Illegal immigrants working as security guards

#1
Telegraph

Quite unbelievable, really. Is this just systemic incompetence or part of something more sinister? Regardless, the consequences of this to the security of the nation could be catastrophic. Considering no-one has confidence in the government, why has a Motion of No Confidence not been brought by the Opposition? Politicians = amoral cowards. :x
 
#3
Put them on a tube and call for SO19!
 
#5
A few years back while working for the city council of a certain southern UK city I was one of the council officers responsible for licensing taxi drivers and bar premises (amongst a huge variety of other matters)....

due to even earlier experience in the Civil Service as an Immigration Officer I pointed out, to the head of my department, that there were loopholes in the vetting for both security staff and taxi-drivers - meaning we could be granting licenses to illegals and also people that were criminals in their 'home' country. I drafted a proposal that we should liaise with the IND (Home Office) to get the matter sorted.

I was told not to start 'rocking the boat' and that we didn't want to appear racist!! My proposal was consigned to File 13 at the bottom drawer of a dusty filing cabinet.

:roll:
 
#6
And how long before one of these illegal immigrants employed at an airport manages to place a bomb or weapons on an aeroplane so his "brothers" can hijack it?.

Thank god I don't have to fly from Brirish airports anymore.
 
#7
hong_kong_fuey said:
Quite unbelievable, really.
Unfortunately, no. I've a big bugbear with the Home Office; if there was ever a department that needed bulldozing in order to be rebuilt in a better organsiation - this is it.
I thought with Dr Reid's admission of the HO not being fit for purpose would have been the moment this could have figuratively happened, but alas no.... :roll:
 
#8
MyssL said:
hong_kong_fuey said:
Quite unbelievable, really.
Unfortunately, no. I've a big bugbear with the Home Office; if there was ever a department that needed bulldozing in order to be rebuilt in a better organsiation - this is it.
I thought with Dr Reid's admission of the HO not being fit for purpose would have been the moment this could have figuratively happened, but alas no.... :roll:
Watch the news this Wednesday 14th November. You might just get your wish.

On the other hand it could all be a meaningless piece of new labour spin.
 
#9
MyssL said:
hong_kong_fuey said:
Quite unbelievable, really.
Unfortunately, no. I've a big bugbear with the Home Office; if there was ever a department that needed bulldozing in order to be rebuilt in a better organsiation - this is it.
I thought with Dr Reid's admission of the HO not being fit for purpose would have been the moment this could have figuratively happened, but alas no.... :roll:
Well, you're right. It's not a surprise but it's still unbelievable that this continues to happen. What are the odds that any government 'attempt' to solve this issue will be blocked by the Courts under the Human Rights Act?

Every effect has a cause. How much of an effect this calamity will have, we'll have to wait and see. But it doesn't bode well for the future that critical infrastructure has been compromised in this manner.

This government is slowly grinding me down into despondency. Is that their plan?
 
#10
hong_kong_fuey said:
Telegraph

Quite unbelievable, really. Is this just systemic incompetence or part of something more sinister? Regardless, the consequences of this to the security of the nation could be catastrophic. Considering no-one has confidence in the government, why has a Motion of No Confidence not been brought by the Opposition? Politicians = amoral cowards. :x
Becuase the opposition would lose such a vote - massively - and hand the Goverment a big boost in doing so.
 
#12
hong_kong_fuey said:
MyssL said:
hong_kong_fuey said:
Quite unbelievable, really.
Unfortunately, no. I've a big bugbear with the Home Office; if there was ever a department that needed bulldozing in order to be rebuilt in a better organsiation - this is it.
I thought with Dr Reid's admission of the HO not being fit for purpose would have been the moment this could have figuratively happened, but alas no.... :roll:
Well, you're right. It's not a surprise but it's still unbelievable that this continues to happen. What are the odds that any government 'attempt' to solve this issue will be blocked by the Courts under the Human Rights Act?

...

This government is slowly grinding me down into despondency. Is that their plan?
Oh yea, let's blame the HRA and the courts. I have it on good authority that the HRA is responsible for 9/11, MRSA, the fires in Californa, the New Orleans fiasco, bird flu, and ble tongue disease.
 
