The UKBA/HMRC "Scales of Justice" for Cross-Border Shoppers

Scenario

UKBA/HMRC stop 2 people. Neither person stopped knows each other, neither person has a criminal record or has ever been stopped before. Both have jobs, homes and  ID as well as their passport to show their name and address.One is carrying tobacco (legal product) for personal use, the other is carrying drugs (illegal product) for personal use. Both will have their 'goods' seized. The one carrying drugs has commited a criminal offence, the one carrying tobacco has commited no criminal offence. The person with the drugs will be interviewed under criminal procedures and the one carrying tobacco will be interviewed under civil procedures.

The person carrying drugs

Person will be taken to an interview room where  they have the following rights along with openess and transparency

• See a solicitor free of charge
• Have someone told where you are
• Read a copy of the Codes of practice, which explains the procedures the interview should follow in such circumstances
• You should be given a written note of these rights and cautioned

There are clear rules which govern the way in which a person can be questioned, designed to stop unfair pressure being placed on a suspect. There should be regular breaks for food, the cell and interview room should be clean and properly heated, and the questioning should not put unreasonable pressure on the suspect. Someone who is deaf or has difficulty in understanding English should be given a signer or an interpreter.Before the interview starts, you have the right to consult with your solicitor privately. The interview will be recorded.

The outcome for the persons offence of carrying drugs for personal use will almost certainly be a caution (which the person has to agree to) or the person will be charged (or not) and then released on bail. lf charged, you are innocent until proven guilty. This will be in court where your guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The drugs will be seized and kept as evidence.

The person carrying tobacco

You will be questioned in most cases in full public view. There will be no openess and transparency in the interview.

You have no right to a solictor free of charge.

You won't be read  a copy of the Codes of practice, which explains the procedures the UKBA/HMRC should follow in such circumstances.

You will not be given a written note of these rights or cautioned but you will be read the Commerciality Statement  .“You have excise goods in your possession (control) which appear not to have borne UK duty. Goods may be held without payment of duty providing they have been acquired and are held for your own use. I suspect that you may be holding goods for a commercial purpose and not for your own use. I intend to ask you some questions to establish whether these goods are held for a commercial purpose. If no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming or if you do not stay for questioning it may lead me to conclude that the goods are not held for your own use but held for a commercial purpose and your goods (and vehicle) may be seized as liable to forfeiture.You are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time. Do you understand?”

... and so it begins

Documented incidents show there are no clear rules which govern the way in which a UKBA/HMRC officer can question a person, and are designed to place  unfair pressure on a suspect. There won't  be regular breaks for food etc, and one doubts you will see an interview room whether it's clean and properly heated or not. The UKBA/HMRC do follow a line of questioning which puts unreasonable pressure on the suspect. Someone who is deaf or has difficulty in understanding English should be given a signer or an interpreter.(really? look here)

The interview won't be recorded and the only record of the interview will be the UKBA/HMRC officers notebook that they will paraphrase this person's with the tobacco answers and then they will try and coerce this person to corroborate said notebook as a true and factual accont of the interview. ln other words sign a confession. This person will not get a copy of this notebook.

The tobacco goods are then seized and in all probability will be destroyed before this person with the tobacco will be able to get an appeal heard. This person will now have been found guilty to all intents and purposes as a smuggler (smuggling is a criminal offence) by default, by the UKBA/HMRC officer using the balance of probabilities (their interpretation 'balance') and not beyond reasonable doubt. This person's guilt as a smuggler is then recorded for future use against them by UKBA/HMRC.

Finally the UKBA/HMRC officer may then try to disuade this person from appealing by telling them that they have no chance of winning and will be liable for costs of 2500 pounds! Unless this person has the guts to fight this injustice, they will remain guilty. They have just 28 days to decide to fight this injustice ... and they'll probably have to fight it by themselves for they have no free legal team to help them ... unlike our person with the drugs!

What comes next for our person now without their tobacco and the person now without their drugs is just as biased ... and that's in our courts!

..........................................................................................................................................................

These are the "Scales of Justice" that the UKBA/HMRC use ... with a size 12 boot on the 'guilty' side but hey 'It's not an issue' to our etsteemed hypocritical representatives of "Freedom and Justice" <please read small print for exceptions..

