Forum Topic

Illegal workers in Chiswick High Road cafes

First I should declare an interest as I am occasional visitor to Hothouse Cafe due to the dog friendly policy, reasonable prices and friendly atmosphere.I don't condone the employment of illegal workers or the payment of staff below the minimum wage. However, it seems to me that Samy has been punished already for these offences and paid fines which probably exceed what he might have saved or has been lost to the tax payer. I understand that trading conditions are hard and that turning a blind eye to a lack of documentation may have appeared like a victimless crime but the rules are there for a reason. Although exploitation doesn't seem to have been an issue here - it certainly is at other businesses across London.The Home Office may have the power to intervene in a licensing matter but it seems to me to be vindictive for them to do so. If the loss of a licence closes the business, one man loses his livelihood and the legitimately employed staff will have to look elsewhere. Another independent business will close and business rates will go uncollected. Whether or not Hothouse should be allowed to have a licence should be a matter for the council and decided on the merits of the application alone.

Anita Blake ● 392d94 Comments

Here’s a first …. Spot on Paul. Also in addition to your valid points, under the counter employment also gave the business owner an unfair advantage over law abiding competitors. How anyone can try and defend these actions, which are the second time as well, is beyond me.

Mark Talbot ● 376d

Some people are very easily persuaded by cheap prices to overlook the findings of the Home Office in this case. I think that the most useful thing you are doing now Anita is continuing to draw attention to this story so that people who are put off by an employer exploiting illegal workers can make an informed choice when spending their money.

Paul Campbell ● 376d

Anyone who thinks that because a recipe appears simple it is necessarily easy to make will have someone to cook for them or lives off ready meals.I'm only speculating here but I have read the reports presented on this case, and despite some determined to paint Samy as a greedy employer who exploited the vulnerable, there is no conclusive evidence that this is what he is. All I can offer is that on earlier visits, it appeared to be a happy workplace and the quality of food was very high for the price being charged.

Anita Blake ● 376d

Barber shops, mostly empty, have been springing up by 50% countrywide over the past two years.Nigel Farage has been onto this money laundering breeze from the outset and now GBN reporters are going out exposing this scandal to the police.

Denis I. Fox ● 377d

“ because he was good at what he did and nobody that was available legally of the same standard”There are millions of people across the world who are very good at what they do  but that doesn’t give them the right to come and live and work here. There are legal routes to apply for work permits to cover jobs that Brits or permanent residents can’t cover.

Steve Taylor ● 377d

From The Telegraph today:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/14/barbers-shops-fueling-crime-small-boats-gangs/

Tadeusz Krzeminski ● 377d

'Shakshuka is an easy, healthy meal in Israel and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa. It’s a simple combination of simmering tomatoes, onions, garlic, spices and gently poached eggs'Flimsy, to say the least.

Mark Frost ● 377d

Are you suggesting that the owner of Hothouse may have employed an illegal worker because he couldn't find a legal one to make Shakshuka to an acceptable standard? Yes do please let us know!

Paul Campbell ● 377d

"There is no mention of paying below the minimum wage in the most recent case."The minutes from the meeting say:"The Panel were not assured by the Licence Holder’s suggestions [that he paid staff above minimum wage] given the witness statements produced within the application contradicted this information. Moreover, the Panel noted that the payslips provided as evidence in the Licence Holder’s statement did not demonstrate the payments made to workers at the time or prior to the Applicant’s visits and would have expected such evidence to support the Licence Holder’s claims. "So it looks like the owner didn't help himself by not providing evidence he was paying above minimum wage at the time of the Home Office visit.I don't know who is responsible for pursuing employers who don't pay minimum wage but in this case, they would have needed to get firm evidence and it looks like this is too much work.

Michael Robinson ● 377d

There is no mention of paying below the minimum wage in the most recent case. Hothouse was renowned for its Shakshuka rather than its English breakfasts and the concern would be that the chef that got caught was the one who made it and wasn't been employed to save money but because he was good at what he did and nobody that was available legally of the same standard. I'll find out whether this is the case on my next visit assuming it is still in business.

Anita Blake ● 377d

Chiswickians may have to pay more than £5.95 for a cooked breakfast  in a cafe whose owner employs legal workers and pays them minimum wage or better via PAYE .....

