UK: Social media people smugglers to face jail
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The facilitation of illegal immigration is already a criminal offense in the UK, but the government wants to give police and law enforcement agencies more options to combat smuggling gangs who promote illegal crossings of the English Channel online.
According to analysis by the British interior ministry, the Home Office, a record 25,000 people have made the dangerous journey this year alone, around 80% of whom used social media to contact and communicate with smugglers.
"Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral," Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told The Sunday Times.
"These criminals have no issue with leading migrants to life-threatening situations using brazen tactics on social media. We are determined to do everything we can to stop them, wherever they operate."
UK's 'small boats' crisis
Prime Minister Keir Starmer's center-left Labour government is under increasing domestic pressure to combat what are colloquially known in the UK as "small boats."
The term, which US President Donald Trump appeared unfamiliar with during a recent press conference alongside Starmer in Scotland, refers to the flimsy and often over-crowded vessels used by smugglers to transport migrants on the perilous journey from France to England.
In November 2024, a smuggler based in the northern English town of Preston was jailed for 17 years after posting videos of migrants apparently thanking him for his help, while Albanian smuggling gangs have been found promoting £12,000 (€13,750 / $15,900) "package deals" including travel and fake documentation, accommodation and illegal work upon arrival.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Last month, the government launched a new sanctions regime allowing it to freeze assets, impose travel bans and block banking access for individuals and entities involved in irregular migration.
And Home Secretary Cooper told The Sunday Times that she was also planning a "major overhaul" of the asylum appeal process in the hope of driving down numbers of arrivals.
"If we speed up the decision-making appeal system and keep increasing returns, we hope to be able to make quite a big reduction in the overall numbers in the asylum system," she said.
"That is the best way to restore order and control."
The opposition Conservative Party, which was in power for 14 years prior to its defeat in the 2024 general election, criticised the plans as "too little, too late."
Under pressure from the far-right populist Reform UK party, it has proposed what it calls a "no-nonsense" strategy of automatically deporting anyone who arrives in the UK via unauthorised routes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
36 minutes ago
- The Print
What's in Delhi govt's new private school fee regulation bill & why are parents concerned
The new bill aims to ensure uniform fee regulation for all private unaided schools, including minority institutes, as well as those not allotted any government land. Till now, fee regulation in Delhi has applied only to private schools operating on land allotted by the Delhi Development Authority. The bill also prohibits schools from harassing students over unpaid or delayed fees, including measures such as striking off names, withholding results, denying access to classes, or public humiliation. On Monday, Chief Minister Rekha Gupta and Education Minister Ashish Sood introduced the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025. The move comes three months after they first announced the bill amid a wave of protests by parents over fee hikes by several private schools at the start of the academic session in April. New Delhi: Calling its bill to regulate fees in private schools 'historic', the Delhi government Monday introduced the much-awaited draft legislation in the assembly as parents raised concerns over several of its provisions, including the requirement of at least 15 percent of parents uniting to challenge any fee hike by private schools, terming the condition as 'impractical'. Speaking to the media, ahead of the assembly session, Sood said, 'Today marks a golden day in the history of Delhi's education system. For the first time in 27 years, a historic bill will be introduced in the assembly under the leadership of Chief Minister Rekha Gupta.' The bill was 'aimed at ending the exploitation, pressure, and mental harassment faced by parents over school fees', added Sood. ThePrint explains what the draft bill is and why parents remain unconvinced that it will resolve the issue. How will fee approvals work now? According to the bill, each private school will need to form a School-Level Fee Regulation Committee annually. Constituted by 15 July of every academic year, the committee will include five parents from the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), as selected in a draw of lots. It must also include at least two women and at least one other member from the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or socially and educationally backwards classes. Additionally, a representative from the Directorate of Education (DoE) will be part of the committee. The chairperson will be a representative of the school management. Once the committee is in place, the school management should submit the proposed fee