Yes yes, I know all about the National Debt, & for sure, we are heading for bustoville.
First place I'd look to make cuts would be the welfare system, which is being gamed to death by so many of the UK population. Even our Pension system is unsustainable. We blaming refugees for that?
I think the benefit system is gamed by some, but not all. I am not blaming refugees for anything. Although I cant see that borrowing £8billion per year for hotel bills as good value for money. That doesnt take into account their benefits, legal aid, or driving lessons. And dont forget that asylum seekers are not allowed to work.
I dont think that you can say that they are all genuine asylum seekers, that they are all on their ar5es, as they have had to pay people smugglers thousands, or that they are only looking for a safe place, as they have all travelled through numerous safe countries before arriving in the UK.
The Home Office publishes data on pending asylum applications quarterly. At the end of December, there were:
166,300 people awaiting an asylum decision, of whom:
161,000 were awaiting an initial decision. 5,300 were awaiting the outcome of further review, such as an appeal. Of those awaiting an initial decision, 68% (110,000 people) had been waiting for more than six months and 32% (51,000 people) had been waiting six months or less.
"Less of a good argument when some of your own citizens struggle to make ends meet."
It's never less of a good argument to help others less fortunate.
No matter how bad some may think it is in the UK, there are plenty of places where it's far worse. And as I wrote earlier, how would the NHS, TfL or many other organisations cope without immigrant labour?
In my mind the story above just sums up how stupid we are. The couple have an alarm on their vehicle which notifies them if any one enters their vehicle, on their phones. So that couldnt happen. A border guard checked the outside of their vehicle. Yet he only checked that their gas was turned off, and failed to check the one place where someone could be hiding. They arrive home, and discover someone hiding in the bike rack. Immediately phone the police. The police attend and apprehend him. This results in a £1,500 fine. Brilliant. So if they had given him a cup of tea, and told him to be on his way, they would have saved £1,500. An incentive for anyone in that position in the future not to phone the police.
This case highlights the Press and their role in all of this.
The Law has been positioned in this way for about 20 years. And there is a reason behind that.
Once people have successfully entered the country, they are in the system. Consequently, there is a Strict Liability imposed upon anybody who enables the entry of asylum seekers.
Strict liability does not require fault on the part of the enabler. Because, otherwise, it would be routine for people to "accidentally" allow people in. And then "apologise". That used to happen a lot.
Commercial organisations are always going to be fined in this instance. Because if someone gets in the back of your lorry unnoticed, tough.
Private citizens are, officially, treated the same. But, in reality, if a private citizen can show they took all reasonable steps, the fine is reduced. To £0. That is what has happened in this case. Lots of fuss. And £0.
"Less of a good argument when some of your own citizens struggle to make ends meet."
It's never less of a good argument to help others less fortunate.
No matter how bad some may think it is in the UK, there are plenty of places where it's far worse. And as I wrote earlier, how would the NHS, TfL or many other organisations cope without immigrant labour?
In my mind the story above just sums up how stupid we are. The couple have an alarm on their vehicle which notifies them if any one enters their vehicle, on their phones. So that couldnt happen. A border guard checked the outside of their vehicle. Yet he only checked that their gas was turned off, and failed to check the one place where someone could be hiding. They arrive home, and discover someone hiding in the bike rack. Immediately phone the police. The police attend and apprehend him. This results in a £1,500 fine. Brilliant. So if they had given him a cup of tea, and told him to be on his way, they would have saved £1,500. An incentive for anyone in that position in the future not to phone the police.
This case highlights the Press and their role in all of this.
The Law has been positioned in this way for about 20 years. And there is a reason behind that.
Once people have successfully entered the country, they are in the system. Consequently, there is a Strict Liability imposed upon anybody who enables the entry of asylum seekers.
Strict liability does not require fault on the part of the enabler. Because, otherwise, it would be routine for people to "accidentally" allow people in. And then "apologise". That used to happen a lot.
Commercial organisations are always going to be fined in this instance. Because if someone gets in the back of your lorry unnoticed, tough.
Private citizens are, officially, treated the same. But, in reality, if a private citizen can show they took all reasonable steps, the fine is reduced. To £0. That is what has happened in this case. Lots of fuss. And £0.
Fair enough. I would still question the border guard, and the costs incurred going through the rigmarole. I am not sure that someone in the same position that had read the original story, would be encouraged to phone the police.
"Less of a good argument when some of your own citizens struggle to make ends meet."
It's never less of a good argument to help others less fortunate.
No matter how bad some may think it is in the UK, there are plenty of places where it's far worse. And as I wrote earlier, how would the NHS, TfL or many other organisations cope without immigrant labour?
