Byron Burgers immigration raid.
Discussion
You might have thought it a complete non story, but company complies with officials over illegal workers and gets slated for doing by the thick end of Twitter and Facebook. Why would you actively condemn them and then try and boycott their business ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36910950
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36910950
I don't really know what the outraged of Twitter actually expect?
Employ illegals and you're essentially robbing someone legal of employment, presumably the same people are also outraged that people here legally (not simply British people) cannot get a job.
Does seem a bit of a cake and eat it position
Employ illegals and you're essentially robbing someone legal of employment, presumably the same people are also outraged that people here legally (not simply British people) cannot get a job.
Does seem a bit of a cake and eat it position
mizx said:
Too wrapped up in the tttersphere and announcing their 'feelings' to everyone is more important than reading anything properly.
Implying they knowingly employed them which clearly isn't the case.
I'm not conversant with details of this case but my understanding is that the legal onus is on the employer to ascertain whether a job applicants status/documentation is bone fide? Implying they knowingly employed them which clearly isn't the case.
bhstewie said:
I don't really know what the outraged of Twitter actually expect?
Employ illegals and you're essentially robbing someone legal of employment, presumably the same people are also outraged that people here legally (not simply British people) cannot get a job.
Does seem a bit of a cake and eat it position
Comprehension and logic are part of skillset I'd call 'common sense' which, is an oxymoron.Employ illegals and you're essentially robbing someone legal of employment, presumably the same people are also outraged that people here legally (not simply British people) cannot get a job.
Does seem a bit of a cake and eat it position
stripy7 said:
mizx said:
Too wrapped up in the tttersphere and announcing their 'feelings' to everyone is more important than reading anything properly.
Implying they knowingly employed them which clearly isn't the case.
I'm not conversant with details of this case but my understanding is that the legal onus is on the employer to ascertain whether a job applicants status/documentation is bone fide? Implying they knowingly employed them which clearly isn't the case.
stripy7 said:
I'm not conversant with details of this case but my understanding is that the legal onus is on the employer to ascertain whether a job applicants status/documentation is bone fide?
And employers who have doubts can contact the authorities who then advise them to keep employing them until such time as said authorities turn up to nick them, otherwise they just drop off the radar again.13m said:
stripy7 said:
mizx said:
Too wrapped up in the tttersphere and announcing their 'feelings' to everyone is more important than reading anything properly.
Implying they knowingly employed them which clearly isn't the case.
I'm not conversant with details of this case but my understanding is that the legal onus is on the employer to ascertain whether a job applicants status/documentation is bone fide? Implying they knowingly employed them which clearly isn't the case.
stripy7 said:
TeamD said:
And employers who have doubts can contact the authorities who then advise them to keep employing them until such time as said authorities turn up to nick them, otherwise they just drop off the radar again.
Ah interesting thanksstripy7 said:
13m said:
stripy7 said:
mizx said:
Too wrapped up in the tttersphere and announcing their 'feelings' to everyone is more important than reading anything properly.
Implying they knowingly employed them which clearly isn't the case.
I'm not conversant with details of this case but my understanding is that the legal onus is on the employer to ascertain whether a job applicants status/documentation is bone fide? Implying they knowingly employed them which clearly isn't the case.
It has been made clear that the employer performed the correct checks but the documents were fake.
So, had you read the story, you'd not have commented, probably.
TeamD said:
stripy7 said:
TeamD said:
And employers who have doubts can contact the authorities who then advise them to keep employing them until such time as said authorities turn up to nick them, otherwise they just drop off the radar again.
Ah interesting thanksstripy7 said:
13m said:
It has been made clear that the employer performed the correct checks but the documents were fake.
So, had you read the story, you'd not have commented, probably.
Actually, you're wrong. Now fk off.So, had you read the story, you'd not have commented, probably.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36910950
"The Home Office said Byron had done the correct "right to work" checks on recruits, but it was suspected the employees had provided false documents."
stripy7 said:
Although isn't the point about the sheer number involved here? Surely companines don't want the bad PR and aggravation and would just not employ in the first place?
If they have what looks like the correct documentation then how would you know? The story seems to be that the employees were supplying forged documentation which I suspect would be of great interest to the immigration folks and thus warrant a more in-depth investigation. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff