Proven lies and cover-up by UKBA

Well, let's see how they try and get out
of this one. Despite telling them from the very beginning that l had a recording of the incident ... they ignored it. lt shows the mentality and sheer arrogance of the UKBA. They've got away with it for so long they think they are untouchable. So much so that they sent me an official response that denied the detainment ever happened! How stupid can they be?

Obviously they thought that the recording never existed ... but it does! Not only does the recording show they are blatant liars but South Yorks Police are on my side too ... and they sent me a letter stating so.

l've always advocated using recording equipment when dealing with the UKBA. This incident shows why!

Here is my full response and accusation to their official denial. lt's quite long but if you're interested it's here. l'll keep it as a front page because l feel it is important. l'll post their reply when l recieve it (it takes them 20 working days) Not quite sure when 20 days is up ... see here


  1. Nice one SH they'll be putting bullshit into overdrive for this one. Watch yer back though cos if you werent a marked man before you will be now.

  2. Fucking hell they'll shoot you for this! Great site by the way. Keepit up.

  3. i came back through robin hood with my nan and grandad. they were cnuts to my grandad and he only had 5 packs of amber leaf. he calls em nazis now.

  4. My only thought is along the lines of Nonny1. They won't actually shoot you - well, probably not - but you're a blogger and a smoker buying abroad and, to them, a pain in the arse. And on top of all that you record them being wankers and acting ultra vires. They may be wise to that next time and want to see your phone. I doubt there'll be anything as obvious as dropping it but they may use some bullshit about phones not being switched on in the area due to interference with their Borg nanocircuits connecting them to the Collective.

    I have two suggestions. First, look for an app that lives streams so that even if they take your phone from you and switch it off the recording up to that point is already beyond their control. You'd probably clarify that they were detaining you for the benefit of the phone before handing it over for them to turn off, or refuse to hand it over on the grounds that if you're not being detained you're off home, ta very much. Secondly, look for a backup recording device. I've seen pens with tiny cameras in the shops here that record onto an internal flash memory that you can plug into your computer via USB later, but unless you want video too I'd be tempted to look for one that is sound only. I think the advantage of these is that they can, or so I believe, be used as a pen still. A camera lens, even a very small one, might be spotted. But if you're jotting notes then they're unlikely to think the pen in your hand is recording every word as well.

  5. i would never trust any UKBA officer (in name only). I've had incidents with them so know how much they can lie. In court my barrister was asking one questions and if he didnt want to give a trueful answer, all he said to every question is "I don't recollect" especially when asked for water and fresh air which was refused me. Luckily I won the case and justice prevailed. Lieing bastards

  6. AE ... ssshhhh now. :) lch verstehe

    Spikejack ... but justice wasn't done. They escaped all the wrongs they did to you and troubled/incovienienced you for a long period of time ...months? During that you most prob had to purchase UK priced cigarettes. That isn't justice.

  7. A real eye-opener.Why carnt the msm do this?

  8. very true smoking but at least the bastards were shown to be what they are. it was only a small victory for me, roll on the glorious day when they have to work within the law

  9. Spikejack ... l'd like to say Well Done! lt takes something to take on this unjustice. They try everything to frighten you to not going to court. The odds are stacked against you but you did it.

    Kudos Spikejack! It wasn't a small victory at all, it was a bloody big victory. Well done!

  10. First they fucked up, then they tried to cover up. Classic mistake. If they had any sense they'd have said sorry, quickly and weakly. Now they're really gonna have to crawl!

    Nice one, Smokes. Keep it up!

  11. Expect something along the lines that they cannot investigate because the officer involved in your incident is on extended sick leave.

  12. Way l see it it's conspiracy. You've got a minimum of 2 ukba officers lying on their statements to knowingly makeup a common false version of events. That has to be conspiracy.

  13. Tim ... you could be right.

    Anon 22.23 ... Yes indeed.

  14. fuck the lot of them. there all petty little theiving lieing bastards!

