People smuggling suspects face ban on travel and internet use
Those suspected of involvement in serious crimes will face ‘severe curbs’ on their activities before they are arrested under expansion of court orders
Just no.
You want to charge somebody then do so. If they’re a flight risk then on remand. If not, then bail.
No, really, think on this a little. Imagine someone wanted to do me in – do as in severely inconvenience rather than knock off. Or, if you prefer your politics another way, Ritchie. So, claim that I’m (we’re) being investigated over involvement in people smuggling.
A claim of investigation doesn’t need much evidence after all. I’m now (we’re) cur off from hte internet. Our jobs are gone, our incomes.
Who wants government to have that power.
No, jokes about Ritchie, at this point, don’t cut it.
Kill someone’s income merely at the point of investigation? Nope….
I am all for putting people smugglers on trial and convicting them. However, a better deterrent might be a personal conversation with the SAS, who will be more than happy to discuss various retirement plans with the smugglers.
Yeah but they do it all the time anyway.
Police bail is the usual method. So an accused is not charged but held in limbo for months, years even. Cliff Richard of course being the highest profile victim.
They are just extending anti nonce policies.
TPTB want to stop the proles from speaking their minds? Bang them up sharpish with lots of exposure to let everybody else know they better keep their traps shut.
The ‘people trafficking’ nonsense won’t be stopped because TPTB don’t want it stopped.
Looks to me like TTK and Bliar extending their tentacles. Must be a rubbish lawyers wet dream, just accuse and no further proof required…
Why not just change the law on benefits so only UK citizens get them and you can only be a UK citizen if you’re have been a net taxpayer for 5 years?
Then people smuggling will be as profitable as potato smuggling.
I would reduce the fee to be a British citizen to be fair.
Allegedly the result of a falling out with the Krankie look-a-likey.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64355631
The process is the punishment
People smuggling? Wot, like Sir Kneel St Armer smuggling his children to the front of a three-hour queue in Madeira?
I know he’s against children receiving “privilege” but hadn’t realised that he would so publicly exempt his own brood.
What David said except more so.
Stop pontificating about the evil smugglers. Just ensure that anyone who rocks up uninvited on our shores goes straight to a damp drafty and highly secure military camp from the 1950s and stays there. At any time they can be given passage back to their countries of origin. Medical services will be at the same basement level as the rest of us. Food will be boring and repetitive with a single choice – eat it or go hungry.
Then tackle the far bigger issue of access to benefits, particularly housing, for freeloaders arriving via more conventional routes.
Never going to happen though because the uniparty wants them to keep coming.
Meet the New Year. Same as the Old Year.
“The Home Office said the “severe curbs” imposed on suspects would vary case by case but could also include social media blackouts, bans on communications with certain individuals, curfews and restricting access to finances.”
So, instead of going to see Dave about arranging the boat, Dave sends Paul around instead as an intermediary. Are you now going to ban them talking to Paul? So you need another court order. And next time, Bazzer goes around.
How are you going to stop people going on the internet when SIM cards are tiny and cheap and can be bought cash from almost any shop? Are you going to search anyone visiting their home who might be smuggling one in? Search all their post? How do you track what they do when you don’t even know their numbers?
Apart from the civil liberties angle, this is just a charade. It’s not actually about stopping people smuggling, it’s about making the public think the government is doing something. It’s kicking the problem into the long grass. And in 6 months time, the stats will still show no effect.
What you actually have to do is to treat illegal immigration seriously and punish those who do it. Not just the people smugglers but the people who are coming here. Stop treating them like victims. Make it very clear that this won’t work, that they’ll spend thousands coming here and be back home before they earn even a fraction of it back. Word will get around very fast.
Bit of family lore; the greatest threat to the freedoms enjoyed by any Englishman, is the Home Office.
Which is where I think this most likely originated.
Strange proposal; I’d assume that the activity of suspects would normally be monitored in order to get evidence to put before the courts and thus get them banged up.