Smokers are on their own ... period!

UKBA Babylon

"The term Babylon is used in Rasta terms with many negative connotations. It is something that they are radically opposed to .... Corruption, politics, police, laws, and cities are often referred to as"Babylon". "

We add the UKBA/HMRC to that list on behalf of their many innocent victims who nobody cares about because they are smokers.

WE CARE!

UKBA rob more EU shoppers! Read it and weep!

Over a year ago Stephanie (name changed by request) and her husband had taken Stephanie's grandparents on a war graves pilgrimage, something akin to what l did last July. Stephanie though went into Belgium. They spent one of those days in Bruges shopping. They had a memorable happy trip.

Such were the memories that Stephanie, a year later, thought it would be nice to repeat it. This time though it would be shopping and sightseeing with her best friends ... another couple. So it was arranged and Stephanie and her husband, along with the other couple set off in their car for the Channel Tunnel.

They later arrived in Bruges on a wonderful day. They walked round looking at the sites, visiting markets and shops (don't us husbands just love that?), stopping for coffees, a meal and one of the best things ... being able to smoke! Freedom to do what you want and enjoy it without being made to feel a pariah. Life was good and they continued to enjoy the day, laughing and joking as they went.

Towards the end of the day they decided to shop for those things that are cheaper in Belgium ... we call them luxuries :)  These include in this particular groups mind amongst other things ... chocolate, wine, beer .... and tobacco! This they bought but decided that they liked the offers on the crossing better for the wine so would wait till then. Stephanie purchased everything on her card as it was easier and they would sort out the finances once they returned home. They loaded the car with all their purchases including the tobacco which worked out at 3.75kg each. They then set off for home. Arriving at Calais they found they were early and were able to take an earlier crossing. They'd be home early ... or so they thought but they hadn't reckoned on the UKBA drones stationed in Calais.

They sailed through French Customs and then onto UKBA Border Control where they showed their passports and were just about to drive on when a female UKBA drone appeared and asked what they had purchased. They replied beer and tobacco. The drone upon hearing the word tobacco had it's automatic tobacco circuit activated and demanded to know how how much tobacco they had.

They replied that altogether it would be 15kg. Drone's circuits did quick calculation ... 15kg divide by 4 = 3.75kg each, another drone circuit activated and this sent the message to drone's 'brain' "Over guidelines! Stop and Search! lnterrogation! Seizure!". Drone then ordered them to go over to shed where they were met by another drone (male version) who asked them why they had come to shed. The group said they had been ordered to come there by the female UKBA drone. Male drone said that they had better come in then.

This is where the fun really began. Fun for the drones that is but not the group. The drones were now in full interrogation, intimidation mode.They ordered Stephanie to unload the boot which she did (the tobacco was not hidden in any shape or form). The group were becoming nervous as the drones became aggressive and barked questions at them. Politeness is not programmed into these type of drones ... as isn't integrity, honesty or intelligence.The group were then seperated up to be individually interviewed interrogated. Stephanie and the group wishes now they had not agreed to be interviewed interrogated.

Stephanie says that the drone that questioned her was not that bad really. Stephanie gave the correct answers, did not lie or try to hide anything. Why shoould she, she and her group had done nothing wrong. Stephanies friend, Lisa, however was interrogated by the female drone that initially stopped them at Border Control. The female drone took the interrogation further. Along with the intimidation she it resorted to asking humiliating very personal questions. At the end of the ordeal,  Lisa was ordered by the drone to read the notebook and sign it. Lisa read it but disagreed with what the drone had wrote. She asked the drone to amend it. A circuit must be faulty in this female drone because she refused! Lisa though would not back down and a senior drone was called in. This senior drone made some adjustments to the female drones programming and the inconsistences were amended ... at a later date!

The drones then went into their collective communication mode and the decision was made to confiscate the tobacco (in reality, made at Border Control one can safely assume). Stephanie and her group have never been stopped before and never had anything confiscated so they were completely shocked to the core thast this was happening. They'd heard stories of things like this but thought that they were urban myths. They were about to find out how harsh and real these myths are.

