1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
can't win—and at the It seems hauliers just that iiir„„, Home Office just won't Lilly listen. Its much
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
vaunted 'new' system of stowaway fines has been exposed this week in CM as a sham.
For the haulier and driver affected it means a f2,000 fine, DESPITE going through the government's own scanners at Calais. And the Immigration Service's insistence that there's no proof that the vehide had been scanned—because there is no signature from the scanner operators—just defies belief; there was no signature because the scanner operators refuse to sign any documentation.
So what exactly is the point of having vehides scanned when it appears it proves nothing? And that it is, in fact, no defence at all? So much for David Blunkett's promise that tighter security would "push our borders across the Channel to the French coast, where stronger and tighter security means we can prevent illegal immigrants getting to the UK in the first place" (CM5-11 December 2002). If an army of security guards can't keep trucks free of stowaways, then how can they expect a lone driver to manage?
If you are as fed up with the Home Office's attitude towards hauliers as CM, support our campaign!
No matter if you are not an international operator—we need everyone's voice. Fill in the details on p9, send us the letter and we'll see Blunkett gets it!