The underlying assumption being that the Establishment is actually concerned with tackling and solving the issue.
Which is obviously complete rubbish.
dearieme: « Wot, like Sir Kneel St Armer »
Don’t be unkind! He was demonstrating how he does not -categorically not – depend on The Keeper of the Wardrobe for every freeby.
That aside, what a wonderful metaphor for his government: folk going rapidly down hill in a basket.
Also, kill all access to public and most private privders of all services. The government expects, nay, *REQUIRES* you to interact with the state via the internet, more and more private services are internet-only, it’s impossible to access almost all banking functions without the internet. (I’ve tried to discuss post-mortgage options with my bank, they utterly refuse to discuss it face to face, and insist I go online.) This is accusation-based destitution. Even Lord Spudcup doesn’t deserve this.
Why not just change the law on benefits so only UK citizens get them and you can only be a UK citizen if you’re have been a net taxpayer for 5 years?
Only UK citizens *can* get them, you have “no recourse to public funds” stamped in your passport if a furriner. And, yes you *do* have to keep your nose clean for five years, as when my then-wife went through it in the ’90s. Break the law, leave the country for too long, everything is reset back to zero with the option of never restarting.
@jgh in Japan
I know loads of non UK citizens who get benefits. I know some single mums from Spain who were told to come here because they would get benefits.
Asylum seekers (which all boat people claim to be) all get free housing until their case is resolved and if they get asylum they get benefits.
WB +1000000000
It isn’t difficult:
Come here illegally and you will get fuck all, never be given right to remain (no matter how kids you’ve knocked out) and you will be deported as soon as you come to the attention of the authorities. Period.
Simples.
I wonder why they won’t…….
Who thinks that sort of criminal will obey a court order?
Walk into a public library, go to the computer and log in under a false name.
It’s only the innocent, mistakenly accused, who will suffer.
Do we really need to leave the ECHR?
The Dublin Convention says that asylum seekers must claim in the first safe country they arrive at.
Channel migrants have obviously come from a safe country. France or Belgium, probably Morocco, Italy, Turkey, Romania, Germany, etc as well.
So we can simply take their prints, DNA etc and issue them with an ID card saying no recourse to public funds, no right to remain, no family reunion.
And most importantly, we never even allow them to go to court to claim asylum in UK. Because they have come from a safe country.
“It isn’t difficult:
Come here illegally and you will get fuck all, never be given right to remain (no matter how kids you’ve knocked out) and you will be deported as soon as you come to the attention of the authorities. Period.
Simples.”
You’re forgetting that the State apparatus refuses to discriminate against anyone with a brown skin. So you can stamp ‘no recourse to public funds’ on as many ID cards as much as you like but you are 100% reliant on Mr Aziz at the local council to enforce that edict. And oddly enough he doesn’t want to, and all his managers don’t want to, nor do the local councillors, or the locals MPs etc etc. So it gets ignored, unless you’re a white English speaking type immigrant, in which case it gets enforced in spades.
@ philip
It doesn’t say quite that: it says that they have the *right* to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach – it does not say that they must do so. There may be legitimate reasons for claiming asylum in a different country (e.g. your professional qualifications are recognised in country X but not country Y, you have relatives in country Z but not country Y, you are adequately fluent in one language but not the other, …)
“Then people smuggling will be as profitable as potato smuggling”
Top tip, David; never mention this around certain Irish.
“So it gets ignored, unless you’re a white English speaking type immigrant, in which case it gets enforced in spades.”
Guessing that was unintentional?
John77 @ 10.16 “the *right* to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach”.
It does not say ‘claim asylum wherever you like’, so if that *right* is not exercised in that first safe country it ceases to exist. They are then migrants not asylum seekers…..
@ Adolff
Those genuinely seeking asylum *are* still asylum seekers: it is just that they do not have an automatic right to claim it in the second or third, let alone fourth, “safe” country they reach.