##UPDATED## ln just 1 year ...68,765 people had their tobacco/cigs seized by UKBA/HMRC

On top of the 68,765 people who had their tobacco/cigs seized, 5618 of these poor souls had their vehicles seized,

The figure of the number who had goods seized is even higher in reality as when people who are intimidated into leaving their goods without an interview by UKBA/HMRC there is no documented record of this unless the UKBA/HMRC chooses to do such. UKBA/HMRC are not obligated to record such an incident immediately ... they can do it at their convenience. Heh heh, so these seized goods that there is no record of will ALL be documented at a later date by said UKBA/HMRC officer? Answers on a postcard please.

So, to the facts we've got through an FOI for seizures in the period 2008/9.

Firstly we'lll look at Maritime Seizures. These include all the ports AND get this ... the Channel Tunnel at Coquelles in France. Creative accounting? :) This total is 4,712 seizures. Oh l forgot! there's an extra 2836 seizures (the only ONE they put in their annual performance report). These 2836 seizures are cross-channel seizures ... perhaps they don't know cross-channel is Maritime.

Next we have Air seizures which total 41,765 seizures

Then we have Inland seizures which total 1,477 seizures.

Overseas Seizures are 132... yes 132.

All the above are for cigarettes only. The tobacco are as follows.

17,703 seizures. They don't break this down into Maritime, Inland, Air, Cross-Channel or Overseas.

Also they don't say where the 5618 vehicles were seized but they don't know what happened to them anyway!. They seem to think that giving me this information is not in the public interest! :)

How long is this wholesale state robbery going to continue?

Written in a quaint no-smoking restaurant in Bulgaria where they supply ashtrays to smokers. No going out in the cold for a smoke for me :)


l chose 2008/9 stats because l could get some of them from HMRC before part of it got swallowed up in the merger to form UKBA.

Since then stats are very hard to get because UKBA say HMRC have them and vice-versa. Even bloody Damien Green didn't know who kept the stats and he's the Minister in charge of them! 

The 2008/9 stats were difficult enough as they only published Cross-Channel seizures of 2836. This was a blatant attempt to deceive the public and it is still going on.


It's been a while since l've been back in Yambol, Bulgaria, The restaurants, bars etc had a choice of going smoking or non-smoking. The smoking bars, restaurants are doing well, some of the non-smoking establishments have closed down and the other non-smoking places now have smoking even though the signs say 'No Smoking Allowed'.

Lesson to be learned eh? Ah but our esteemed representatives are not listening are they? Fingers in the ears and eyes shut tight.  


  1. Has Zaphod got a van he wants to sell me? Preferably a white one? Cos that looks like its the only 'industry' this government is truly supporting at the moment.

  2. Alas it is yellow! Don't ask! lol. SH

  3. How many illegal immigrants did UKBA catch? 1? 2?

  4. None anon. Goonies just there to rob Brits

  5. Far be it from me to suggest that there is anything, in any way, inacurate about the figures supplied by HMRC, but if we have about 70 000 seizures, over 40 000 of which are by air (so all airplane passangers, we can assume)that leaves quite a bit under 20 000. Plus the HRT figures, if we assume the same general split of airports to land ports, let's be generous and say a total of 30 000 seizures for all those who enter the UK other than on an aeroplane.
    And over 6 000 cars seized. 20% of all those who had goods taken also lost vehicles. When you consider how many travel by coach, foot passengers on train and ferry, cyclists ect, they must be saying that very nearly every single person who has tobacco taken also loses their car if driving. Which is not (yet) the case, so the figures must be, well, not let's say lies, let's say they have been 'creative' or, more likely, have indulged in 'pure fabrication caused by an amazing level of organisational incompetance.'

  6. Guess who just love the confiscation and destruction of billions of cigarettes
    Obviously those who have to replace them,yep the tobacco companies
    Hardly surprising the tobacco shares
    have reached an all time high
    thanks to Government interference
    Not forgetting the £23 BILLION loss
    to the Exchequer since July 07
    Look at the Finance Ministers of Europe running round like idiots
    trying to stave of bankrutcy,meanwhile
    Health Ministers busily shutting down thousands of businesses and
    throwing hundreds of thousands on the dole.
    Time for a change,a big change

    Room with a view

  7. Duncan ... l chose 2008/9 stats because l could get some of them from HMRC before part of it got swallowed up in the merger to form UKBA.

