Why I have no sympathy for May or the Home Office. A letter I wrote to the Guardian just over 2 years ago.
"An Italian academic friend decided to buy a cafe bar in Didsbury and to this end gave up his job lecturing. He inherited a staff of eight or nine-the cafe's open seven days a week twelve hours a day-and off he went.
Despite a very steep learning curve and some very hard work it looked like he could make a go of it.
One Friday night after being open for just three months he was visited by EIGHT immigration officers. In front of his customers all the staff were required to show their passports.
All were in order except for a part time dishwasher who worked on occasional Friday and Saturday nights. He was a French speaking Algerian.
The next day they served him with a paper which said he'd employed someone whose work permit had run out and the Home Office would rule on his case within a month and he could expect a fine.
The only thing that might lessen the fine would be if he could direct them to someone else working illegally at another establishment. Obviously he couldn't and wouldn't
He has just received notification that his fine will be £15,000. There is no appeal and he has four weeks in which to pay. Not only is he in shock but there is every chance he won’t be able to pay".
Postscript. He managed to borrow the money but thanks in part to that debt he was forced to close nine months later.
It is against the law to employ an illegal immigrant. It is the responsibility of the employer to check this. Your friend broke the law and was punished accordingly.
Indeed. I don't quite get what the outrage is supposed to be here, nor did I when Roger brought it up before. In this instance the law was broken and competently enforced, unlike much work of the Home Office. Is it because the fine seems quite harsh? I don't know what a reasonable fine would be for breaking the law in this instance, but nations are allowed to have rules on employing illegal immigrants. Presumably most employers seem to manage to follow the rules. It's sad that he was forced to close, I wish everyone well in taking such a step, but running a business is a risky venture, and apparently he was either unaware of or didn't care to follow the rules that business needed to operate under.
If I am fined for speeding I can be annoyed that I fell afoul of the rules, when we all know everyone speeds on the motorway for instance, and I might even rail against the rules of what constitutes a legal speed, but it was still my fault.
Thanks. An interesting read, despite, well, being about Patent court.
In fact, when you think about it, there are an awful lot of other things, too, that neither politicians nor the voting public care that much about on a day-to-day basis. It could just be that UPC ratification is a sign of how a lot of other very important – but technical – issues might play out in and around the Brexit negotiations: behind all the soundbites and rows, not much at all will change.
I will leave it to others to decide for themselves whether that makes the whole exercise a wonderful expression of independence and the start of a new, global Britain; or a complete and utter waste of time that will end up making the UK slightly worse off, a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker and a lot less influential than it was before. Me? I am just counting down the days until I get my blue passport!
A good overview ruined by a petulant and unecessary last paragraph.
I also found the comments from the Bristows partner illuminating:
in your example it’s a court in Germany, it’s not a German court – it’s a German branch of an international court to which the UK is a party.”......
Just as importantly, he continued, the system is entirely reciprocal/balanced: “The London division can find a UK patent holder’s family of European (or unitary) patents valid and infringed, and can grant an injunction against a German company."
It's nonsense posted by someone who has succumbed to Stockholm syndrome. Blaming Remain voters for pointing out that the campaign was won with xenophobic lies is like blaming the child that pointed out that the emperor has no clothes. Obvious truths need to be restated, especially when those who revelled in those xenophobic lies are quite unrepentant.
Why I have no sympathy for May or the Home Office. A letter I wrote to the Guardian just over 2 years ago.
"An Italian academic friend decided to buy a cafe bar in Didsbury and to this end gave up his job lecturing. He inherited a staff of eight or nine-the cafe's open seven days a week twelve hours a day-and off he went.
Despite a very steep learning curve and some very hard work it looked like he could make a go of it.
One Friday night after being open for just three months he was visited by EIGHT immigration officers. In front of his customers all the staff were required to show their passports.
All were in order except for a part time dishwasher who worked on occasional Friday and Saturday nights. He was a French speaking Algerian.
The next day they served him with a paper which said he'd employed someone whose work permit had run out and the Home Office would rule on his case within a month and he could expect a fine.
The only thing that might lessen the fine would be if he could direct them to someone else working illegally at another establishment. Obviously he couldn't and wouldn't
He has just received notification that his fine will be £15,000. There is no appeal and he has four weeks in which to pay. Not only is he in shock but there is every chance he won’t be able to pay".