The drones had not finished with them by any means. They ordered Stephanie to empty her newly bought £20,000 car ... THEY WANTED THAT TOO! Stephanie would not do it, the car was specifically chosen and used for her invalid father-in-law who is confined to a wheelchair and for  commuting to her and her husband's work. She refused to leave the car, where upon the drones threatened her with arrest. Stephanie rang her solicitor and he advised her to give in (personal note:- l'm not impressed with solicitors who deal with the UKBA and neither was David F here who represented himself. I once contacted many solicitors for advice on a case. Not only was their advice totally useless but they wanted a fortune off me for giving said advice. My reply was the same as the one in Arkell v Pressdram)

Dejectedly, the group emptied the car of their personal belongings and a van was supplied to drop them off at the Tunnel terminal. The van is not drone operated and so the van driver told them that this type of thing was happening more and more. So much so that it seems that this van driver is contracted and paid for by the drone collective ... he makes his living from it!

Once back in UK, Stephanie and her group had to get a taxi home as by now it was so late that the buses and trains had stopped. lt cost them another £150. Stephanie still does not have her car back, both her and her husband have no transport to their places of work (60 mile round trip) and her father-in-law is now totally housebound.

She has appealed but has been refused (surprise, surprise) and further costs have ensued because she used a solicitor .... who charged her £1000! Stephanie is fighting on but is finding it exteremely hard. She's also tried to get the MSM involved, her MP, MEP and even written to Camerloon. She is also still having to make the monthly payments on the car too.
...............................................

l wish Stephanie well and we have offered any help we can. These are hard working, law abiding people and it totally disgusts me how they have been treat. Everyday this happens to the same sort of person but to the MSM and their ilk 'it isn't a problem' .

l'm ashamed of my country!

l know the UKBA read this site, well here's a message from me to them ....
.
'You disgust me, you're corrupt to the core and we'll fight and expose you to our last breath!

....................................................................



Note:- it seems the drones even ignore there own directives  where it states and l quote :-

"Where a vehicle has been used to carry excise goods from another member state that are not for own use, but instead are intended to be sold to others on a reimbursement basis, then provided there are no aggravating circumstances and it is the first offence, Officers are instructed not to seize the vehicle but to warn the driver and owner that it is liable to forfeiture."

Taken from  here   <<< link fixed 

UKBA Appeals Officer Ian Sked

 

Read this carefully and you'll see that this supposed experienced officer put a shoppers goods on the destruction list on April 5th 2005 AFTER the shopper won the appeal where she was offered compensation instead of giving her goods back. Compensation is only the value of the goods where they were bought from (Spain) and does not include travel costs or any other expenses. Her partner had been told previously that his goods had been placed on the destruction list on the 8th Dec 2004 (2 days AFTER Ian Sked received his appeal).

Both shoppers were offered 'compensation' because Ian Sked said their goods had been destroyed. The truth was that the goods were NOT destroyed till 27th May 2005 ... months after both shoppers had won their appeals. Not only did lan Sked rob these shoppers by offering them 'compensation' but the money he intended to pay them with is from the government's purse ... your taxes!

You'll also note that he says the UKBA/HMRC computer only logs when they were put on a destruction list ... not when they were 'destroyed' (yeah right)

Think l'm being too harsh? ... read on and see what the courts said about him another case

1. Mr Sked's letter served to dishearten the F's  and to discourage them from proceeding with the extant appeal against seizure. For what it may be worth we find the reasoning process in this letter to be wholly unreasonable, indeed perverse. 
2. The reasons offered by Mr Sked may be summarised as follows:-

i. The quantity

ii. The F's did not state the exact quantities during interview; this was because the Goods were not for their own use.

iii. Even if Mr F intended to give up smoking, it is not credible that he would not have imported a minimal quantity of his preferred brand.

iv. There were inconsistencies in the F's statements of their smoking habits.

v. Mr F ought to have known exactly how long his supply of cigarettes would last. His statement that if he gave up, the supply would last until April 2008 but if he did not the supply would last until September/October 2008.

vi. Likewise Mrs F ought to have known exactly how long her supply would last. She said a year but Mr Sked's calculations put the date at September 2008.

vii. Mr Sked calculates that on the basis of past purchases and consumption rates the F's ought to have had approximately 7900 cigarettes immediately prior to the F's January 2007 trip to Spain.

viii. Mr F did not know the cost of cigarettes in the UK.

ix. The F's financial circumstances were such that they could not finance the trip without being financially compensated.

x. The F's  were not open and honest at all times during the interviews.

