Channel Migrants in Line for Millions in Compensation
Channel small boat migrants are in line for millions of pounds in compensation from the Home Office for being “unlawfully” detained in “inhumane” conditions as almost 200 lodge legal claims under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Telegraph has more.
Almost 200 asylum seekers have lodged legal claims for their unlawful detention and mistreatment by the Home Office at the Manston migrant holding centre near Dover, citing the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Allegations include sexual assault, physical abuse and theft of property by guards, as well as disease-ridden, dirty and cold conditions, with outbreaks of diphtheria and scabies, forcible separation of families and denial of medical aid.
The Home Office has refused to settle, forcing lawyers for the asylum seekers to pursue the claims in court.
Standard compensation awards for detaining migrants for longer than the 24 hours allowed by law amount to ÂŁ500 per 24 hours of unlawful detention, but courts can hand out aggravated or exemplary damages.
The Home Office estimates some 18,000 migrants went through Manston, opening the door to further compensation claims for their mistreatment.
A migrant unlawfully detained at Brook House immigration removal centre at Gatwick for three months and subjected to degrading or inhuman treatment was awarded ÂŁ203,995 in damages last October.
Manston is currently used as a short-term holding facility for Channel arrivals but defence minister Luke Pollard said on Monday its role could be expanded to also take migrants from hotels, under Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to use more military sites to house asylum seekers.
Internal documents have warned that the failures at the former RAF base under the last Conservative Government in 2022 are likely to be “reputationally damaging” to the department.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
That’s enough news for me this week.
And it’s only hump day…
I would want each and every one of them to provide exact detail of the conditions in which they were living prior to illegally entering this country and why they chose to arrive in Britain having made no provision for their arrival. If I am visiting any country around the world, I have to prove I have somewhere to stay and funds to avoid me being a burden on the country I am visiting. If they cannot prove any of this or that they were living in better circumstances then they can sod right off. If they can prove any of this, it gives us a prima facie case to kick them right back where they came from.
I would go further.
You arrived illegally and therefore have no rights to our legal system. You have a space booked on a boat in two days time to a country in Africa. Select from the following menu.
This!
Two days? That seems generous. If anyone broke into Glastonbury they would be ‘deported’ as soon as the Police enquiries.
Obviously the decision to drive this country in to bankruptcy and therefore the money lenders is not happening quickly enough. The financial penalties that British taxpayers will be liable for – presented with heavy heart in the coming budget – will be significantly hiked owing to grotesque malfeasance on the part of the government; that’s the previous government obviously and not Kneel’s Knights.
One more reason we need rid of the ECHR.
Or hughemaan rites lawyers.
Maybe they should pay for lost cases.
Tax human rights lawyers at 98% of their profits and at least we would get some of our money back.
However, if they had arrived through official channels, their treatment may well have been quite different. If you do illegal things, you suffer for it. That’s life.
I think a slightly more robust approach is required, I’m thinking 50 cal machine guns sited all along the coast would be an appropriate disincentive.
Get ready to fight the Ramblers Association on that one 🤣
Conscript the Ramblers into helping man the guns.
No point if you aren’t going to use them. Same as new laws, what’s the point when you won’t enforce the ones we have?
Shoot the boats. The Boarder Fast ones bringing the illegals into Dover. No boats, no “rescue”.
Yes, and impounding any RNLI Illegal Taxi boat that goes out to Britain’s 12-mile territorial sea border in order to wait for French warships to escort dinghies full of Criminal Invaders to that sea border.
And arresting any RNLI crew that participate in this treasonous farce.
This would at least have a chance of working (as opposed to asking the Navy to catch boats in transit). It would be helpful if more people understood this: These people travel to Britain with the express purpose of violating its borders and the only effective way to stop that is to defend these borders against them. And this means “defend”: People trying to force the defenses will very likely end up much deader than they were before. But as nobody’s forcing them to come, that’s their choice.
The official line is that stopping the boats is impossible. That must mean no matter how many come. There are over eight billion people in the world. If there is a limit, what would it be and why and how would it then be possible to stop the boats? The only way this invasion makes any sense is to see it as a deliberate policy and one hostile to the British people. How utterly depressing.
”Drake he was a Devon man, an’ ruled the Devon seas,
(Capten, art tha’ sleepin’ there below?)
Roving’ tho’ his death fell, he went wi’ heart at ease,
A’ dreamin’ arl the time o’ Plymouth Hoe.
“Take my drum to England, hang et by the shore,
Strike et when your powder’s runnin’ low;
If the Dons sight Devon, I’ll quit the port o’ Heaven,
An’ drum them up the Channel as we drumm’d them long ago.”
At a time like this who would most people have in charge of policing the channel?
Sir Keir Starmer or
Sir Francis Drake

If only the Spanish had known all they had to do was claim they were fleeing persecution and Frank would have escorted them ashore to England. What could have possibly gone wrong?
I am reminded of the word often used in cowboy western films – outlaw. An outlaw is someone who has put himself outside the law. If someone enters the country illegally then they can have no recourse to the law of this land – they are outlaws. It is as simple as that. Anyone of this ilk who lodges a claim for compensation is taking this country for fools and anyone in this country who gives credence to these claims is a bigger fool. Unfortunately, there are too many of these fools in the Home Office and the law courts. Is it any wonder that many in the population are rebelling against these people. It is much a protest against these idiots in the government and the courts as it is against the migrants themselves (they are mostly not asylum seekers).
No! If this is allowed, it bc will be the biggest travesty of justice since …….. the last biggest travesty of justice under the so called human rights bill.
This is why the judiciary should be allowed no where near the leavers of power.
this is why we need to leave all the international law agreements. The law in this country cannot be trusted not to use them against the people for their own gain!
illegal’s must be rubbing their hands in glee.
not only free everything, but loads of compensation if you don’t like it.