#13
Scabster_Mooch said:
Oh yea, let's blame the HRA and the courts. I have it on good authority that the HRA is responsible for 9/11, MRSA, the fires in Californa, the New Orleans fiasco, bird flu, and ble tongue disease.

Did I blame the HRA for the problem? No, is the answer. Ultimately, in this instance, the buck stops with the mandarins and politicians in Whitehall. This is an example of a failure in the execution of policy. I merely pointed out that any attempt to rectify the problem may face problems under the HRA in the courts. As for the rest of what you said....well, less said.
 
#14
wedge35 said:
hong_kong_fuey said:
Telegraph

Quite unbelievable, really. Is this just systemic incompetence or part of something more sinister? Regardless, the consequences of this to the security of the nation could be catastrophic. Considering no-one has confidence in the government, why has a Motion of No Confidence not been brought by the Opposition? Politicians = amoral cowards. :x
Becuase the opposition would lose such a vote - massively - and hand the Goverment a big boost in doing so.
Good point, considering Labour's majority in the Commons. I suppose I still live in the hopeless hope of there being some ethical rebels amongst the Labour backbenchers. But those days have gone, and Labour has been homogenised into a party of selfish, amoral and cynical career politicians.
 
#15
hong_kong_fuey said:
Scabster_Mooch said:
Oh yea, let's blame the HRA and the courts. I have it on good authority that the HRA is responsible for 9/11, MRSA, the fires in Californa, the New Orleans fiasco, bird flu, and ble tongue disease.

Did I blame the HRA for the problem? No, is the answer. Ultimately, in this instance, the buck stops with the mandarins and politicians in Whitehall. This is an example of a failure in the execution of policy. I merely pointed out that any attempt to rectify the problem may face problems under the HRA in the courts...
You suggested, in a flippant manner, that the HRA will block the government's attempt to rectify the problem. That is blaming the HRA. Whether or not that is what you meant is besides the point. I can only try to construe what you meant by what you wrote and I adopted a reasonable interpretation.

Now that you have clarified you meant the HRA may pose a problem, I agree with you. However, I think in most cases, the HRA will not come into play at all. Further, the HRA does not actually stop the government from passing legislation to deport people. The courts are merely following what the HRA says so they do not come into the picture at all.
 
#16
[quote="Scabster_Mooch] Further, the HRA does not actually stop the government from passing legislation to deport people. The courts are merely following what the HRA says so they do not come into the picture at all.[/quote]

Call me thickie but this bit confuses me.

So the courts follow the HRA, or do they follow legislation passed here that contradicts the HRA?
Or can we not pass legislation that contradicts the HRA?
Or do the courts get to chose?

Confused here.
 
#17
EX_REME said:
[quote="Scabster_Mooch] Further, the HRA does not actually stop the government from passing legislation to deport people. The courts are merely following what the HRA says so they do not come into the picture at all.
Call me thickie but this bit confuses me.

So the courts follow the HRA, or do they follow legislation passed here that contradicts the HRA?
Or can we not pass legislation that contradicts the HRA?
Or do the courts get to chose?

Confused here.[/quote]

All the below is IIRC as I do not have acces to a law library anymore...

The HRA says that as far as possible, courts are to interpret legislation in such a way as to be in accordance with the European Convention of Human Rights. The HRA also specifically specifies that it in no way affects the validity of any act of parliament.

So if parliament were to pass an act that says

"Any foreigner convicted of an indictable offence and who has been sentenced to at least 3 years imprisonment with respect to that conviction shall be deported to their country of origin", and someone satisfies those condietions, the court will then have to order his deportation.

In such cases, the convict might decide to say that is a breach of his ECHR rights. The court may agree, but because the legislation is so specific, the court will not be able to do anything because the law is the law. All the court can do is declare that the legislation concerned is incompatible with the ECHR. But the law still stands.

If so, the convict will have to brave the 7 year backlog at the European Court of Human Rights in IIRC Strasbourg (nothing to do with the EU) and seek redress. Ultimately, UK constitutional law states that the UK Pariliament is all powerful so the European court of human rights has no power to affect the validity of UK laws.

In short, if the Government felt so strongly about the issue, they have the power to do something about it; they can pass legislation that is incompatible with the ECHR and the HRA cannot stop them. However, in the tradition of Jobsworths the world over, they prefer to hide behind the HRA whenever something distasteful comes up.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top