3. Towards the end of his letter Mr Sked states:-

The goods were therefore correctly seized under section 139(1) of CEMA and I uphold the seizure accordingly.

(The Judge went on to address Ian Sked's 'logic and reasoning') my edit 

 

1. As for Mr Sked's reasons in his letter dated 15/2/07 we have, insofar as his letter may be relevant to the decision we have to make, the following comments:- 

i. Given the Fs' smoking habits, the quantity is not surprising;

ii. The absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it;

iii. B&H were his preferred brand. It is nowhere stated at interview that he would not smoke Silk Cut. It is understandable that not having his preferred brand at his home and readily accessible would encourage Mr F to refrain from smoking or at least cut down. No adverse inference can reasonably be drawn from this evidence;

iv. What the notebook records is not 10-20, but 10, 20 or more. Mr Sked has misinterpreted the information provided to Customs by the F's;

v. It is absurd to suggest that Mr F should have known exactly how long his cigarettes would last;

vi. We do not consider that the information given was ever intended to be mathematically precise. Rather, the estimate was given under pressure in the heat of the moment;

vii. As previously indicated Mr Sked is giving these estimates a mathematical precision and accuracy which are not justified;

viii. This is hardly surprising as most if not all of his purchases were made abroad. If he were proposing to sell the cigarettes at profit the one piece of essential information would be the UK price otherwise how would he know that third party purchasers would be interested in buying. No adverse inference can reasonably be drawn;

ix. No basis is given for this speculative statement;

x. This is a general comment which we do not consider can be reasonably supported on the information available to Mr Sked.

My Note:- Ian Sked is still applying his 'trade' as an Appeals Officer. Both the cases above were from seizures at Glasgow Airport ... as was this one here.

Are you impressed at our Ian Sked?

WARNING!!!! .... to ALL Cross-Border Shoppers

l've had an influx of cries for help re seizures of tobacco/cigarettes this weekend. Now some of you may think such as this has gone away :-

15. " ....   senior Customs staff agreed the terms of operational guidance which was sent to all senior managers, operational managers and senior officers of all teams in “South East England Collection”. They issued a single page document headed “Cross Channel Strategy …. Guidance to Efficient and Effective Handling of Excise Suspects …. To Be Adopted By All Multifunctional Anti Smuggling Teams”. This Guidance consisted of seven bullet points, in block capitals, as follows:
• “ZERO TOLERANCE
• NOTICE 1s ISSUED. IN ALL CASES WHEN EXCISE GOODS ARE ABOVE THE GUIDANCE LEVELS AND NOT SEIZED
• NED’s MUST BE COMPLETED WHEN NOTICE 1’s HAVE BEEN ISSUED INCLUDING NAME, ADDRESS AND DOB
• WHEN SUSPECTS HAVE HAD NOTICE 1 ISSUED BEFORE, THE ASSUMPTION MUST BE SEIZURE NOT SIMPLY ISSUING ANOTHER NOTICE 1
• THE OBJECTIVE IN ANY INTERCEPTION IS TO SEIZE GOODS IN EXCESS OF THE MILS. OFFICERS SHOULD ALWAYS LOOK FOR REASONS FOR SEIZING, NOT SIMPLY ISSUING A NOTICE 1
• WHEN A-J INTERVIEWS ARE CONDUCTED THE EXPECTATION IS THAT A SEIZURE WILL BE MADE
• FOR GOODS IN EXCESS OF THE MILS SEIZURES SHOULD ALWAYS BE MADE WHEN SUSPECTS HAVE HAD EXCISE GOODS SEIZED BEFORE.”

Well, it hasn't ... it's STILL THERE!. Perhaps not as an official directive anymore but certainly as a doctrine!

FFS people, stop going UNPREPARED! If you go unprepared you may as well have a sign on your forehead saying 'PLEASE ROB ME!'

The UKBA want you to trust them and go unprepared.

A Jewish friend of mine says that 'trust me' in Jewish means 'FUCK YOU' !!!!!

(rant over ... sort of)

"Give us your tobacco" demand gets "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!" reply.

