PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Police trial new Home Office mobile fingerprint technology
bill w
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 11:53
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 8 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,341



I wonder what would happen if one declines to be fingerprinted in the street without first seeking legal advice.

I came across this via a Liberty posting, who seem to be getting a little hot under the collar about it.

It doesn't seem to have been widely publicised, so I can imagine it taking most people by surprise; I wonder if there was actually any parliamentary debate about it.

Police trial new Home Office mobile fingerprint technology.

New mobile fingerprinting technology will allow frontline officers across the country to use their smartphones to identify people in less than a minute – saving police time and reducing costs.


The Liberty post I mentioned above

I hope this is the right bit of the forum, please move if I've misjudged.

This post has been edited by bill w: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 11:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 11:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
albert2008
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 12:36
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,288
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
From: Yorkshire
Member No.: 21,857



if it comes up with your name, where did they get your print from,

and if not, will the one they took be put in their database for later,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 14:46
Post #3


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 6,991
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



The police already have mobile fingerprint scanners, so other than making the facility more widely available I'm not sure how this fundamentally changes anything. They check against existing police and immigration databases, and (supposedly) mobile scans are discarded immediately after the attempted match.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 14:57
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 854
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



According to Liberty, it is a "very bad thing" to "target undocumented migrants". Discuss.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 16:44
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,525
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 14:57) *
According to Liberty, it is a "very bad thing" to "target undocumented migrants". Discuss.


I'm looking for "This Government’s policy of creating a “hostile environment” for migrants suggests that this is very likely to happen."
Does anyone know where we can find the policy document so we may ensure we are doing our bit to create the correct hostile environment ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 17:08
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,052
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 14:57) *
According to Liberty, it is a "very bad thing" to "target undocumented migrants". Discuss.

By "undocumented migrants" do they mean people who are committing one or more offences under the Immigration Acts? A bit like people who (permanently) "borrow" other peoples' stuff?


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 17:56
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,089
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



All a waste of time as they won't be deported anyway huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baggins1234
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 20:38
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 812
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849



QUOTE (bill w @ Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 11:53) *
I wonder what would happen if one declines to be fingerprinted in the street without first seeking legal advice.


The words “I am arresting you” will be forthcoming...

This device is most commonly used when an offence (for which so one wouldn’t normally be arrested...such as a road traffic offence) has been committed and for whatever reasons the offenders true identity can’t be established at the roadside.

As such the service of a summons is thus impractical and an arrest will follow.

If fingerprints are then taken at custody and the true identity is determined the offender will normally be reported and released.

Obviously if the person in question hasn’t been arrested before and there are no fingerprints on file, and they refuse to give their true identity they will be charged with the original offence and go to court as “a man” or “a woman”

At that stage their mind tends to focus on their stupidity and details are soon forthcoming

This post has been edited by baggins1234: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 08:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samthecat
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 09:40
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 281
Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,881



From Liberty - "There's no recognition of how breathtakingly invasive this proposal is. There is no discussion of consent. Or of the importance of legal advice before people should be asked to hand over this kind of information about themselves. Or what may happen if someone declines a request."

I would have thought the Head Of Legal Casework would be able to join the dots......

I expect that most people given the choice of confirming their identity via a quick fingerprint scan would prefer this to being dragged into custody. Whilst there can be the standard argument that certain groups could be targeted disproportionately I don't see how this is any more relevant to this technology than any other Police tactic or process.


--------------------
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stevensan
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 11:01
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 349
Joined: 30 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,518



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 18:08) *
QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 14:57) *
According to Liberty, it is a "very bad thing" to "target undocumented migrants". Discuss.

By "undocumented migrants" do they mean people who are committing one or more offences under the Immigration Acts? A bit like people who (permanently) "borrow" other peoples' stuff?


By "undocumented migrants" they mean people whom the home office have declared "illegal" without any due process. It's a little bit like clampers taking your car and holding it until you manage to get a court to tell them they acted illegally.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spenny
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:13
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,157
Joined: 14 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,438



Don't see what the fuss is about. No budget for them, they can't maintain the kit they have.