In my mind the story above just sums up how stupid we are. The couple have an alarm on their vehicle which notifies them if any one enters their vehicle, on their phones. So that couldnt happen. A border guard checked the outside of their vehicle. Yet he only checked that their gas was turned off, and failed to check the one place where someone could be hiding. They arrive home, and discover someone hiding in the bike rack. Immediately phone the police. The police attend and apprehend him. This results in a £1,500 fine. Brilliant. So if they had given him a cup of tea, and told him to be on his way, they would have saved £1,500. An incentive for anyone in that position in the future not to phone the police.
This case highlights the Press and their role in all of this.
The Law has been positioned in this way for about 20 years. And there is a reason behind that.
Once people have successfully entered the country, they are in the system. Consequently, there is a Strict Liability imposed upon anybody who enables the entry of asylum seekers.
Strict liability does not require fault on the part of the enabler. Because, otherwise, it would be routine for people to "accidentally" allow people in. And then "apologise". That used to happen a lot.
Commercial organisations are always going to be fined in this instance. Because if someone gets in the back of your lorry unnoticed, tough.
Private citizens are, officially, treated the same. But, in reality, if a private citizen can show they took all reasonable steps, the fine is reduced. To £0. That is what has happened in this case. Lots of fuss. And £0.
Fair enough. I would still question the border guard, and the costs incurred going through the rigmarole. I am not sure that someone in the same position that had read the original story, would be encouraged to phone the police.
For anybody interested in this sort of thing, it might help of I explain the difference between "strict liability" and "absolute liability".
With Strict Liability, the starting point is that you are liable. Unless the wrongdoer can show that an exception should apply. Which, in this instance, is something like they did not know, and had taken all reasonable steps. That has nothing to do with what others did or did not do. Just whether the accused did.
When it comes to "rigmarole", again it is not quite how the Press make is sound. There was no court action. They got an email, which said that it was proposed that they receive a £1,500 fine (the maximum is £10k, but consumer not business and 1st offence) unless they sent back an email explaining why they should not be fined.
They sent an email. Then chose to go to various radio shows and newspapers. And their email was listened to.
The "rigmarole" was all the Press interviews. Not 1 email.
"Less of a good argument when some of your own citizens struggle to make ends meet."
It's never less of a good argument to help others less fortunate.
No matter how bad some may think it is in the UK, there are plenty of places where it's far worse. And as I wrote earlier, how would the NHS, TfL or many other organisations cope without immigrant labour?
In my mind the story above just sums up how stupid we are. The couple have an alarm on their vehicle which notifies them if any one enters their vehicle, on their phones. So that couldnt happen. A border guard checked the outside of their vehicle. Yet he only checked that their gas was turned off, and failed to check the one place where someone could be hiding. They arrive home, and discover someone hiding in the bike rack. Immediately phone the police. The police attend and apprehend him. This results in a £1,500 fine. Brilliant. So if they had given him a cup of tea, and told him to be on his way, they would have saved £1,500. An incentive for anyone in that position in the future not to phone the police.
This case highlights the Press and their role in all of this.
The Law has been positioned in this way for about 20 years. And there is a reason behind that.
Once people have successfully entered the country, they are in the system. Consequently, there is a Strict Liability imposed upon anybody who enables the entry of asylum seekers.
Strict liability does not require fault on the part of the enabler. Because, otherwise, it would be routine for people to "accidentally" allow people in. And then "apologise". That used to happen a lot.
Commercial organisations are always going to be fined in this instance. Because if someone gets in the back of your lorry unnoticed, tough.
Private citizens are, officially, treated the same. But, in reality, if a private citizen can show they took all reasonable steps, the fine is reduced. To £0. That is what has happened in this case. Lots of fuss. And £0.
Fair enough. I would still question the border guard, and the costs incurred going through the rigmarole. I am not sure that someone in the same position that had read the original story, would be encouraged to phone the police.
For anybody interested in this sort of thing, it might help of I explain the difference between "strict liability" and "absolute liability".
With Strict Liability, the starting point is that you are liable. Unless the wrongdoer can show that an exception should apply. Which, in this instance, is something like they did not know, and had taken all reasonable steps. That has nothing to do with what others did or did not do. Just whether the accused did.
When it comes to "rigmarole", again it is not quite how the Press make is sound. There was no court action. They got an email, which said that it was proposed that they receive a £1,500 fine (the maximum is £10k, but consumer not business and 1st offence) unless they sent back an email explaining why they should not be fined.
They sent an email. Then chose to go to various radio shows and newspapers. And their email was listened to.
The "rigmarole" was all the Press interviews. Not 1 email.
I am not that interested in this. However the bloke whose job it was to check for illegals completely failed. I would think that the person that had the capability to write off the fine was not the same person that sent the email. And that they would have at least familiarised themselves with the facts, before cancelling the fine. If I was in the same boat at some point in the future, I might well think that the safest course of action might be to let them go, rather than to phone the police.
Then you would have been rather wise to take advice from someone like me before doing that.
These people had transported this illegal unknowingly for several hours. From France to Dover, then Dover to Essex.
They then discovered him. And did the right thing.
The chances of them being caught if they let him go are high. Why? Because illegals tend to get caught. And tell the truth about how they got in.
Whereupon this couple (or you) would instead be charged with aiding and abetting immigration offences, and/or being a people trafficker. Facing far more serious charges. And would have considerable difficulties entering and leaving the country.
Then you would have been rather wise to take advice from someone like me before doing that.
These people had transported this illegal unknowingly for several hours. From France to Dover, then Dover to Essex.
They then discovered him. And did the right thing.
The chances of them being caught if they let him go are high. Why? Because illegals tend to get caught. And tell the truth about how they got in.
Whereupon this couple (or you) would instead be charged with aiding and abetting immigration offences, and/or being a people trafficker. Facing far more serious charges. And would have considerable difficulties entering and leaving the country.
Ok, if I ever purchase a camper van which is very unlikely, and some bikes, which is even less likely, I will try to remember to stop unzipping the bike rack cover as soon as I see some feet. I will then disappear into the house, and not return until the following day, at the earliest.
I assume this process was started by the police report. Which was sent to the minion that sent the email regarding the fine. It would have been the same police report that was subsequently sent to a more senior person who made the decision to disregard the fine. Maybe the police report could have just advised that no further action was required.
Yes yes, I know all about the National Debt, & for sure, we are heading for bustoville.
First place I'd look to make cuts would be the welfare system, which is being gamed to death by so many of the UK population. Even our Pension system is unsustainable. We blaming refugees for that?
This will cover just over half the hotel bills, in 4 years time.
Starmer to drive through welfare cuts that could affect UK’s most severely disabled
Keir Starmer is to defy growing anger by driving through welfare cuts for some of the UK’s most severely disabled people, with an overhaul that could see more than 600,000 benefit claimants lose out on an average of £675 a month.
Ministers are set to ditch plans to freeze personal independent payments (Pip) amid a backlash. But they will still tighten eligibility criteria for the benefit under big changes to be set out by the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, on Tuesday.
The Resolution Foundation thinktank warned that cutting Pip by £5bn in 2029-30 by raising the qualifying threshold for support could mean about 620,000 people lose £675 a month on average. It said 70% of these cuts would be concentrated on those families in the poorest half of the income distribution.
Then you would have been rather wise to take advice from someone like me before doing that.
These people had transported this illegal unknowingly for several hours. From France to Dover, then Dover to Essex.
They then discovered him. And did the right thing.
The chances of them being caught if they let him go are high. Why? Because illegals tend to get caught. And tell the truth about how they got in.
Whereupon this couple (or you) would instead be charged with aiding and abetting immigration offences, and/or being a people trafficker. Facing far more serious charges. And would have considerable difficulties entering and leaving the country.
Ok, if I ever purchase a camper van which is very unlikely, and some bikes, which is even less likely, I will try to remember to stop unzipping the bike rack cover as soon as I see some feet. I will then disappear into the house, and not return until the following day, at the earliest.
I assume this process was started by the police report. Which was sent to the minion that sent the email regarding the fine. It would have been the same police report that was subsequently sent to a more senior person who made the decision to disregard the fine. Maybe the police report could have just advised that no further action was required.
The minute you see those feet, you have a decision to make. To be honest. Or to become a criminal.
I appreciate and accept that the chances of being caught are a factor. Still not sure this forum is the best place to admit you would choose the criminal option.
You misunderstand the way these prosecutions work. Unsurprisingly, Border Force staff tend to be at the Border-clue is in the name. If you drive a further 100 miles before discovery, local police are going to get involved.
But only to a limited extent. They don't have the relevant experience. They just take statements and forward the stuff to the relevant Department at the Home Office or Border Force. These are not police prosecutions.
The people who are expert want a written account from the person. As I live in a Ferry Port town, I will explain why.
Smugglers (including people smugglers) tend to come into the country a lot of times. And so do many legitimate people. So-for example-this couple take a lot of holidays. Good luck to them. So-just on the details provided-we know that in late 2024 they were on holiday in France, Xmas in Australia, and currently in Poland.
