I tried to fly to London on a fake passport [video]
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
If you're trying to view the video under Windows, you'll get an error that says, "You need to install Flash Player to play this content. Download Flash Player now."
Tip: Install a browser add-on to change the user agent to report "iPad" or another platform for which a Flash Player does not exist. The video will then play. I personally use the Firefox extension called "User Agent Switcher" which works well.
It's so ridiculous that we have to do this. I thought Flash was dead. I'd like to ask the BBC's web developers why they don't just show the non-Flash video if Flash is not installed in the user's browser?
But if they have a way to serve the video without flash, it just blows my mind.
If I visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/html5 in Firefox with no Flash installed then I get:
Flash is not installed or enabled
If you would prefer not to use the HTML5 Player beta on this device you must download or enable Flash.Give them a few years to realize that video can be played without using Flash too.
[0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/f6f50d1f-a879-49...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34799790
Oh the irony.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/8be5501d-43e7-4b...
That being said, I've documented some workarounds here:
Firefox - https://unop.uk/how-to-watch-bbc-news-videos-on-a-desktop-wi...
Safari - https://unop.uk/how-to-watch-bbc-news-videos-on-a-desktop-wi...
Video ads are 99% flash still. even if your platform is html5, nobody will pay if you can't show their flash crap.
"Although some asylum seekers might enter the UK illegally, once they have applied for asylum they are no longer ‘illegal’. Anyone seeking protection is entitled to stay in the UK while awaiting a decision on their asylum claim." (http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/the-asylum-process-made-simple)
In a nutshell, beggars can't be choosers.
What that statement generally means is that beggars can't generally afford to turn down charity, hoping for others to give something better.
But in this case this is not what we are talking about, but a situation where someone has to decide which country they will try to apply for asylum in, amongst multiple possible options. In that case, they most definitively can choose to some extent, even though the alternatives may have different perceived risk profiles.
And as with everything else, of course some people will choose badly.
One option, getting asylum as soon as you can, is your right, and the other option - crossing the border with forged documents to get asylum elsewhere - is a crime.
Yes, you may prefer A to B - but if one of them is permitted and the other is not, then there is a big ethical difference, and simply choosing whatever benefits you most is not appropriate.
Person A can choose.
Ergo, Person A is not a beggar.
Of course they can choose, but they have to stop playing the "refugee" card.
Even if you can find a job in English (which is possible, things like startups or video game developers are sometimes in English), you will need the local language to talk to shop keepers, repair men, salespeople, any government worker, etc. Basically all the day to day bullshit errands you need to do are only doable in the local language.
Nordic countries are probably OK with English only since a huge % of the population speaks English. Everywhere else though, no chance. The English speaking % is far too low.
In Nordic countries at least, that is indeed not a problem. Literally everybody speaks english at some level, and the whole especially in the larger cities you can often end in shops or restaurants where the people that work there only speak english.
> it sickens me how these "refugees" are choosing what
> country to stay in despite the fact they say they
> escaped war and torture
Why is it sickening? Surely it makes sense for any person to choose the best option of those open to them?
Does having a degree make you a better person or a more functional part of society? Does not having a degree bring bad rep?
And.
Why do you think these people don't have degrees and can't be functional members of society? Do you think they're stupid because their country was at war? or are they stupid because they have no means to just catch a plane and get a visa?
Your comment is extremely unfortunate.
I think it would be safe to say that in case of the parent commenter this is true.
It seems obvious that he/she is educated and actually wants to be a part of society.
You can either argue with me based on facts or at least come up with some thoughtful insights but not with "I'm loosing faith in humanity".
I can't answer that. However, I can say that having a degree makes an Syrian immigrant a better person or a more functional part of a Western society.
A degree in the Third World is often associated with education (duh), work ethics and a sense of civility. I know this might sound elitist as heck but what use would a developed country have for someone without any of those qualities?
>Why do you think these people don't have degrees and can't be functional members of society?
Simply because they couldn't even be functional in their own society.
I never said they were stupid but if Third Worlders were so bright, why isn't the Third World developed?
Unfortunate? What's unfortunate to me is that I have to point out why countries like my own are far behind. Like it or not the reason for that regression is people.
Here is the thing, our values are not "get a degree". Our values are respect, treating and considering each other as equals, help each other, you know, stuff like that.
Unfortunately you seem to be very far from understanding it. Hence why you'll have issues in Europe. You're welcome to come and learn about our values, but be ready to respect everyone equally regardless of their origin, studies or money.
