Today I'm neither Angry nor Happy about....

[Gary the Enfield]

I also have a friend who's a retired DCI from the Met. Police who now consults on human trafficking. Be interesting to hear his perspective.

Drag him in a cell and knock feck out of him?

Wouldn't dream of it guv'nor!

[Worthy4England]

I also have a friend who's a retired DCI from the Met. Police who now consults on human trafficking. Be interesting to hear his perspective.

Drag him in a cell and knock feck out of him?

Wouldn't dream of it guv'nor!

Look you don't drag folks to the cells....they /cough "slipped" into the cells /f'cough

[Harry Genshaw]

Legal Types:

A colleague of mine has just returned from France. His family took two cars. One was towing a caravan (I know, I've told him he's a shed dragging waste of oxygen) and his wife towing their boat (a small-ish dingy).

They cleared French and British Customs and boarded their ferry. As they got near home yesterday (Midlands) they stooped their car to get the garage open.

Suddenly 5 Vietnamese (it later transpires) immigrants jumped out and legged it. My colleague called the police and a search was launched. All 5 were captured and detained. The police think they must have hopped off a lorry and into his boat when the cardeck was cleared prior to sailing.

My friend has subsequently been told he will be interviewed and possibly prosecuted. Is this the case or are they blowing smoke?

I will of course bow to Crayons and or Prufrock on this but I would say no mens rea equals no case.

And yet lorry drivers, despite their best actions, are being prosecuted at a cost of £2,000 per person (illegaly) found in their vehicles.

Aye, I heard about this on Radio 2 the other day. Lorry firms were appealing against fines for immigrants getting into their trucks when the trucks had passed through customs and were basically in the care of HM govt. In one instance, the driver had alerted customs officers that he'd seen someone climb onto his truck from another vehicle, and they were still fined. If they don't pay they risk customs seizing their vehicles on the next crossing.

I suppose if you're friends stop using cross channel services (if they can) they'll be ok?

[jaffka]

Must be easier to grow cannabis here than in France.

Lost me.

Vietnamese gangs do quite well growing cannabis in the UK.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Legal Types:

A colleague of mine has just returned from France. His family took two cars. One was towing a caravan (I know, I've told him he's a shed dragging waste of oxygen) and his wife towing their boat (a small-ish dingy).

They cleared French and British Customs and boarded their ferry. As they got near home yesterday (Midlands) they stooped their car to get the garage open.

Suddenly 5 Vietnamese (it later transpires) immigrants jumped out and legged it. My colleague called the police and a search was launched. All 5 were captured and detained. The police think they must have hopped off a lorry and into his boat when the cardeck was cleared prior to sailing.

My friend has subsequently been told he will be interviewed and possibly prosecuted. Is this the case or are they blowing smoke?

I will of course bow to Crayons and or Prufrock on this but I would say no mens rea equals no case.

And yet lorry drivers, despite their best actions, are being prosecuted at a cost of £2,000 per person (illegaly) found in their vehicles.

Professional truck drivers presumably have many responsibilities for care and caution more than the average tourist. They know or should know the risks. I doubt you friend could be found guilty even if prosecuted. Still, better ask a local lawyer...

He has. I also have a friend who's a retired DCI from the Met. Police who now consults on human trafficking. Be interesting to hear his perspective.

Let us know the outcome from these sources. The whole thing seems grossly unfair to the "offender" IMHO.

[Bruce Rioja]

Must be easier to grow cannabis here than in France.

Lost me.

Vietnamese gangs do quite well growing cannabis in the UK.

Well, I'd have to have the munchies before you'd find me eating fermented fish, too.

[Prufrock]

Gary: do you know what offence they're saying they might prosecute him for?

Monty: plenty of offences you don't need "intent" for, where recklessness or negligence is enough. There are even some that are "strict liabiltiy" with no mens rea such as driving without insurance (as one poster off here well knows: D).

Need to know what they might be charged with as to whether them "knowing" or not is relevant. Would certainly seen harsh if this happened when they're weren't and couldn't be in charge of the vehicle though. And if they haven't done anything egregious and adhered the authorities immediately I'm not sure the CPS (or HMRC or whoever) should be prosecuting even if there had technically been a crime.

[Gary the Enfield]

Gary: do you know what offence they're saying they might prosecute him for?
Monty: plenty of offences you don't need "intent" for, where recklessness or negligence is enough. There are even some that are "strict liabiltiy" with no mens rea such as driving without insurance (as one poster off here well knows: D).

Need to know what they might be charged with as to whether them "knowing" or not is relevant. Would certainly seen harsh if this happened when they're weren't and couldn't be in charge of the vehicle though. And if they haven't done anything egregious and adhered the authorities immediately I'm not sure the CPS (or HMRC or whoever) should be prosecuting even if there had technically been a crime.

I'll find out later. He is being interviewed this morning.

[Bijou Bob]

Note to self: withhold my number if refugees ever escape from my boot and I decide to ring the cops.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Gary: do you know what offence they're saying they might prosecute him for?

Monty: plenty of offences you don't need "intent" for, where recklessness or negligence is enough. There are even some that are "strict liabiltiy" with no mens rea such as driving without insurance (as one poster off here well knows: D).

Need to know what they might be charged with as to whether them "knowing" or not is relevant. Would certainly seen harsh if this happened when they're weren't and couldn't be in charge of the vehicle though. And if they haven't done anything egregious and adhered the authorities immediately I'm not sure the CPS (or HMRC or whoever) should be prosecuting even if there had technically been a crime.

