The lesson is… dont report it
If you are one of the lucky people who haven’t had their lives decimated by more austerity, more benefits cuts, interspersed by bouts of meaningless ‘essential’ work (such as stacking shelves) on a zero hours contract, good for you. You can have the luxury of taking that attitude, and feel good about yourself while you do so.
But, genuinely with the best will of the world, when you are looking at not far off a London a decade, immigration is simply not sustainable. Ignoring this reality pushes Reform towards power.
You should watch Gary Stevenson on YouTube. The problem is wealth going to the rich. Immigration is the ruse.
Want really pushes Reforms power is believing that immigrants in some way make it harder for you to find a job. Of course they don’t, that’s bullshit. Companies like Tesco’s are not allowed to hire people who aren’t documented, and the thing is, they don’t. Literally no one ever has lost their job because a company hired an immigrant at bargain in basement wages, it doesn’t happen.
You just believe it happens because you believe Nigel.
If you were going to berate people you really should look up what you’re talking about.
Also
when you are looking at not far off a London a decade, immigration is simply not sustainable.
What on Earth does that mean?
Immigrants didn’t do that to us, Nige. Look it up.
Yeah if there is no proof that you transported the kid, why report it. Its not like he did it on accident, just pretend you didnt see anything.
Anyway the point is he didn’t come in on a small boat, and it’s the small boats that are apparently the problem. So this kid is fine.
I read this as the Home Office sending a message to people like this couple. They almost certainly know it’s unfair and they may even lose on appeal but they have successfully highlighted the importance for people who travel into the UK to be bloody careful in checking their vehicles (including exterior bicycle bags, if the couple’s claims are true). The downside is that should someone sneak onto a vehicle successfully from now on the chance of them not being reported has risen a bit. There’s also a point to be made I think about the media latching onto this story because they love anything controversial to do with immigration. The other thing I wonder about is the life that boy must have led to get him to a point where he would do such a bold and dangerous thing. Brings home what a cushy life I had when I was 16.
Not a fan of the headline, a hit misleading in my opinion. They were fined for negligence as they did not search and secure their own motorhome properly before travelling.
The couple seemingly want to blame the port authorities for not searching their motorhome fully.
I look at this like a traveller in an airport - I am responsible for what’s in my bags, for packing them, securing them and ensuring there is nothing illegal in them.
Its the same if youre travelling through ports in cars, lorries or motorhomes. They are being fined for allowing this to happen by not taking basic precautions like securing the bike storage andn checking over their vehicle.
If they had done this, then even if it had still happened they couldn’t be accused of negligence.
The stowaway was on the outside. Therefore could have attached after they checked. I doubt very much that it’s practical to require constant vigilance from all travellers at all times (do travellers need to hire temporary guards for their vehicles when going to the toilet in order to comply with this law?)
Also, ignoring that, it’s braindead to not make an exception when the people in question self-report and fix the issue, it’s directly undermining the goals to punish people for vigilance (even belated vigilance).
But ignoring all of that, the law (or implementation) is flawed. The stated goal of the law is to discourage negligence, but negligence needs to be measured against a fair yardstick like “could a reasonable person catch this easily”, not just “were you smarter than whoever tried to hide on your vehicle?”. Defining negligence competitively like they seem to be doing isn’t reasonable and I hope these people win and force the law to be interpreted more judiciously. Next they’ll be fining old ladies who get scammed for “negligently supporting criminals financially”.
I’m conflicted on this.
On the one hand, this is harsh, the couple clearly had no ill intent, and £1500 seems like a large fine for negligence (although I’m unaware how wealthy the couple is)
But at the same time, if you remove the fine for negligently smuggling illegal immigrants into the country, it will be weaponised by criminals.
I’m not familiar with the process of driving across the channel. Is it drilled into you, multiple times, that you must check your vehicle? If not, it really should be.
The problem is that they found them and reported them, then still got fined!
That encourages people to not report it, hell, it discourages checking… Because if you find someone and report it you get fined!
But if you remove the penalty, the criminals will report it and face no consequences.
But this existing system also clearly discourages legitimate people from reporting stowaways.
It’s a mess without an easy solution.
Why would they report it and attract attention to themselves if the fine was removed?
I guess it would enable 1 off recruits, do it once get paid and then report it to be legally clear…
Yeah exactly, gives them a bit more plausible deniability if a camera or witness picks up on it
But I really don’t know how well policed the channel even is, I’ve never been. Perhaps this is all unnecessary.
There are huge metal fences all around the port facility. Far taller than seems practical.
This guy must have snuck in before they entered the port there’s no way they could have got into the port on foot. Which means he’s been in there for a while so they claim that they checked their vehicle just before they entered the port, which is what you’re supposed to do. They clearly didn’t because they would have found this guy otherwise.
Their claim seems to rest on the idea that he gained access to the motorhome after they entered the port (which definitely would be the responsibility of the port authorities), which is extraordinarily unlikely. After you enter the port there’s an awful lot of hanging around especially now Brexit has broken everything, so you often do leave your vehicle. But there is an enormous amount of security wandering around so there’s no problem doing that and also you lock your vehicle. But all that security presupposes that you didn’t enter with a compromised vehicle. They don’t x-ray every vehicle, only lorrys, so if somebody gets in before you enter the port, they’re basically guaranteed not to be discovered.
Clearly what should have happened is that the stowaways should be granted asylum and the motorhome couple should be paid £1000s for their services in helping these desperate people to the UK. /s
