This is literally what I was thinking of. Millions of people sign those online government petitions, the reply is some generic ‘we’ll do what we like because we know best’, and that’s that. People marched to stop wars, do something about climate change, none of it made any real difference, they just don’t care, because they know they’ll still get the votes.
1 Like
I understand that, I suspect that your instinct is to enforce the law, mine is to rail against laws I consider unfair.
The CPS with approval from the Home Office are not currently prosecuting migrants illegally entering the UK.
Sorry Graham, but wishing to apply for asylum does NOT give a person “leave to enter” under the Immigration Act. Yes, the person is entitled to make their application, but having made the application, or indeed having the intent to make the application in the future, simply does equate to having been given leave to enter. If a person presented themself in a normal and up front manner, and then asked for leave to enter so that they may make a claim for asylum, then they may well be given conditional leave to enter for that purpose. Arriving in an attempted clandestine manner is a different kettle of fish however. and those persons who do so should be arrested and put before the courts. (By the way – it isn’t an “Arestable Offence” as defined, but rather an offence for which a specific power of arrest has been granted. There is a technical difference between the two categories.)
That’s their decision to make Tim, but perhaps that is of itself part of the problem. I have always found that the perceived risk of apprehension, detention, and prosecution, is in general an effective tool against the commission of offences in the first place.
semantics… same meat, different gravy.
Totally impractical for refugees from (or in) say Afghanistan, Burma, Syria, Yemen etc etc
2 Likes
This is the fantasy world in which the government seem to live - that asylum seekers, normally (almost by definition) in fear for their lives and often in the middle of a war zone can just pack up their affairs in a tidy and orderly fashion, then wait a couple of months for a suitable visa application to come through, then book passage to the UK by regular means and finally ask nicely for asylum.
1 Like
Why exactly?
1 Like
Add to which, what do you @Robert_Hodge regard as clandestine from a “plod” perspective?
Surely this law is aimed at criminals landing craft loaded with drugs, weapons, etc in out of the way places. The asylum seekers all seem to arrive in full view generally escorted by the coastguard.
1 Like
It’s not a fantasy world, it’s a cynical lie used to pretend to be “open” to refugees while actually being closed tighter than Rishi Sunak’s treasury wallet (if you aren’t a Tory pal of course).
That is indeed a problem which needs to be addressed. In many cases there should clearly be room for a change in the sequencing of procedures in order to take into account the practicalities of a person’s particular situation.
@cat Why exactly?
Because otherwise they have a tendency to just disappear into the cohort of their brethren
@graham Basically ‘clandestine’ would be intending to arrive unannounced by sea at a place other than a recognised port of entry, by air at some relatively unmanned small aerodrome, or hidden in a vehicle at a more major port. Any type of arrival which is clearly intended to go unnoticed has to be regarded as clandestine.
@rendi60 There is other legislation that deals with the unlawful importation of drugs and weapons. The Immigration Act of 1971 specifically deals with the entry of people to the UK.
A major problem in relation to the UK is that those who choose to try and enter unlawfully, often do so in a manner which is highly dangerous, namely a small boat across the channel.
I think we would all agree that the loss of life involved is something to be prevented if possible.
So then, should the UK try to discourage people from doing this by using the long established law of the land, or should the policy be changed so that these people can cross the water by commercial ferry in order to be welcomed into the UK ?
It would seem that opening the gates to all and sundry is not exactly current government policy, so perhaps the question then becomes one of would you vote to elect a government that has a policy of unrestricted immigration ?
Ohhh… dodgy ground there Roger.
1 Like
They generally arrive in plain sight though - they want to be seen and taken in to the “safety” of the UK border forces so they can process their application for asylum in a safe haven away from the war torn destruction and persecution of their homeland.
very low incidence tbh - this normally involves drug running in bound rather than people smuggling and outbound flights of persons of interest escaping justice in the UK. The small aviation community makes this increasingly difficult and there just isn’t enough in it for people smugglers - most light aircraft are a maximum of 4 seats - the pilot and 3 pax. Border Force are the ones who operate clandestine operations here… their intelligence is usually remarkably good since most sport flyers do not wish these types of operations to corrupt their lawful operations and will willing report unusual activity or sniff of it - day or night - at unmanned airfields, farm strips etc to the proper authorities.
and whose fault is this?
The French Government have overtime consistently offered the UK Government land close to the ports where this occurs where the UK could build facilities and a safe environment for asylum seekers to be properly “processed” (hate that word in the context of humans) but every time, the UK Govt turns the offer down continuing to maintain a hostile environment towards desperate people in most need.
There simply is no need for crossing the channel in small inflatables. It happens because the UK want it to happen for their own wicked political purposes.
2 Likes
Hello @Robert_Hodge
I’m going to quote you so there’s no misunderstanding what I am going to refer to, you stated:-
“I have always found that the perceived risk of apprehension, detention, and prosecution, is in general an effective tool against the commission of offences in the first place.”
I spat my coffee out when I read that part this morning laughing.
How do I get my thoughts on this across?
In my life, the people I interacted with from an early age were family and the family friends, progressing as I got older to making my own choices as to who I became friends with.
I can never remember anyone suggesting they didn’t carry out this “offence” or that “offence” because of “risk of apprehension, detention, and prosecution” i.e. getting caught.
