treated as domestic slaves by their in-laws.

More than 500 who applied for residence in 2008-09 after their marriages broke down were deported because they could not prove any abuse had taken place.
Police and charities are concerned the incidents are not reported because of family pressure and fear of reprisals.
The UK Border Agency said measures were in place to try to prevent such abuse.


The women complaining of being treated as slaves by their families come from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
One woman in her 20s, says she was imprisoned by her mother-in-law for three years at their house in the north of England. She does not want to be named.
She has now started to come to terms with her ordeal, a year after her mother-in-law was prosecuted, but she says she still lives with the fear inside her.
"One day my mother-in-law beat me up really badly," she says.
"There was a lot of blood coming out of my mouth and nose - I couldn't tell anyone, call anyone or go anywhere.
"I used to get up at dawn and clean the whole house, scrub the floors, clean the windows, do the washing, cook. In between I'd have to sew."
She tried to kill herself twice. Eventually she managed to escape after her mother-in-law left her bedroom door unlocked.
"Staying inside all the time, not being allowed to watch TV or go out... I thought I'd rather be dead than live like this."

Research by Imkaan, the national charity for Black and Asian victims of domestic violence, shows how difficult it is for other Asian women to report abuse. It surveyed 124 women who use Asian refuges across the country.
"A woman may not speak English, may not be aware of what's available in terms of services, she may be in a situation where everywhere she goes her abuser or a family member - who may be colluding in the abuse - is actually going with her," says Imkaan director Marai Larasi.
"So her opportunity to disclose the abuse is compromised. There's also a real lack of services for women in this position."
There are concerns that this lack of reporting is leading many abused women from South Asia to eventually be deported when their marriages break down and they apply to stay in the UK.

Home Office rules state that any foreign national whose marriage breaks up within two years because of domestic violence can apply for indefinite leave to remain, but they must have reported the incident at the time to a person in authority - such as a GP or police officer.
Figures released by the Home Office show that more than half the number of South Asian brides who say they have been victims of domestic abuse in the UK have been deported in the last two years because they could not prove abuse had taken place.
Out of 980 applications for leave to remain in the UK in 2008 and 2009, only 440 women were allowed to stay.
In a statement, the UK Border Agency said: "We take our role in providing protection to women very seriously. We already have a number of measures in place to try and provide more directed support such as specific instructions, assessment of the quality of decisions and training for case workers."
After the highly-publicized case of Naseebah Bibi last year, Lancashire Police say they believe the problem is widespread in some communities.
Bibi was jailed for treating her three daughters-in-law as slaves at their home in Blackburn.
"The women are facing pressure, not only from immediate family but also their extended family abroad who may be relying on the people in this country to finance them to help improve their lives," says Lancashire Police's Det Con Dave Souch, who led the Naseebah Bibi Inquiry.
His colleague Sgt John Rigby described it as the "Cinderella syndrome".
He adds: "The problem with slave labor, as it's been tagged, is probably far bigger than what we may expect - we can only go on the cases that are brought to our attention.

"But we know from the partner agencies we work alongside - like the Women's Aid Forums - who can tell you it's widespread."
Another woman, also in her 20s, was forced to flee her in-laws with her child. She was also too scared to reveal her identity.
She explained: "If I made tea, it was for her or someone else. I didn't have permission to drink tea with them because in the 15-20 minutes it would take, housework would not get done.
"She would swear at my family, and accuse me of taking things. If any money or jewelery had been misplaced I would get the blame."
She, too, was not allowed to speak to anyone outside of the family and was not allowed to go out by herself.
"Even a servant is allowed to have a break, but I was used like a machine," she recalls.
"The worst thing about it was that my husband wasn't there for me. I'd have done everything for him without complaining - but he didn't care about me or his baby."
She managed to escape after a year-and-a-half. She was rescued by her midwife, who alerted the authorities.


Parveen Javaid, domestic violence co-ordinator at Manchester-based Pakistani Resource Center, said: "On average we deal with 20 to 30 cases a month where we give advice and support to women who are victims of mothers-in-law.
"The majority of cases I deal with are women who've been kept as slaves - abuse within the house."
To put this into context, just over 37,000 women have come to the UK on spousal visas in the last five years and while domestic violence workers say most of these marriages are genuine and successful, a small proportion of those marriages do fail.
What is clear is that this is still a hidden problem within South Asian communities.
It will remain so, unless women are encouraged to come forward and report it to the authorities.

