Sebastiaan, the paragraph "The Dutch Justice Ministry praises the work done by the guards at detention centres for aliens. In a 2009 report, public health inspectors were positive about the medical care offered by the centres." was not quoted in the article. Don't you think your readers would like to know: Who at the Dutch, Justice Ministry praised the work done by the guards. If, no one specific person stated it or the sign the document confirming it, how arethe readers suppose to know and verify the statement. It is to make a statement without using quotes and readers like me are the one's most likely to do it, but a journalist reports verifiable facts. He investigates, gather the facts, and presents it to the pubic. The report was weak and did not support Mr. Edwards claim. In his diary, he made several claims about his reception and his stay at the detention center. He gave you the lead and you dropped the ball and did not report both sides. When you did do something, you failed to give credit to those who you investigated at the Justice Ministry. Sebastiaan, please don't think I am trying to be rude becauseI am not. I am a person who sees things in a critical way. You may be right and I am sorry if you got offended but I don't think you did. Journalist don't get offended, right?

Cobber in the G...The reporter did not use quotes and failure to use quotes did not support your claims. Just saying something was a diary, does not allow reporter to add his opinion. He gave you credit on onequote only under the section "One paracetamol" and it was "Mr Edwards says asylum seekers are treated like liars who are trying to enter the Netherlands under false pretences, an untrustworthy group of swindlers."; but he did not give credit to you are anyone on these statements: "Guards bring prescription medicine to those who are ill far too late, even in the case of antibiotics. Many questions are left unanswered in the cases of two asylum seekers, one from Ghana and the other from Kenya, who died at the Schiphol detention centre.

The Dutch Justice Ministry praises the work done by the guards at detention centres for aliens. In a 2009 report, public health inspectors were positive about the medical care offered by the centres." { In case of thereporter, what he did was insert his opinions into the article because one could not tell by his style of journalism who was speaking. He also did something in jouranlism which is not normally done. He used the title Mr, twice, when once was sufficent. Once you introduce a person in an article, you don't keep repeating t, titles. You introduce them with their title and after you just say the name. Also when he wrote your story or as you say a diary, he should have investigated both sides. You made accusations to a reporter (which I think is positive) and the reporter should have followed-up by investigating. His article did not reflect any investigations into the polices for admitting, housing detainees, and their welfare while in detention. His article did not support you, the government or both of you............{ You stated "To answer, how I know when antibiotics were brought, I was administered antibiotics for an infection I contracted within those walls. And it was on me, that dosage was missed. And, I did chart the times it was administered to me. My emeregency was of far more concern than a toothache or headache! The reporter was not wrong in what he wrote." Again, the reporter was wrong and here is what he wrote and he did not quote "Guards bring prescription medicine to those who are ill far too late, even in the case of antibiotics." Now, you are saying you know because you were referring to yoursself but the reporter wrote "TO THOSE". Now, if he isn't wrong why would he use the word "those"? Those implies more then one person. Now, if it as you said, and it was you and not the reporter, how can you speak for those other detainees. That is why I asked the questions how could you know when anoter detainee's medicines were due. You might have told the reporter it was you but he used the wrong word "those". He wrote a very biased report which was not clear and factual and used the word "diary" to cover-up his poor, jouranlistic writing skills. { In closing, I have empathy for those who are detained and who had their freedoms suspended. I have experienced first hand by working with people who were detained/incarcerated, over the last thirty-five years, the experiences you described; but, I also know that when someone is detained and the government doesn't know the background of the person, the government has the responsibility to protect not just the detainee but the other detainees, staff, and public. They are security precautions. I hope the best for you and good luck. As to the reporter, please do some research and don't fall into the "diary trap" as I have seen with some other RNW reporters. Investigate, gather your facts, and write your report without personal biases/opinions. You didn't do yourself, Mr Edwards, or the Dutch government any justification.

I can tell you the real story of a lawyer in Los Angeles, California who had to see a detainee at the Alta Road detention centre near the US-Mexican border. The attorney, a US citizen, made a wrong turn near the border and ended up in Mexico, without knowing it actually; when he tried to enter back into the US , US border patrol agents stopped him asked him for his passport; he had no one but only a California driver license. He was detained for one day at the immigration detention center and what he most resented was the fact that the US immigration agents made him feel that they did him a great favor to allow him back into the United States. The lesson is: always carry all your legal documents with you and don't let expire any of them.

Van der Scoot, you stated "Hiram you did a good job of throwing stones at this poor bloke's "glass house". First and foremost, the cobber built his house of glass by not having his paperwork, (visa) in order by keeping it up-to-date. Second, just because he made a mistake, does not mean the Dutch authorites should make a far worse mistake by letting him travel in an airplane full of people who had their paperwork correct and expected to be protected by the Dutch authorties. Third, his complaint about his search was weak and is necessary security in a detention center. It prevents introduction of contraband into a secured facility which is not only to detain but to protect the other detainees and staff. Fourth, until detainees have been cleared of any potential threats, it is not prudent to allow anyone to use a phone in order to warn others. Fifth, his complaints against the medical system in place is biased. He states (or the reporter states because the reporter did not quote) "Guards bring prescription medicine to those who are ill far too late, even in the case of antibiotics". Now how did he know guards bring precription drugs far too late for the ill? Did he chart the times of ever ill person who required anticiotics? Did he see the prescriptions? Did he have an emergence requiring medicines for "Toothache, headache or acute appendicitis"? Fifth, the reporter who wrote this article wrote a biased report and made statements without a quote. The report stated (using my quotes) "Guards bring prescription medicine to those who are ill far too late, even in the case of antibiotics. Many questions are left unanswered in the cases of two asylum seekers, one from Ghana and the other from Kenya, who died at the Schiphol detention centre." Now did the detainee make this statement or did the reporter? The reporter lack the investigative skills to interview an offical at the detention center about the exact requirements for a person who is being detain? Ask for the policy statement for admitting a detainee and the policy statement for treating an ill detain? Ask why they are not allow to make a telephone call? In closing, RNW, via it's reporter, did an injustice to those who protect the Dutch and other travellers by reporting a story without checking the facts. The cobber built his house in glass and it had cracks in it. He and he only caused himself to be detained.

It happens!...

"He has lived and worked in Sweden for years, but was held while changing planes at Schiphol because his visa for Sweden was not valid.".....Sir, what did you expect the Dutch officials to do when they found your visa was invalid? Did you expect them to release you into the Dutch society or let you continue to travel and "possibly" cause some type of problem elsewhere? They had to put you into a detention center until your case was resolve and those security measures of which you spoke. Your perceived negative experiences upon arrival at the detention center are proative, security steps to protect both you, the other detainees and staff at the facility. You also stated "asylum seekers are treated like liars who are trying to enter the Netherlands under false pretences, an untrustworthy group of swindlers." Sir, you were the one with an invalid visa. Those officials didn't know who you were as a person or you wouldn't have been detained. They had to detain you and go through those steps. It is part of the process of protecting the public and the public has a right to be protected. In closing I bet they, the officials, treated you with respect and you know it.