Im not sure if this chap is stupid or trying it on, he said he was bringing items back that were not required by the migrants in the camp and two men managed to hide in the back of his van, no im pretty sure if two chaps got in the back of my van i would notice, did he intend to take the little girl and thought ill make a few quid by bringing this two men back to make up for my troubles.?
Stupid, gullible and possibly profit driven. If he'd been found with a four-year-old child not related to him in a van near his home there might be a different reaction to his stated good intentions.
The problems are entirely of the migrants' own making. They are already in a 'safe' country, it's called France. There's no need to camp in a squalid shanty town in Calais.
If he'd been found with a four-year-old child not related to him in a van near his home there might be a different reaction to his stated good intentions.
According to the Mail link he has returned the four year old back to the 'The Jungle', if only it was that easy to return adults such as the one that walked through the tunnel.
/// Accused of aiding and abetting illegal immigration, he was facing charges that carried a maximum prison term of five years and a 30,000-euro fine. ///
I wonder how many to date have been sentenced in such a way?
Unwise judgement. It is all very well showing compassion but the action it drove has to be appropriate. Be merciful and let folk off and one encourages others to try the same. It's tacit approval for what he did, which was wrong, even if he did it through good intent.
Old_Geezer - //Unwise judgement. It is all very well showing compassion but the action it drove has to be appropriate. Be merciful and let folk off and one encourages others to try the same. It's tacit approval for what he did, which was wrong, even if he did it through good intent. //
I believe that application of the law in any case has to take in individual circumstances - and that has been done in this instance.
I would not agree that a suspended sentence is tacit approval - I think the message is clear, and that is the end result that the law is seeking.
I trust others who might try the same are of the same view as you then, and realise there was no approval meant, even if it seems obvious to many (?) of us. Of course now the immigrants can say, "Look, even if you do get caught it's not a problem, they let you off", and apply more pressure to agree, to those trying to help them in France.
I watched him speaking television last night when he said something like “Compassion was on trial here”. Wrong. He was on trial for breaking the law – and the law proved itself, yet again, to be an ass by setting what is likely to become a self-defeating precedent.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.