Anyone travelling frequently to and from is statistically more likely to be a smuggler (particularly if they are a foot passenger, but that is another story). Let's not overstate that-it is probably a 1% chance instead of a 0.01% chance. But many of those 1%ers get caught more than once. And you want a statement in relation to the first at the Home Office. Not local Plod.
Ever wondered why people come in by small boats? They didn't used to. Used to stow away in lorries. But when the lorry firms started getting big fines, they may have huffed and puffed. But they also took steps to secure their lorries and avoid the fines....
Then you would have been rather wise to take advice from someone like me before doing that.
These people had transported this illegal unknowingly for several hours. From France to Dover, then Dover to Essex.
They then discovered him. And did the right thing.
The chances of them being caught if they let him go are high. Why? Because illegals tend to get caught. And tell the truth about how they got in.
Whereupon this couple (or you) would instead be charged with aiding and abetting immigration offences, and/or being a people trafficker. Facing far more serious charges. And would have considerable difficulties entering and leaving the country.
Ok, if I ever purchase a camper van which is very unlikely, and some bikes, which is even less likely, I will try to remember to stop unzipping the bike rack cover as soon as I see some feet. I will then disappear into the house, and not return until the following day, at the earliest.
I assume this process was started by the police report. Which was sent to the minion that sent the email regarding the fine. It would have been the same police report that was subsequently sent to a more senior person who made the decision to disregard the fine. Maybe the police report could have just advised that no further action was required.
The minute you see those feet, you have a decision to make. To be honest. Or to become a criminal.
I appreciate and accept that the chances of being caught are a factor. Still not sure this forum is the best place to admit you would choose the criminal option.
You misunderstand the way these prosecutions work. Unsurprisingly, Border Force staff tend to be at the Border-clue is in the name. If you drive a further 100 miles before discovery, local police are going to get involved.
But only to a limited extent. They don't have the relevant experience. They just take statements and forward the stuff to the relevant Department at the Home Office or Border Force. These are not police prosecutions.
The people who are expert want a written account from the person. As I live in a Ferry Port town, I will explain why.
Smugglers (including people smugglers) tend to come into the country a lot of times. And so do many legitimate people. So-for example-this couple take a lot of holidays. Good luck to them. So-just on the details provided-we know that in late 2024 they were on holiday in France, Xmas in Australia, and currently in Poland.
Anyone travelling frequently to and from is statistically more likely to be a smuggler (particularly if they are a foot passenger, but that is another story). Let's not overstate that-it is probably a 1% chance instead of a 0.01% chance. But many of those 1%ers get caught more than once. And you want a statement in relation to the first at the Home Office. Not local Plod.
Ever wondered why people come in by small boats? They didn't used to. Used to stow away in lorries. But when the lorry firms started getting big fines, they may have huffed and puffed. But they also took steps to secure their lorries and avoid the fines....
I am giving up now. People smuggling is not for me.
I'm ashamed of some of my fellow Brits sometimes. We've never had it so good, Benefits galore & folks gaming the system big time. And yet there's this constant anti-refugee/immigrant/foreign people narrative.
Imagine living somewhere that has no sanitation, no running water or 'leccy, precious little food or water & zero job prospects. And then when you try to get a better life for you & your family, some fat bloke, full time unemployed & gaming the system, sat in his comfy armchair in the UK watching his colour TV & moaning about potholes thinks they have no right here & objects to a penny or two on his Income Tax to pay for it.
Without immigrants this country would collapse. Try to imagine the NHS or London Transport, or any Service Industry, existing without immigrants.
Potholes? I'll give you potholes.
Here's the "lucky" ones, condemned to life in a Refugee Camp...
Number of failed asylum seekers waiting for appeal soars by 500% in two years
Seriously, Tony. Why do you persist in printing this drivel from the Telegraph?
I refuse to be lectured on how to be "British" by the Telegraph-owners being the tax exiles and tax fraudsters the Barclay family, and the UAE Wealth Fund.
Someone at the Telegraph has clearly been assigned to look at all appeals to rake up mud. Primarily because both the last Tory Govt and the current Govt have prevented a UK National newspaper being sold to the UAE.
Looking first at the general tenet if these sorts of articles. Some of the "facts" need context. The most important example is the increase in the backlog of immigration appeals.
The reason is very simple. There used to be a massive backlog in first instance decisions. Because the last Govt chose to spend money on giving £millions to Rwanda. Rather than spending that money actually processing asylum seekers. This Govt has made enormous strides in dealing with the hundreds of thousands of first instance cases. The reason for the increase in appeals is simple: no-one needs to appeal if a first instance decision has not been done.
