|
|
Post by Toreador on Oct 15, 2022 18:44:36 GMT
I assume you didn't arrive in town clandestinely Well, I didn't tell anyone I was going, so essentially yes! and that you have a means of identifying yourself No requirement for ID in the UK. and you think people caught using a phone whilst driving, shouldn't have their phone confiscated to prove they were using the phone? I think we have already established that seeking asylum is not a crime, so not the equivalent. OK so you didn't jump out of the back of a lorry and make a run for it and there are several reasons why you may be asked who you are and what you are doing. Who said anything about seeking asylum, if that's what it is, you would be taken in for questioning? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 15, 2022 19:06:31 GMT
If they are claiming asylum then they have broken no law and therefore you can't confiscate their phone.
If they aren't then they have made illegal entry, so if their phone is evidence, then fair dos.
It's quite clear from the article that the former is the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Oct 15, 2022 19:15:22 GMT
Quite right too.
Considering the risks those folk have taken in crossing the Channel in various unseaworthy craft, they should be given gold plated, state of the art mobiles by way of recognition of their pluck and luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 15, 2022 20:31:15 GMT
andrewbrown Does have a relevant point An asylum seeker is no more of a criminal suspect than what a shopper is They are when they are illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 15, 2022 20:35:27 GMT
Several months ago the High Court ruled that the Home Office practice of taking mobile phones off small-boat arrivals and extracting data was unlawful. Apparently the policy was in effect during 2020 and in that period some 2,000 phones were confiscated.
In a recent hearing the Court has ruled that the 1,300 migrants whose phones have not been returned are entitled to financial compensation, the amounts to be determined in a later hearing.
Per the Court, the practice - which has now ceased - was unlawful and there had been “a failure of governance”. The judges ruled there was no parliamentary authority for seizures and data extractions and that the legal power officials thought they could use was the wrong one.
The Home Office defended its right to seize the mobile phones, saying it helped officials gather evidence about the people smugglers who organise such journeys. “Our staff are fully trained to ensure any use of powers to seize mobile devices is proportionate, necessary and based on reasonable grounds of suspected involvement in criminal activity such as piloting a small boat.
Lawyers who brought the high court challenge on behalf of three of the asylum seekers welcomed the ruling, one stating “We hope that lessons will be learned from this case.”systematic extraction of personal data from vulnerable asylum seekers, who were not suspects in any crime, was an astonishing and unparalleled assault on fundamental privacy rights."
Another instance of proper judicial oversight of the executive branch or is the law being an ass (yet) again?
You couldn't make it up mate. And its always the prarasitic lawyers who make a bloody packet at the taxpayers expense. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Oct 15, 2022 20:43:51 GMT
Beware condoning the state treating people badly when its someone else. Set a precedent for it being ok, one day it could be you that is being treated badly.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 15, 2022 20:45:12 GMT
andrewbrown Does have a relevant point An asylum seeker is no more of a criminal suspect than what a shopper is They are when they are illegal. I don't know where you've been for the last few years, but that is just factually incorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 15, 2022 20:50:20 GMT
They are when they are illegal. I don't know where you've been for the last few years, but that is just factually incorrect. There is a bit of a hint in why they are called illegal immigrants. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 15, 2022 21:03:09 GMT
Hint: if they claim asylum then they are not illegal immigrants. 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 15, 2022 21:23:07 GMT
Quite right too.
Considering the risks those folk have taken in crossing the Channel in various unseaworthy craft, they should be given gold plated, state of the art mobiles by way of recognition of their pluck and luck.
they are - in the first 9 months of last year the taxpayer gave away free and for gratis 14,000 mobile phones to asylum seekers.. nothing is to good for our asylum seekers - we are not the EU.. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 15, 2022 22:40:40 GMT
Hint: if they claim asylum then they are not illegal immigrants. 😉 Gotcha they are OK then when they have entered our country illegaly and we all have to turn a blind eye to their criminality. I suppose on that premise you think those who recieve a FPN automatically get a criminal record. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 15, 2022 22:45:41 GMT
No, I don't think you have got it.
If they are seeking asylum then they are NOT committing a criminal offence.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 15, 2022 22:58:33 GMT
No, I don't think you have got it. If they are seeking asylum then they are NOT committing a criminal offence. Of course they are. They had already reached a so-called safe country and should be dealt with there. And as per usual our so-called eu friends are only too glad to usher them on through their own countries to be thrust upon the UK illegally. So you could legitemately state that those other eu countries have aided and abetted their crime. And just as footnote many of these so called asylum seekers are from a safe country anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 15, 2022 23:00:25 GMT
You aren't listening. Think I'll let you stew in your ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 15, 2022 23:22:39 GMT
You aren't listening. Think I'll let you stew in your ignorance. What ignorance would that be then? The fact is they have entered the UK illegally and even you cannot change that fact. |
|