Paul Campbell ● 378d

Very callous Steve, there are victims here. Some unfortunate Chiswickians are going to have to make their own coffee tomorrow

Mark Frost ● 378d

As long as they are catching the illegal immigrants and prosecuting those who employ them, I don’t care how much of my ‘tax dollar’ they spend. I’d rather they spent it on this instead of wasting it on spending it on hotels and accommodation when the illegal immigrants are just free to roam around and disappear into the black economy eg restaurants, car washes, drug dealing, prostitution, domestic slaves and sex slaves. About time the Councils and Immigration officers pulled finger. Good on them.

Steve Taylor ● 378d

Alas, no more can we enjoy the gentle waft of freshly ground illegal worker.

Mark Frost ● 378d

I've just seen that the Hothouse licence was revoked. I'll miss it if it closes and it is hard not to feel sorry for Samy even though his excuses looked a bit thin. The councillors on the committee seemed to have had little choice given that the immigration inspectors turned up to the meeting mobhanded but, for those concerned about loss to the taxpayer in this case, how much did their collective overtime cost us?

Anita Blake ● 378d

Jeremy, I have not even declared a view on what should happen at the licensing review. That you continue to ignore this demonstrates quite clearly that it is you who is political and not me. I have merely filled in the gaps left by the supporters of Mr Amer to explain why the Home office has taken the action it has taken. Your ad hominem efforts to discredit people repeating what has been reported in the local press have no bearing on the decision that the Council will take. I have also ignored your allegation that this is the first time I have commented on a licensing decision. It most certainly is not! I have supported many licensing applications from responsible business owners and community organisers on this forum.

Paul Campbell ● 386d

The difference in my position and yours is that I have read the papers for the case and concluded that there may be two sides to this story and our councillors should be allowed to decide the future of his licence not the Home Office.You on the other hand have taken a strident and uncompromising view on the matter based solely on your standing operating position that if Cllr Biddolph is for it you are against it and, now that she has changed her mind, you changing yours would expose you for what you are, a man driven by petty emnities and not any sense of justice.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 386d

I’m loving all the irony here. Wonder if his pet sock will pop up.

Russell Pearson ● 388d

Don't be silly, they would never allow me on OneChiswick Facebook group.  Support for cycling schemes results in instant expulsion from it.However there are lots of people who were prepared to lie to the questions that get asked when people ask to join the group so no shortage of news of the bonkers stuff that gets posted there.  It is a daily laugh for some people and they think it is hilarious.This forum seems to be going the same way with conspiracy nutters and fakes.  Ah well, it had a better run that most other internet forums.

Michael Robinson ● 388d

Someone likes Slade.

Brian Green ● 389d

Haha!

Robert Fish ● 389d

Interesting how desperate both you and Anita are to defend this man. Downplaying the seriousness of his crimes, maligning people who comment on what has been published in the local press, indulging in whataboutery about the inadequacies of the gig economy. All I have done is comment on and reproduce the facts. I have not even actually advocated for a draconian implementation of the rules as you put it. I have explained simply why the Home Office has asked the Council to consider removing the licence in question. It is you and Anita who are exaggerating, using hyperbole, getting increasingly personal. It rather begs the question - what is your interest in the matter and who is it who is actually political in this discussion? Defending the indefensible is a full time occupation on here and neither of you seem aware of the Streisand effect. Even the Councillor has more sense than both of you.

Paul Campbell ● 389d

I'm a bit concerned about this 'pakring'. What's going on? Talk about bizarre.

Brian Coyle ● 389d

I think PC should have been banned a dozen times at least and Michael Robinson too for his childishness. Bad losers

Maggie Dodge ● 389d

What are you doing on the OneChiswick Facebook group Michael?

Maggie Dodge ● 389d

He is abusive all the time on the OneChiswick Facebook group with zero encouragement from me.Lots of support from the other Onesies, however.

Michael Robinson ● 389d

You might wonder about it, but as other posters have said, how can you know?Maybe some of the delivery drivers are working illegally, but I would expect the majority are working legally - you could choose to boycott a company but then you are possibly detracting from the opportunities of those working entirely legitimately.

Andrew Jones ● 389d

I think someone's been watching On the Buses reruns.

