Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If it's part of an investigation they can seize a phone, it's like siezing the Epstien, Mandelson or any one else's tech or documents." Police can seize a phone for an investigation, Border Agents could not. But they've now changed the law so that Border Agents can seize phones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If I drove on the wrong side of the street because it was quicker to my destination I'd be arrested and tested and probed and have my documents and phone all confiscated. " Perhaps. Perhaps not. . But you are still a human being regardless of the offence, and you have certain rights under ECHR. . Rights are not lost because someone commits a crime. . Some rights are absolute (cannot be removed). . Others are qualified (can be limited lawfully and proportionately). IF driving dangerously, the Police could lawfully: Arrest (if necessary under legal grounds) Seize the vehicle Breathalyse or drug test Inspect licence and insurance Seize a phone only if relevant evidence exists . But even then: . Arrest must be lawful and necessary Property seizure must be justified Detention must comply with due process . Under the ECHR: . Article 3 – Protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (absolute right) . Article 5 – Right to liberty (cannot detain without lawful reason) . Article 6 – Right to a fair trial . Article 8 – Right to private life (including phone data — requires lawful basis to search) . These rights continue to apply even after arrest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am lead to believe this happened while The Conservative Government was in power ,( along with MPs who are now reform who could have but didn't change the law ) , The Labour government has changed the law " Where do you get that idea? The law was changed as soon as the problem was discovered, which was under Tory governance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am lead to believe this happened while The Conservative Government was in power ,( along with MPs who are now reform who could have but didn't change the law ) , The Labour government has changed the law Where do you get that idea? The law was changed as soon as the problem was discovered, which was under Tory governance." 2 December 2025 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am lead to believe this happened while The Conservative Government was in power ,( along with MPs who are now reform who could have but didn't change the law ) , The Labour government has changed the law" "Where do you get that idea? The law was changed as soon as the problem was discovered, which was under Tory governance." "2 December 2025" That's the introduction of the new Border Force, created by the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act which Labour have introduced to "smash the gangs". I'm sure Labour would like you to believe that it's just their new law that has solved this problem, but if you read any of the news stories they all say that claims are limited to events in 2020. That's because the rules around phone seizure by Border Agents were changed as soon as the law suit was filed in January 2020, and long before the judgement arrived in 2022. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If £5bn a year cost of illegals wasn’t enough, £800m on illegal Rwanda scheme, £500m paid to French for security, courts, barristers, interpreters, asylum hotel security, taxis and vapes, nhs, dentists, £35M a year on 1000 extra home office case workers plus their pensions etc. Billion pound contracts to Serco, Mears and Clearsprings (£187M profit) At some future point there will be a cost review, won’t be surprised if it’s £100bn, ten times the cost of the illegal Iraq war. That’s karma I suppose. Tax payers coughing up for the lot. " Glasgow Council proposing putting up Council Tax by another 5% to deal with huge amount of 'asylum seekers' now in the City. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am lead to believe this happened while The Conservative Government was in power ,( along with MPs who are now reform who could have but didn't change the law ) , The Labour government has changed the law Where do you get that idea? The law was changed as soon as the problem was discovered, which was under Tory governance. 2 December 2025 That's the introduction of the new Border Force, created by the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act which Labour have introduced to "smash the gangs". I'm sure Labour would like you to believe that it's just their new law that has solved this problem, but if you read any of the news stories they all say that claims are limited to events in 2020. That's because the rules around phone seizure by Border Agents were changed as soon as the law suit was filed in January 2020, and long before the judgement arrived in 2022. " So you saying this issue has nothing to do with the current labour government , it was an issue during the conservative government (which included now reformers ) ,,thanks for the clarification ,,, ( may have been helpful if our media had pointed this out when splashing it as current news ) ,,, thanks again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am lead to believe this happened while The Conservative Government was in power ,( along with MPs who are now reform who could have but didn't change the law ) , The Labour government has changed the law" "Where do you get that idea? The law was changed as soon as the problem was discovered, which was under Tory governance." "2 December 2025" "That's the introduction of the new Border Force, created by the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act which Labour have introduced to "smash the gangs". I'm sure Labour would like you to believe that it's just their new law that has solved this problem, but if you read any of the news stories they all say that claims are limited to events in 2020. That's