Then let's look at this particular case. Because the facts of this case involve some harsh truths.
1. Yes, this man had attempted/tried to enter this country illegally 4 times. Most of which were 12 years ago. But that ignores the fact that he succeeded. 6 years ago 2. He is not an "Albanian criminal". He is a British criminal 3. He is not a drug dealer. He was convicted of once watering some cannabis plants 4. The Govt chose to introduce a Rule that any migrant convicted and receiving a prison sentence of more than 12 months is to be deported. His sentence was only 8 months 5. In 2022, 3 years after his conviction the Home Office, under direction of the then-Home Secretary, Suella Braverman KC, sought an order for automatic deportation, despite it being 3 years late and too short a sentence. They did not argue in the alternative that he should not be allowed to remain on the ground that he was an illegal immigrant 6. We do not live in a Police State. It is not the role of Judges to act for the Prosecution or the Defence. Unsurprisingly, that is the role of the Prosecution and the Defence. They Judge which of those 2 sides versions to prefer 7. The first instance Judge did not deal with any arguments in relation to Right to Remain. Simply because the Prosecution never raised it. And the Appeal Judges said, much as they would have liked the opportunity to examine that, that was not their role. It was an appeal against the original decision-which was correct 8. This is not the fault of the current Home Secretary. And one would have hoped for better from the last one, particularly as she has professional experience of immigration matters when a Barrister 9. The trouble with delay is this. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum. To give a simple example, easier to deport a single man than tear a man away from his Wife and young son. But that is what delay causes.
Seriously, Tony. Why do you persist in printing this drivel from the Telegraph?
I refuse to be lectured on how to be "British" by the Telegraph-owners being the tax exiles and tax fraudsters the Barclay family, and the UAE Wealth Fund.
Someone at the Telegraph has clearly been assigned to look at all appeals to rake up mud. Primarily because both the last Tory Govt and the current Govt have prevented a UK National newspaper being sold to the UAE.
Looking first at the general tenet if these sorts of articles. Some of the "facts" need context. The most important example is the increase in the backlog of immigration appeals.
The reason is very simple. There used to be a massive backlog in first instance decisions. Because the last Govt chose to spend money on giving £millions to Rwanda. Rather than spending that money actually processing asylum seekers. This Govt has made enormous strides in dealing with the hundreds of thousands of first instance cases. The reason for the increase in appeals is simple: no-one needs to appeal if a first instance decision has not been done.
Then let's look at this particular case. Because the facts of this case involve some harsh truths.
1. Yes, this man had attempted/tried to enter this country illegally 4 times. Most of which were 12 years ago. But that ignores the fact that he succeeded. 6 years ago 2. He is not an "Albanian criminal". He is a British criminal 3. He is not a drug dealer. He was convicted of once watering some cannabis plants 4. The Govt chose to introduce a Rule that any migrant convicted and receiving a prison sentence of more than 12 months is to be deported. His sentence was only 8 months 5. In 2022, 3 years after his conviction the Home Office, under direction of the then-Home Secretary, Suella Braverman KC, sought an order for automatic deportation, despite it being 3 years late and too short a sentence. They did not argue in the alternative that he should not be allowed to remain on the ground that he was an illegal immigrant 6. We do not live in a Police State. It is not the role of Judges to act for the Prosecution or the Defence. Unsurprisingly, that is the role of the Prosecution and the Defence. They Judge which of those 2 sides versions to prefer 7. The first instance Judge did not deal with any arguments in relation to Right to Remain. Simply because the Prosecution never raised it. And the Appeal Judges said, much as they would have liked the opportunity to examine that, that was not their role. It was an appeal against the original decision-which was correct 8. This is not the fault of the current Home Secretary. And one would have hoped for better from the last one, particularly as she has professional experience of immigration matters when a Barrister 9. The trouble with delay is this. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum. To give a simple example, easier to deport a single man than tear a man away from his Wife and young son. But that is what delay causes.
Firstly, I dont necessarily aprove of, or agree with the stuff I post. I often post stuff that I think will generate some debate. I am very often wrong on this.
I appreciate that someone in your position will have a much greater understanding of the finer points of this story.
Surely the Home Secretary will be echoing many peoples views when she said.
Despite an appeal by Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, who argued that his presence in the UK was “not conducive to the public good”
I am not sure that whose fault it was, is a concern for most people. Although the fact that he was allowed to remain would have been. Do you think we have taken steps to avoid a repeat? Or is this just another in the long line of lessons will be learned stories?
The guy was a very unsuccesful illegal immigrant. He was repeatedly caught.