Postscript. He managed to borrow the money but thanks in part to that debt he was forced to close nine months later.
It is against the law to employ an illegal immigrant. It is the responsibility of the employer to check this. Your friend broke the law and was punished accordingly.
Indeed. I don't quite get what the outrage is supposed to be here, nor did I when Roger brought it up before. In this instance the law was broken and competently enforced, unlike much work of the Home Office. Is it because the fine seems quite harsh? I don't know what a reasonable fine would be for breaking the law in this instance, but nations are allowed to have rules on employing illegal immigrants. Presumably most employers seem to manage to follow the rules. It's sad that he was forced to close, I wish everyone well in taking such a step, but running a business is a risky venture, and apparently he was either unaware of or didn't care to follow the rules that business needed to operate under.
If I am fined for speeding I can be annoyed that I fell afoul of the rules, when we all know everyone speeds on the motorway for instance, and I might even rail against the rules of what constitutes a legal speed, but it was still my fault.
It would not be unreasonable to question the proportionality of the punishment.
It is against the law to employ an illegal immigrant. It is the responsibility of the employer to check this. Your friend broke the law and was punished accordingly.
Indeed. I don't quite get what the outrage is supposed to be here, nor did I when Roger brought it up before. In this instance the law was broken and competently enforced, unlike much work of the Home Office. Is it because the fine seems quite harsh? I don't know what a reasonable fine would be for breaking the law in this instance, but nations are allowed to have rules on employing illegal immigrants. Presumably most employers seem to manage to follow the rules. It's sad that he was forced to close, I wish everyone well in taking such a step, but running a business is a risky venture, and apparently he was either unaware of or didn't care to follow the rules that business needed to operate under.
If I am fined for speeding I can be annoyed that I fell afoul of the rules, when we all know everyone speeds on the motorway for instance, and I might even rail against the rules of what constitutes a legal speed, but it was still my fault.
It would not be unreasonable to question the proportionality of the punishment.
It is possible both to have sympathy for what happened, not least because the other employees lost their job, as well as pointing out that the owner should have taken steps to ensure compliance with the law.
I think @MaxPB's reaction is unnecessarily harsh on a human level: it's that approach which can make the Tories seem so uncaring. It is possible to insist on compliance with the law without sounding as if you couldn't care less about the consequences for those affected by non-compliance. Who amongst us has never made a mistake?
I remember when @Roger first brought this up pointing out to him that his friend should have done due diligence on the business before acquiring it and that this should have included checks on the status of the employees. If he did and was lied to by the seller, he might have a claim for misrepresentation; if he didn't then he was foolish.
Still a lesson to us all that if you start up a business, however small, you need to be scrupulous about adherence to the rules because if you don't the consequences can be very severe.
It is against the law to employ an illegal immigrant. It is the responsibility of the employer to check this. Your friend broke the law and was punished accordingly.
Indeed. I don't quite get what the outrage is supposed to be here, nor did I when Roger brought it up before. In this instance the law was broken and competently enforced, unlike much work of the Home Office. Is it because the fine seems quite harsh? I don't know what a reasonable fine would be for breaking the law in this instance, but nations are allowed to have rules on employing illegal immigrants. Presumably most employers seem to manage to follow the rules. It's sad that he was forced to close, I wish everyone well in taking such a step, but running a business is a risky venture, and apparently he was either unaware of or didn't care to follow the rules that business needed to operate under.
If I am fined for speeding I can be annoyed that I fell afoul of the rules, when we all know everyone speeds on the motorway for instance, and I might even rail against the rules of what constitutes a legal speed, but it was still my fault.
It would not be unreasonable to question the proportionality of the punishment.
It is possible both to have sympathy for what happened, not least because the other employees lost their job, as well as pointing out that the owner should have taken steps to ensure compliance with the law.
I think @MaxPB's reaction is unnecessarily harsh on a human level: it's that approach which can make the Tories seem so uncaring. It is possible to insist on compliance with the law without sounding as if you couldn't care less about the consequences for those affected by non-compliance. Who amongst us has never made a mistake?
I remember when @Roger first brought this up pointing out to him that his friend should have done due diligence on the business before acquiring it and that this should have included checks on the status of the employees. If he did and was lied to by the seller, he might have a claim for misrepresentation; if he didn't then he was foolish.
