Unhappy UKBA/BF Officers! :)

One wonders if these UKBA/BF Officers get any training whatsoever. It would seem that they have no understanding of their own regs and procedures ... especially if they are to the benefit of cross-border shoppers!

Audio to go with above video.


This next one is our UKBA/BF friends from Doncaster Airport. Seems one of these officers is unhappy with being recorded. The rest of the officers are very friendly and accommodating to the cross border shopper.  The officer talking about 'notes' re a conversation is referring to the initial chat. He was not the one going to do the full interview, it was a female officer who was doing that. Mr Unhappy UKBA/BF Officer seemingly decided to butt in ...  that can only be classed as an epic fail! He states on audio that it's not illegal to record the interviews! lol  ... he was 'unhappy' though :)

lt is SO SO important to record the interviews ... whether the UKBA/BF are unhappy or not! :)
Both shoppers came home with their goods!


Had an interesting communication from some of our readers regarding UKBA/BF Officers at Hull P/O Ferries. They were stopped and searched etc  by the officers but our readers only had one recorder so they made the UKBA/BF do one interview at a time. After the first shopper's interview, he requested to go in with the second interview as backup for the 2nd shopper. He was refused but our shopper was adamant he could be present in the interview as it was Civil Law. The UKBA/BF stopped the interview and 2 of them went to the Customs House on the docks. When they returned 30 mins later, they said that our shopper could be present on the 2nd shoppers interview. That's something else UKBA/BF at Hull have 'learned'.

Slightly more worrying was there were 2 other female shoppers there and during conversation with our 2 shoppers it seemingly turned out that these 2 ladies were told that they could not record the interviews and they had to sign the notebook! One of the ladies kept her goods and the other had them seized.

The thing is, our shoppers say they know one of the officers  that had seemingly refused these ladies the right to record from a previous time. This officer (allegedly 7885) on that previous occasion had overtly been recorded and voiced no objections! It has to said though that the difference is our shoppers knew their rights and the ladies did not.  The conclusion seems to be that if don't know your rights ... some officers will act unethically.


  1. With the olympics etc coming up, the UKBA have already said that they will be taking officers off Excise duties and putting them onto Passport Control. The Excise duties will then be performed by back room staff or the office coffee machine. So it will be even more important, vital even, to carry a copy of the Bobi-Foi...because the Coffee-machines will not have had anything like the training of a normal Excise man, know nothing of their own guidelines and will probably assume they are omnipotent.

  2. I hope the lady that was robbed takes it all the way. Far too many just cant be bothered or are too busy getting on with their life.
    However these bullies need to be exposed for what they are. ROGUES.
    Passed through Prestwick airport one hour ago, returning from Malaga, if they were about they must have been hiding or in disquise, There were a few Irish in nuns habits.
    Was it a gun up their skirt,, or were they just turned on to see me back?

  3. Being a cross-border-shopper of limited intellect, one thing about the above article confuses me. The last line "...some officers will act unethically."
    In refusing to allow somebody their legal rights, in giving false information in an official setting, and and by failing to act in accordance with their own regulations and written practices, what, exactly, is the difference between "unethical" and "illegal"?

    1. The exact difference between unethical ans illegal is given in The Crown Prosecution Service's Legal Guidance 'Misconduct in Public Office' http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

      an interesting read..


  4. Anon 09:56, its easy to understand- when THEY do it then it is 'unethical' or 'the regrettable mistake of a single officer who has been told off and made to sit on the Naughty Step' BUT when YOU do it then its "ILLEGAL" or "SMUGGLING!" or "AIDING TERRORISTS"!


  5. Anon 09.56

    The boys know what they are doing. The story is from others and so to keep the UKBA legal team at bay it's written in a certain way. Everyone knows what they are really saying though!

  6. Hopefully the bearded wonder on the video will spend bank holiday monday with his wife and children instead of the usual "monday club" .

    p.s the recording of UKBA officers will soon be illegal without their written consent, and then only after the senoir duty officer has countersigned the agreement.

    1. @The other shift

      Ur talking a load of bollocks!