UK gives South Africa millions of condoms

 The UK has donated £1m ($1.5m) to South Africa to buy condoms in a bid to combat HIV and Aids, as the nation builds up to the football World Cup.

UK ministers said South Africa had appealed for one billion condoms.
Last month, South African officials said they were beefing up their condom supply to cope with about 450,000 visitors expected for the World Cup.
More than five million people in South Africa have HIV - more than in any other country.
Last month, South African medical official Victor Ramathesele told a medical conference organised by football's governing body Fifa that the country was preparing for the influx of visitors.
"There's going to be a large number of people who will be descending onto the country," he said.
"There's going to be a spirit of festivity and... there could be a more than usual demand for measures such as condoms.
"So there are measures in place to ensure that the condom supply is going to be ramped up during this tournament."


Last week, South African President Jacob Zuma was on a state visit to the UK.
His government has been credited with giving new impetus to the country's fight against HIV and Aids.
The previous administration had denied the link between HIV and Aids, and suggested eating certain vegetables such as beetroot and garlic could act as natural remedies.
However, Aids activists have recently criticised Mr Zuma, who has three wives, for fathering a child out of wedlock.
They said he was not providing a good example.
The UK's Department for International Development (Dfid) announced the donation at a meeting in London attended by officials from several African countries with high levels of HIV.
Dfid said it was "supporting South Africa's leadership and drive to turn the tide on their epidemic".

UK PM Brown makes surprise visit to Afghanistan

Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid a surprise visit to British troops in Afghanistan on Saturday, his office said.


He went to Camp Bastion, the main British base in Helmand province, as well as a police training college and a British forward operating base, or outpost, according to 10 Downing Street.

Brown's office told news outlets of his visit to Afghanistan while he was in the country but asked that it not be reported until he left.

As Brown was making his visit, the Ministry of Defence announced a British soldier had been killed in Afghanistan on Friday.

The soldier died from wounds received as a result of an explosion while he was on foot patrol near Sangin, in Helmand Province, the ministry said in a news release. The death was not connected to Operation Moshtarak, the big push against the Taliban in the south of the country, according to the ministry.

The identity of the soldier has not been released. His family has been informed of his death, the ministry said.
Brown's trip to Afghanistan came less than 24 hours after he testified in London before the country's Iraq Inquiry, where he insisted British troops in Iraq had been given all the equipment they asked for.
Lord Charles Guthrie, a former chief of the British Defense Staff, rejected those claims in a newspaper column on Saturday.

"For Gordon Brown to say he has given the military all they asked for is not true," he wrote in the Daily Telegraph. "He cannot get away with saying, 'I gave them everything they asked for.' That is simply disingenuous."

Guthrie was the country's top military officer from 1997 to 2001. Brown was chancellor of the exchequer -- the man in charge of government spending -- from 1997 until 2007, when he became prime minister. The war in Afghanistan began in October 2001. The Iraq invasion took place in March 2003.

"The Ministry of Defense received the bare minimum from the chancellor, who wanted to give the military as little as he could get away with," wrote Guthrie, who joined the House of Lords, the upper house of the British legislature, after retiring from the military. He is not associated with a political party.

Brown spent much of Friday defending military spending allowances, which have come under harsh scrutiny in Britain. Earlier witnesses have said Brown, as chancellor in the time leading up to and after the Iraq invasion, did not allow the Ministry of Defence to spend as much as was needed.

Such limits would have restricted the military's ability to buy helicopters, body armor and weapons that would have subsequently been used in Afghanistan.

But Brown said that as chancellor, he never ruled out a military option on the basis of cost.

"I said that every single request that was made for [military] equipment had to be met, and every request was met, and at any point military commanders were able to ask for equipment that they needed, and I know of no occasion when they were turned down for it," he testified.

Geoff Hoon, defence secretary at the time of the 2003 invasion, testified that Brown forced cuts that limited military spending.

