Border Force aka Inspector Clouseau Detective Agency

As you most of you readers will know, I don't post much nowadays as I thought our work was done here. The N2D Forum is still very active but I no longer run it ... very capable members have taken the reins and are doing excellent work.

I've just received documents that have named Nothing 2 Declare in a civil court case (Condemnation Proceedings) brought by Border Force against a European tobacco leaf importer. lt states that a Robert Ibbotson is involved in my website???

WTF?  Border Force really are akin to Inspector Clouseau but not reached even his level of competence. You'd have thought that the Border Force Officer (Jessica Ibbotson) who named us would've at least wrote to me to check her facts but no, she didn't. Not unexpected in all honesty, from experience we expect this sort of thing as the norm nowadays. lt did cross my mind that seeing the surnames were the same that it was some sort of family dispute :)

So, l've wrote to the lawyer dealing with this case at Border Force Cash and Condemnation Legal team. This seems to be her Linkedin profile.

"Dear Nilofar Bawla,

                               l have received documented evidence in your case Director of Border Force v Leszek Marcin Siemiatkowski. Your witness, Jessica Ibbotson of Revenue Fraud Detection Team in Dover, falsely states that Robert Ibbotson is involved in my website Nothing 2 Declare. By doing so she is falsely implicating me in whatever Robert Ibbotson is accused of.

l am not shocked by her statement as l am used to such unsubstantiated supposed evidence from Border Force in the years l have run the website. l have on record lies and downright perjury in court from Border Force. However, l do demand a full retraction from Jessica Ibbotson regarding Robert Ibbotson's involvement with the Nothing 2 Declare website.

For your information, Nothing 2 Declare ran from 1/06/2010 and its last post was 14/12/2015. Posts were very few in 2015 as l'd achieved all l thought l could in regards to Cross Border Shopping and any discussion on this subject passed to the N2D Forum. Even this forum, which l set up, l have very little to do with and is now run by its members.

Robert Ibbotson has NEVER been involved in Nothing 2 Declare or N2D Forum. There may be a comment from him in the comments somewhere but l have no recollection of any and even if they were, the sites are open to public comments. Seeing as Nothing 2 Declare still averages 1000 visits per day and has over 3 Million page views, the comments run into 1000's.

As l said, l only do very little posting nowadays. l only post when something piques my interest. One subject did but only slightly and that was about leaf. Perhaps this came to Jessica's attention (Border Force, HMRC and Solicitors at the Treasury do monitor the site) and she thought she'd tarnish our good standing? Well, this has certainly piqued my interest and l shall now be posting, with her as the subject.

lt amazes me that Jessica's gossip is allowed to be put forward as factual evidence.


I signed it 'SH' because as some of you know, Border Force have taken to signing their letters 'Officer'. 

I intend to really look into this case now. Given how they've tried to implicate this site l fully expect their case to be like a sieve. Certainly has piqued my interest in the tobacco leaf trade.  Interesting Times



Can't find any details of this case so far. Was supposedly in Nov 2016.


It's worth noting here the comments made by judges on a certain Border Force Officer :-

"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 reasoning. 

Mr Sked may now have competition :)


  1. They picked on the wrong guys. Go get em Smokey. nice to have you back

  2. Typical BF bullshit and that includes the solicitor. Where's the integrity?

  3. You'll be getting a threatening solicitor's letter soon, I expect!
    Full of intimidation and bluff, as usual?
    (Don't tell them your name, Pike!)

    There is probably an interesting greater story behind this. There usually is! Will we get to hear about it eventually?

    Why haven't Border Force succeeded in closing you down yet? You've done their racket a lot of damage. All through telling us about the law, and our rights, and BF's abuses of their power. I myself have benefited greatly from your work, and so has Justice.

    Dare I suggest that you are actually a true Social Justice Warrior?
    Er, maybe not! :)

    Long may you prosper!
    Not an Officer.

    1. Look forward to solicitors threatening letters as it's nice to publish them online for all to see.

      The details l have so far suggest the leaf seizure itself hinged on the leaf being seized was destined for R Ibbotson & Co who BF has down as guilty of excise duty evasion in regards to the leaf. Seems BF infer counterfeit cigarettes/tobacco. CEMA 170B covers this but it is a criminal offence not civil.

      Here's the thing though, Ibbotson & Co say they have NEVER been found guilty of this offence! They say they haven't even been interviewed or anything ... let alone charged.

      Rather than go the criminal offence way where BF would have to work under PACE and supply factual evidence and prove it 'beyond reasonable doubt' (criminal), they simply ignore it and go on to Condemnation Proceedings which is civil. This lets them bring in what l deem hearsay and it all comes down to 'the balance of probabilities'.

      To clarify, in order for BF to go the Condemnation Proceedings way, they first have to seize the leaf. They do this under 170B (Criminal) but don't prosecute, investigate, conduct interviews or anything regarding the alleged criminal offence. They just use 170B to seize and then forget about it! There's no court case, period. Then they go to court under Condemnation Proceedings (civil) which is about the leaf, not any supposed criminal offences. The object is to destroy the leaf.

      This is what Banana Republics do. It certainly isn't what our UK justice system is supposed to be and that is 'innocent till proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt'. What we have now is BF find you guilty simply on their word and we all know how untrustworthy their word is!

      How anyone can go along with this is beyond me. To me, they must have zero morals and zero integrity.


  4. So, they can't seize it under 169 (civil), because there's no restriction on importing leaf.

    They seize it under 170B (criminal) because they "believe" it will involve fraud.
    Then they change their mind, because they haven't got any evidence of fraud, and can't even be bothered to look for any. They drop the criminal thing, and walk away whistling. Oops.
    Then they find that they are stuck with a load of leaf! So they do a condemnation (civil, no proper evidence needed)and they destroy the leaf.

    They will be slightly embarrassed, no doubt? Would they make that same "mistake" twice? Even repeatedly, as a policy to thwart the law which allows unrestricted import of leaf?

    Would a lawyer compromise her professional integrity by (repeatedly) going along with such a travesty? Surely not? There would be consequences, wouldn't there? Once the lawyer realized the scam, she would report her suspicions to a relevant authority, and also refuse to be involved again.

    Of course, the lawyer is reading this! She will correct me if I'm wrong! She surely values her reputation, and it would be easy to set the record straight. I do hope she can reassure me, and all the people who read this.

    Justice must be seen to be done?

    1. For the sake of argument let's say Border Force Revenue Fraud Detection Team (RFDT) are correct in saying this leaf is being used to make counterfeit cigarettes and tobacco. Doesn't that mean that there's an illegal factory somewhere? This factory will have machinery, counterfeit cigarette packets/tobacco pouches. That can't be disputed can it?

      So, isn't there anyone at RFDT with a brain? or are they just too lazy to do their job correctly? All they have to do is let the shipment through and track it. It has to end up at the illegal factory because it needs the leaf for production. It ain't rocket science.

      All they are achieving at best with their current tactics is stopping a few shipments getting through to the factory. They certainly won't be stopping all of the shipments. The factory is still producing illicit tobacco products even if they lose a few shipments

      Are RFDT fit for purpose? l don't believe that are. They'll continue on seizing leaf from reputable businesses with no legal justification or factual evidence whatsoever. Not forgetting to tarnish the good name of people like ourselves.

      ln the meantime the illicit factories continue unabated producing counterfeit cigarettes and tobacco.

      What a frickin joke!

    2. Better 10 innocent companies suffer than 1 guilty company goes free eh?

    3. Lawyer's Linkedin says she's only been at her job for 11 months but puts her starting date as Mar 2016 so how can it be 11 months? She's got a twitter account too. By the looks of it she's a fan of Eastenders haha

    4. Thought it was her Linkedin and l did notice that. l wanted to find out who was putting all this case together and give me an insight of 'who' they were. With that in mind l 'found' her on Twitter albeit under her maiden name but of course that wasn't conclusive. What made it a great deal more conclusive was l followed her on my Twitter and she blocked me! Not that l was going to continually send tweets to her, again ... just wanted to know 'who' she was. No intention whatsoever of addressing her on that medium.

    5. If it is her Linkedin profile and l believe it is, then it states she was a criminal lawyer for 11 months at 1 firm and 11 months at another.

    6. think all criminal prosecutions have to go through cps before it can be brought to court. you gotta think cps are more professional than bloody border force lot.

    7. tj ,It never gets as far as CPS, Border Force just use 170B to seize the leaf and that's the end of it. No interview under caution, no charges, nothing. Its a disgrace and an affront to justice. That the Cash Forfeiture and Condemnation Legal Team seem happy to ignore your rights is shameful. l don't know how they can look at themselves in a mirror without being sick.

    8. I should say its unbelievable that she made this statement... no proof, no facts but to be honest i'm not suprised. How they get away with this is unbelievable though! It's only the last few years ive got to know border force's way of justice, there is no justice! They take what they want, do what they want, say what they want and ive witnessed this first hand!!!! One day, real justice will be served and they will be stopped aslong as we stand and fight.. kudos to you SH :)

      Ps, take the leaf under criminal and go to court through civil so they can make up any reason they like using probability... no evidence, no nothing = discraceful!!

  5. Bloody hell Smokey so they're accusing N2D of excise fraud?

  6. Oh goody, N2D back on Border Force's case, God Speed! :)

    1. Yay! Hi Dick! Yes, there l was, all quiet and peaceful. Not bothering anyone and then along comes Border Force stating l'm guilty of excise fraud! So, back in the saddle to fight more dragons :)

  7. WOW! 1177 Page visits in first day ... thanks guys!


"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!