Has the first judge minimised his role after the event, subsequent to the sh1t hitting the fan? He was just watering some cannabis plants once, but I am giving 8 months in jail anyway.
Has the prison overcrowding played a part in this story? Prompting judges to reduce sentences.
There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour’s efforts to fast-track removals of illegal migrants.
The backlog has risen by nearly a quarter since September, and is up nearly 500 per cent from 7,173 at the start of 2022.
He is a persistent illegal immigrant, that is not fleeing war, or persecution. He has been jailed for cannabis production, yet has been allowed to remain.
Although Suella Braverman, the home secretary at the time, recognised that Koka’s prison sentence fell below the threshold for deportation, she said his offending had caused serious harm.
“By that finding, Judge Degirmenci found as a matter of law that Mr Koka did not fall within the definition of foreign criminal,” a court was later told.
“No other matters of significance were put in issue. Had the judge gone on to consider matters not put in issue by the Secretary of State, criticism of the judge [might] well have been justified,” they said.
“We take this opportunity to remind parties that they and judges alike are now encouraged to narrow the issues as best they can... This not only results in the need for shorter decisions by judges, which is now also encouraged, but is plainly in the interests of justice and efficiency.
Seriously, Tony. Why do you persist in printing this drivel from the Telegraph?
I refuse to be lectured on how to be "British" by the Telegraph-owners being the tax exiles and tax fraudsters the Barclay family, and the UAE Wealth Fund.
Someone at the Telegraph has clearly been assigned to look at all appeals to rake up mud. Primarily because both the last Tory Govt and the current Govt have prevented a UK National newspaper being sold to the UAE.
Looking first at the general tenet if these sorts of articles. Some of the "facts" need context. The most important example is the increase in the backlog of immigration appeals.
The reason is very simple. There used to be a massive backlog in first instance decisions. Because the last Govt chose to spend money on giving £millions to Rwanda. Rather than spending that money actually processing asylum seekers. This Govt has made enormous strides in dealing with the hundreds of thousands of first instance cases. The reason for the increase in appeals is simple: no-one needs to appeal if a first instance decision has not been done.
Then let's look at this particular case. Because the facts of this case involve some harsh truths.
1. Yes, this man had attempted/tried to enter this country illegally 4 times. Most of which were 12 years ago. But that ignores the fact that he succeeded. 6 years ago 2. He is not an "Albanian criminal". He is a British criminal 3. He is not a drug dealer. He was convicted of once watering some cannabis plants 4. The Govt chose to introduce a Rule that any migrant convicted and receiving a prison sentence of more than 12 months is to be deported. His sentence was only 8 months 5. In 2022, 3 years after his conviction the Home Office, under direction of the then-Home Secretary, Suella Braverman KC, sought an order for automatic deportation, despite it being 3 years late and too short a sentence. They did not argue in the alternative that he should not be allowed to remain on the ground that he was an illegal immigrant 6. We do not live in a Police State. It is not the role of Judges to act for the Prosecution or the Defence. Unsurprisingly, that is the role of the Prosecution and the Defence. They Judge which of those 2 sides versions to prefer 7. The first instance Judge did not deal with any arguments in relation to Right to Remain. Simply because the Prosecution never raised it. And the Appeal Judges said, much as they would have liked the opportunity to examine that, that was not their role. It was an appeal against the original decision-which was correct 8. This is not the fault of the current Home Secretary. And one would have hoped for better from the last one, particularly as she has professional experience of immigration matters when a Barrister 9. The trouble with delay is this. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum. To give a simple example, easier to deport a single man than tear a man away from his Wife and young son. But that is what delay causes.
Holidaymaker banned from returning to UK for seven months after Home Office error
Comments
166,300 people awaiting an asylum decision, of whom:
161,000 were awaiting an initial decision.
5,300 were awaiting the outcome of further review, such as an appeal.
Of those awaiting an initial decision, 68% (110,000 people) had been waiting for more than six months and 32% (51,000 people) had been waiting six months or less.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9737/
The Law has been positioned in this way for about 20 years. And there is a reason behind that.
Once people have successfully entered the country, they are in the system. Consequently, there is a Strict Liability imposed upon anybody who enables the entry of asylum seekers.
Strict liability does not require fault on the part of the enabler. Because, otherwise, it would be routine for people to "accidentally" allow people in. And then "apologise". That used to happen a lot.
Commercial organisations are always going to be fined in this instance. Because if someone gets in the back of your lorry unnoticed, tough.
Private citizens are, officially, treated the same. But, in reality, if a private citizen can show they took all reasonable steps, the fine is reduced. To £0. That is what has happened in this case. Lots of fuss. And £0.
