UKBA Solicitors Threaten 68yr old Pensioner Again!!!

Treasury Solicitor's Department
One Kemble Street,
OX 123242 Kingsway
Switchboard: (020) 7210 3000 (GTN 210) Direct Line: (020) 7210 3270
Direct Fax: (020) 7210 3072/2996 Jessica.

Dear Mr *************

Your website MuggedByUKBA

We are aware that you run a website, MuggedByUKBA

It has come to our attention that this website contains a number of comments about individual UKBA staff members (notably Mr Ian Sked) which are of an extremely aggressive and personal nature.

Whilst we respect your right to comment on UKBA's activities, we view individual attacks on UKBA staff as unacceptable. We therefore ask that you remove the comments relating to Mr Sked and anyone else in UKBA who is mentioned by name immediately. If you do not comply, we reserve the right to take further action against the site and its authors.

Yours faithfully
Jessica Da Costa
For the Treasury solicitor


Perhaps we should write to Ms Costa?

Dear Ms Costa

Your agency UKBA

We are aware you represent an agency, UKBA

It has come to our attention that UKBA on a number of occasions made comments to members of the public (notably cross-border shoppers) which are extremely aggressive and intimidatory.

Whilst we respect their right to do their job, we view individual attacks on members of the public as unacceptable. We therefore ask you to remove these unethical tactics relating to members of the public and anyone else who legitimately cross-border shops immediately. If you do not comply, we reserve the right to continue action against the agency and its staff.

Yours faithfully

Smoking Hot
For the legitimate cross-border shoppers

Pop over to George's place and give him some support.


  1. ''Arkell v. Pressdram'' was one of the frequent allegations of libel against the magazine, notable for its correspondence. The plaintiff's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply." The magazine's response was, in full: "We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: FUCK OFF."

    In the years following, the magazine would refer to this exchange as a euphemism for a blunt and coarse dismissal: for example, "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram"

  2. Great response Smokey

  3. Da Costa is using the same format as used in the Excise interviews. She doesn't demand articles are removed, she asks. Also this "they reserve the right" crap. We ALL have the same right ffs! It's a weak letter pretending to be something else and is a complete and utter "FAIL"

    And who the hell does she think she is to ask for anyones name from the UKBA to be removed? WTF?

    l could say more to Da Costa but l can't beat "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram"

  4. These lot don't do things off their own bat. Someone has to have complained to them and that has to be Sked as he is notably named. lts a bloody joke when you compare what response a member of the public gets when they complain to UKBA Complaints Team.

  5. 'weak' or 'probably haven't got a leg to stand on' was my first thought on seeing it this morning. I'm guessing- with my usaul caveat of not knowing much legalz- that its an intimidation attempt as otherwise the lawyers would have quoted the 1883 Telegraphical Misdeeds act or whatever pre-Intrawebz Age legislation applies (the 1983 telecommication one?). Infact there is almost no 'threat' to the letter at all.

    1. Those are my thoughts too. l doubt that Ms Da Costa has even read George's blog and is totally unaware of the responses, there or here. She was most probably just told to issue a letter with the details she was given and that's it ... or so she thought as she was nice enough (or is that naive) to furnish George with her personal e-mail address. l'm certain George would've acted accordingly. :)

  6. Jessica "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram" lmao

  7. Standard scare format letter, just bin it!

  8. Nominations for the likes of officers Lazzerini and Sked are overdue.
    Poll @

  9. Always tickles (probably the wrong word) me when you see the posters at the borders going on about how they will take action against people threatening or intimidating their staff.
    I think there should be a rider on them along the lines of "But it is ok for us to threaten and intimidate you".
    Just so we can be certain of where they are coming from.
    Double standards methinks.

  10. Yes, it seems they've got a code of conduct on how we should treat them but not vice-versa! :)


"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!