Keith Iddon ● 389d

Anita said that the earlier case did seem more indicative of exploitation so I am not clear why you have spent so much time and effort restating the details. Mr Amer has issued a statement giving his side of the case - you can reach your own conclusion on how convincing it is.  The more recent case however, does appear to be less clear cut. There is no suggestion of payment below the minimum wage. Mr Amer is clearly guilty of breaches of employment law but you will have paid a builder cash at some point which is more or less the same crime. He has been fined for this as of course he should have been. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that your sudden interest in licensing matters and a desire for draconian implementation of the rules to close a business down is a result of Cllr Biddolph, initially at least, supporting this man who is just collateral damage to you in your petty dispute. Pretty shabby behaviour.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 389d

That is also bizarre. Shortly following the release of a survey of car pakring that showed excess parking spaces in the centre of Chiswick Councllor Biddolph demands that the developer of retirement homes must incur substantial additional costs to construct an underground car park for which there is no demand. For most of us this is just inconsequential entertainment. For the Councillor's colleagues it must be decidedly more painful than that.

Paul Campbell ● 389d

Anita,1. Paying lower than the minimum wage to four illegal workers is exploiting them. It's not an element. It is exploitation. How else can you define it?2. Where did Maggie criticise the actions of Samy Amer? I've only noticed her running a chaotic defence of his struggling supporters like you.3. Referring to the facts in the news reports on this topic is not "frothing at the mouth and standing outside his café demanding his lynching". It is explaining the context of the  forthcoming licensing decision. Mischaracterising disagreement and criticism and attempting to demonise people who have different views are crude rhetorical devices and not really necessary in what appears to me to be quite a simple discussion about the consequences requested of a Council by a Home Office for a serial offender.Here is the description of the four illegal workers from 2019. The Home Office itself describes in clear and precise terms why this is not a victimless crime and explains the harms people like Samy Amer cause to our society.2019 visit discovered four illegal workersThe cafe was initially visited by Immigration Enforcement in September 2019 where four women were identified as working illegally: two behind the counter, one in the kitchen preparing food, and a fourth who had been working as a cleaner.One said she had been working for about four weeks on the weekends prior to the enforcement visit.‘She stated that she was paid £7 per hour in cash by the owner. She claimed that she presented her ARC card (Application Registration Card) before she was offered the job. She confirmed that the manager knew she was not allowed to work.”The second woman, who was paid £4.58 an hour, said she had not shown any identification to gain employment.The woman working in the kitchen had entered the country ‘clandestinely’ by boat. She said she had been working for nearly two months and had yet to be paid, and her employer had not asked to see any documents.The fourth woman had been working as a cleaner for over a year and was paid £7 an hour. Mr Amer said he was not aware she did not have the right to work.

Paul Campbell ● 389d

So when he's not being abusive you like to encourage him to start again?

Robert Fish ● 389d

The reference to Onesies was entirely relevant given the abuse he posts on the OneChiswick Facebook group.

Michael Robinson ● 389d

"Before Paul Campbell has an aneurism I should stress I am not making an anti-cycling point"What does an aneurysm look like on a large egg ? Lots of little cracks with yellow yolk weeping out, perhaps ?

Richard Greenhough ● 389d

He has managed to get Maggie Dodge and Paul Campbell united in common cause even it is in frothing at the mouth and standing outside his cafe demanding his lynching. That is some achievement.The word exploitation has been banded around by both of them and it does look like the earlier case in 2019 may have involved an element of this. However, it is much less clear whehter the more recent one does. I'm not saying that it would be enough to spare him further punishment but every time I visited that cafe there was a good atmoshere with staff who seemed pleased to be there and were friendly. This can't be said for every establishment on the High Road. I, for one, will be sad when Hothouse closes which now looks inevitable.As for the delivery companies, they are undeniably bad corporate citizens. Their liveried riders more often than not jump red lights and don't use lights at night including ones on electric bikes that can suddenly loom out of the dark at you.Before Paul Campbell has an aneurism I should stress I am not making an anti-cycling point. It is brilliant that so many of our deliveries are done by bike.However, young men are often bad cyclists just as they are bad drivers but it should be down to the company that employs them (and employ them they do whatever they claim the legal position is) to ensure that they obey the rules of the road and don't endanger themselves.As you don't need a licence to ride these bikes, it is likely that most of the illegal labour employed as delivery riders will be using them. This isn't the reason I don't use these delivery services. Talk to a restaurant owner and they will tell you how bad a deal they get from them so always order direct from your favourite places. A massive new 'dark kitchen' complex is being built nearby in Acton which is likely where your food order will come from in the future. Order away if you are unconcerned about actual exploitation of workers legal and illegal.