Two little words. With these two words, two concepts were verbalized that have lived for nearly two and a half Millennia. They signify and characterize both the heart of the Warrior, and the indomitable spirit of mankind. From the ancient Greek, they are the reply of the Spartan General-King Leonidas to Xerxes, the Persian Emperor who came with 600,000 of the fiercest fighting troops in the world to conquer and invade little Greece, then the center and birthplace of civilization as we know it. When Xerxes offered to spare the lives of Leonidas, his 300 personal bodyguards and a handful of Thebans and others who volunteered to defend their country, if they would lay down their arms, Leonidas shouted these two words back ...  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! (Molon Labe) They mean  “Come and get them!”

Today we echo those words in defiance of the Governments new stategy on tobacco control. The UKBA are to implement reduced guidelines on cigarettes and tobacco bought legally in the EU. Simon reports it here and the Guardian here. They will announce that the guideline of 3200 cigarettes will be reduced to 800 cigarettes and tobacco guideline amounts to be 1kg from 3kg.

Firstly it has nothing to do with duty free, it's about EU duty paid goods. Duty free remains the same as it has for years and applies to non EU purchases. MSM can't even get that right and you'll note that comments are not enabled on the Guardian article so people like us cannot inform the public as to their rights.One would thing the MSM are working for the UKBA!

Guidelines are simply guidelines and nothing more. You still have the same rights to purchase as much as you like for personal use .... this has not changed! Don't be intimidated by them!

So folks, don't let the UKBA get away with this. Stand up for your rights and fight them but make sure you are prepared for the fight and be prepared! 

Let the UKBA know the meaning of "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! "

Why the UKBA are hated. ##UPDATED##

a.k.a UKBA

As we get more and more people asking for help because the UKBA have robbed them, we discover how low the UKBA will go to reach their targets. l thought that we'd reach as low as they could get but they keep lowering the the bar. One of our recent cries for help is such a case.

We have a man and wife, both smokers, with 4 children. He works hard for his family and that work entails overtime, night work and is often away from home.They have their own home (mortgaged) and pay all their bills and taxes. The wife handles the finances and in these current hard economic times she decided it would be a good idea to buy their tobacco abroad as it would save them hundreds of pounds. She knows that she could buy it off  'white van man' but sees that as being morally wrong. So, she applied for a passport and the trip was arranged. lt was her first trip abroad.

They went on a coach trip to Belgium and bought their tobacco. They kept to the UKBA guidelines so there would be no problems. What could possibly go wrong?

Step in UKBA ... they stopped this couple and took them for interrogation. They seperated them up and went through all their tactics including leaving this young wife by herself for 45mins in full view of all the passengers passing through.

At the end of the interrogation the UKBA confiscated their goods for the following reasons.

1. The husband 'lied'(UKBA definition of lying). He said that apart from his job he sometimes gambles and the money to pay for the trip came from recent wiinings which he won on the 'horses'. The winnings are paid into his bank account and can be verified. When UKBA asked him which horse he said that he's sorry but he calls it the 'horses' because his wife does not like him playing gaming machines ... specifically the automatic roulette machine. The husband hides the fact that he plays these machines to his wife by calling it the 'horses'. He replied 'horses' through force of habit. Despite the fact that he wins on this roulette machine and all the winnings are paid into his bank account the UKBA stated he 'lied' and therefore that was enough to confiscate his tobacco.

2. The wife was asked what she was smoking and she said Cutters Choice and she'd been sharing her husband's 50g pouch. When asked where it came from she said that her husband would have bought it in Belgium. When the husband was asked where the 50g Cutters Choice came from he said his mother gave him it. So, UKBA decided that because their stories don't match up that the wife's tobacco was confiscated too!

ls there any bloody integrity at all in the UKBA? This is what you are up against folks if you trust the UKBA. They are not your friends, they are not interested whether you have legally bought your tobacco or not. All they are interested in is confiscating tobacco to reach their targets ... by any means necessary!

l keep ramming this down your throats ... GO PREPARED!

UPDATE

More reasons to hate UKBA. Some of you will remember my complaint to UKBA re our illegal detainment at Doncaster Airport. and my subsequent response to their reply of my complaint.