    Since then stats are very hard to get because UKBA say HMRC have them and vice-versa. Even bloody Damien Green didn't know who kept the stats and he's the Minister in charge of them!

    The 2008/9 stats were difficult enough as they only published Cross-Channel seizures of 2836. This was a blatant attempt to deceive the public and it is still going on.

  8. Wheres FOREST with all these issues????? Sweet FA as usual!

  9. Doncha know Prop? lt's not an issue! Simon Clark sez so!

  10. Simon is too interested in all them fancy dinners to bother about us smokers. lf the baccy companies are paying him for this you have to wonder what their true agenda is because it certainly isn't for smokers.

  11. The true reason that Theresa May relaxed the rules on identity checks for those entering the UK was to allow UKBA staff to spend more of their time harassing smokers.

    She was probably told to do it by ASH.

  12. It would be interesting to know the difference in seizures from travellers from the EU and those from the Rest of the World.

    However, interesting stats and hope to see more up to date ones.

  13. SH - I received a 'full and complete' letter today from your bestest friend Damian Green (well, signed pp beneath his typed name) as a reply to my complaint to my MP about why HMRC/UKBA had no idea what happened to the vehicles they seized.
    He acknowledged my points, hen stated that the figures were as a result of a FOI request (correct, that man) and that the issues 'were being addressed' in a reply and that he 'hoped' that future figures provided by UKBA would be 'even more accurate than those given at present' - ie, failed to answer any point whatsoever or give any information at all.
    No surprise there, but your reply to the FOI should cover all points and show just how seriously they are taking the matter. Or, just possibly, not.

  14. Nope, sorry Duncan but Justine says they are still stonewalling and perhaps/maybe UKBA have the data. This is from HMRC that put out the original data and state they got £4,259,000 for the sale of these vehicles!

    Justine gives this link


    What a bloody joke! Perhaps they 'hope' we stop asking questions? lol They got a shock coming!

  15. I do wonder about UKBA and their powers...

    The boating community have been suffering at their hands.

    It's a question of attitude and UKBA's attitude seems to require adjustment across the board - I've had a gut full of the arrogant bullying shits at UK ports and airports.

    If I'm coming back from Belgium with more than 800 ciggies and some creep tries to thieve them from me - how far can I resist an illegal attempted siezure of my legitimately held goods?

    If they catch me on the wrong day I'll happily do the porridge - and take them *all the way* through the courts.

    I'm mad as hell....

  16. So much for the lie of the single european market then.

    Shouldn't someone at the EU be sorting this out ?

  17. Anon 02.02 .... UKBA dress up like that at Hull Ports. All dressed in black, body armour and utility belts. They love the utility belts ... :)

    l did laugh when l saw them and even asked why they are dressed like that as it makes them look stupid and not macho. They replied it was to protect them from gangs getting off the ship ... much the same as terrorists ... it never happens! l informed them rather than protecting them such amount of stuff actually makes them more vulnerable ... too many places to grab hold of!

    ln actual fact the teason why they dressed like that was a directive from senior management so they looked more intimidating. This came out in court Hoverspeed v HMRC.

    To me they look ridiculous ... like kids playing dress-up!

    As l keep saying ... record them on phones, cameras or whatever. They have to behave then and boy do they look uncomfortable about it! :)

  18. Anon, How far can you go? About as far as SH and Zaphod have taken it I would think..upto the point of being arrested under the Terrorism Act.

    Be Cool-is the Rule. Rather than a right hook try "oh btw Officer, this is a web cam and its streaming live to the web".

  19. Think we can take it further SBC, baccy cruise 6th Dec and l arrive in Manchester tomorrow :)

  20. l very impressed by the stand N2D taking. They have as you say, no fear. l am liking this,

  21. Please could you tell me what you use for recording the ukba people.
    John Gibson

  22. @ John Gibson, SH recommends something like this: http://tinyurl.com/c329whl

    Personally I prefer hidden 'spy' video cameras- just type that into ebay-they are all much of a muchness.

  23. SBC,thanks very much.
    John Gibson


"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!