"We then had to look hard at our budget and make some rather difficult cuts in the future equipment program as a result," Hoon testified.

Brown had faced increasing pressure to testify before Britain holds general elections, widely expected to be held May 6. His Labour Party faces a tight race with the opposition Conservatives.

On the invasion of Iraq itself and the British role in it, Brown said Friday the decision to go to war "was the right decision and it was for the right reasons."

The inquiry, which began last year, is expected to be the most thorough investigation yet into decisions that led up to the war and governed Britain's involvement, analysts have said.

It is not a court of law, so the inquiry cannot find anyone criminally responsible or even apportion blame. But inquiry members will be able to judge the legality of the conflict.

Foreign student visas to be cut by UK

The number of visas granted to students from outside the EU is to be cut in a crackdown on abuses of the system, UK Home Secretary Alan Johnson has said.

Mr Johnson said tougher rules would require applicants to speak English to near-GCSE level and ban those on short UK courses from bringing dependents.

He said the rules were aimed at those who came to the UK primarily for work.

The Home Office would not confirm reports the changes may cut visas issued this year by tens of thousands.

A spokesman said the review of student visas had been ordered in November. In 2008/9, about 240,000 student visas were issued by the UK.

News of the measures, which will not require legislation and will be introduced within weeks, comes a week after student visa applications from Nepal, northern India and Bangladesh were suspended amid a big rise in cases.

'Raise the bar'

Last year the UK introduced a system requiring students wishing to enter the country to secure 40 points under its criteria.

However, the government has faced criticism that this has allowed suspected terrorists and other would-be immigrants into the UK, only for them to stay on despite their visas being temporary.

In a statement, Mr Johnson said he made "no apologies for strengthening an already robust system".

He added: "We created our points-based system so that we could respond quickly to changing circumstances, when necessary, to raise the bar students have to meet to come to the UK.

"We remain open to those foreign students who want to come to the UK for legitimate study - they remain welcome.

"But those who are not seriously interested in coming here to study but come primarily to work - they should be in no doubt that we will come down hard on those that flout the rules."

Under the measures:

• Successful applicants from outside the EU will have to speak English to a level only just below GCSE standard, rather than beginner level as at present.

• Students taking courses below degree level will be allowed to work for only 10 hours a week, instead of 20 as at present.

• Those on courses which last under six months will not be allowed to bring dependents into the country, while the dependents of students on courses below degree level will not be allowed to work.

• Additionally, visas for courses below degree level will also be granted only if the institutions they attend are on a new register, the Highly Trusted Sponsors List.

Last weekend it emerged the UK Border Agency had temporarily suspended student visa applications from northern India, Nepal and Bangladesh.

Officials said they were acting after the system had been overwhelmed and concerns had been raised that many cases were not genuine.

Tony Blair defends UK involvement in Iraq war

Tony Blair has said the Iraq war made the world a safer place and he has "no regrets" about removing Saddam Hussein.

In a robust defence of his decision to back war, Mr Blair said Saddam was a "monster and I believe he threatened not just the region but the world."

The former prime minister was barracked by a member of the public as he made his closing statement at the end of a six hour grilling at the Iraq inquiry.

He said Iraqis were now better off and he would take the same decisions again.

He also rejected claims he manipulated intelligence to justify the invasion and denied making a "covert" deal with George Bush to invade Iraq in April 2002 a year before the war began.

The former prime minister said he had been open about what had been discussed the US president's ranch - which was that Saddam needed to be "dealt with".

"This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception," he told the panel.

"It's a decision. And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam's history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?"

Sometimes it is important not to ask the "March 2003 question" but the "2010 question", said Mr Blair, arguing that if Saddam had been left in power the UK and its allies would have "lost our nerve" to act.

He said that if Saddam had not been removed "today we would have a situation where Iraq was competing with Iran" both in terms of nuclear capability and "in respect of support of terrorist groups".

He added: "The decision I took - and frankly would take again - was if there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction we should stop him."

He said people in Iraq were now "better off" - and hit back at criticism of post war planning, saying it had been disrupted by al-Qaeda and Iran, who had surprised everyone by working together to "destabilise" the country.