structure and all other relevant records, considering 31 July as the deadline to do so. For the next three academic years, the fee structure will stay fixed. The committee will have the authority to review and approve the fees, but cannot approve an amount higher than the one proposed by management. It may revise the amount downward. The committee must decide on the fee within 30 days of receiving the proposal. Once approved, the fee structure will be on the school notice board in Hindi, English, and the medium of instruction. If the school has a website, the approved fee must also be published there. What the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee approves will be binding on the school for the next three academic years. The committee will also specify the various heads under which private schools can charge fees. Also Read: Two realities of NEP: Sensory classrooms & hi-tech labs, to kids sitting on floor & no teachers What happens if parents aren't satisfied? The bill mandates that any challenge to the decision of the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee must come from an 'Aggrieved Parents Group', comprising at least 15 percent of the total number of parents in the school. Only when supported by at least 15 percent of the parent body, a fee-related grievance will be considered. When it wishes to challenge the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee, the 'Aggrieved Parents Group' can approach the District Fee Appellate Committee—constituted by the Director of Education, chaired by the district Deputy Director of Education, and including representatives from the school management and the parent-teacher association, and a chartered accountant. The District Fee Appellate Committee must communicate its decision on any fee dispute within 30 days of receiving the appeal, and no later than 45 days within the same academic year. If it fails to do so, the matter will automatically be referred to the Revision Committee, as specified in the Act. If the 'Aggrieved Parents Group' or school management is dissatisfied with the decision, they could file an appeal before the Revision Committee within 30 days. The Revision Committee will be notified by the government and chaired by an eminent person with notable contributions in the field of education. It will also have representatives from the parents and the school. The bill proposes strict penalties for non-compliance, with fines ranging from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh. In cases of non-payment, the government can seize and sell the movable or immovable property of the school management, appoint a receiver to manage assets, or take any other recovery action, as prescribed in the bill. However, it will not impose a penalty without hearing both parties and giving adequate time. Sudha Acharya, principal of ITL public school, said the school has already constituted the school level committee. 'We will try to take parents on board right from the beginning so that there is no need to go to the district committee. It's too early to comment on the bill. Let it first be pass and come into effect,' she said. Why are parents raising concerns? Among the various concerns parents are raising over the proposed bill, the most important is how the bill defines 'aggrieved parents'. It would deprive individual parents of their right to raise a complaint, they argue. 'Requiring a minimum of 15 percent of a school's parents to challenge the school-level Fee Regulatory Committee's decision before the district committee is nearly impossible. It effectively denies parents the right to contest arbitrary fee hikes,' said Ashok Agarwal, chairperson of All India Parents Association. Parents are also raising concerns over the selection process for parent representatives in the school-level committee. 'Why cannot there be elections instead? Who will ensure the draw of lots is fair and free from discrepancies? How do you guarantee transparency?' asked Shikha Bhagga, a lawyer and member of the Forum of Indian Parents. Bhagga also questioned the criteria to determine fees. 'Infrastructure should not be a factor in deciding the fee—it is the school's asset, not the responsibility of the students. Both the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have held in several cases that infrastructure has no direct bearing on fees,' she said. Moreover, parents are showing concern over one of the clauses—the fees, which schools will charge, starting 1 April 2025, will be the proposed fee for the 2025–26 academic year. 'Many schools hiked fees illegally this year without any approval, and they continue to charge them. The bill not only allows that but effectively legitimises it,' Bhagga added. Questioning the bill, AAP's Atishi called it a deliberate attempt by the BJP government to protect the interests of private schools, rather than those of the students and parents. 'The government intentionally delayed the bill from April to July, allowing schools to hike fees unchecked and extort money from parents. The biggest concern is that the bill includes no provision to roll back these fee hikes, effectively legitimising them. This bill serves private school owners, not the public,' she said in a press conference. (Edited by Madhurita Goswami) Also Read: 'Honest history, not ideology'—NCERT social science panel chief on changes in Class 8 textbook
