ANOTHER FINE MESS
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
hen the European Union originally created its "borderless" state, one of the concerns was that it would open the floodgates to illegal substances crossing to the UK. Faced with tabloid scare stories, HM Government firmly declared that— borders or no borders—there'd be no let-up of checks at UK ports. Customs would remain vigilant to the threat of illegal drugs. So it's rather ironic that faced with a massive rise in the number of illegal immigrants entering the country in the back of lorries, that the Home Office thinks the only way to prevent it is to fine drivers £2,000 For each stowaway in their vehicles. Whatever happened to the "they shall not pass" approach? Instead of threatening innocent hauliers, Jack Straw should be politely asking his opposite numbers in Europe: "If your border controls are so good, how is it that we're only finding illegal immigrants when they arrive in the UK? Does borderless mean 'can't be bothered'?" Expecting a driver to know what's in the back of his truck at all times is a crass assumption—almost as crass as assuming the courts will listen to mitigation when an innocent driver or operator is hauled before the bench to answer a charge of aiding and 31 i I ' abetting illegal immi_I/ grants. The courts don't -V accept consignor liability on overloading now, so we're sure they won't accept it when a dozen Romanians cut into a TIR tilt while a driver takes his break at Calais. If under English Law a man is innocent until proved guilty, why is it the other way around for British international lorry drivers?