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2025-03-16/fine-cancelled-for-couple-who-found-immigrant-in-motorhomes-bike-rack
The "incentive" to which you refer is, in reality, due to the Press misreporting of the way the Law actually works.
I would still question the border guard, and the costs incurred going through the rigmarole.
I am not sure that someone in the same position that had read the original story, would be encouraged to phone the police.
With Strict Liability, the starting point is that you are liable. Unless the wrongdoer can show that an exception should apply. Which, in this instance, is something like they did not know, and had taken all reasonable steps. That has nothing to do with what others did or did not do. Just whether the accused did.
When it comes to "rigmarole", again it is not quite how the Press make is sound. There was no court action. They got an email, which said that it was proposed that they receive a £1,500 fine (the maximum is £10k, but consumer not business and 1st offence) unless they sent back an email explaining why they should not be fined.
They sent an email. Then chose to go to various radio shows and newspapers. And their email was listened to.
The "rigmarole" was all the Press interviews. Not 1 email.
However the bloke whose job it was to check for illegals completely failed.
I would think that the person that had the capability to write off the fine was not the same person that sent the email.
And that they would have at least familiarised themselves with the facts, before cancelling the fine.
If I was in the same boat at some point in the future, I might well think that the safest course of action might be to let them go, rather than to phone the police.
These people had transported this illegal unknowingly for several hours. From France to Dover, then Dover to Essex.
They then discovered him. And did the right thing.
The chances of them being caught if they let him go are high. Why? Because illegals tend to get caught. And tell the truth about how they got in.
Whereupon this couple (or you) would instead be charged with aiding and abetting immigration offences, and/or being a people trafficker. Facing far more serious charges. And would have considerable difficulties entering and leaving the country.
I will then disappear into the house, and not return until the following day, at the earliest.
I assume this process was started by the police report.
Which was sent to the minion that sent the email regarding the fine.
It would have been the same police report that was subsequently sent to a more senior person who made the decision to disregard the fine.
Maybe the police report could have just advised that no further action was required.
Starmer to drive through welfare cuts that could affect UK’s most severely disabled
Keir Starmer is to defy growing anger by driving through welfare cuts for some of the UK’s most severely disabled people, with an overhaul that could see more than 600,000 benefit claimants lose out on an average of £675 a month.
Ministers are set to ditch plans to freeze personal independent payments (Pip) amid a backlash. But they will still tighten eligibility criteria for the benefit under big changes to be set out by the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, on Tuesday.
The Resolution Foundation thinktank warned that cutting Pip by £5bn in 2029-30 by raising the qualifying threshold for support could mean about 620,000 people lose £675 a month on average. It said 70% of these cuts would be concentrated on those families in the poorest half of the income distribution.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/starmer-drive-welfare-cuts-could-223029046.html
I appreciate and accept that the chances of being caught are a factor. Still not sure this forum is the best place to admit you would choose the criminal option.
You misunderstand the way these prosecutions work. Unsurprisingly, Border Force staff tend to be at the Border-clue is in the name. If you drive a further 100 miles before discovery, local police are going to get involved.
But only to a limited extent. They don't have the relevant experience. They just take statements and forward the stuff to the relevant Department at the Home Office or Border Force. These are not police prosecutions.
The people who are expert want a written account from the person. As I live in a Ferry Port town, I will explain why.
Smugglers (including people smugglers) tend to come into the country a lot of times. And so do many legitimate people. So-for example-this couple take a lot of holidays. Good luck to them. So-just on the details provided-we know that in late 2024 they were on holiday in France, Xmas in Australia, and currently in Poland.
Anyone travelling frequently to and from is statistically more likely to be a smuggler (particularly if they are a foot passenger, but that is another story). Let's not overstate that-it is probably a 1% chance instead of a 0.01% chance. But many of those 1%ers get caught more than once. And you want a statement in relation to the first at the Home Office. Not local Plod.
Ever wondered why people come in by small boats? They didn't used to. Used to stow away in lorries. But when the lorry firms started getting big fines, they may have huffed and puffed. But they also took steps to secure their lorries and avoid the fines....
