Editha

In fact, the legality of the recent 'spot checks' is being questioned. They appear to be unprecedented. UKBA officers obtain their powers from the Immigration Act 1971. I'm only a retired family lawyer, and I've only made a quick skim of the Act online, but I can't see anything in it that entitles UKBA officers to stop and question anyone purely on the basis of the colour of their skin.

holly_1948

They don't have any.
People don't have to answer their questions if they don't want to and they don't have to stop but can just keep moving.

But they show up dressed in intimidating quasi-military uniforms way and assume that people don't know their rights and will stop and comply and submit to questioning thinking that they must. And the UKBA officers are right, that assumption is correct more than 9 times out of 10.

Best advice - hold a conversation if you feel like it, but don't stop walking and do go on with your daily life.

mikelincs

It doesn't and that was the point being made in the UK media. They have the right to request some form of ID from people, but it should be fair and not biased towards any ethnicity. They've dropped a big one, and need to go back and think of their options, of course if it was a requirement to have an ID card in the UK, that would solve all the problems.

Editha

No it wouldn't. I don't see the relevance of ID cards here. You'd just have UKBA stopping coloured people and asking for ID cards. What improvement is that? Except that there'd be a black market trade in forged ID cards.

It would make more sense to invest resources in clearing the Home Office backlog of more than half a million immigration cases. It's been recently calculated that at their present rate of progress, the HO will take 37 years to get up to date.

dunroving

Where did it say they were only stopping "coloured" people?

holly_1948

It wouldn't solve any problems. Yes, they have a right to request ID, but there is no obligation to acknowledge that request nor to comply with it. Or even to acknowledge the presence of these people, you can just ignore them if you like.

But that's not really the point. The point is that it looks uncomfortably similar to how Germany looked in 1935.

TheEmperorIsNaked

Very interesting. I am always interested in responses to this kind of example. It allows a window to the mindset of posters. Inclusive of myself..

The irony of this increasing invasion of human rights-is the rationalisation that 'if you've done nothing wrong' etc.
This has allowed the inexorable slide of the right to be considered innocent unless proved guilty.

Only a week ago, a programme here highlighted that it was easier to get access to Gitmo then it was to detention centres in Australia. Media is not allowed to access at all.

None of that would bother many of you, because after all they are 'illegals' aren't they?
This is very much the Pastor Neimueller thing:

"First they came for....".

I am a retired community lawyer (after a military career), and this trend is very concerning, but far more so when there are so many justifying it.

TheEmperorIsNaked

And it is vital that it IS questioned. But proving what they are doing is the problem. Denial is routine for all 'systems', particularly Government ones.

(You are not 'only' anything btw )

TheEmperorIsNaked

We have no problem civilizing or colonizing do we?
No problem invading other countries on the pretext of 'liberating' or going after 'terrorists' (a very subjective definition..), even when not sanctioned by the UN.

BUT: 'they' are fair game because after all they didn't 'wait in the queue like we did, and.....'.

It's a crock of shit.

We will go where we want.
But Britain/Australia/France..etc is for us thank-you! 'We' don't want 'them' here. So these UK 'brownshirts' are just fine.

As I said, a very enlightening thread.

mikelincs

All the news programmes were reporting that.

dunroving

The strongest "evidence" I could find was words to the effect of individuals "claiming" and "accusing", and anecdotal stories like "They didn't stop me but they did stop the two Asian women behind me". This is hardly strong evidentiary basis for saying they only stop "coloured" people (does such a person exist these days? I thought that was some sort of ancient racist term used during the days of apartheid?)

TheEmperorIsNaked

I have not a shred of doubt that racial profiling is occurring by these agencies;-but try proving it.
Until you (specific not general) 'walk in the shoes' you can have no idea how rampant this stuff is, and how routine it is to deny it.

These coloured people: do you mean that if the term is not used there is no racism, OR there are no coloured people anymore?

AND if we don't refer to 'coloured people', then why do we refer to 'blacks' as blacks? Do we refer to ALL those with darker skins as blacks?
OR..or, do we refer to those who are paler but not the delightful shade I turned out to be (my siblings are bloody annoyed, I can tell you), as....er, 'palers'?

It's such a dilemma isn't it?

Of course Dunroving, you will say ..perhaps?, that we simply refer to people by their names?... when you know very well that people are referred to by ethnicity.....AND the colour of their skins.

People are targeted every damn day for their appearance; their ethnicity; their culture;-their difference.

Denying it doesn't make it any the less.

dunroving

I wasn't denying it, merely trying to point out these situations are rarely as simple as they are made out to be.

TheEmperorIsNaked

And whilst I'm equally aware that the 'race card' IS played as a tool for defence, I know that racism is rampant throughout the world.

I also know that it is not difficult at all to pick up on all types of discrimination, even when it is so hidden.

It IS very simple Dunroving. You just have to see it happening to members of your family for years on end. That's the qualifier. One becomes quite an expert, trust me.
I do NOT throw out allegations of racism at every turn, but I know it well. Very well.

I'm bound to say that the human animal is an ugly intolerant destructive bastard who turns on other life forms, on resource; and on its own, with little compunction.
And then denies it.

mikelincs

actually 'coloured' was never mentioned, what was said was 'ethnic minorities'