DISTRIBUCIÓN LAY OUT PRIMERA PLANTA

The perceived danger of "child kidnapping" was having some real effects. At the drop-in, this could be seen, for example, in the attendees' heightened awareness of visitors. Alongside the playground role, the drop-in also served as a sort of help point for Roma migrants. Collaborating with other organisations, the organisers of the drop-in ran an informal advice service for them. This included one-to-one advice sessions with visiting agencies providing support on issues related to welfare, finance, housing, and health. In addition, the drop-in also became an 'attraction spot' for Roma projects and was visited by various interested individuals (e.g., journalists, artists, photographers) and organisations.As a result, rarely a drop-in session went by without 'visitors' coming in. Attendees were aware of these frequent visits and often talked to me and the other two Slovak workers about their annoyance at constantly being interviewed and targeted.93 But what I noticed since that September drop-in session was that, in addition to annoyance, they had become wary of these visitors as they often asked: "Are they from sociálka?" The fact that such a question was posed by both adults and children at the drop-in suggested that concerns about sociálka were discussed more widely, i.e., including in the family.

Importantly, worries and concerns about sociálka taking children away did not only involve narratives, they also prompted actions. Later on during my fieldwork, I came across cases which showed that some Roma migrants living in Glasgow were also taking action in response to the risk of children being taken away. One such case was reported to me by a support worker at Groundworks. It involved a Roma migrant woman and her three young children. The family, who lived in the south of Glasgow, had an ongoing issue with their private landlord. The latter had received complaints from the neighbours that her children were being noisy and had thus threatened her and her children with eviction. Although she was faced with

93 _{Throughout my involvement at the drop-in there were many Roma migrants who attended the place}

infrequently or occasionally. Only a small 'core' group of people were 'regulars' at the drop-in. They were mainly from Slovakia and came from a small town in the eastern part of the country, so there was a sense of village/town solidarity amongst them. In this group some were also related or knew each other from back home. Despite its small size, kinship relations and geographical proximity, the group was often seen (and presented) as representative of the "Roma community" or "Roma folk" in Glasgow and thus attracted the attention of various interested parties who wanted "to do Roma projects" with them or wanted to hear their views and experiences. This is an example of the ethnicisation processes regarding the help and support provided to Roma migrants in Glasgow and elsewhere, which I have discussed in detail in chapter 4.

constant pressure to move out, she did not seek advice or help from local organisations to fight the eviction because she feared that this would involve police or local authorities who would take her children away from her. To avoid any contact with the authorities, the woman moved out of the flat and only with considerable difficulties found new accommodation. When discussing this case with me, the support worker said that "it was worrying" that the women had got into such a desperate situation: "Why would the police take her children away without any reason?" he asked shrugging his shoulders. As a single mother with three children and speaking little English, it would have made things much easier for her, he continued, if she had sought support at Groundworks or with local housing organisations.

Another case involved a local school in the Rivertoun area, i.e. the same area in the south of Glasgow where the drop-in was based. This story was told to me by a social welfare officer whom I met at the drop-in. Like many schools in Glasgow this local school was running a free meal scheme which offered pupils from low income families access to a free lunch at school. In the case of this particular school, the welfare officer said, many Roma migrant families were not participating in the scheme because they seemed afraid that "we would take their children away from them". "But why would we take the children away?!", he asked, looking perplexed. He expressed his disappointment about the families' decision not to take part in the scheme; the free meal scheme was aimed at helping families on low incomes and improving the health of their children, and with many local Roma migrant families falling into this socio- economic category, their children would have been entitled to the scheme but were now missing out. During our conversation, a Slovak (non-Roma) project worker, a member of the drop-in staff, was also present. For her, this was a "cultural thing"; Roma would usually take their children home during school breaks because this way they could cook a nice meal for them and eat together as a family. The welfare officer listened intently to this explanation but still looked unconvinced: in his experience, Roma migrant families had clearly developed a fear of the social services, and he found this fear to be unfounded.

5.1.2 "What's the fuss?"