because the rules around phone seizure by Border Agents were changed as soon as the law suit was filed in January 2020, and long before the judgement arrived in 2022." "So you saying this issue has nothing to do with the current labour government , it was an issue during the conservative government (which included now reformers ) ,,thanks for the clarification ,,, ( may have been helpful if our media had pointed this out when splashing it as current news )" The media stories would have been easier to understand if Labour hadn't put out a press release trying to claim the credit for having solved the problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am lead to believe this happened while The Conservative Government was in power ,( along with MPs who are now reform who could have but didn't change the law ) , The Labour government has changed the law Where do you get that idea? The law was changed as soon as the problem was discovered, which was under Tory governance. 2 December 2025 That's the introduction of the new Border Force, created by the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act which Labour have introduced to "smash the gangs". I'm sure Labour would like you to believe that it's just their new law that has solved this problem, but if you read any of the news stories they all say that claims are limited to events in 2020. That's because the rules around phone seizure by Border Agents were changed as soon as the law suit was filed in January 2020, and long before the judgement arrived in 2022. So you saying this issue has nothing to do with the current labour government , it was an issue during the conservative government (which included now reformers ) ,,thanks for the clarification ,,, ( may have been helpful if our media had pointed this out when splashing it as current news ) The media stories would have been easier to understand if Labour hadn't put out a press release trying to claim the credit for having solved the problem." OR if the media had pointed out this WAS a problem but is no longer an issue ( other than the money the Tories (with the reformers) are costing us ,, the headlines appear to show it is still an issue ,,thanks again for pointing out it isn't | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OR if the media had pointed out this WAS a problem but is no longer an issue ( other than the money the Tories (with the reformers) are costing us ,, the headlines appear to show it is still an issue ,,thanks again for pointing out it isn't" I'm not sure you can lay the cost solely on the Tories. The greedy lawyers who persisted in chasing a human rights case that had already been resolved could equally be blamed. Or the poor wording of the Human Rights Act, brought in by Blair. Or the traffickers bringing people over here, etc. There's a whole load of people that could share the blame. But to put it in context, this is just £500,000 paid out for less than 80 human rights infringements. Whoever you want to blame, it's not going to bankrupt the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OR if the media had pointed out this WAS a problem but is no longer an issue ( other than the money the Tories (with the reformers) are costing us ,, the headlines appear to show it is still an issue ,,thanks again for pointing out it isn't I'm not sure you can lay the cost solely on the Tories. The greedy lawyers who persisted in chasing a human rights case that had already been resolved could equally be blamed. Or the poor wording of the Human Rights Act, brought in by Blair. Or the traffickers bringing people over here, etc. There's a whole load of people that could share the blame. But to put it in context, this is just £500,000 paid out for less than 80 human rights infringements. Whoever you want to blame, it's not going to bankrupt the country." I was merely pointing out that although the headline was recently , the problem is not now , , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OR if the media had pointed out this WAS a problem but is no longer an issue ( other than the money the Tories (with the reformers) are costing us ,, the headlines appear to show it is still an issue ,,thanks again for pointing out it isn't I'm not sure you can lay the cost solely on the Tories. The greedy lawyers who persisted in chasing a human rights case that had already been resolved could equally be blamed. Or the poor wording of the Human Rights Act, brought in by Blair. Or the traffickers bringing people over here, etc. There's a whole load of people that could share the blame. But to put it in context, this is just £500,000 paid out for less than 80 human rights infringements. Whoever you want to blame, it's not going to bankrupt the country." Crazy it actually happened but good that whoever was in government at the time got the law changed to prevent a repeat | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OR if the media had pointed out this WAS a problem but is no longer an issue ( other than the money the Tories (with the reformers) are costing us ,, the headlines appear to show it is still an issue ,,thanks again for pointing out it isn't I'm not sure you can lay the cost solely on the Tories. The greedy lawyers who persisted in chasing a human rights case that had already been resolved could equally be blamed. Or the poor wording of the Human Rights Act, brought in by Blair. Or the traffickers bringing people over here, etc. There's a whole load of people that could share the blame. But to put it in context, this is just £500,000 paid out for less than 80 human rights infringements. Whoever you want to blame, it's not going to bankrupt the country. Crazy it actually happened but good that whoever was in government at the time got the law changed to prevent a repeat " Yes , tend to agree , just for clarity it was the conservative government ( containing now reform members ) who were in power | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