They choose not to carry out an offence because it was wrong.
It was they way I and the circle I mixed in had pretty much always lived, I say pretty much because there were exceptions. One exception was drink driving, when I was a child in my rural area growing up everyone that drove to the local pub, drove home after drinking, I remember the local bobby that lived in the station would be in the pub as well and he would simply say “be careful driving home, nice and steady, let’s not have any reports to write lad”. The drinkers didn’t give two hoots about the consequences or risk of penalty. In their view, a taxi from the nearest big town would cost too much to use etc etc.
I had many a scary night as a child being driven home by drunks - I bet I am not alone, in rural UK, in fact I bet even in towns up to around the late seventies / early eighties many ignored the laws on drink driving - it was probably in part why pubs thrived back then, who knows.
Anyway it had an impact on me, being driven by drunks. I vowed as a child that I would NEVER drink drive in my life when I got old enough to drive. And to this day, many moons later I have stayed true to that, if I have even one drink, I never drive.
That’s not laws that’s installed that in me though, that’s personal experience.
Now the flip side of the coin were families that I knew well that couldn’t care less about laws, risk or whatever. I was not friends with them as such, back then there were a small number of people in rural areas, I knew a lot of, if not everyone in the area. And some just did what they wanted. Some nicked, some always getting away with whatever they did, everyone pretty much knew what went on.
So how does this all relate to refugees attempting to reach a place of perceived safety and compassion?
Well I never went hungry as a child, there were always veg in the yard and although it was a simple life, we didn’t want for anything (no internet, a B an W TV with 3 channels, no daytime TV etc) we didn’t really know anything outside of our area apart from school trips and what we read in books.
We did however know that no one would beat us or lock us away if we criticized the government, with government criticism usually taking place in the pub the day after the budget hit the front pages, moans about the rise in the price of beer and cigs etc, shouts of “they are all idiots up there”.
So I had no idea about persecution back then, and no idea of what is might be like to have no food. I did used to read comics and some were “war” comics, based upon WWII and I remember talking to my family members that served during the war and asking them what it was like, showing them the images in my comics of towns bombed out with resistance fighters battling it out with the occupying forces. They all said pretty much the same thing, war is terrible, too ghastly for words, whatever you read there in those comics makes it look glamorous and heroic. They said it’s not, and they hope they never had to go through it again.
The threat of something is always relevant to the situation.
Thieves don’t care about the risk, they want the reward of more money.
Refugees firstly may not even know about the laws? At the first opportunity it’s generally reported that they make themselves known and claim asylum. Secondly, if you were trying to escape a war, a famine, political persecution or a terrible situation in your country of birth that the UK had a hand in creating, would you care about, worry about or abide by “laws, risk of detention etc” or would you just do what you felt you needed to do try and get you and your family reunited in a place of safety and try and start your lives again?
I don’t have the answers, but I am going to go change my coffee stained shirt and make a fresh pot.
No malice, no hate, only a sharing of experiences and open discussion.
Enjoy your day
Henri
1 Like
I believe the question you posed was with regard to what I regard as being ‘clandestine’ from my perspective. So that was the question I answered.
I agree with you that there are many who arrive in plain sight these days, which is principally due to the enhanced detection measures that have been put in place to try and save lives.
However, whether or not something is clandestine often depends heavily on the intent of the persons involved. How many, I wonder, set out with the intent of remaining undetected, but when that doesn’t work, happily accept the second best outcome of being met by official personnel, especially if the journey turns out to be somewhat more dangerous and unpleasant than they had anticipated.
The UK law in relation to immigration is complex and multi layered. If these matters were to be dealt with within France, the question then arises as to whether the UK law would actually apply on French territory.
I don’t think it is fair to say that the UK government actually want people to be risking their lives in small boats. My own view is that the UK government would just like many of these people to recognise that they don’t fall within the scope of actually being a refugee, and to stop attempting to enter the UK unlawfully. (Wishing to migrate on the grounds of famine or poverty is not included in the amended Conventions previously referred to in this discussion. A person has to be suffering persecution in order to be granted asylum.)
Surely the best way to resolve the loss of life at sea is either (a) convince the potential migrants that they are not going to achieve what they want by breaking the law; or (b) make a decision to just open the gates and accept anyone who wishes to come on whatever grounds.
John, you forgot to mention Labour, lib dems and the greenies. All are good at fake news and the media support it. They are all good at that. What I dont see or hear as quite rightly said by Patel, no other alternatives, or suggestions forthcoming. How about landing craft on the beaches falls to mind.
A good point Henri, I’m sure there’s been loads of research into whether the severity of the punishment actually acts as a deterrent or not. I suppose one only commits a crime based on the assumption that one is going to get away with it, so the punishment is irrelevant, until it al goes horribly wrong.
You’re probably right. Maybe it’s just that the Tories have been in power when the lying has reached a new level. I mean Johnson looks people in the eye and lies to them (as does Trump) he knows they know he’s lying but he lies anyway. I’ve met a few people like that in my time and it’s very difficult to deal with them because it’s not pleasant having to confront them. It’s form of bullying really, daring the person being lied to to call it out as a lie.
1 Like