FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > More UK bullshit
More UK bullshit
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *aygee246Man 8 weeks ago
South Lanarkshire |
It is a joke. They were fined for failing to check their vehicle.
I wonder if the jobsworth who made the decision to fine them feels proud of their decision. The fact that others in the same situation in future will not bother to report it is the obvious consequence of this short sighted action.
Shame on them picking on an easy target rather than doing their actual job of catching this at the border. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Not really.
It is incumbent on the owner of the vehicle to ensure it has not been "breached" and used for criminal activity.
I'm sure the same applies for Arctics coming in to the UK as well. Calais is particularly well-known as a embarkation point for stowaways, and current advice is not to stop within 50 miles, do not leave the vehicle unattended for any duration, and do not exit the vehicle for any reason. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 8 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Not really.
It is incumbent on the owner of the vehicle to ensure it has not been "breached" and used for criminal activity.
I'm sure the same applies for Arctics coming in to the UK as well. Calais is particularly well-known as a embarkation point for stowaways, and current advice is not to stop within 50 miles, do not leave the vehicle unattended for any duration, and do not exit the vehicle for any reason."
I'm guessing you haven't looked into this story or if you have, what would you have done in the circumstances? Because this fine will deter people in the future, calling the police to inform them they have found someone hidden under the bike rack covers on the back of their motorhome, on the roof or elsewhere.
And what is the upshot of this stupidity from our authorities? Unknown threats entering the country unchallenged thanks to the risk of being fined £1500.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Fined by the Home Office
Who have 215,500 asylum claims, pay £600,000 a day for 5000 vacant ‘buffer’ hotel rooms for small boat arrivals, and £13million annually educating diplomats children in private schools.
Taxpayer shafted again.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The Home Office spent £15 million buying a derelict prison contaminated with asbestos amid political pressure to stop housing migrants in hotels, according to Whitehall’s spending watchdog.
The Government department cut corners and paid more than it needed to in its haste to acquire the Northeye site in Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex, but this was “ultimately deemed unfit for its intended purpose due to contamination”, the National Audit Office (NAO) said
Bring in the civil service reforms, some long overdue P45’s |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't consider that ethical they are the victims of a crime and and are not responsible for the the criminal acts of other people.
The port authority is responsible for providing adequate security to it's patron's and governments are responsible for the foreign policy and border policy that create these issues.
Individual citizens going on holiday should not be held responsible for the failures of third parties. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
My mate was find thousands due to 4 imigrants hiding in his lorry. He even informed the police of then whilst he was driving.
Yet if they are on a dinghy, they get picked up by border force and given a lift here for free. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not really.
It is incumbent on the owner of the vehicle to ensure it has not been "breached" and used for criminal activity.
I'm sure the same applies for Arctics coming in to the UK as well. Calais is particularly well-known as a embarkation point for stowaways, and current advice is not to stop within 50 miles, do not leave the vehicle unattended for any duration, and do not exit the vehicle for any reason.
I'm guessing you haven't looked into this story or if you have, what would you have done in the circumstances? Because this fine will deter people in the future, calling the police to inform them they have found someone hidden under the bike rack covers on the back of their motorhome, on the roof or elsewhere.
And what is the upshot of this stupidity from our authorities? Unknown threats entering the country unchallenged thanks to the risk of being fined £1500.
"
I have indeed.
They discovered the stowaway after they had returned to the UK.
What would I have done ? A full vehicle inspection prior to boarding at the ferry terminal inside the security zone. You typically have 30-60 mins in the queue before you board.
Clearly whatever checks they performed were not thorough enough.
(I have seen border control check vehicles, and I don't think I've ever seen any open up bike covers on the rear of a vehicle's bike rack however. I suspect that might change). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Lorry drivers entering the UK for years have faced massive issues, for ensuring or not, that their vehicles and peripheral accessibility didn't transport stowaways.
I have sympathy with the couple but they will always hold the legal responsibility for their total vehicle impact. The finest are punitive and the whole responsibility and legal ramifications could potentially be communicated more fully, for all vehicle operators. Mitigation of the issues is done by checking and prevention, not reporting to the police once you have a new immigrant. If vehicles were seized, then people would check them very thoroughly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My mate was find thousands due to 4 imigrants hiding in his lorry. He even informed the police of then whilst he was driving.
Yet if they are on a dinghy, they get picked up by border force and given a lift here for free."
What do you want to happen to people in peril, in a dinghy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 8 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Lorry drivers entering the UK for years have faced massive issues, for ensuring or not, that their vehicles and peripheral accessibility didn't transport stowaways.