Still a lesson to us all that if you start up a business, however small, you need to be scrupulous about adherence to the rules because if you don't the consequences can be very severe.
IIRC correctly, Roger stated that his friend didn't want to be the sort of person who actually asked about immigration status.
Why I have no sympathy for May or the Home Office. A letter I wrote to the Guardian just over 2 years ago.
"An Italian academic friend decided to buy a cafe bar in Didsbury and to this end gave up his job lecturing. He inherited a staff of eight or nine-the cafe's open seven days a week twelve hours a day-and off he went.
Despite a very steep learning curve and some very hard work it looked like he could make a go of it.
One Friday night after being open for just three months he was visited by EIGHT immigration officers. In front of his customers all the staff were required to show their passports.
All were in order except for a part time dishwasher who worked on occasional Friday and Saturday nights. He was a French speaking Algerian.
The next day they served him with a paper which said he'd employed someone whose work permit had run out and the Home Office would rule on his case within a month and he could expect a fine.
The only thing that might lessen the fine would be if he could direct them to someone else working illegally at another establishment. Obviously he couldn't and wouldn't
He has just received notification that his fine will be £15,000. There is no appeal and he has four weeks in which to pay. Not only is he in shock but there is every chance he won’t be able to pay".
Postscript. He managed to borrow the money but thanks in part to that debt he was forced to close nine months later.
No sympathy, he shouldn't have employed an illegal immigrant.
+1 We did this before. What is it with lefties wanting to exploit illegals.
It’s also the correct way to deal with illegal immigration, by targeting employers and landlords who facilitate and benefit from the illegal underground economy. Illegals will soon choose to leave if they can’t work.
Interestingly, according to some progressive types I know, "grassing" up companies paying below minimum wage is bad - if they are employing illegals on said wages. Otherwise, apparently, the illegals can't get jobs....
My enthusiastic response to such sentiments fell of deaf ears - I suggested mass importation of workers on an involuntary basis. Since paying less is good, surely paying nothing is better?
Comments
If I am fined for speeding I can be annoyed that I fell afoul of the rules, when we all know everyone speeds on the motorway for instance, and I might even rail against the rules of what constitutes a legal speed, but it was still my fault.
In fact, when you think about it, there are an awful lot of other things, too, that neither politicians nor the voting public care that much about on a day-to-day basis. It could just be that UPC ratification is a sign of how a lot of other very important – but technical – issues might play out in and around the Brexit negotiations: behind all the soundbites and rows, not much at all will change.
I will leave it to others to decide for themselves whether that makes the whole exercise a wonderful expression of independence and the start of a new, global Britain; or a complete and utter waste of time that will end up making the UK slightly worse off, a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker and a lot less influential than it was before. Me? I am just counting down the days until I get my blue passport!
Verstappen has a major crash...
...and for once it isn't his fault!
in your example it’s a court in Germany, it’s not a German court – it’s a German branch of an international court to which the UK is a party.”......
Just as importantly, he continued, the system is entirely reciprocal/balanced: “The London division can find a UK patent holder’s family of European (or unitary) patents valid and infringed, and can grant an injunction against a German company."
A bit more balanced than SO's spin.......
But thanks for bringing our attention to it SO.
https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/990557278284677123
https://twitter.com/TheSimonEvans/status/989955166152650752
In particular:
https://twitter.com/TheSimonEvans/status/989956628949688321
https://twitter.com/TheSimonEvans/status/989956960521981954
Every rookie learns to avoid large sharp things on the road wot can cause punctures.
Yours, a disappointed viewer.
NEW THREAD
I think @MaxPB's reaction is unnecessarily harsh on a human level: it's that approach which can make the Tories seem so uncaring. It is possible to insist on compliance with the law without sounding as if you couldn't care less about the consequences for those affected by non-compliance. Who amongst us has never made a mistake?
I remember when @Roger first brought this up pointing out to him that his friend should have done due diligence on the business before acquiring it and that this should have included checks on the status of the employees. If he did and was lied to by the seller, he might have a claim for misrepresentation; if he didn't then he was foolish.
Still a lesson to us all that if you start up a business, however small, you need to be scrupulous about adherence to the rules because if you don't the consequences can be very severe.
My enthusiastic response to such sentiments fell of deaf ears - I suggested mass importation of workers on an involuntary basis. Since paying less is good, surely paying nothing is better?