Anita Blake ● 389d

Very good, Sherlock. Nothing like deducing the obvious.

Richard Greenhough ● 389d

I too came to the conclusion that Pete Mayes was the man behind the masks. But his posts weren't abusive and made no mention of the great Chiswick road war. Your reference to Onesies was gratuitous.

Robert Fish ● 389d

Finger on the pulse, springs to mind.

Mark Frost ● 389d

Cllr Biddolph makes it so very easy... in the space of a couple of weeks, in addition to Hothouse-gate, there has also been a bizarre objection to the Street Food market because the organiser was seen borrowing a knife and a bonkers demand there should be an underground car park under the police station.

Michael Robinson ● 389d

From the posting style, my money would be that "Pete Bayes" is Pete Mayes, black cab driver although he may have now retired, who was banned from this forum and now plies his trade of abuse in the more welcoming environs of the OneChiswick Facebook group.

Michael Robinson ● 389d

They would be hard pushed to post anything worse than Humpty Campbell.

Richard Greenhough ● 389d

How long before Cyril Blake, Jack Harper or Arthur Rudge start posting?

N V Brooks ● 389d

I think she does cycle doesn’t she? I’m surprised she doesn’t get more support for other Councillors, some of whom seem to be at the beck and call of the local thugs who rule Chiswick .

Maggie Dodge ● 389d

Just because some posters defend this wonderful Councillor you start childish name calling.  How about you start backing up your accusations ! I’m not a member of One Chiswick but you happily call me a onesie. Defend yourself or stop being so petty

Maggie Dodge ● 389d

Someone's been watching On the Buses.

Keith Iddon ● 389d

You tell him, Pete.

Richard Greenhough ● 389d

Pete Bayes and Stan Butler are clearly pseudonyms, but I'm not sure you can justifiably call them fake Onesie names. Bear in mind that "Pete Bayes" was offering advice on a thread which had nothing to do with the perpetual motorist/cyclist wars. Fetid cesspool?

Robert Fish ● 389d

"If Cllr Biddolph were to have a Damascene conversion and support cycling, as it says in the scriptures, "there shall be more joy in heaven for one repenting sinner, than for ninety and nine righteous who have no need of repentance".Maybe so, but I very much doubt if that would stop Humpty Campbell's attacks on her.

Richard Greenhough ● 389d

So campaign for regulation of the gig economy if that is what is exercising you. I'm not going to stand in your way. get frothing. Back on topic: the Home Office clearly thinks that Councils should consider removing alcohol licences from business owners who are serial offenders in exploiting illegal workers and any reasonable person would find it hard to disagree with them.

Paul Campbell ● 389d

"if Cllr Biddolph is for something you will be against it"Not true Jeremy.  If Cllr Biddolph were to have a Damascene conversion and support cycling, as it says in the scriptures, "there shall be more joy in heaven for one repenting sinner, than for ninety and nine righteous who have no need of repentance".Do you think it is likely Cllr Biddolph apologised without being asked or that she was told to apologise by the Conservative whip or whatever their disciplinary structure is?

Michael Robinson ● 389d

I am not defending Samy Amer. He got caught and was fined and deserved to be. If you feel he should also be punished with the loss of his business, then that is your prerogative. The point is that his offence was small scale in comparison to those of the large companies who are not being punished at all, let alone twice for the same offence.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 389d

Yes I see that you are persisting with your defence that because other people are exploiting illegal workers we should turn a blind eye to Samy's crimes. I've already passed judgment on that defence and have nothing further to say on it. So weak.

Paul Campbell ● 389d

"What has the answer to that question got to do with Hothouse?"Self-evident surely?Your faith in Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister who presided over the largest ever increase in immigration in this country, to sort out this issue by writing a letter is touching. However, he resigned shortly after writing it. On the face of it these multi-billion companies avoid criminal charges and paying people the minimum wage and providing them sick and holiday pay by saying they don't employ the riders. Every indication is that a significant proportion of delivery riders do not have the right to work in the UK and the crackdowns boasted of by Jenrick are tiny in the context of the scale of the industry. This is inevitable as the people benefitting from this exploitation are not being made accountable. You however think the problem is Samy Amer employing his friend as a cook and paying him in cash.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 389d

It only takes the slightest criticism of Cllr Biddolph for the bat signal to be lit, summoning the latest  round of fake names from  the fetid cesspool of  OneChiswick Facebook.“Pete Bayes”, “Stan Butler”… wonder how long they will last before they are buried in the graveyard of other fake Onesie names.

