Immigration Officer Puts Wife on No-Fly List

A British immigration officer has been fired after admitting to adding his wife's name to a no-fly list to be rid of her. The officer's wife was unable to return from Pakistan for three years as a result. From the article: "The tampering went undetected until the immigration officer was selected for promotion and his wife's name was found on the suspects' list during a vetting inquiry."

I guess that's one way to do it

[Blessed_by_the_Cow]

It was certainly effective. Think she knew he's the one that did it?

Re:

[Locke2005]

She does now!

He's in trouble

[wiedzmin]

Any punishment that the government can inflict upon him for doing this, will be nothing compared to what his wife will do to him once she's back in the country.

Re:

[Straterra]

It figures she wouldn't divorce him after all that.

Bonus Points for Creativity

[mercurized]

Nice try though, definately something that doesnt come to mind at first. But didnt he get caught just because he applied for that promotion himself? He could have figured that there could be a background scan somewhere, and that it might raise an eyebrow or two not only that his wife is on the list, but that she had been put there by him..

Due process

[Dishwasha]

And this is the perfect example of why the citizens should be protective of their rights and not allow themselves to get bullied by the TSA or any like-minded organizations. Give someone too much power without checks and balances and your entire life can be put on hold and leave you in an extremely dangerous situation. But hey, what's one woman's life in exchange for a security blanket for the masses?

Re:

[Vernes]

arg! I ran out of moderator points! Parent deserves it.

Re:

[OrangeMonkey11]

very well said

Bureaucracy

[operagost]

Cheers to the bureaucrats for taking three years to realize this! Seriously, it must have been uncomfortable around the 'office', shrugging every time a coworker asked what the wife was up to.

Inability to Appeal?

[davidbofinger]

Sounds like the real problem here was an inability to appeal. Ideally she should have been able to ask why she was being excluded and contest it, in which case the crime would have quickly shown up. The reason given for exclusion in TFA is absurdly vague, but I hope and believe something more specific appeared in her file. Problems like this often arise because of security, if that happened in this case then this is yet another parable about transparency.

I wonder what they can hit this guy with in a crim

Re:

[Nitage]

Sounds more like misconduct in public office [cps.gov.uk].