For example, we all like breath tests for drunk drivers these days. A serving officer from one force has to share breathalysers so if they get a drunk driver they have to radio for the team who has the working kit. The one time my source had a breathalyser, the kit hadn't been calibrated. When it came to drugs, car full of kids smoking pot, they didn't have any drugs testing kits because... no budget, so they have to give out drug related fixed penalties rather than being in charge of a vehicle under the influence and getting them to lose their licence - knowing that these people would be driving on the public road.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:51
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,052
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (stevensan @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 11:01) *
By "undocumented migrants" they mean people whom the home office have declared "illegal" without any due process.


Being undocumented because you’ve not complied with immigration requirements (at which point you would be documented) is a pretty good indicator of illegality though.

QUOTE
It's a little bit like clampers taking your car and holding it until you manage to get a court to tell them they acted illegally.

Not really, no.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stevensan
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:56
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 349
Joined: 30 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,518



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:51) *
QUOTE (stevensan @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 11:01) *
By "undocumented migrants" they mean people whom the home office have declared "illegal" without any due process.


Being undocumented because you’ve not complied with immigration requirements (at which point you would be documented) is a pretty good indicator of illegality though.

QUOTE
It's a little bit like clampers taking your car and holding it until you manage to get a court to tell them they acted illegally.

Not really, no.


Being "undocumented" means the home office have not issued you documentation, which is in no way an indicator of illegality. Which is backed up by the staggeringly low numbers of migrants subjected to unlimited detention who are subsequently deported and the number of cases overturned by the immigration tribunal system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 15:14
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,052
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (stevensan @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:56) *
Being "undocumented" means the home office have not issued you documentation

How are they lawfully in the country?


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 16:01
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,525
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (stevensan @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:56) *
..........Being "undocumented" means the home office have not issued you documentation, which is in no way an indicator of illegality.


Uhm....... If a person is in this country legally, they have documents to show that, right of birth, citizenship, UK or EU passport, Visa or a passport that does not require a visa, list is endless.
But if they are not holding one or more document that says they can stay here, they are illegal, simples.
Any further argument on whether or not they would be deported or could find grounds to be granted rights are not even additional to the basic, what might happen only changes the basic when it actually happens.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stevensan
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:45
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 349
Joined: 30 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,518



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 16:01) *
QUOTE (stevensan @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:56) *
..........Being "undocumented" means the home office have not issued you documentation, which is in no way an indicator of illegality.


Uhm....... If a person is in this country legally, they have documents to show that, right of birth, citizenship, UK or EU passport, Visa or a passport that does not require a visa, list is endless.
But if they are not holding one or more document that says they can stay here, they are illegal, simples.
Any further argument on whether or not they would be deported or could find grounds to be granted rights are not even additional to the basic, what might happen only changes the basic when it actually happens.


I realise most people on this forum don't have experience of dealing with immigration law so here is a simple example.

An American women, married to a Brit, with two British children comes to the UK for the wedding of the British citizens brother. On the date of entering the UK the Brit is employed in America. While in the UK the Brit is offered a job in the UK, which he accepts and thus resigns from the job in the UK. The couple immediately applies for a settlement (spouse visa) for the wife. As the immigration rules makes it impossible to apply under the regular route (as this would require the wife to go back to America for six months before applying), they apply under the provisions of the EX1 regulations.

The Home Office reject the application, as even though the women meets the requirements of EX1 for settlement, they decide she exhibited "bad character" by entering on a tourist visa waiver for the wedding, as they determine her real motive was to seek a job in the UK. They thus issue directions for her removal and issue her a 10 year ban from re-entering the UK.

She has now become an "undocumented" immigrant.

The couple appeal the decision, and wait 15 months for the FTT hearing. During this time the wife cannot:

- drive, open a bank account (including a joint account), rent a house (or live in a rented house), register with a doctor, travel abroad.

The FTT side with the Home Office as they say it is in the public interest to uphold immigration law, and as the Home Office have no reason to lie, on the balance of probabilities the wife must be lying. The judge rules it doesnt infringe on the families human rights as family life can continue via Skype. As the children are not being asked to leave the UK (just their mum) there is no infringement of their rights. If they choose to remain with their mum it is their free choice.

