A friend of mine has just returned to UK via Hull P&O Ferries. He's not a smoker but his vehicle was carrying excise goods .... alcohol (note to self ... must pay him a visit). He was pulled over by the Border Force but as he was carrying no tobacco there was no interest from Border Force and he was soon on his way.
However, when my friend was initially stopped he asked the Border Force officer to show his ID. At first the officer just gave my friend his number. My friend was not satisfied with this and asked for his photo id and somewhat reluctantly this was eventually produced by the officer.
Now here's the thing ... it was a UKBA photo ID, not Border Force. Theresa May and the Home Office stated categorically that the Border Force came into being on 1st March 2012 and are entirely separate from UKBA. Only the Border Force are responsible for the ports/airports.
So why are Border Force officers displaying UKBA ID? Is this therefore displaying false ID?
Another thing about Border Force/UKBA is that they rarely produce their ID unless repeatedly challenged ... and sometimes not even then. Even if they consent to giving their ID they just seem to think that giving their number is enough. Going along with this, l'm contemplating making my own number ... perhaps my passport number or driving licence or such. Once l've past through Immigration Control and if l'm then stopped by these officers and asked for ID l'll then give them a number! Should be interesting :)
lncidentally there is still no contact details whatsoever for the Border Force. l've rang the press offices of the Home Office and UKBA and they don't know. l've e-mailed Home Office and UKBA along with other government departments and got ............no response!
Perhaps Border Force are taking the secrecy they had whilst being UKBA to a whole new level! :)
However, when my friend was initially stopped he asked the Border Force officer to show his ID. At first the officer just gave my friend his number. My friend was not satisfied with this and asked for his photo id and somewhat reluctantly this was eventually produced by the officer.
Now here's the thing ... it was a UKBA photo ID, not Border Force. Theresa May and the Home Office stated categorically that the Border Force came into being on 1st March 2012 and are entirely separate from UKBA. Only the Border Force are responsible for the ports/airports.
So why are Border Force officers displaying UKBA ID? Is this therefore displaying false ID?
Another thing about Border Force/UKBA is that they rarely produce their ID unless repeatedly challenged ... and sometimes not even then. Even if they consent to giving their ID they just seem to think that giving their number is enough. Going along with this, l'm contemplating making my own number ... perhaps my passport number or driving licence or such. Once l've past through Immigration Control and if l'm then stopped by these officers and asked for ID l'll then give them a number! Should be interesting :)
lncidentally there is still no contact details whatsoever for the Border Force. l've rang the press offices of the Home Office and UKBA and they don't know. l've e-mailed Home Office and UKBA along with other government departments and got ............no response!
Perhaps Border Force are taking the secrecy they had whilst being UKBA to a whole new level! :)
Like the cut of your cloth sir. ID numbers idea sounds fun.
ReplyDeleteBe interesting to know what the guidance issued to officers says on the subject of them identifying themselves. I have a sneaky suspicion that their own guidelines will actually say that they have to show their photo ID on request.
ReplyDelete*feels yet another FOI coming on*
Go, The Dwarf! We know you have a knack for phrasing the question so they can't weasel out of it!
ReplyDeleteStill can't believe Tony Blair gave us the FOI lmao
ReplyDelete"Still can't believe Tony Blair gave us the FOI lmao"
ReplyDeleteThe FOI Act was Blair's Autobahns. The single most draconian prime minister in history who single handedly did more to destroy our rights than any leader of this cuntry since William Of Normandy...so much so that its now hard to find someone who will admit to having voted for him...that same megalomaniac dictator who destroyed the House Of Lords and The Bill Of Rights somehow happens to be the one who gave us, who care about Liberty, the single greatest weapon we have in our armory.
But then again, Blair's spiritual Step Dad Mr.Hitler murdered millions and yet built the Autobahns- which were arguably the single greatest factor in instilling a love for personal freedom in the germanic soul (trust me on this, Germans view their Right To Drive Like A Total Dick the same way as Americans The Right To Bear Arms).
Go figure.
If they have no official ID that recognises their position in the agency that NOW runs the borders then surely they have absolutely no legal authority to do that job?
ReplyDeleteIt's like a policeman having a warrant card issued by the Bow Street Runners.
You have an ID number , originally issued during WW11, its your NHS number successor to your WWII ID Card. For those born since 1941 its based on your Birth Certificate number so use it I am not a person I am a number 458 297 1113 but you can call me bob
ReplyDeletep,s, I've an FOI in on who are proper officers (CEMA 1979 Sect 78 Para 2)
ReplyDeleteBobi, I'd appreciate a look at that when you get a reply, please- little.green.men.molest.me.ATgmail
ReplyDeleteAnybody know anything about signing anything with V.C before your signature to show it was signed under duress? V.C stands for Vi Coactus Is this just another urban myth? I saw it here
ReplyDeleteFrom CEMA
ReplyDelete"
" proper ", in relation to the person by, with or to whom, or the place at which, anything is to be done, means the person or place appointed or authorised in that behalf by the Commissioners"
Doh!
and "(2) Any person, whether an officer or not, engaged by the orders or with the concurrence of the Commissioners (whether previously or subsequently expressed) in the performance of any act or duty relating to an assigned matter which is by law required or authorised to be performed by or with an officer, shall be deemed to be the proper officer by or with whom that act or duty is to be performed."
DeleteDoh! Doh!
Zaphod rightly quipped that by the sounds of this the coffee machine could be deemed a proper officer! :-)
Delete"subsequently expressed" would indicate to my mind that if the coffee machine decided to seize someone's goods then as long as the Commissars...ooops sorry the Commissioners...said it was ok after the event then it would be legal.
ReplyDeleteIts actually quite a scary thought. Anyone at all could be deemed to have been a lawful Officer. The trainee BF'er, The Tea Lady, The Mad Old Bag Lady Who Hangs Round The Port. That's quite a sweeping empowerment. I don't think that if I "Citizen's Arrest"'d someone then I would later be deemed to have been a Police Officer at the time.
Infact thinking on it some more the only post-event empowerment that I can think of that parallels it is in the Catholic Church...when someone who has acted as a priest is deemed to have been a priest whether he was or not (for example a baptism by a 'fake' priest is still a valid baptism).
ReplyDeleteThe State sure likes to protect its revenue....more than it's citizens.
I'm sure that somewhere in CEMA there will be further criteria specified for proper officers that states "alive or deceased" :)
DeleteI have decided that I don't sign documents that I didn't make. A signature is always voluntary, and is actually one of the key actions you do to submit to their jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteI don't sign anything I didn't make. but if forced to sign I would write V.C. first, then my first name then a capital R (for royalty) no matter what my last name is. And then "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT RECOURSE (OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE) UCC 1-308". A signature is a key action that submits you to their jurisdiction, I just wouldn't do it. Check out my site FREEDOMfromGOVERNMENT.us for more info.
ReplyDelete