    2. Agreed anon 1.56. Total BS

  7. I think The Other Shift was making a joke or a possible prediction not a statement of fact.It is not unlikely that Officers/their Trade Union will successfully argue a case that videoing them invades their personal rights or whatever. Already their own guidelines stress that Officers should 'dissuade' and that they are under no obligation to let their faces be filmed.

    We have already had the ridiculous sight of an officer holding a piece of paper infront of his face to prevent filming.

    That's part of the reason why SH recommends audio recording rather than videoing as it is less contentious and why in the video the shopper acquiesced to the officer's polite request to turn off the camera -because then he could hardly grizzle anymore about the audio recording. The Shopper had already proved his point, had marked the officer's card. At the end of the 'chat' the shopper say that he been formally interviewed then he would have gotten the proper video camera out.

  8. lt is not for the public to produce UKBA regs and procedures to show to a UKBA/BF Officer that recording is allowed ... it is up to the UKBA/BF Officer to show the regs that DON'T allow recording!

    l shall certainly take that stance if ever l'm in such position. lf an officer tells me l am not allowed to record, l shall demand that he/she show me the regs where it says such. Of course l shall be carrying a copy of such but won't let on until l feel it appropriate to do so.

    As for the making it illegal to record them is wishful thinking on their part. To do so, you are actually saying 'we don't want any factual evidence'. Some have voiced that they may do it under anti-terrorism laws and whilst there is a possibility that they could do such a thing for video recordings, l fail to see how even anti-terrorism laws could outlaw audio recordings.

    Even if they did, l would still covertly record them regardless of the consequences.

    Freedom and justice are worth fighting for and if that means l am an outlaw in their eyes ... so be it!

  9. Forgot to comment about the shopper in the video. l have to say it was extremely well handled. He was cool, calm and collected at all times. From the very beginning he had the officer on the ropes and didn't let him off. The officer was so taken aback with what he was confronting that he even had a nervous laugh. He certainly was not in control and even he realised it. So much so that he had no enthusiasm at all to conduct a full interview.

    l must also congratulate the shopper upon not accepting a Notice 1. After all, why should he? ... he knew more about the guidelines etc than the officer!

    Kudos from all at N2D!

  10. Our man really did have him "on the ropes"! Sweet! Thanks. Dude, you made my day!
    That guy's face was a picture. "Gobsmacked" is the word, I think. A total reversal of the usual TV documentary portrayal.
    Slowly but surely, the myth of Customs' power is being dismantled. It's long overdue. Arrogance is no substitute for competence and integrity.

    I'd love to hear an attempted justification for preventing audio recording. We know the real reason. A large proportion of Officers are seriously incompetent. They are unaware of the law and of their own procedures. Ordinary honest people are being bullied and robbed by the State.

    There must be no power without responsibility. If Customs Officers don't want to be exposed, they should either behave themselves or get a different job.

    I hope that "The other shift" will consider spending a lot more time with his family. I doubt if he's really suited to serving the public.

  11. "Our man really did have him "on the ropes"! Sweet! Thanks. Dude, you made my day!
    That guy's face was a picture. "Gobsmacked" is the word,"

    I rather liked the officer's "w-W-W-what"'s...and the Shopper's drawn out patient "yyYYYYesss" as if explaining to a small child.

  12. SH, the quality of the 'Unhappy At Donny' audio is amazingly good if the Shopper had the recorder in his pocket...do you know what dicta-fony thingy he was using?

    The 'Unhappy At Donny' Shopper was even more polite and even more calm, cool and 'razor stropping' than the Shopper in the first video. Bit of a future 'master class' in that audio i feel...the ancient British art of 'telling authority to go fuck itself but sooooo politely'. Class. Pure Class.

  13. SH, Sent you a mail.



  14. Recorder is:-

    Sony ICD-PX312 Voice Recorder/Dictation Machine 2GB/536Hours ... approx £30

  15. That was one ugly old bugger SH, With your permission I will capture a frame and print it off, Put it on the mantlepiece, it will keep the Grandchildren away from the fire.
    But still think Lazz is even more ugly, this goon even a mother could not love, thats if he ever had a mother.
    Strange how they are camera shy but when PICK TV pops round they have clean shirts and the snorters have the lipstick applied just right, Some of the females have made an efford as well


"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!