The family are then advised that should the wife ignore the ruling, and become an overstayer they can reapply under the same EX1. As the wife is now an "illegal immigrant" the judge would have to rule in their favour as there would be no prospect of the wife returning once deporting, and thus an infringement on family life.

End result? After 3 years of fighting the family can finally live as a normal family. Subject to paying £2000 every 30 months for "permission" to stay. The Home Office gets to throw around statistics complaining of being unable to remove "illegal immigrants", ignoring the fact they were only made "illegal" by laws designed to do just that.

The above is not just a story - it has happened to thousands of families over the last few years. That's the REAL face of illegal immigration.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:08
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,525
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE
That's the REAL face of illegal immigration.


Yup
A system being gamed to gain a "right" to stay here.
In your example, the wife could have gone home and applied in the normal way, plenty of families live apart for 6 months or so, ask any squaddy.
But instead, forces a position whereby if the Home office declares her illegal by rejecting her claim to reside here, she stays on until she can persuade a court that her rights to a family life has been violated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 01:05
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,331
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:08) *
QUOTE
That's the REAL face of illegal immigration.


Yup
A system being gamed to gain a "right" to stay here.
In your example, the wife could have gone home and applied in the normal way, plenty of families live apart for 6 months or so, ask any squaddy.
But instead, forces a position whereby if the Home office declares her illegal by rejecting her claim to reside here, she stays on until she can persuade a court that her rights to a family life has been violated.

+1, follow the rules or don't complaint when they are enforced against you.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stevensan
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 07:52
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 349
Joined: 30 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,518



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:08) *
QUOTE
That's the REAL face of illegal immigration.


Yup
A system being gamed to gain a "right" to stay here.
In your example, the wife could have gone home and applied in the normal way, plenty of families live apart for 6 months or so, ask any squaddy.
But instead, forces a position whereby if the Home office declares her illegal by rejecting her claim to reside here, she stays on until she can persuade a court that her rights to a family life has been violated.


If you don't think being forced (a squaddie isnt forced) to live apart for six (a minimum of) six months, for no reason, then it is pointless arguing with you. I made it clear that in this case they DID qualify under the NORMAL way - the Home Office just decided otherwise, and that, is that - they become "undocumented". There is further examples - grand parents unable to even visit their grand children as the Home Office assumes they will not leave - adult dependent rules which make it impossible for a dependent adult to settle in the UK, regardless of circumstances. British kids unable to live in their own country as their British parent can't earn enough (a figure above the "living wage"), business owners declared "illegal" because they were following rules, which were subsequently changed after they had already followed rules which were current at the time they followed them. Lawyers and judges both declaring even they don't understand the rules.

i assume you also agree with indefinite detention on these "undocumented"? Those that have not committed a crime, but the Home Office have declared undocumented.

A number of brits married to Europeans are about to get a real shock.

This post has been edited by stevensan: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 07:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:43
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,331
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 07:52) *
If you don't think being forced (a squaddie isnt forced) to live apart for six (a minimum of) six months, for no reason, then it is pointless arguing with you. I made it clear that in this case they DID qualify under the NORMAL way - the Home Office just decided otherwise, and that, is that - they become "undocumented". There is further examples - grand parents unable to even visit their grand children as the Home Office assumes they will not leave - adult dependent rules which make it impossible for a dependent adult to settle in the UK, regardless of circumstances. British kids unable to live in their own country as their British parent can't earn enough (a figure above the "living wage"), business owners declared "illegal" because they were following rules, which were subsequently changed after they had already followed rules which were current at the time they followed them. Lawyers and judges both declaring even they don't understand the rules.

i assume you also agree with indefinite detention on these "undocumented"? Those that have not committed a crime, but the Home Office have declared undocumented.

I disagree with the motorway traffic (speed limits) regulations 1974, doesn't mean I can ignore them. If you don't like the immigration rules, by all means start a campaign to have the law changed. But until that happens, the immigration rules apply to everyone, including the people who think the current rules are stupid / unjust / unfair.

QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 07:52) *
A number of brits married to Europeans are about to get a real shock.

And you say this based on what?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 26th May 2018 - 19:36
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.