This chapter examines how and when British government officials considered the nation’s reputation and international standing in decisions about whether to censor literature or theatrical performances. In the early twentieth century, officials in the Home and Lord Chamberlain’s Offices, among others, were eager to appear rational to their Parisian counterparts in the hope that French officials would increase efforts to suppress obscene publications. Simultaneously, British administrators expressed disapproval of American censors, whom they viewed as unduly prudish. As the century wore on, the Americans would outpace British censors in their toleration of obscene materials, and an increasing number of British citizens came to view their government’s response to texts like Lady Chatterley’s Lover as benighted and paternalistic. The chapter argues that British censorship was not a strictly national activity but rather took place within the larger framework of international relations and a pursuit of global prestige.

The UK asylum processat the time of writing is described in detail to illustrate more general practices and effects. Claim handling and the role of immigration detention are discussed.Legal representation is important but hard to find. Asylum claim interviews are described.The decision-making process is outlined. Tribunals, appeals, appeals rights exhaustion, and fresh claims are described.The National Referral Mechanism for people who have been trafficked is outlined.Claiming asylum has a human context.People are excluded from society.Shame can be induced, and ‘retraumatisation’ can occur. Detention without limit of time can distress and destabilise individuals who were mentally stable on arrival.Fear and uncertainty prevail.

Possible reactions of the host society are reviewed; suspicion and disbelief, and deprivation and demands as part of the ‘hostile environment’.

The key themes of medical care and the role of medical evidence are introduced.Forms of recognition as a refugee are described, and some of their practical and psychological consequences.

This chapter examines the marginal notes added to the key British dossiers relating to the Sung Man Cho v. Superintendent of Prisons case, revealing a picture of perplexity and even confusion as to the way ahead in ongoing correspondence between the British Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Home Office and other concerned departments. In the background, especially as interpreted by Crown Council F. C. Jenkin QC, stood a complex British legal discourse on banishment/deportation and extradition.