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Prajwal verdict: Not hearsay! ‘Res Gestae' rest assured survivor's victory
Bengaluru: Since witness accounts aren't easy to obtain in sexual-assault cases, courts are allowed to consider, juxtapose or string together disparate events, statements or actions under less-known, but important 'Res Gestae' doctrine. The special court that convicted Prajwal Revanna has deployed this legal reasoning under Sections 6 to 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. For the record, 'Res Gestae' is a Latin term meaning "things done". In legal context, it describes statements made spontaneously and contemporaneously with an event, considered reliable evidence because they are not the result of premeditation or fabrication. The court said the "law allows certain exceptions to the general bar on hearsay", citing Indian and English legal authorities. The court relied on Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v State of AP (1996) to highlight that spontaneity and contemporaneous conduct or statements may fall within the ambit of this doctrine. In this context, it found admissible the behaviour of the survivor shortly after the incident and other related acts and statements. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru For instance, the court pointed to the testimony of prosecution witness 4, who noticed the survivor appearing distressed and muttering that "they cannot do anything" shortly after completing some work in the Basavanagudi house in Bengaluru. Though minor, the court said this was relevant because it reflected the survivor's mental state immediately after the incident. Further, prosecution witness 2, the survivor's son, testified that on the day of the 2024 parliamentary election, he heard the mother and his sister speak in hushed tones, saying they should not be caught by the police, and was asked to remain quiet. The court noted this was significant as the prosecution alleged the survivor was being hidden due to the circulation of obscene videos involving her and the accused. The court highlighted the accused's own statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, where he acknowledged filing a civil suit and obtaining a stay order against the publication of such videos. This, the court said, showed that the accused was aware of the circulation of the videos before the election and had taken legal steps accordingly. Importantly, during cross-examination of the survivor, the court noted the accused did not specifically claim the video content was morphed, but only suggested that the male in the video was not him. The court held that this conduct, seen through the lens of 'Res Gestae', amounted to a non-denial of the video's content. The court relied on the forensic evidence presented by prosecution witness 22, a scientific officer from the audio-video forensic section of the FSL in Bengaluru. He testified that the videos submitted for analysis showed no signs of editing or morphing. While acknowledging that their lab could not detect deepfakes with precision, the officer said frame analysis had not indicated any signs of tampering. Drawing all of this together, the court concluded that the survivor's post-incident conduct and the accused's actions before and during the trial were relevant and admissible under the 'Res Gestae' principle. These elements, the court said, helped establish the naturalness of the survivor's behaviour and lent credibility to her account.
NDTV
40 minutes ago
- NDTV
UK Teen Gets 1 Year Jail For "Sadistic" Torture, Killing Of 2 Kittens
A UK judge on Monday sentenced a 17-year-old boy to one year in prison for the "sadistic" torture and killing of two kittens. The teenager had also wanted to kill a human and researched how to "get away with murder", according to the prosecutor. Two kittens were found cut open with ropes attached to them in a park in northwest London in May. Both kittens had pieces of flesh and fur apparently burned off them. Police also found knives, blowtorches and scissors at the scene. The teenager, along with a 17-year-old girl, both pleaded guilty to possessing a knife and causing unnecessary suffering to the animals. Neither can be named for legal reasons. The girl is also due to be sentenced at London's Highbury court. District judge Hina Rai said the killings were "without doubt the most awful offences against animals I have seen in this court". The boy's actions were "extensively planned" and "clearly premeditated", said the judge, sentencing him to 12 months in a detention centre. "I really wanted to murder someone. Every day I was researching how to get away with murder," read notes found on the boy's phone. "I have killed cats to reduce my urges." His actions "showed a degree of planning" in "finding the animals, taking them to a public place and killing them in such a sadistic manner", prosecutor Valerie Benjamin told the court. The teen told police he suffered from "depression, anxiety, hallucinations and self-harm", the prosecutor added. According to the BBC, UK police are investigating possible links to a wider international network of online users who share and film footage of cats being tortured or killed. The British charity RSPCA recorded 1,726 reports of intentional harm to cats in 2022, which is around five cats a day.
