FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Illegal Migrants get compensation
Illegal Migrants get compensation
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
It seems some illegal migrants have take the government to ECHR and won over £6,5000 each in compensation for having their phone taken off them when they entered to country illegally.
And on top of that the Home Secretary has been ordered to ask all migrants if they had their phones taken so that they can be paid out too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems some illegal migrants have take the government to ECHR and won over £6,5000 each in compensation for having their phone taken off them when they entered to country illegally.
And on top of that the Home Secretary has been ordered to ask all migrants if they had their phones taken so that they can be paid out too.
"
Let's get the facts straight.
The UK High Court found that the Home Office’s blanket mobile phone policy (to seize and search phones from migrants arriving by small boat) was unlawful because:
.
It was secret and unpublished.
.
There was no clear legal authority for blanket phone seizures and searches under the relevant immigration powers.
.
It interfered with rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy and private/family life).
.
It also violated data-protection law, including unlawful retention and downloading of data.
.
The court’s formal order sets out the detailed legal declarations.
.
So no, ECHR did not rule against us.
.
We ruled against ourselves (High Court versus Home Office) for breaching our own adherence to the ECHR.
.
You can look up the Judgement Review by searching for "R (on the application of HM, MA & KH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 695 (Admin)."
.
Recent reporting says more than 70 migrants who had their phones seized unlawfully have received about £500,000 total, which works out to roughly around £6,500 each for those settled so far.
.
Article 8 ECHR applies to everyone within a state's jurisdiction, not just citizens. Everyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems some illegal migrants have take the government to ECHR and won over £6,5000 each in compensation for having their phone taken off them when they entered to country illegally.
And on top of that the Home Secretary has been ordered to ask all migrants if they had their phones taken so that they can be paid out too.
"
It was on during a 6month time frame in 2020 I believe. And new laws have been passed to allow phones to be seized. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do we owe anything at all to people entering the country illegally? These judges should be made to pay the money out of their own pockets instead of robbing tax payers and paying the frauds."
Of course we do. We can't just murder them on arrival. They have to be treated within the law. If the law says that we can't confiscate their phones, then we have to apply that law.
The law did previously say that no person could have their phone confiscated, so these people were treated unlawfully. That law has changed now, so there won't be any further compensation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
"Why do we owe anything at all to people entering the country illegally? These judges should be made to pay the money out of their own pockets instead of robbing tax payers and paying the frauds.
Of course we do. We can't just murder them on arrival. They have to be treated within the law. If the law says that we can't confiscate their phones, then we have to apply that law.
The law did previously say that no person could have their phone confiscated, so these people were treated unlawfully. That law has changed now, so there won't be any further compensation."
But phones have been confiscated for years. They have committed a criminal offence and i believe on the strength of that a police inspector has the power to confiscate phones and search homes for evidence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Stupid question maybe - if you are an asylum seeker entering the UK do you need a mobile phone? If you need to contact someone to say you have arrived safely then should this not been done via the authorities or is there a danger that this could blow your story and suggest you might not be legit? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
"Stupid question maybe - if you are an asylum seeker entering the UK do you need a mobile phone? If you need to contact someone to say you have arrived safely then should this not been done via the authorities or is there a danger that this could blow your story and suggest you might not be legit?"
The ruling implies that mobile phone ownership is a fundamental human right under the ECHR |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do we owe anything at all to people entering the country illegally? These judges should be made to pay the money out of their own pockets instead of robbing tax payers and paying the frauds.
Of course we do. We can't just murder them on arrival. They have to be treated within the law. If the law says that we can't confiscate their phones, then we have to apply that law.
The law did previously say that no person could have their phone confiscated, so these people were treated unlawfully. That law has changed now, so there won't be any further compensation."
The law was stupid in that case.
And how much does a phone cost? Why are we expected to pay £6500 per person? How did the judge come up with this number? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems some illegal migrants have take the government to ECHR and won over £6,5000 each in compensation for having their phone taken off them when they entered to country illegally.
And on top of that the Home Secretary has been ordered to ask all migrants if they had their phones taken so that they can be paid out too.
Let's get the facts straight.
The UK High Court found that the Home Office’s blanket mobile phone policy (to seize and search phones from migrants arriving by small boat) was unlawful because:
.
It was secret and unpublished.
.
There was no clear legal authority for blanket phone seizures and searches under the relevant immigration powers.
.
It interfered with rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy and private/family life).
.
It also violated data-protection law, including unlawful retention and downloading of data.
.
The court’s formal order sets out the detailed legal declarations.
.
So no, ECHR did not rule against us.
.
We ruled against ourselves (High Court versus Home Office) for breaching our own adherence to the ECHR.
.
You can look up the Judgement Review by searching for "R (on the application of HM, MA & KH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 695 (Admin)."
.
Recent reporting says more than 70 migrants who had their phones seized unlawfully have received about £500,000 total, which works out to roughly around £6,500 each for those settled so far.
.
