FFS! ... Incompetence or lying devious b##tards! PART 3

Reply from FCO!                          see  Part 1 Part 2

Thank you for your email of 13 June 2010 which was received to the Consular section of our Embassy in Riga. I am sorry to hear about incorrect customs information displayed on the travel advice section of the FCO website that covers Latvia, and have now ensured that the situation is corrected with regards to the personal allowances of cigarettes from Latvia to the UK.

The FCO places great importance on providing accurate and up to date information on our web pages. This is particularly true of FCO Travel Advice as it assists British nationals to make informed choices on travel destinations and behaviour that can ultimately lead to a safer and more pleasant trip. I am sorry that on this occasion incorrect information was displayed.
I understand that the changes in customs regulations only came to our attention on 21 May, despite having been in place since 1 January. Despite investigation, I have been unable to track down where the break in communication was, but the travel advice of the various countries involved were duly updated once it came to our attention. Unfortunately, as you rightly point out, the Latvian travel advice page was not updated along with the others. This was an administrative oversight and has now been corrected. 

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write to us with your concerns, and please be assured that we have rectified the matter and will ensure greater vigilance on this matter in the future.
Yours sincerely
V Bates
Baltic Desk Officer
Foreign & Commonwealth Office

You've got to laugh at the incompetence they readily admit to with no shame whatsoever. Afterall, why should they care about the welfare of UK citizens in other countries ... it isn't as though that's what they are there for, is it?. Wait a minute ...

No comments:

Post a Comment

"In the eyes of the Tribunal the review letter contained several preconceptions, prejudgments and non-sequiturs"

"the absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it"

"We therefore find that Mr Sked misdirected himself as to the Policy in carrying out the review and his decision is therefore one that no reasonable review officer could have arrived at."

... commonly known here at N2D as 'Skeds' ... that is to say these are Judges comments regarding UKBA Review Officer Ian Sked's reasons for rejecting peoples appeals against seizures.

Comments are now moderated to keep out spam and those with malicious intent. The author of this blog is not liable for the content of any comments ... period!