I have sympathy with the couple but they will always hold the legal responsibility for their total vehicle impact. The finest are punitive and the whole responsibility and legal ramifications could potentially be communicated more fully, for all vehicle operators. Mitigation of the issues is done by checking and prevention, not reporting to the police once you have a new immigrant. If vehicles were seized, then people would check them very thoroughly. "
I disagree in this situation, the stowaway could have entered the bike rack outside the vehicle at any point in the journey, even on the ferry, and to be zipped into the covering would indicate he had outside help to hide him away.
All that this fine will do is deter others finding themselves in the same situation from reporting it, giving us somebody else entering the UK as an unknown. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A couple found a Man hidden in there motorhome in Essex after leaving Calais, Called the police but have now been fined £1500  WTF
This country is a joke  "
£1500 fine for a 3 grand paying passenger everybody wins, holiday payed for and the state gets the other half. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
All that this fine will do is deter others finding themselves in the same situation from reporting it, giving us somebody else entering the UK as an unknown. "
100% agreed.
It's stupid, pretty bureaucracy at it's best.
It's easier to find an regular couple who won't fight back (physically or legally). So the relevant department chalks it up as a win. Meanwhile, instead of deterring stowaways, they're deterring reporting.
If someone reports the issue, it should be a mitigation. Utterly stupid and short sighted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My mate was find thousands due to 4 imigrants hiding in his lorry. He even informed the police of then whilst he was driving.
Yet if they are on a dinghy, they get picked up by border force and given a lift here for free.
What do you want to happen to people in peril, in a dinghy? "
They have put themselves in peril. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"My mate was find thousands due to 4 imigrants hiding in his lorry. He even informed the police of then whilst he was driving.
Yet if they are on a dinghy, they get picked up by border force and given a lift here for free.
What do you want to happen to people in peril, in a dinghy?
They have put themselves in peril. "
This |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My mate was find thousands due to 4 imigrants hiding in his lorry. He even informed the police of then whilst he was driving.
Yet if they are on a dinghy, they get picked up by border force and given a lift here for free.
What do you want to happen to people in peril, in a dinghy?
They have put themselves in peril. "
What do you want to happen to them? I note that question wasn't answered |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If someone reports the issue, it should be a mitigation."
Then you'd get loads of lorry drivers taking a bung, letting people on board, and claiming they had no idea when they got caught. Like used to happen.
That's why the law got changed, so that people deliberately carrying passengers but claiming they didn't know could still be fined.
I'm not making any suggestion that the recent couple knew, just that if the law were otherwise, people would take advantage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If someone reports the issue, it should be a mitigation.
Then you'd get loads of lorry drivers taking a bung, letting people on board, and claiming they had no idea when they got caught. Like used to happen.
That's why the law got changed, so that people deliberately carrying passengers but claiming they didn't know could still be fined.
I'm not making any suggestion that the recent couple knew, just that if the law were otherwise, people would take advantage."
Spot on.
Laws are only effective if
1.They are enforced appropriately,
2.They are communicated and understood,
3. Any "gaps" or "exploits" are rapid closed down.
Did the couple know ? I'd posit that anyone (lorry driver or not) with a vehicle capable of clandestine stowage should immerse themselves in the law and their responsibilities, and conduct a full point check of their vehicle at a port prior to departure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
All that this fine will do is deter others finding themselves in the same situation from reporting it, giving us somebody else entering the UK as an unknown.
100% agreed.
It's stupid, pretty bureaucracy at it's best.
It's easier to find an regular couple who won't fight back (physically or legally). So the relevant department chalks it up as a win. Meanwhile, instead of deterring stowaways, they're deterring reporting.
If someone reports the issue, it should be a mitigation. Utterly stupid and short sighted."
Not only does this deter reporting but it encourages stowaways as they know once they make it past border force there is little chance of them being caught, especially now the owner's of the vehicle will not report what happened for fear of being fined. The vehicle owner should be thanked for providing information that could lead to the capture of a dangerous criminal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't suppose border force did their job checking vehicles.
Who's fining the government for letting illegal migrants in?
Meanwhile our council tax is funding the situation.
The world's insane and getting worse
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My mate was find thousands due to 4 imigrants hiding in his lorry. He even informed the police of then whilst he was driving.
Yet if they are on a dinghy, they get picked up by border force and given a lift here for free.
What do you want to happen to people in peril, in a dinghy?
They have put themselves in peril.