Well l received a reply from UKBA to inform me that the procedure used in the initial response to my complaint was correct. Let me say that again .... THE PROCEDURE WAS CORRECT!

No investigation as to the facts of the complaint/response .... just the bloody procedure. The initial UKBA response could've just said 'l am a teapot' as long as the procedure was correct!

UKBA must be the most corrupt agency in UK Government history. What a bloody joke!

Ah well, Omsbudman next! Due process and all that.  :)

UKBA arrest 2,800 in past year re E-Borders

"Suspects linked to hundreds of crimes have been captured after the UK Border Agency's e-Borders monitoring system successfully targeted wanted criminals trying to cross the UK border.
In 2010/11, e-Borders alerts led to 2,800 arrests after the details of 126 million passengers were checked against 'watchlists' of suspects wanted by the UK Border Agency, police, SOCA and HM Revenue & Customs.
Currently the e-Borders system checks 90 per cent of flights from outside the EU, and up to 60 per cent of those from within the EU, to combat terrorist threats, spot organised criminals, stop immigration abuse and catch fugitives from justice.
In the last year, the e-Borders system flagged suspects wanted in connection with a number of serious crimes and resulted in the arrest of people wanted in connection with 18 murders, 27 rapes, 29 sex offences, and 25 violent crimes." ... more here

Oh how very impressive .... 2,800 arrests and they come up with "wanted in connection with 18 murders, 27 rapes, 29 sex offences, and 25 violent crimes"  .... mmmm, no terrorists then? ... which if you remember was the reason of this E-Borders! You forgot? of course you did, that was the intention as it isn't anything to do with terrorism and never was.

Er, sorry for being pedantic but what about the other 2,701?  What were their "crimes"?  l say "crimes" because nowhere is there any list of actual convictions. These are all "suspects", "wanted in connection with", blah blah and that includes the afore mentioned 99!

Hold on though, UKBA have already decided your guilt. You are no longer a "suspect" because they lead with the headline:-

E-Borders captures 2,800 criminals at the border

 Silly me, l thought that was for the courts to decide. Wonder what the other other 2,701 criminals have done? .... allegedly missed CSA payments?, parking fines? dropped a cigarette butt?, wheelybin violations? not filled in the Census? smoked in a company vehicle? or some other violation of the never ending regulations being put on the statute books?

Wonder how many of these criminals are foreign nationals? Don't bother looking it up because we all know that virtually everyone of these criminals will be British. 

Just realised ... me and Zaphod are probably included in the 2,800!  I'd forgot about this 

Got to go now, l think armed police are surrounding the house! :)

 

Once more into the breach, dear friend .... once more.

Doncaster Airport Customs Control

So, l'd contacted the UKBA and told them that l would be flying into Doncaster Airport from Poland. l got no reply from them. I also contacted the Chief Superintendent of South Yorks Police, he replied within the hour and informed me he had made his officers aware of my situation and current issues with the UKBA at Doncaster Airport .He also gave me the name of the officer in charge at said airport in case l needed him.

l prepared another Statement of Truth that gave all the details of my trip and previous ones ... which now included the stop and search at Hull.. lt included a statement that l could not consent to being interviewed by either of the UKBA officers who were involved in my ordeal of the 10th Dec 2010 at Doncaster Airport. Neither would l consent to any of their colleagues interviewing me as l deemed such an action a conflict of interest and unethical due to these officers still being under investigation.l would consent to being interviewed by South Yorks Police though if UKBA wanted to proceed with such an action.

We arrived back at Doncaster Airport at approx 20.30. lt was the last flight in that day. lt's only a small airport and my flight was only the 5th that day. The next would be just after midnight at 00.35. Disembarking the aircraft, we made our way to Passport Control ... the very same one that l never got by on 10th Dec.

Well what a surprise, all 3 Passport Control desks were manned ... it's usually just one. Sat there at 2 of the desks were the very 2 UKBA officers that l'd put a complaint in about. Strangely they had on hi-viz jackets that hid their ID numbers ... the 3rd UKBA officer was in normal uniform.Behind the Passport Control was a policeman and way to the side at another desk was 2 'suits' who l surmised to be UKBA. There was no doubt we were recognised ... how could they forget? We passed through Passport Control and made our way to baggage reclaim.