  15. Hello all. We must remember and consider that no doubt At All UKBA will be monitoring this Blog / Site.
    Dec 2010 I had a small package (400 Cigarettes) siezed , I was informed by UKBA of this by letter on 5/12/2010 the letter should have contained a "Notice 12A" (what you can do if things are siezed by HMRC) it did not , I telephoned their helpline the operator taking my call was in my opinion somewhat fairly abrupt in his manner and I was told to look "on-Line" I explained I didn't have full access to Internet facilities, was then told I could go along to a Library or internet cafe, however he eventually agrees that it was an error on their behalf and a Notice 12A should have been enclosed and that one would be sent,Ireceived the booklet 12A 18/12/2010.
    I wrote to them directly after christmas requesting possible restoration of siezed goods. and also filled in section LetterB of Notice 12A. My letter was posted to the address as given Plymouth PL6 5BZ,
    03 Feb 2011 I finally have a reply back from UKBA Coventry CV3 4HX.
    My letter of 27the Dec was received by them at CV3 4HX 18/01/2011. I telephoned to ascertain why my letter appeared to take so long to get to them the telephone operator at UKBA was polite but experience told me from the onset that he was not fully compitent he had to seek advice from another advisor , finally it was agreed that my Letter sent to Plymouth (as they requested) had to be forwarded to Coventry?.Their letter dated 03 02 2011 told me seized items had been destroyed as per their rules/regulations. No notice 12a in the first correspondence from them, (Delay 1) then a reply from them in Coventry to the letter of appeal that I sent to Plymouth as per request (delay2) by then there was absolutely no chance of having the small package of 400 cigarettes restored,delaying tactics on behalf of UKBA ?, what a way to operate a business but then hardly suprising its another Government Department. like to hear any views and thankyou for this blog I'll be watching avidly as no doubt "big Brother" will be lol.

  16. Anon 16.38 ... you still have a legitimate claim because by what you've said, they were at fault and not you. E-mail us if you want to appeal. You can still appeal by letter.

  17. Also l'd like to add that no doubt UKBA are looking at this site. Well GOOD! ... we have nothing to hide but this time we do have something to declare:-

    lf you are a UKBA officer and do your job with integrity and honesty, that's fine. We have no problem with that whatsoever. What we do have a problem with is the UKBA officers that don't have integrity and honesty. We are fed up with British Citizens being robbed, intimidated, harassed, lied to and all behind a veil of secrecy that makes them think they can do what they want. Yes, l know you have targets. You may call them 'indicative' targets or anything you like but they still remain targets.

    lf you try to achieve them targets by using tactics that are unjust, then we will continue to fight you anyway we can.

    We are not afraid of you because we do nothing wrong. We adhere to all rules and regulations ... unlike you! You'll find nothing on this site that advocates smuggling ... period!

  18. Many Thanks for a VERY prompt response! I am intending writing to them in Coventry, I'll post and let you know how I get on, another thing I would like to add is whenever you contact UKBA by phone when they answer I always request them to give me their name.

  19. No prob Anon 19.01. Am busy online with future adventure organising. l personally record EVERY call with UKBA as well as getting their id. Been invaluable at times.

  20. OK, lets recap where were you travelling from and how many cigarettes did you have? If it was outside EU your allowance is 200 cigarettes. Anything over and you are breaking the law. Duty and tax lost to the government approximately £100. Times that by the X number of people bringing in over their allowance. Millions lost to the revenue. The government choose to tax the unhealthy. I drink so Im prepared to pay the large tax on alcohol. When I'm a broad I AM the one that is respondsible in finding out the legal allowances for the country Im travelling to or from. If it was within the EU thats a different matter. You have to be interviewed to see if the goods you have were bought for your own personal use. The personal allowance for EU goods is 3200 now I think so I cant believe they would have seized 400 cigarettes. SO WHATS THE ARGUEMENT. If the officer was a wanker then you obviously were unlucky or you were a wanker to them in the first place

  21. Anon 19.46

    Read about the incident first before you comment. Cigarettes were not the issue!

    You seem to accept the government line without question ... why is that?

    Unlucky the officers were wankers? Yeah right, like thousands of others that are 'unlucky'? Do you know anything about the UKBA????

    You want to pay extortionate UK tax ... be my guest. No l don't HAVE to be interviewed if l purchase in the EU. Also there is NO allowance as there is NO LIMITS for personal use.


"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!