I understand the intent argument, Pru, and agree it is important to know the charge. I don't see how he could be charged with any sort of felony (smuggling immigrants e.g.). It is pretty hard to prove negligence too, unless in the case HM Customs failing to detect the stowaways at point of entry. If worst comes to worst, it must be remembered that it was his wife, not he, who was towing the boat.

[Gary the Enfield]

Gary: do you know what offence they're saying they might prosecute him for?

Monty: plenty of offences you don't need "intent" for, where recklessness or negligence is enough. There are even some that are "strict liabiltiy" with no mens rea such as driving without insurance (as one poster off here well knows: D).

Need to know what they might be charged with as to whether them "knowing" or not is relevant. Would certainly seen harsh if this happened when they're weren't and couldn't be in charge of the vehicle though. And if they haven't done anything egregious and adhered the authorities immediately I'm not sure the CPS (or HMRC or whoever) should be prosecuting even if there had technically been a crime.

I understand the intent argument, Pru, and agree it is important to know the charge. I don't see how he could be charged with any sort of felony (smuggling immigrants e.g.). It is pretty hard to prove negligence too, unless in the case HM Customs failing to detect the stowaways at point of entry. If worst comes to worst, it must be remembered that it was his wife, not he, who was towing the boat.

I've already had that conversation with him. Not sure this has got legs anyway. He has been interviewed, separately from his wife but no charges proffered. He didn't take a solicitor in with him either so I guess there may not be any?

He's also a renowned miser. The only time I see him eat is when people bring food (cakes etc.) for their birthdays.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Gary: do you know what offence they're saying they might prosecute him for?

Monty: plenty of offences you don't need "intent" for, where recklessness or negligence is enough. There are even some that are "strict liabiltiy" with no mens rea such as driving without insurance (as one poster off here well knows: D).

Need to know what they might be charged with as to whether them "knowing" or not is relevant. Would certainly seen harsh if this happened when they're weren't and couldn't be in charge of the vehicle though. And if they haven't done anything egregious and adhered the authorities immediately I'm not sure the CPS (or HMRC or whoever) should be prosecuting even if there had technically been a crime.

I understand the intent argument, Pru, and agree it is important to know the charge. I don't see how he could be charged with any sort of felony (smuggling immigrants e.g.). It is pretty hard to prove negligence too, unless in the case HM Customs failing to detect the stowaways at point of entry. If worst comes to worst, it must be remembered that it was his wife, not he, who was towing the boat.

I've already had that conversation with him. Not sure this has got legs anyway. He has been interviewed, separately from his wife but no charges proffered. He didn't take a solicitor in with him either so I guess there may not be any?

He's also a renowned miser. The only time I see him eat is when people bring food (cakes etc.) for their birthdays.

I think it was Mr. Bumble who said "The law is a ass" when he found he was responsible for his wife's actions. However, this is no longer the case, and it may well have legs. Perhaps he was too cheap to take a solicitor and wouldn't need one until he is charged. His story is pretty straight-forward.

[Gary the Enfield]

Gary: do you know what offence they're saying they might prosecute him for?

Monty: plenty of offences you don't need "intent" for, where recklessness or negligence is enough. There are even some that are "strict liabiltiy" with no mens rea such as driving without insurance (as one poster off here well knows: D).

Need to know what they might be charged with as to whether them "knowing" or not is relevant. Would certainly seen harsh if this happened when they're weren't and couldn't be in charge of the vehicle though. And if they haven't done anything egregious and adhered the authorities immediately I'm not sure the CPS (or HMRC or whoever) should be prosecuting even if there had technically been a crime.

I understand the intent argument, Pru, and agree it is important to know the charge. I don't see how he could be charged with any sort of felony (smuggling immigrants e.g.). It is pretty hard to prove negligence too, unless in the case HM Customs failing to detect the stowaways at point of entry. If worst comes to worst, it must be remembered that it was his wife, not he, who was towing the boat.

I've already had that conversation with him. Not sure this has got legs anyway. He has been interviewed, separately from his wife but no charges proffered. He didn't take a solicitor in with him either so I guess there may not be any?

He's also a renowned miser. The only time I see him eat is when people bring food (cakes etc.) for their birthdays.

I think it was Mr. Bumble who said "The law is a ass" when he found he was responsible for his wife's actions. However, this is no longer the case, and it may well have legs. Perhaps he was too cheap to take a solicitor and wouldn't need one until he is charged. His story is pretty straight-forward.

Let's hope so.

[Bruce Rioja]

Gary: do you know what offence they're saying they might prosecute him for?

Human trafficking?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Gary: do you know what offence they're saying they might prosecute him for?

Human trafficking?

Surely a charge like that would require mens rea, Pru? More likely negligently allowing your wife to operate a motor vehicle. To be frank, I think any prosecution would be more like persecution.

[Bijou Bob]

I woke up this morning to find Nearly Mrs Bob reading the papers on her I pad. She leaned over, kissed me on the cheek and said "Happy VJ day". Amazing how a misheard sentence can ruin a weekend.

[Little Green Man]

I woke up this morning to find Nearly Mrs Bob reading the papers on her I pad. She leaned over, kissed me on the cheek and said "Happy VJ day". Amazing how a misheard sentence can ruin a weekend.

[Bruce Rioja]

Apparently some youths have run amok in Little Lever. What I don't quite get is the locals, and the local rag referring to the place as 'The Village'. Belmont is a village, Bourton-on-the-Water is also a village. Little Lever isn't a village! It has a Gypo site, for feck's sake!

[clapton is god]

^ Little Lever has always been known as 'the village.'

[Bruce Rioja]

^ Little Lever has always been known as 'the village.'

Probably by none other than its residents. It isn't one. The term 'village' usually denotes a quaint, unadjoined place. Not an outcrop of Farnworth.