What do you want to happen to them? I note that question wasn't answered"
at least we should turn them around tow back to french waters inform the french other alternatives are available if they don't go back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *coptoCouple 8 weeks ago
Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth |
"at least we should turn them around tow back to french waters inform the french other alternatives are available if they don't go back"
Or do what the Greeks are doing to their illegal boat arrivals?
Only joking, I'm not really suggesting our coastguard or RN sink them in the Channel........that's the job of Border Force.
Actually, only half joking: what would happen to the skipper of a cruiser or yacht who didn't have an appropriate MCA licence to carry fare-paying passengers, offshore safety equipment etc? Heavy fines and if unable to pay them they'd go to jail.
At least the guys at the tiller of these boats should be punished, and anyone else on board who refuses to identify them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""at least we should turn them around tow back to french waters inform the french other alternatives are available if they don't go back"
Or do what the Greeks are doing to their illegal boat arrivals?
Only joking, I'm not really suggesting our coastguard or RN sink them in the Channel........that's the job of Border Force.
Actually, only half joking: what would happen to the skipper of a cruiser or yacht who didn't have an appropriate MCA licence to carry fare-paying passengers, offshore safety equipment etc? Heavy fines and if unable to pay them they'd go to jail.
At least the guys at the tiller of these boats should be punished, and anyone else on board who refuses to identify them."
What a joker |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"My mate was find thousands due to 4 imigrants hiding in his lorry. He even informed the police of then whilst he was driving.
Yet if they are on a dinghy, they get picked up by border force and given a lift here for free.
What do you want to happen to people in peril, in a dinghy?
They have put themselves in peril.
What do you want to happen to them? I note that question wasn't answered"
Send them to yours, I'm sure you'll put them up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If someone reports the issue, it should be a mitigation.
Then you'd get loads of lorry drivers taking a bung, letting people on board, and claiming they had no idea when they got caught. Like used to happen.
That's why the law got changed, so that people deliberately carrying passengers but claiming they didn't know could still be fined.
I'm not making any suggestion that the recent couple knew, just that if the law were otherwise, people would take advantage."
Illogical.
The assertion was that turning them in should be a mitigation, not ignorance. This would promote honesty. Instead, honesty is punished, so this only deters turning them in.
You have refuted a straw man argument, not the one presented. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If someone reports the issue, it should be a mitigation."
"Then you'd get loads of lorry drivers taking a bung, letting people on board, and claiming they had no idea when they got caught. Like used to happen.
That's why the law got changed, so that people deliberately carrying passengers but claiming they didn't know could still be fined.
I'm not making any suggestion that the recent couple knew, just that if the law were otherwise, people would take advantage."
"The assertion was that turning them in should be a mitigation, not ignorance. This would promote honesty. Instead, honesty is punished, so this only deters turning them in.
You have refuted a straw man argument, not the one presented."
OK then. If the law were changed in the way you propose, you'd get loads of lorry drivers loading up with immigrants, driving them into Kent, then calling the police and saying "I've just discovered a load of immigrants in my trailer that I definitely didn't know about when I crossed the border, can you come and collect them". The lorry driver driver would then claim mitigation, and drive off with just a few hours delay and a fatter wallet.
The people coming over aren't scared of being handed to the authorities. Those that want asylum will welcome it, and those that don't want asylum know that they can claim anyway, then slip away once put into accommodation while their claim is processed.
The only way that a law preventing immigrant snuggling can work is to make it strict liability, so that there is no defence to having brought someone in. If there is any sort of defence, people will take advantage of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"I'm wondering what would of happened if the returning couple had found a suitcase with 30kg of heroine under the bike covers instead of an immigrant.
They'd make a movie about her?"
 Bravo  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
OK then. If the law were changed in the way you propose, you'd get loads of lorry drivers loading up with immigrants, driving them into Kent, then calling the police..."
Why would they call the police. The whole point is that they *could* simply release them/turn a blind eye and nothing would happen, but chose to contact the police instead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"OK then. If the law were changed in the way you propose, you'd get loads of lorry drivers loading up with immigrants, driving them into Kent, then calling the police..."
"Why would they call the police. The whole point is that they *could* simply release them/turn a blind eye and nothing would happen, but chose to contact the police instead."
I should have made myself clearer. I meant to say "if there was any danger of being caught, they'd phone the police".
You'd get plenty of cases where drivers were stopped, and the driver claimed that he was about to phone the police, but was trying to find a place to safely stop before picking up his phone.