Michael Robinson ● 389d

The government should do some research into a possible link between the sudden onset of mental health problems whilst being caught for a crime. It's a worrying trend.

Mark Frost ● 389d

Met  Councillor Biddulph once  at The Hot House funny enough ,a very normal well meaning woman fighting the good fight against the labour council lemon suckers.I cannot see any info on fines for the food delivery companies, a few arrests in a "clampdown" about the same time as that directive above nov 23 guess their  lawyers argued that it was the self employed driver renting out his details is to blame not them guv.

Stan Butler ● 389d

"Mirror,mirror on the wall who's the saddest snide of all?""'tis you, little Grove Park troll, 'tis you."

N V Brooks ● 389d

What has the answer to that question got to do with Hothouse?

Paul Campbell ● 389d

How many fines have been issued to Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat for the employment of illegal workers?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 389d

"Now that Coucnillor Biddolph has officially withdrawn her opposition to the Home Office and her support to Hothouse will the usual apologists continue to be so keen to push their defence I wonder?  Reverse ferret."That is a very Humpty Dumpty Campbell post - can't be bothered to check his typing before hitting send (Coucnillor !!) and banging on about small furry animals. On the face of it, Cllr Biddolph seems to have had a reasonable motive in supporting a local business, has apologised for her error, and and is still concerned for the mental well-being of the owner. Humpty considers that a good reason for another of his snidey attacks on her.

Richard Greenhough ● 389d

Do you think Paul Campbell is capable of admitting he made a mistake? That’s why he’s inferior to those who can.

Maggie Dodge ● 389d

"there are those who will see anything less than perfection as a failing for them to exploit". Sorry I thought this was a reference to the topic we were discussing. I didn't realise you were just making an unrelated generic accusation about unrelated and unnamed people being exploited for their failings....I realise that my expectations of some degree of coherence from people on this forum are misplaced and that I really should have learned from experience by now. Anyway back on topic. Jenrick wrote to the delivery companies in November on this. Clearly the Home Office is concerned, is taking actions and is not just somehow unfairly singling out an independent business owner on Chiswick High Road.Here is his letter:14 November 2023Dear Uber Eats, Deliveroo, Just Eat, Illegal Working in the Food Delivery Industry This Government is determined to prevent illegal migration and clamp down on abuse of our immigration rules.Illegal working is not a victimless crime. The ability to work illegally in the UK is a major driver of illegal migration and provides the practical means for migrants to remain in the UK unlawfully. It undercuts legitimate businesses and cheats those with the right to work in the UK out of employment. It is invariably linked to tax evasion, illegal renting and abusive and exploitative behaviour, including modern slavery in the most serious cases. Those who enable illegal working – either deliberately or through malpractice – are complicit in the harm it causes society. Our Immigration Enforcement teams are surging the number of operations being conducted to bring those violating our laws to justice. Over the first three quarters of 2023, over 4,000 immigration enforcement raids have taken place across the UK targeting illegal working, marking a 70 per cent rise on raids completed during the same period in 2022. For those employers that are caught acting in a non-compliant manner, we are trebling the fines they will be issued. This heightened enforcement activity has exposed the level of illegal working within the food delivery sector. Specific enforcement activity directed against the sector so far this year has resulted in 381 people being arrested. Whilst we continue to ratchet up enforcement activity, I am determined to tackle the root cause of the problem. The gig economy is a growing part of the UK labour market that, when operating correctly, is a force for good. However, the current levels of abuse within the sector, enabled by business models which rely on individuals themselves to confirm a person’s eligibility to work, enable unchecked account sharing to take place and are completely unacceptable. This has allowed illegal working, labour exploitation – with tragic results – and places the security of the public at risk. When a member of the public places an order with a food delivery company, they have the right to know that the person who turns up at their door has been properly vetted by the delivery company. The practice of allowing account holders to substitute work to other individuals completely unknown to your business, potentially including illegal workers, must end. The Government expects you to end this unfair and dangerous practice and, as swiftly as possible, evidence to us the processes and technology implemented - such as facial recognition software - to enforce that position. As leading technology businesses, you are uniquely placed to respond to the challenge swiftly. Over the last few months, the Home Office has had constructive engagement with the sector. In the summer we secured agreement to strengthen recruitment processes, including how to confirm a person’s right to work in the UK, and to improve awareness of illegal working. But as I made clear to you earlier today, we must go further to end unchecked account sharing altogether. I am pleased to have secured agreement with you today on improvements to your operations. By maximising the power of technology, you can prevent unchecked account sharing and ensure the public have confidence that the person delivering to their homes has been properly vetted. We have agreed to continue working together at pace, recognising the urgency and seriousness of this issue. However, if progress towards this outcome cannot be demonstrated, the Government will be forced to consider all options to prevent illegal working and exploitation in this sector. The stakes are simply too high to allow practices that allow it to continue unaddressed.The Home Office’s priority will always be to strengthen our borders and keep the British public safe. It is crucial that we work together to end those practices which compromise this. Yours sincerely,Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MPMinister of State for Immigration

