Such were the memories that Stephanie, a year later, thought it would be nice to repeat it. This time though it would be shopping and sightseeing with her best friends ... another couple. So it was arranged and Stephanie and her husband, along with the other couple set off in their car for the Channel Tunnel.
They later arrived in Bruges on a wonderful day. They walked round looking at the sites, visiting markets and shops (don't us husbands just love that?), stopping for coffees, a meal and one of the best things ... being able to smoke! Freedom to do what you want and enjoy it without being made to feel a pariah. Life was good and they continued to enjoy the day, laughing and joking as they went.
Towards the end of the day they decided to shop for those things that are cheaper in Belgium ... we call them luxuries :) These include in this particular groups mind amongst other things ... chocolate, wine, beer .... and tobacco! This they bought but decided that they liked the offers on the crossing better for the wine so would wait till then. Stephanie purchased everything on her card as it was easier and they would sort out the finances once they returned home. They loaded the car with all their purchases including the tobacco which worked out at 3.75kg each. They then set off for home. Arriving at Calais they found they were early and were able to take an earlier crossing. They'd be home early ... or so they thought but they hadn't reckoned on the UKBA drones stationed in Calais.
They sailed through French Customs and then onto UKBA Border Control where they showed their passports and were just about to drive on when a female UKBA drone appeared and asked what they had purchased. They replied beer and tobacco. The drone upon hearing the word tobacco had it's automatic tobacco circuit activated and demanded to know how how much tobacco they had.
They replied that altogether it would be 15kg. Drone's circuits did quick calculation ... 15kg divide by 4 = 3.75kg each, another drone circuit activated and this sent the message to drone's 'brain' "Over guidelines! Stop and Search! lnterrogation! Seizure!". Drone then ordered them to go over to shed where they were met by another drone (male version) who asked them why they had come to shed. The group said they had been ordered to come there by the female UKBA drone. Male drone said that they had better come in then.
This is where the fun really began. Fun for the drones that is but not the group. The drones were now in full interrogation, intimidation mode.They ordered Stephanie to unload the boot which she did (the tobacco was not hidden in any shape or form). The group were becoming nervous as the drones became aggressive and barked questions at them. Politeness is not programmed into these type of drones ... as isn't integrity, honesty or intelligence.The group were then seperated up to be individually
Stephanie says that the drone that questioned her was not that bad really. Stephanie gave the correct answers, did not lie or try to hide anything. Why shoould she, she and her group had done nothing wrong. Stephanies friend, Lisa, however was interrogated by the female drone that initially stopped them at Border Control. The female drone took the interrogation further. Along with the intimidation
The drones then went into their collective communication mode and the decision was made to confiscate the tobacco (in reality, made at Border Control one can safely assume). Stephanie and her group have never been stopped before and never had anything confiscated so they were completely shocked to the core thast this was happening. They'd heard stories of things like this but thought that they were urban myths. They were about to find out how harsh and real these myths are.
The drones had not finished with them by any means. They ordered Stephanie to empty her newly bought £20,000 car ... THEY WANTED THAT TOO! Stephanie would not do it, the car was specifically chosen and used for her invalid father-in-law who is confined to a wheelchair and for commuting to her and her husband's work. She refused to leave the car, where upon the drones threatened her with arrest. Stephanie rang her solicitor and he advised her to give in (personal note:- l'm not impressed with solicitors who deal with the UKBA and neither was David F here who represented himself. I once contacted many solicitors for advice on a case. Not only was their advice totally useless but they wanted a fortune off me for giving said advice. My reply was the same as the one in Arkell v Pressdram)
Dejectedly, the group emptied the car of their personal belongings and a van was supplied to drop them off at the Tunnel terminal. The van is not drone operated and so the van driver told them that this type of thing was happening more and more. So much so that it seems that this van driver is contracted and paid for by the drone collective ... he makes his living from it!
Once back in UK, Stephanie and her group had to get a taxi home as by now it was so late that the buses and trains had stopped. lt cost them another £150. Stephanie still does not have her car back, both her and her husband have no transport to their places of work (60 mile round trip) and her father-in-law is now totally housebound.
She has appealed but has been refused (surprise, surprise) and further costs have ensued because she used a solicitor .... who charged her £1000! Stephanie is fighting on but is finding it exteremely hard. She's also tried to get the MSM involved, her MP, MEP and even written to Camerloon. She is also still having to make the monthly payments on the car too.
l wish Stephanie well and we have offered any help we can. These are hard working, law abiding people and it totally disgusts me how they have been treat. Everyday this happens to the same sort of person but to the MSM and their ilk 'it isn't a problem' .
l'm ashamed of my country!
l know the UKBA read this site, well here's a message from me to them ....
'You disgust me, you're corrupt to the core and we'll fight and expose you to our last breath!
Note:- it seems the drones even ignore there own directives where it states and l quote :-
"Where a vehicle has been used to carry excise goods from another member state that are not for own use, but instead are intended to be sold to others on a reimbursement basis, then provided there are no aggravating circumstances and it is the first offence, Officers are instructed not to seize the vehicle but to warn the driver and owner that it is liable to forfeiture."
Taken from here <<< link fixed