Good luck in your life.
I used "refugees" intentionally to refer only to immigrants with solely economic motives not all refugees.
However, I'm a European living in the UK. About all areas I have looked seem to pay less or way less than France, Belgium or northern countries.
For example, unemployment benefits are a fraction of the one in France. State pension is a joke. As soon as you start earning an average salary, child/housing benefit are pretty much inexistent, especially considering that stuff like nurseries cost 3 to 4 times more than equivalent private nurseries in France or Belgium. Public school do not offer facilities for children outside hours and start later and close earlier than on the continent, meaning you need to "go private" for that too while it is free in both France and Belgium. Your workplace rights are laughable: after 8 years my wife would get the same redundancy package than a new starter in the same company in France. The list goes on and on.
What exactly is so amazing about the UK benefits that is worth the trouble compared to staying in France ?
The real stuff that the UK has going for it is that you pay less tax, there are more work opportunities and in big cities, there is less employment discrimination. But that means that immigrant come to work not as benefit leeches as they are picture in the news.
Paying taxes provide services that maintain the sensible level of social movement and pay differential that has been demonstrated to advance entire societies.
Why do so many people want to be the richest person in a shit-hole?
No, some small percentage of it is used for "social good" and the rest is wasted or funneled to well connected / powerful political insiders and their cronies.
Edit because I'm not allowed to reply anymore to below comment: I once lived in a Communist country. Never again. I'd rater die.
Trust me, "society" was very different before the federal government had vast amounts of money to fund everything we take for granted today as "government waste."
Let me rephrase that.
With everything I listed that you don't receive in the UK, this idea that paying less tax than the French is a good thing boggles the mind. Do you think tax payer money is just burnt or something?
edit: OK in case it requires more explanation: I don't mind paying more for more, but if I receive less then at least I want to pay less. And by "I", I don't mean personally receiving more or less. As a middle classer I know that I'm more likely to be a net positive contributor to the tax coffer and I'm ok with that.
Does it really matter? It's sufficient if many believe it. Apparently I could be wrong, but also you yourself are not taking a clear position if that's the case or not.
I forgot to add: when the application is done, he's legally pinned to the country.
Smugglers telling people that it is better to live in UK (the smuggler then gets to charge for the trip).
Easier to get work without papers
Community of people from same country of origin
More generous welfare provision (UK still gives 'normal' accommodation, other EU countries are re-purposing non-residential buildings to house asylum seekers)
There is little political incentive to change it since our right wing (profoundly anti-immigration) has gained in popularity in recent years. More generally, anytime you'll have to deal with our administration, it will be incredibly painful (for foreigners and locals alike).
Not disagreeing with you, just clarifying: the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, and AFAIK there is no intention of Britain leaving the Council of Europe (essentially, complaints can be brought to the ECHR against members of the CoE).
Britain's new PM seems to have that intent: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leav...
(Just to be clear: I profoundly disagree with her on this.)
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leav...
Is it? Do you have examples?
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
Edit: you updated your comment with the bit about the picture so it looks like I ignored it even though I didnt. He's speculating, we have no idea on the origins of the passport.
Probably the forger has just altered the name and picture on the paper, but can't tamper with the microchip that contains the data of the real owner.
Is there some other way to get valid passport number?
[1] http://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News/2014/N2014-038
It might be safe to assume that economic asylum seekers are looking for better life, which is fair and reasonable, but in this case the system is broken : why economic asylum seekers should get easier/faster/priority process over workers from non-EU countries, or why workers from non-EU countries should even bother with immigration process if they can just apply for asylum and be done with it?
- [1] http://www.migrationsverket.se/Om-Migrationsverket/Statistik...
What makes you think they do? The UK locks many asylum seekers in immigration detention centres.
And then there's the fact that this guy had contacts to criminals that can create fake passports. I guess nobody did something about that too, their smuggling and fake passport business is probably still making profits!
Edit: And he is no asylum seeker in my book. He was in France so what is he fleeing from?
Maybe he doesn't know, and doesn't want to learn French?
RE: something great or terrifying
Classic case of "do the ends justify the means." It's not a simple thing.
I couldn't care less if he doesn't want to learn french or hates baguette, what kind of ridiculous excuse is that?
Do we soon have to enable refugees to live in Monaco, Disney Land or Hawaii just because they feel like it?
A made up one. Your parent made up "learn french" and you made up "hates baguette". I think you've invented something to argue against here.
