The lesson is.. dont report it
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
42 points (97.7% liked)
UK Politics
3609 readers
84 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Anyway the point is he didn't come in on a small boat, and it's the small boats that are apparently the problem. So this kid is fine.
Reminds me of an old news story where a guy found a gun on the street, picked it up, went straight to the police station and handed it in. Was fined thousands for "possession of an illegal firearm". The law was pretty cut and dry... there's literally no exemptions for having an illegal gun on your person. But still struck me as shockingly unfair
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 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.
There have been many miscarriages of justice that were the result of someone skilfully slipping something into a traveller's bag. It is unrealistic to think that a bit of vigilance is all that's needed. If that were the case, there'd be no pickpockets and mobile-phone thieves.
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.
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.
There are huge metal fences all around the port facility. Far taller than seems practical.
This guy must have snuck in before they entered the port there's no way they could have got into the port on foot. Which means he's been in there for a while so they claim that they checked their vehicle just before they entered the port, which is what you're supposed to do. They clearly didn't because they would have found this guy otherwise.
Their claim seems to rest on the idea that he gained access to the motorhome after they entered the port (which definitely would be the responsibility of the port authorities), which is extraordinarily unlikely. After you enter the port there's an awful lot of hanging around especially now Brexit has broken everything, so you often do leave your vehicle. But there is an enormous amount of security wandering around so there's no problem doing that and also you lock your vehicle. But all that security presupposes that you didn't enter with a compromised vehicle. They don't x-ray every vehicle, only lorrys, so if somebody gets in before you enter the port, they're basically guaranteed not to be discovered.
I actually know their son, he is the bartender in a pub a frequent, they are not a wealthy family. I met his dad once when he came in to see him, nice bloke.
I'm sorry but that is incredibly stupid.
If he jumped on and hid after they had packed their vehicle how is that their fault? The stowaway is the one committing the crime knowingly.
Another very common L for UK policy and police.