Article 8 ECHR applies to everyone within a state's jurisdiction, not just citizens. Everyone."
And that, in one big nutshell, tells you why this country is fucked. When lawyers run anything, there's only one winner: the legal profession. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems some illegal migrants have take the government to ECHR and won over £6,5000 each in compensation for having their phone taken off them when they entered to country illegally.
And on top of that the Home Secretary has been ordered to ask all migrants if they had their phones taken so that they can be paid out too.
Let's get the facts straight.
The UK High Court found that the Home Office’s blanket mobile phone policy (to seize and search phones from migrants arriving by small boat) was unlawful because:
.
It was secret and unpublished.
.
There was no clear legal authority for blanket phone seizures and searches under the relevant immigration powers.
.
It interfered with rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy and private/family life).
.
It also violated data-protection law, including unlawful retention and downloading of data.
.
The court’s formal order sets out the detailed legal declarations.
.
So no, ECHR did not rule against us.
.
We ruled against ourselves (High Court versus Home Office) for breaching our own adherence to the ECHR.
.
You can look up the Judgement Review by searching for "R (on the application of HM, MA & KH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 695 (Admin)."
.
Recent reporting says more than 70 migrants who had their phones seized unlawfully have received about £500,000 total, which works out to roughly around £6,500 each for those settled so far.
.
Article 8 ECHR applies to everyone within a state's jurisdiction, not just citizens. Everyone.
And that, in one big nutshell, tells you why this country is fucked. When lawyers run anything, there's only one winner: the legal profession."
Exactly this. The asylum seeker will not have seen 6.5k. Much of it will have gone to the Lawers. It's a total false economy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems some illegal migrants have take the government to ECHR and won over £6,5000 each in compensation for having their phone taken off them when they entered to country illegally.
And on top of that the Home Secretary has been ordered to ask all migrants if they had their phones taken so that they can be paid out too.
Let's get the facts straight.
The UK High Court found that the Home Office’s blanket mobile phone policy (to seize and search phones from migrants arriving by small boat) was unlawful because:
.
It was secret and unpublished.
.
There was no clear legal authority for blanket phone seizures and searches under the relevant immigration powers.
.
It interfered with rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy and private/family life).
.
It also violated data-protection law, including unlawful retention and downloading of data.
.
The court’s formal order sets out the detailed legal declarations.
.
So no, ECHR did not rule against us.
.
We ruled against ourselves (High Court versus Home Office) for breaching our own adherence to the ECHR.
.
You can look up the Judgement Review by searching for "R (on the application of HM, MA & KH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 695 (Admin)."
.
Recent reporting says more than 70 migrants who had their phones seized unlawfully have received about £500,000 total, which works out to roughly around £6,500 each for those settled so far.
.
Article 8 ECHR applies to everyone within a state's jurisdiction, not just citizens. Everyone.
And that, in one big nutshell, tells you why this country is fucked. When lawyers run anything, there's only one winner: the legal profession.
Exactly this. The asylum seeker will not have seen 6.5k. Much of it will have gone to the Lawers. It's a total false economy."
I thought these are government funded lawyers, in which case they won't receive a cut? Maybe they were privately hired though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But phones have been confiscated for years. They have committed a criminal offence and i believe on the strength of that a police inspector has the power to confiscate phones and search homes for evidence"
The police have that power. Border officials did not. But, as the guidance above says, it's recommended that they are treated as irregular entrants. That means no police involvement, which means they aren't arrested, which means there was no basis to confiscate their phones. (The law has now changed)
"Stupid question maybe - if you are an asylum seeker entering the UK do you need a mobile phone?"
Not relevant. The government should not be confiscating personal property from people that haven't been arrested or charged with a crime. (The law has now changed so they can)
"The ruling implies that mobile phone ownership is a fundamental human right under the ECHR"
Don't be silly. The ruling just says that the authorities cannot confiscate personal property with good cause. (The law has changed so they now have this)
"And how much does a phone cost? Why are we expected to pay £6500 per person?"
They not being compensated for the loss of their phone, they're being compensated for a government official breaching their human rights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"we must be totally mad............"
There is nothing mad about reporting yourself for violating laws you subscribed to uphold. It's actually a sign of good governance to hold yourself to account. So few do and that's when things really go to shit, because of loss of accountability. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
"we must be totally mad............"
Tell people who claim that they have been tortured or are in danger of being, that when you took their phone off them to look for evidence to help capture human traffickers that you shouldn’t really have done it, then provide them with lawyers to take you to court where you will pay lawyers to defend against them, then pay them thousands of pounds in compensation when you lose, then ask a few hundred thousand people if they would like £6k in compensation to go with their free hotel, food, transport, replacement mobile phone, entertainment, activities, clothes, illegal work where they won’t have to pay tax, and as many female potential victims as they can handle if they decide to and even if brought to justice it will be just a slap on the wrist as the woman saying no was a racist action and even if you do get jail time, the prison is even better than the hotel.
I don’t see how mad comes into it 😉
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