People smuggling is not for me.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/number-of-failed-asylum-seekers-waiting-for-appeal-soars-by-500-in-two-years/ar-AA1B47wf?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=8020bfab216a4b92dfcee593c89abd8c&ei=89#fullscreen
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/smugglers-give-migrants-cut-price-channel-crossings-in-return-for-social-media-promotion/ar-AA1B5tT8?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=8020bfab216a4b92dfcee593c89abd8c&ei=104#fullscreen
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/the-skilled-worker-ruse-that-saw-53-asylum-claims-jump-to-5-300/ar-AA1B2J0g?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=05dac11991574ca4b0659744da0a3152&ei=36#fullscreen
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/iranian-sex-offender-wins-asylum-203606460.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/migrant-convicted-sexual-assault-stays-121836162.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/albanian-criminal-allowed-stay-britain-081824569.html
I refuse to be lectured on how to be "British" by the Telegraph-owners being the tax exiles and tax fraudsters the Barclay family, and the UAE Wealth Fund.
Someone at the Telegraph has clearly been assigned to look at all appeals to rake up mud. Primarily because both the last Tory Govt and the current Govt have prevented a UK National newspaper being sold to the UAE.
Looking first at the general tenet if these sorts of articles. Some of the "facts" need context. The most important example is the increase in the backlog of immigration appeals.
The reason is very simple. There used to be a massive backlog in first instance decisions. Because the last Govt chose to spend money on giving £millions to Rwanda. Rather than spending that money actually processing asylum seekers. This Govt has made enormous strides in dealing with the hundreds of thousands of first instance cases. The reason for the increase in appeals is simple: no-one needs to appeal if a first instance decision has not been done.
Then let's look at this particular case. Because the facts of this case involve some harsh truths.
1. Yes, this man had attempted/tried to enter this country illegally 4 times. Most of which were 12 years ago. But that ignores the fact that he succeeded. 6 years ago
2. He is not an "Albanian criminal". He is a British criminal
3. He is not a drug dealer. He was convicted of once watering some cannabis plants
4. The Govt chose to introduce a Rule that any migrant convicted and receiving a prison sentence of more than 12 months is to be deported. His sentence was only 8 months
5. In 2022, 3 years after his conviction the Home Office, under direction of the then-Home Secretary, Suella Braverman KC, sought an order for automatic deportation, despite it being 3 years late and too short a sentence. They did not argue in the alternative that he should not be allowed to remain on the ground that he was an illegal immigrant
6. We do not live in a Police State. It is not the role of Judges to act for the Prosecution or the Defence. Unsurprisingly, that is the role of the Prosecution and the Defence. They Judge which of those 2 sides versions to prefer
7. The first instance Judge did not deal with any arguments in relation to Right to Remain. Simply because the Prosecution never raised it. And the Appeal Judges said, much as they would have liked the opportunity to examine that, that was not their role. It was an appeal against the original decision-which was correct
8. This is not the fault of the current Home Secretary. And one would have hoped for better from the last one, particularly as she has professional experience of immigration matters when a Barrister
9. The trouble with delay is this. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum. To give a simple example, easier to deport a single man than tear a man away from his Wife and young son. But that is what delay causes.
I often post stuff that I think will generate some debate.
I am very often wrong on this.
I appreciate that someone in your position will have a much greater understanding of the finer points of this story.
Surely the Home Secretary will be echoing many peoples views when she said.
Despite an appeal by Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, who argued that his presence in the UK was “not conducive to the public good”
I am not sure that whose fault it was, is a concern for most people.
Although the fact that he was allowed to remain would have been.
Do you think we have taken steps to avoid a repeat?
Or is this just another in the long line of lessons will be learned stories?
The guy was a very unsuccesful illegal immigrant.
He was repeatedly caught.
Has the first judge minimised his role after the event, subsequent to the sh1t hitting the fan?
He was just watering some cannabis plants once, but I am giving 8 months in jail anyway.
Has the prison overcrowding played a part in this story?
Prompting judges to reduce sentences.
There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour’s efforts to fast-track removals of illegal migrants.
The backlog has risen by nearly a quarter since September, and is up nearly 500 per cent from 7,173 at the start of 2022.
He is a persistent illegal immigrant, that is not fleeing war, or persecution.
He has been jailed for cannabis production, yet has been allowed to remain.
Although Suella Braverman, the home secretary at the time, recognised that Koka’s prison sentence fell below the threshold for deportation, she said his offending had caused serious harm.
“By that finding, Judge Degirmenci found as a matter of law that Mr Koka did not fall within the definition of foreign criminal,” a court was later told.
“No other matters of significance were put in issue. Had the judge gone on to consider matters not put in issue by the Secretary of State, criticism of the judge [might] well have been justified,” they said.
“We take this opportunity to remind parties that they and judges alike are now encouraged to narrow the issues as best they can... This not only results in the need for shorter decisions by judges, which is now also encouraged, but is plainly in the interests of justice and efficiency.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/holidaymaker-banned-returning-uk-seven-214225948.html