Originally Posted by
Wageslave
What on EARTH has demonstrating "dishonesty" vis a vis a fake passport got to do with an assumption of it also being a physical hazard to the flight - having, as I previously pointed out, presented no hazard whatsoever to his inbound flight. that is so utterly irrational it astonishes me it even needs to be stated. Is there something special about passport fraud? Do you come the Big I Am and offload him because he defrauded a business partner? Just what level of self-appointed moral judgement do you imagine your four bars entitle you to exert?
I think some people here are severely exceeding not only their capacity for exercising logic and clear thought but also their professional authority.
I am not impressed that "commander's decision" is compatible with that level of unsupportable dictatorial behaviour.
Is he likely to be a a danger to the flight? Yes or No? That is all that is under consideration.
In the example given the answer is clearly No.
Have to disagree with you, parabellum makes valid points.
Whilst he could be travelling on a fake passport because he cannot get a real one yet is desperate to travel for honest reasons (such as to visit sick family, or escaping persecution, they could genuinely have no malicious intent).
BUT, he could be travelling on it because he IS purposefully hiding his true identity, because he is a security threat and a no-fly list.
Perhaps he knows the procedures and is counting on being denied entry into the country, and is expecting/hoping to be returned back to point of departure.
Can you definitively say someone who has purposefully used false travel documents has no dangerous intentions for doing so?
If not, I don't feel it appropriate to put other passengers, crew and potentially people on the ground below, at risk without taking such precautions as criminally deporting them. Especially if they are travelling in desperation.
Its concerning that others appear they wouldn't even have any hesitation to allow them on.
It may be the airlines job to get them back to point of departure, but its security's job to have stopped them getting through in the first place, so it's not the airlines fault necessarily.
Escorted and detained, like they do when deporting criminals, I wouldn't have a problem. After all, travelling on false documents is a crime.
Originally Posted by legislation.gov
4 - Possession of false identity documents etc with improper intention
(1)It is an offence for a person (“P”) with an improper intention to have in P’s possession or under P’s control—
(a)an identity document that is false and that P knows or believes to be false,
(b)an identity document that was improperly obtained and that P knows or believes to have been improperly obtained, or
(c)an identity document that relates to someone else.
(2)Each of the following is an improper intention—
(a)the intention of using the document for establishing personal information about P;
(b)the intention of allowing or inducing another to use it for establishing, ascertaining or verifying personal information about P or anyone else.
(3)In subsection (2)(b) the reference to P or anyone else does not include, in the case of a document within subsection (1)(c), the individual to whom it relates.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine (or both).
6 - Possession of false identity documents etc without reasonable excuse
(1)It is an offence for a person (“P”), without reasonable excuse, to have in P’s possession or under P’s control—
(a)an identity document that is false,
(b)an identity document that was improperly obtained,
(c)an identity document that relates to someone else,
(d)any apparatus which, to P’s knowledge, is or has been specially designed or adapted for the making of false identity documents, or
(e)any article or material which, to P’s knowledge, is or has been specially designed or adapted to be used in the making of such documents.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both), or
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum period or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).
(3)In subsection (2)(b) “the maximum period” means—
(a)in England and Wales or Scotland, 12 months, and
(b)in Northern Ireland, 6 months.
(4)In subsection (3)(a) the reference to 12 months in England and Wales is to be read, in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as a reference to 6 months.