My point being, if you leave a loophole, people will try to wriggle through it.
Getting back to the case, I suspect these people will appeal the fine, and be let off. But that won't make the headlines. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"OK then. If the law were changed in the way you propose, you'd get loads of lorry drivers loading up with immigrants, driving them into Kent, then calling the police...
Why would they call the police. The whole point is that they *could* simply release them/turn a blind eye and nothing would happen, but chose to contact the police instead.
I should have made myself clearer. I meant to say "if there was any danger of being caught, they'd phone the police".
You'd get plenty of cases where drivers were stopped, and the driver claimed that he was about to phone the police, but was trying to find a place to safely stop before picking up his phone.
My point being, if you leave a loophole, people will try to wriggle through it.
Getting back to the case, I suspect these people will appeal the fine, and be let off. But that won't make the headlines."
No but this hitting the headlines means more coming back in to the UK, buy road will be more carefully not to fall in to this trap. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No but this hitting the headlines means more coming back in to the UK, buy road will be more carefully not to fall in to this trap. "
Indeed. Sometimes a public case like this does more to raise awareness than signs and announcements at ports. It gets people talking, forums fill with messages, and the message gets out more widely. Influencers in that community start doings pod casts (which directly target the group of folks who need to hear the message) and all in all, you have a more effective campaign. (Meanwhile, as another poster alluded to, the "fine" gets quietly dropped with a smack on the wrist.)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 8 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"No but this hitting the headlines means more coming back in to the UK, buy road will be more carefully not to fall in to this trap.
Indeed. Sometimes a public case like this does more to raise awareness than signs and announcements at ports. It gets people talking, forums fill with messages, and the message gets out more widely. Influencers in that community start doings pod casts (which directly target the group of folks who need to hear the message) and all in all, you have a more effective campaign. (Meanwhile, as another poster alluded to, the "fine" gets quietly dropped with a smack on the wrist.)
"
The title of the thread is very fitting if that is how things have been orchestrated.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Indeed. Sometimes a public case like this does more to raise awareness...
"
...awareness that the (executive branch of the) government is ridiculous and incompetent and that some citizens are sanctimonious and petty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Indeed. Sometimes a public case like this does more to raise awareness...
...awareness that the (executive branch of the) government is ridiculous and incompetent and that some citizens are sanctimonious and petty."
Perhaps in some cases, but not in this one I feel. The law is established.
"Clandestine entrant civil penalty scheme" : Published 7th Feb 2014.
Linked with Part II of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
.
It's all laid out in black and white for anyone coming in to the UK to be aware of.
The law is very clear on the responsibilities of the vehicle owner. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Indeed. Sometimes a public case like this does more to raise awareness...
...awareness that the (executive branch of the) government is ridiculous and incompetent and that some citizens are sanctimonious and petty.
Perhaps in some cases, but not in this one I feel. The law is established.
"Clandestine entrant civil penalty scheme" : Published 7th Feb 2014.
Linked with Part II of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
.
It's all laid out in black and white for anyone coming in to the UK to be aware of.
The law is very clear on the responsibilities of the vehicle owner."
QED  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 8 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
"Lorry drivers entering the UK for years have faced massive issues, for ensuring or not, that their vehicles and peripheral accessibility didn't transport stowaways.
I have sympathy with the couple but they will always hold the legal responsibility for their total vehicle impact. The finest are punitive and the whole responsibility and legal ramifications could potentially be communicated more fully, for all vehicle operators. Mitigation of the issues is done by checking and prevention, not reporting to the police once you have a new immigrant. If vehicles were seized, then people would check them very thoroughly. "
Curious as to what training the UK government has put out there and specific expectations have been set for those traveling.
These are holiday makers, not border protection officers. Who can say when the stowaway actually got on the vehicle during transit and if it was after or before they got to the UK.
My homeland has gone to absolute shit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
...and cancelled.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/16/essex-couple-fine-reporting-channel-stowaway-cancelled
"The couple have now received a second email from Border Force, which is part of the Home Office, saying the fine had been reduced to zero." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"...and cancelled.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/16/essex-couple-fine-reporting-channel-stowaway-cancelled
"The couple have now received a second email from Border Force, which is part of the Home Office, saying the fine had been reduced to zero.""
Good to see common sense has finally been applied |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"...and cancelled.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/16/essex-couple-fine-reporting-channel-stowaway-cancelled
"The couple have now received a second email from Border Force, which is part of the Home Office, saying the fine had been reduced to zero."
Good to see common sense has finally been applied"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