Paul Campbell ● 389d

Where did I say that? Contrary for the sake of it yet again Mr.Campbell.Really must try much harder, or, better yet, say nothing.

N V Brooks ● 389d

Ah so it isn't the workers being exploited, it is Councillor Biddolph? How exactly is she being exploited here?

Paul Campbell ● 389d

So, Cllr. Biddolph made an error of judgment, corrected it publically and apologised publically. Sadly, there are those who will see anything less than perfection as a failing for them to exploit in pursuit of their own agenda; perhaps they would do well to look in the mirror.

N V Brooks ● 389d

Strident views? Look at you projecting again. I pointed out to the OP that paying people far below minimum wage sounded like exploitation to me. A defence that others are also exploiting illegal workers isn't much of a defence really is it? I don't think the Council will be taking much account of that one when making their decision on the licence.I'm sorry but it is local news that the Councillor in question has had to apologise for her defence of Hothouse. Perhaps you think the local news and the local Conservative Party are pursuing a vendetta against her? More likely they raised yet another collective sigh at the serial lack of judgment. Here is the Chiswick Calendar update from yesterday:Update on Thursday 1 February: Cllr Biddolph says she made her comments without reading the Home Office report in fullThe Opposition group of Conservative councillors on Hounslow Council have sent The Chiswick Calendar a statement from Cllr Biddolph, saying she has withdrawn her support for Mr Amer’s licence application.“I made my comments without having read the Home Office report in full”, she said.“I realise not reading the report in full is an error and an embarrassing one. I was shocked and visited the licensee wanting to know the background. On 22nd January, on receiving the papers for the panel hearing, I read the Home Office review and immediately wrote to the licensing department to say that I was reviewing my position.“Later that day I said the Home Office report changed my position. I spoke to, then messaged and emailed, the licensee to say that I could not support him. That remains my position.“As a fellow human being, I remain concerned for the licensee’s mental health and his future and have contacted him a couple of times to see how he is. This is entirely separate from the fact that I cannot support his behaviour as outlined by the Home Office.”

Paul Campbell ● 389d

I did wonder why you had such a strident view on this issue and should have realised that if Cllr Biddolph is for something you will be against it. Now that she has changed her position it would surprise me if you now launch a 'Save the Hothouse' campaign.Anyone considering this issue who isn't driven by petty personal vendettas when forming their views will be asking if we are being well served by the authorites if widescale employment of illegal labour by delivery companies is taking place on the High Road but enforcement is being directed at one small cafe.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 389d

Now that Coucnillor Biddolph has officially withdrawn her opposition to the Home Office and her support to Hothouse will the usual apologists continue to be so keen to push their defence I wonder?  Reverse ferret.

Paul Campbell ● 390d

Sammy should get done for extortion ..guilty as charged mlord selling cups of coffee at £4 while paying his staff half of sod all.....I digress,Sammy is an easy nick ££40k fine last time £40k!  while the delivery companies just carry on.

pete bayes ● 390d

The irony is that there is a big cross over between people who get very exercised about illegal immigration and those who are dead set against identity cards. One of the reasons we have a small boats problem is that it is much easier to get work here than on the continent because of most countries having ID cards.I agree with previous comments highlighting that the problem we have with illegal workers is mainly down to their employment being embedded into the business models of some large international companies and not a small cafe employing someone on an occasional basis to try and keep operating.

Mark Evans ● 390d

It's one reason why so many want to come to the UK.  No ID card requirement and so it's pretty easy to disappear into the black economy, aided and abetted by business owners like this.