Do you think that you yourself should be able to pick where to live and work? If yes, why shouldn't he?
I definitely do. I am happy to be EU citizen able to move and relocate freely in EU. I would be even happier being a world citizen able to move wherever I would feel like.
Alas asylum seekers are pinpointed to the place where they ask for asylum.
While this (badly designed) solution stands, the countermeasure they have to pursue is to ask for asylum in the final destination of your journey.
And I cannot see a good reason why Monaco, Disney Land (seriously?) or Hawaii should be exempted from helping asylum seekers.
No, I don't want this. And I don't want anyone to being able to settle in my country just because they would like to.
Anyone that believes otherwise (like you do) denies all members of a society the right to control and choose who can join and live with them.
If we take in people they should be sufficiently educated to have a chance on the job market and willing to be a part of our society and culture.
This is a good thing. Nothing good has ever come from xenophobia, racism and discrimination.
Btw: do you believe that sexual selection is racist? Because it works exactly the same way.
Maybe it would be better if Socialists and Liberals take that choice away from us and make sure we are not racist by allocating sexual partners to each one of us?
Or how about companies? Don't they hire along the same lines? Education, job experience, proficiency in local language. Are companies racist if they don't hire a guy from Afghanistan who can't read and whose only job before was herding sheep?
At least if our school system isn't a total failure like it already is in some areas.
Now imagine how well some guy will fit that comes here in his thirties only knowing Sharia law, cruel physical punishment and who is used to subjugate women by force if necessary.
It is not his skin color or genes that will likely cause him to be a problem in our society, it is the culture he grew up in that had him internalise these rules as being the just way to live your life.
Edit: And of course local people are privileged in this regard. Why shouldn't they? They were most likely raised by citizens who paid taxes and worked on improving their society. It would be kind of crazy to then forcefully send their children away.
Plenty of kids are homeschooled.
Disney Land is a private company. They are not signatory to any treaty on refugees and have no obligation to accept refugees. Should the US decide to use eminent domain to seize Disney Land and put refugees there, it would be possible, but very expensive and face much outcry.
The US has signed the 1967 Protocol on refugees. There is a right of free movement in the US, and I don't think there's any legal reason which prevents refugees in the US from moving to Hawaii should they feel like it.
In addition, Hawaii has accepted refugees before and the governor has said he is not opposed to accepting Syrian refugees: http://khon2.com/2015/11/17/gov-ige-defends-position-on-syri... .
Once a refugee enters any country that is deemed safe, he or she has no right to flee any further. It would be really hard to argue in court that someone had reason to flee France.
Countries can of course have bi or multilateral laws in place that allow free movement, but in case of the EU we have the Dublin Regulation that explicitly forbids this for refugees. The EU country where a refugee first sets foot on has to take care of the asylum process. If the refugee decides to move to another EU country then this country has the right to send them back and this is also executed.
Also yes, the Dublin Agreement is the current law. That does not make it just. I hold with a minority (alas) party of the country I live in - strike down that unjust law and, yes, require all EU and/or Schengen countries to share the effort of providing asylum. Including Monaco, which seems to be doing a good job of it already.
If you want to defend that unjust law, then there's another solution - promote more legal ways to enter the EU, rather than force them through land and dangerous ocean routes, and overloading the border countries.
Get rid of carrier liability and let asylum seekers hop a plane into whichever country they want. As it stands, airlines don't want to bear the penalty for transporting someone who might not get refugee status.
Charter boats so places which are willing to accept refugees (for example, in Spain, https://www.yahoo.com/news/barcelona-waits-refugees-arent-co... ) don't end up with only a trickle.
Quoting from that last link, "human rights are above European legislation".
>If the refugee decides to move to another EU country then this country has the right to send them back and this is also executed.
I guess you are not aware of the court rulings regarding deportation back to Greece?
So basically the court said that Greece is not safe for refugees.
If you know about this ruling then I'm sure you also know about this detail, it is widely known here in Europe.
Why do you then give me this reply? What is this about? You just wanting to be right, no matter if you deceive us by not mentioning this fact?
The fact the you are reading this on HN probably means that any one of us could have contacts capable of creating fake passports. I am certain that most tech savvy people with the right motivation could easily learn to use dark net tools and purchase fake documents within a few hours. This is 2016, contact with criminals no longer means hanging out in seedy drug dens or back alleys.
It's 2016, where engaging in criminal activity is still a crime.
There are so many innocent people, who has nothing to do with the violence. Show some compassion towards your fellow man, please.
