- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
The lesson is… dont report it
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.
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.
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
