Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Police trial new Home Office mobile fingerprint technology
FightBack Forums > Discussion > Government Policy
bill w
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.
albert2008
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,
Fredd
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.
666
According to Liberty, it is a "very bad thing" to "target undocumented migrants". Discuss.
DancingDad
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 ?
southpaw82
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?
mickR
All a waste of time as they won't be deported anyway huh.gif
baggins1234
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
samthecat
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.
stevensan
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.
Spenny
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.
southpaw82
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.
stevensan
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.
southpaw82
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?
DancingDad
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.
stevensan
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.
DancingDad
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.
cp8759
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.
stevensan
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.
cp8759
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?
Fredd
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:43) *
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?

Excessive time spent reading (and believing) all the re-branded Project Fear shock! horror! doom! stuff in the Guardian/Independent/Evening Standard, I imagine.
DancingDad
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 -
............


In your example, the Brit was not forced to take a job in the UK any more then a squaddie is forced to go where the army sends them.
Both have the option of not taking the job or resigning.

In other examples, plenty of cases where grndparents cannot see grandkids, after divorce of the parents for instance, even when parents and grandparents have fallen out.
This is I assume the fault of the Home Office as well?
Or is the Home Office stance on Grandparents visiting due to a history of Grandparents from some cultures coming for a visit and not going home ?

I am sorry I do not have the bleeding heart that cries at every perceived injustice.
To me it is simple, if people have a right to live here, fine.
If they cannot or will not match the rules, sod em.
stevensan
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:43) *
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?


See - this is my point. If you break the motorway traffic regulations 1974 you go to court, plead your case, and if your found to have broken them you get punished. The Home Office don't work like that. Once they have decided you are "guilty" your an "undocumented migrant" and subject to their hostile environment controls. You have to go to court to prove your innocence.

UK law says your innocent till proven guilty. Home Office policy is your guilty until you can prove your innocent.

UK has been quite clear they want Europeans to be under UK immigration policy.
DancingDad
QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 12:25) *
....... Home Office policy is your guilty until you can prove your innocent. ......


No
The Home Office is applying rules that simply say you have a right to live in the UK or not.
Many people have a right to live here and are, if you want, innocent.
Then there are people who have no automatic right but still want to live here.
They must satisfy the rules to establish their right.
The rules may be clunky, awkward, even impossible to comply with in some cases, tough.
That does not equate to guilty, simply that they failed the exam.
My house, my rules, simple.
Fredd
QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 12:25) *
UK has been quite clear they want Europeans to be under UK immigration policy.

Gosh, there's a major surprise - an independent country wants foreigners to be subject to its immigration rules. Rather like the remaining EU countries making foreigners subject to EU immigration rules, really. Both sides have made it perfectly clear that they want the eventual deal to protect the rights of current residents, so why try to make a scare story out of it?
stevensan
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 12:56) *
QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 12:25) *
....... Home Office policy is your guilty until you can prove your innocent. ......


That does not equate to guilty, simply that they failed the exam.
My house, my rules, simple.


By your logic, if you park in a parkingeye car park, and abide by their rules, but they decide you didn't then tough, you have to pay. Their house, their rules. Simple. If you disagree you can pay thousands to take the matter to a judicial review, where the otherside can (and will) throw unlimited legal resources at it. But you still have to pay up.

You can comply with all the ludicrous HO rules and yet they can decide you don't and immediately make you "undocumented".

There is many, confirmed by the replies on this thread, who have rose tinted views of how immigration is handled. You cant talk about "protecting the rights" of current residents and then say they will be subject to the current immigration rules, as subjecting them to new "rules" is a removal of their current rights. And if they are subjected to new rules, those will be the UK rules, which are the same as the current rules for Non EU citizens - the famed Hostile Environment.

Like I said - many unsuspecting British families are going to get a real shock.
Fredd
QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:30) *
You cant talk about "protecting the rights" of current residents and then say they will be subject to the current immigration rules, as subjecting them to new "rules" is a removal of their current rights.

Who says they will be subject to the "new" rules, rather than the arrangements that everybody agrees will be put in place to protect their current rights?

QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:30) *
Like I said - many unsuspecting British families are going to get a real shock.

I agree - the shock being that your doom and gloom scenario won't happen.
DancingDad
QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:30) *
.....By your logic, if you park in a parkingeye car park, and abide by their rules, but they decide you didn't then tough, you have to pay. Their house, their rules. Simple. If you disagree you can pay thousands to take the matter to a judicial review, where the otherside can (and will) throw unlimited legal resources at it. But you still have to pay up.

.........


Personally I try to vote with my feet and not park in car parks that are governed by the more avaricious PPCs.
I see no reason why others cannot.
And if we push the analogy, UK PPC does not ask anyone to come here, that is their choice.
southpaw82
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 18:07) *
QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:30) *
.....By your logic, if you park in a parkingeye car park, and abide by their rules, but they decide you didn't then tough, you have to pay. Their house, their rules. Simple. If you disagree you can pay thousands to take the matter to a judicial review, where the otherside can (and will) throw unlimited legal resources at it. But you still have to pay up.

.........


Personally I try to vote with my feet and not park in car parks that are governed by the more avaricious PPCs.
I see no reason why others cannot.
And if we push the analogy, UK PPC does not ask anyone to come here, that is their choice.

Quite aside from the fact that a private company acting as such isn’t amenable to judicial review.
cp8759
QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:30) *
subjecting them to new "rules" is a removal of their current rights.

Do you have one single iota of evidence to support this extraordinary assertion?
DancingDad
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:42) *
QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:30) *
subjecting them to new "rules" is a removal of their current rights.

Do you have one single iota of evidence to support this extraordinary assertion?


Evidence would spoil the narrative.

Though to be fair, I have seen a few cases in Daily Mail along lines of guy has lived here for twenty years or more, gone on holiday and not been let back in.
In DM so must be true.
stevensan
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:42) *
QUOTE (stevensan @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:30) *
subjecting them to new "rules" is a removal of their current rights.

Do you have one single iota of evidence to support this extraordinary assertion?


Evidence?

EU citizens are not currently subjected to UK immigration law.

Brexit is all about "taking back control". Which means removing EU citizens rights.

https://twitter.com/The3Million/status/964454509647941632


southpaw82
And subjecting them to the same controls as people from outside the EU (possibly). Nobody knows what will happen to EU citizens currently resident in the UK though I’d be awfully surprised if they were summarily removed. As a matter of semantics EU citizens’ rights aren’t being removed. They will retain the right to live anywhere in the EU. However, the UK won’t be in the EU so they won’t get the right from there (but might get it from a separate treaty - who knows?)
DancingDad
QUOTE (stevensan @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 11:59) *
.......Brexit is all about "taking back control". Which means removing EU citizens rights........

Fairly certain that their EU rights will not be affected by Brexit.
Their UK rights may be but they will still be EU citizens with all their rights as EU citizens intact.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.