He was already in France, then obtained a fake passport to illegally cross into the UK.
In addition, folks work and walk alongside criminals (who may or may not have gotten caught) every day, and they don't realize it. Stereotypes generally aren't true, and some have less truth than others. Not everyone is doing technically criminal things to hurt others, nor are outwardly bad folks.
You seem to have no idea how the asylum system works.
If this was a valid reason for not getting to seek asylum in the UK, then the UK would for all practical purposes be exempt from having to accept asylum seekers.
As others have pointed out, his main reason for wanting to seek asylum in the UK, is probably that his english is good, which makes it easier and faster for him to be a productive citizen there than in France.
Most people involved with this is aware of the fact that there's problems with the asylum system. If you think this is so awful, how about you propose an alternative system that distributes asylum seekers evenly and fairly across industrialized nations in a way that doesn't require them to cross borders illegaly. We sure could use more people who think about solutions, rather than pointing out problems that everyone is aware of.
But at the same time, I would like to understand why you are so vehemently opposed to him being legally allowed to pick wherever he prefers. If I'm born in France I can legally move and work in the UK, what in your mind is the rationale for not extending the same privileges to someone who's been given refugee status in France? Honest question.
Perhaps the UK would prefer to do its own background check on the man before just letting anyone in.
But once some person is in a safe place where there is no threat for him then immigration laws apply instead of asylum laws.
So why do I want to differentiate between immigration and asylum? (and generally all Western countries do so)
Asylum is something you grant based on moral principles, immigration is something that we grant only voluntarily.
And here I want my country to choose new immigrants based on what skills we need, what skills the migrant brings to the table and of course we also have to take into consideration if we are capable of absorbing them into society.
Meaning: Do they have a chance to integrate and lead a successful life here or not. This is very important because in Europe we already have no go zones where police cannot enter and the inhabitants basically implement some kind of Sharia law.
I will never accept living under some kind of alternative law without a fight. This does not mean that I am against Muslims, but I want to preserve the culture that we have here and more importantly the freedoms and the social order.
However, I have lived both in the UK and in France. If I had a choice, and if I was looking for asylum, I would choose the UK every time. In another video from him he says his two friends made it to the UK before him. The best country to get into Europe (as an asylum seeker) is the UK. It is also a reason why there is such a big fuss about immigration. The benefits are great, it is a very safe country, wealthy, lots of opportunity... etc etc. I might be very biast but the UK is quite a bit ahead of the other European countries in my opinion (with a few exceptions). If the UK was on mainland Europe it would have waayyy more immigration problems.
Edit: I am happy he made it. I am pro immigration.
But for someone who takes public transportation to and from work and just wants good food, an apartment for cheap and safety (UK - only country where I've seen drunk people yelling, bothering other people and throwing trash bins around and some guy threatening staff in a bank), as well as security in the future (pension, health care), Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, maybe France, they seem better. Cleaner too, sorry (except maybe France haha)...
It depends on your previous education. If he speaked both french and english (thus, language were not a relevant part in the decision), then France would be a better destiny. Is a Mediterranean country, so there is a lot of shared context. More similar climate (in the South), familiar ingredients used in the kitchen easily available, and because France have stronger historical bounds with several African, and by extension Islamic, countries. For islamic people to be able to find food halal prepared by other muslim of their same branch is a must. Finding a suitable job out of the capital would be also much easier. There are more locations suitable in France.
And as some comments have pointed out: With very good English, your opportunites are obviously a lot better in the UK than in any other country.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_name#Female_surnames
Also, we never change them, even if the holder is not male.
They got "frozen" in most languages once written records got widespread enough that it became common to want to be able to cross-index registers and track family relationships. It varies by country, but often it coincides with the introduction of tax authority registers or other large national databases.
In Spanish, all the surnames ending in -ez also mean "son of". Even many Spanish speaking people don't know (or don't care? :)) about it, as they've been used as "normal" (sorry) surnames for long now.
Lopez: Son of Lope Rodriguez: Son of Rodrigo Perez: Son of Pedro Martínez: Son of Martín etc
I love when etymology pops up in random threads :)
Magnus Þórsson
|
v
Baldur Magnusson
|
v
Erik BaldurssonAfter we were married, my wife's family name changed to 'match' my non-Latvian name, and our son got a different family name on his LV passport. e.g.
John Smith <-> Jana Smitha
|
v
Josefs Smiths/Joseph Smith
I was surprised he got through so easily. Good for him, though!