I don't really follow your line of argument.
Originally Posted by
flyerkit
Definitely somebody at BA can take a risk, but its a big risk and opens a door for abuse.
Why does it open the door for abuse? And how would it be a risk if BA had spoken to immigration and cleared it in advance?
Originally Posted by
flyerkit
How can BA know that the person is the same person who travelled outbound?
The only evidence is an invalid (expired) ID card and some digital images plus a story. In extremis BA could review CCTV footage and do investigations but still take a risk.
What relevance is that? There are no exit controls from the UK, all that matters here is whether the OP can prove they are entitled to return to UK.
Although you might well think it was careless of BA to allow travel out with an expired ID.
Originally Posted by
flyerkit
The risk of accepting somebody for carriage to UK from overseas is substantially more than a £3000 fine, potentially (though unlikely) losing BA its delegated authority to bring focumented passengers to UK.
According to Gov.uk it's £2000. And we all know that a situation like this would not result in the rest of what you say.
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...rs-are-charged
I do agree this is largely down to the OP, and that the OP's DYKWIA attitude doesn't help, but I don't see the point in inventing things which are not really relevant.
Finally is it not the case that Article 5 of EC38/2004 states that "
where a Union citizen......does not have the necessary travel documents or, if required, the necessary visas, the Member State concerned shall, before turning them back, give such persons every reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary documents or have them brought to them within a reasonable period of time or to corroborate or prove by other means that they are covered by the right of free movement and residence."
In other words is the OP not able to prove via other means that he is entitled to free movement?