"We certainly didn't take a cavalier attitude to planning in the UK. What we planned for was what we thought was going to happen," he said.

Quoting frequently from his own speeches and statements, Mr Blair faced a sometimes tense session, with family members of service personnel killed in Iraq sat behind him in the public gallery reacting with dismay to some of his answers.

Earlier witnesses to the inquiry have suggested he told Mr Bush at their April 2002 meeting at the ranch in Crawford, Texas, that the UK would join the Americans in a war with Iraq.

But Mr Blair said: "What I was saying - I was not saying this privately incidentally, I was saying it in public - was 'we are going to be with you in confronting and dealing with this threat'.

"The one thing I was not doing was dissembling in that position. How we proceed in this is a matter that was open. The position was not a covert position, it was an open position."

Pressed on what he thought Mr Bush took from the meeting, he went further, saying: "I think what he took from that was exactly what he should have taken, which was if it came to military action because there was no way of dealing with this diplomatically, we would be with him."

But he also confirmed that a year later, on the eve of war, the Americans had offered Britain a "way out" of military action, which he had turned down.

Goldsmith decision

"I think President Bush at one point said, before the [Commons] debate, 'Look if it's too difficult for Britain, we understand'.

"I took the view very strongly then - and do now - that it was right for us to be with America, since we believed in this too."

On the issue of whether or not military action would be legal, Mr Blair said Mr Bush decided the UN Security Council's support "wasn't necessary". He said it was "correct" to say that he shared that view, although it would have been "preferable politically".

But he told the inquiry he would not have backed military action if Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had said it "could not be justified legally".

Asked why Lord Goldsmith, after initially saying he thought it would be illegal, in line with all government lawyers at the time, made a statement saying it would be legal a week before the invasion began, Mr Blair said the attorney general "had to come to a conclusion".

He said he had not had any discussions with Lord Goldsmith in the week before he gave his statement but he believed the attorney general had come to his view because weapons inspectors had "indicated that Saddam Hussein had not taken a final opportunity to comply" with UN demands.

Mr Blair was also quizzed about the controversial claim in a September 2002 dossier that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMD) at 45 minutes notice. Mr Blair said it "assumed a vastly greater significance" afterwards than it did at the time.

He said it "would have been better if (newspaper) headlines about the '45-minute claim' had been corrected" in light of the significance it later took on.

'Beyond doubt'

Looking back, he would have made it clearer the claim referred to battlefield munitions, not missiles, and would have preferred to publish the intelligence assessments by themselves as they were "absolutely strong enough".

But Mr Blair insisted that, on the basis of the intelligence available at the time, he stood by his claim at the time that it was "beyond doubt" Iraq was continuing to develop its weapons capability.

However he acknowledged "things obviously look quite different" now given the failure to discover any weapons after the invasion.

Even up to the last minute Mr Blair said he was "desperately" trying to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis but France and Russia "changed their position" and were not going to allow a second UN resolution.

Saddam Hussein had "no intention" of allowing his scientists to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors, he said, with the regime concealing key material.

Giving the inspectors more time would have made little difference, he added. He also said Iraq had the "intent" and technical knowhow to rebuild its weapons programme and would have done so if the international community had not acted.

Mr Blair also denied he would have supported the invasion of Iraq even if he had thought Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, as he appeared to suggest last year in a BBC interview with Fern Brittan.

What he had been trying to say, he explained to the inquiry, was that "you would not describe the nature of the threat in the same way if you knew then what you knew now, that the intelligence on WMD had been shown to be wrong".

He said his position had not changed, despite what reports of the interview had suggested.

Mr Blair was at pains to point out that he believed weapons of mass destruction and regime change could not be treated as separate issues but were "conjoined".

He said "brutal and oppressive" regimes with WMD were a "bigger threat" than a benign states with WMD.

He also stressed the British and American attitude towards the threat posed by Saddam Hussein "changed dramatically" after the terror attacks on 11 September 2001, saying: "I never regarded 11 September as an attack on America, I regarded it as an attack on us."

Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot began the six hour question session by stressing that Mr Blair was not "on trial" but said he could be recalled to give further evidence if necessary.