As reflected in these exchanges, those who worked with Roma were finding it difficult to understand the actions taken by many Roma migrant families to protect their children from the

threat94 posed by sociálka. Similarly, the staff and volunteers at the drop-in were puzzled by the reactions shown by the Roma attendees following the broadcasting of the Slovak documentary. During one of the drop-in debriefings95, for example, some wondered why the attendees had "made such a fuss" about this issue, especially since no-one amongst them had experienced it. One of the staff members pointed out that she had been talking to some of the Roma women who attended the session and felt surprised by how "seriously they had taken these rumours". Another volunteer added that "the likelihood of this happening was very small" since it was not easy for the (UK or Scottish) social services to remove children from their families "without the permission of the courts".

At the same time, the staff and volunteers at the drop-in also realised that many Roma families were clearly worried and concerned about this issue, so one of the suggestions made during one of the debriefings was to organise an open meeting inviting relevant authorities (e.g., the local authorities' children's services) and Roma migrants. It was hoped that such a meeting would enable Roma migrant families to directly ask questions to the authorities (including social workers) about this matter, thus reassuring them that there was no risk of having their children taken away arbitrarily. The local children and families services were thus contacted and asked about the possibility of organising a meeting. In their response, however, they expressed wariness about holding such a meeting at the time. They explained that such gatherings had taken place in other parts of the UK, namely Rotherham and Peterborough, and, generally, they had been "quite heated". Both events were attended by a significant number of Roma migrants (up to 200 people were reported to have attended the meeting held in Rotherham (BBC Radio 4 The Report 2012). Both meetings took place at the end of August 2012. Prior to the broadcasting of the Slovak documentary Bez detí neodídem two cases of Roma migrant families in the UK whose children had been taken away by the British social services had been reported on Slovak TV news. Although there was only little TV coverage96

of these cases (2-3 minutes slot on the news), it was enough to cause substantial concern

94

I discuss the question of whether this was a perceived or real threat in the next section.

95

After each drop-in session, the staff and volunteers would hold a debriefing meeting (usually lasting one hour) to reflect on the evening and discuss any issues raised. I participated in the discussion and took notes during these debriefings.

96 _{The fact that these two cases involved Roma families may partly explain why they received little media}

coverage in the Czech and Slovak media and TV (and continue to do so). This was in stark contrast to the media frenzy following the case of the Slovak (non-Roma) woman whose case the documentary was based on.

amongst Czech and Slovak Roma migrants in these two cities. As the drop-in was closed during August, I could not record the reaction to this earlier news coverage amongst Roma migrants in Glasgow.

Unlike in Rotherham and Peterborough, however, no open meeting or discussion was held in Glasgow. Whatever the reasons behind the decisions taken by the relevant authorities, i.e., whether they thought that the discussion might be too intense and generate conflict or they wanted to avoid difficult questions that (Roma) participants might have asked, or that the meeting would not make any difference, organising such meeting in the city was seen as a 'hassle'. The lack of action and indifference seems striking given the large number of (informal and formal) services and 'projects', people (employed or volunteering) and agencies (local, national and transnational)97 involved in providing help and support specifically aimed at Roma migrants in Glasgow. Perhaps this hints at the relatively weak position of Roma in the local political landscape; it is noteworthy that both in Rotherham and Peterborough Roma migrants who were relatively well placed in the local infrastructure - a police offer in Peterborough, a local council employee and candidate for the local council election in Rotherham - had been directly involved in the organisation of the public meetings.

When looking at the overall responses amongst the (non-Roma) staff, workers and volunteers in Glasgow, there seemed to be a general sense that the reactions of the Roma migrant families were rather exaggerated with regard to the risk of children being taken away. Although the concerns of the families were recognised, they were considered to be an emotional overreaction to the sensationalist (Czech/Slovak) media coverage of just a single case. The fears were thought to be unjustified, and the resulting panic fed by "rumours" and "misinformation" rather than being informed by "concrete cases", actual examples and figures. Moreover, the subsequent actions taken by Roma families were deemed to be "strange" and difficult to understand, and thus somehow irrational. Clearly, for non-Roma workers, the threat posed by sociálka was based on subjective feelings of the Roma migrant families; in their view, the risk of having one's children taken away did not exist or it was very small.

97 _{As I have highlighted in chapter 4, there were as many as twelve major (non-governmental as well as statutory)}