Claire Moran ● 390d

This is happening all over the ockey btw.Houses like the one raided on Mill Hill Rd.house illegals.It was found to have 76 bed areas,including in the kitchen.

Keith Iddon ● 391d

More rigorous enforcement might help.  I’m sure more frequent ‘random’ checks of the delivery bikers servicing the dark kitchens of Acton and lined up outside MacDonalds would help sort this out, together with more legislative clarity on what kind of high speed, heavy duty electric ‘bikes’ should really be classified as mopeds.

Peter Evans ● 391d

Maybe it is the job for the employer but my question is do you ever question anything any further than your ability to click and order and eat.  Why?  Just because you should.

Philippa Bond ● 391d

Why not?  He is a serial offender.

Steve Taylor ● 391d

Why single out Sammy ? Why did Hounslow target his establishment in particular ?

Anna Kirkpatrick ● 391d

A few weeks ago a Deliveroo bicycle had a RTA with a car in Chiswick. He had no front light and was cycling the wrong way down a one way street.Hundreds of pounds of car damage. Deliveroo apparently insure their riders but on contacting them, they had no knowledge of this riders details and refused to engage with a claim.

Nick Jenkins ● 391d

It isn't a matter of "punishing someone twice".The objectives of licensing are formally stated as:- the prevention of crime and disorder- public safety- the prevention of public nuisance- the protection of children from harmI assume that the licensing committee will re-examine these objectives based upon current evidence and will make an assessment if the current holder can be trusted to meet the objectives, I assume in particular "prevent crime" given he has committed crimes by employing illegal people and paying them below the minimum wage on 2 occasions.Immigration offences are specifically mentioned in the Licensing Act and if the Home Office reports this to the Licensing Authority, the Licensing Authority must review the license.Maybe they didn't do this the first time but on the second occasion, they thought he was taking the proverbial...

Michael Robinson ● 391d

"Does everybody check whether their home delivered supper is delivered by a someone who has passed any tests to ride a scooter on the road or is indeed legally allowed to work here.."That is a question for the employer or hirer, not for the customer.

Richard Greenhough ● 391d

‘Does everybody check whether their home delivered supper is delivered by a someone who has passed any tests to ride a scooter on the road or is indeed legally allowed to work here.’How would I do that?

Peter Evans ● 391d

Indeed.  Does everybody check whether their home delivered supper is delivered by a someone who has passed any tests to ride a scooter on the road or is indeed legally allowed to work here - or are they only interested in their supper?

Philippa Bond ● 391d

This does seem rather heavy handed by the Home Office. Nobody seems to be disputing that Mr Amer shouldn't be punished, the question is should he be punished twice for the same offence.The employment of illegal workers by online delivery services has been widely reported on so it is likely that the overwhelming proportion black market labour on Chiswick High Road is employed in this way. These multi-billion companies are basically guilty of the same offence as Mr Amer, either not checking properly or turning a blind eye to a lack of documentation. It is ever the case that if officials are given enforcement powers they use them to the maximum extent against soft targets and thereby don't tackle  underlying problems.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 391d

HA, since Covid.

Janice Evans ● 391d

Since BREXIT.

Mike Smith ● 392d

Since Covid 😉

Janice Evans ● 392d

“ one man loses his livelihood and the legitimately employed staff will have to look elsewhere. ”The legitimately staff should have reported him for employing and exploiting an illegal. The legitimately employed staff should have no problem finding alternative employment as there is a massive shortage of hospitality staff since Brexit.

Steve Taylor ● 392d

It makes you wonder what is motivating people to defend him. The same people who clutch their pearls about the unfair competition for local businesses of some food stalls for a few hours once a month.

Paul Campbell ● 392d

£55k

Keith Iddon ● 392d

Seems Amer paid £40k in full so he can't be short of a few bob.I havd no sympathy for him whatsoever.Profiteering and exploiting.

Keith Iddon ● 392d

“Although exploitation doesn’t seem to have been an issue here” What exactly do you call paying less than five pounds an hour then? Sounds like exploitation to me.

Paul Campbell ● 392d

He has acted illegally; he has exploited people; he has encouraged illegal immigration by offering jobs to illegals. He must be punished severely.

Steve Taylor ● 392d

'Mistakenly' employing one illegal worker, plausible. Five (that we know of...)? Right. And what about the opportunity of a 'livelihood' he took away from legal workers?Seems all very fishy to me.

Mike Smith ● 392d