Whilst waiting for our luggage l noticed the 3 UKBA uniformed officers and 2 suits come from Passport Control after finishing processing the last of the passengers. They all disappeared through a staff only door, the policeman stayed in the baggage reclaim area. Eventually our luggage turned up, we were amongst the last to get our luggage. We then proceeded to the exit and Customs control.


There was no-one there! ... it was not manned! 

We waited at the exit until airport security closed the exit with the powered shutter after the last of the passengers had left.

Make of it what you will.  Us? ... time to book another trip somewhere ... from Doncaster Airport! :)

Oh, and today was the day l was supposed to get a reply from the vice director of UKBA Complaints, Dover ... l got nothing!

The UKBA and the Black Spot ##Updated##

I travelled to Belgium via P&O Ferries from Hull on the Pride of York. l took my sister and this time went in the car. When we arrived the next day we had a great day in Belgium and then returned to the ferry for the overnight trip back to Hull. Check in was uneventful except for a British car that had 2 occupants. This car was not in line for boarding the ferry but took great interest in all the British cars that were there and would drive down the lines of all the vehicles waiting to embark.You can make up your own minds on that.

Once aboard the ferry we settled in and then went for a meal. They are not cheap but it was good. We got talking to some coach drivers and they told us about previous companies they had worked for. We got round to booze trips and was amazed to find that some coach companies are actively giving the UKBA the names of their own passengers! One coach driver said he was told to give details of any passengers going into the tobacco shops ... and that wasn't a booze cruise! Again, make up your own minds on that.

Arriving in Hull the next day, we disembarked the ferry and we drove through passport control. My sister asked if that was it and we were free to go? l told her no, that just lulls you into a false sense of security and next was the UKBA sheds and l fully expected to be stopped and searched.

Sure enough as we approached the sheds, there was a UKBA officer stood waiting for us. The 2 cars ahead (foreign plates) had simply been waved on. Once into the sheds we were directed to a control point where a female UKBA officer proceeded to go through the usual circus. l popped the boot and got out, taking a folder with me. As she was looking in the boot, l took some papers out of my folder and then got her attention. l then handed her a Statement of Truth ... you'd have thought it was the dreaded 'Black Spot' by the reaction on her face.

The search of my vehicle and luggage stopped there and then before she had really even started. She went off and got another officer who in turn got his senior officer. My Statement of Truth listed previous trips, what l had and what l hadn't brought back, names of or ID numbers of the UKBA officers who'd stopped me on these previous trips, when and where these stops happened. Also listed was the details of this trip, what l'd bought and the why's thereof, my right to do so according to EU and UK laws. What my sister had bought and all the relevant said details.

It also stated that because the UKBA view previous trips as all being trips purchasing tobacco/cigarettes whenever they stop you with such goods that l was collecting and documenting my own history so this could not be used against me at anytime in the future.

The UKBA love to quote "laws" at you and give you official pieces of paper when trying to confiscate your legally bought goods but they aren't so happy at receiving it! They simply did not know how to proceed.  l could see them talking and discussing the Black Spot and then the senior officer went to make phone calls. ln all this time myself and my sister were left alone. My sister took out a crossword book and started on that and l put on my i-pod and listened to music.

Eventually the female officer returned and said l was free to go and handed my Statement of Truth back to me. l took it and along with another copy of it and asked her for her name and ID. She choose not to give me her name but did give me her ID number and took off her hi-viz jacket to reveal the number. The other UKBA officer returned so l got his too and wrote them down on the statements. l then signed and dated both, my sister did the same. l then asked her to choose either copy but seemed afraid of handling the Black Spot so l put it on the table at the control point for her.

l then got in my vehicle, said my goodbyes and left.


Next to come was my trip to Poland. One would think l'd avoid the airport where l had such an ordeal ... Doncaster, Robin Hood Airport. No such thing ... l informed UKBA of my trip to Poland and also informed the Chief Inspector of South Yorks Police of said trip. There was no reply from UKBA but the Chief Inspector said he had informed his officers at the airport of my trip and my continuing issues with UKBA.

Before l went on my trip to Poland another Black Spot had to be produced to take with me.

Hey ho, m'earties!

##UPDATE##

Tomorrow l should get the review to my complaint. Am l expecting satisfaction? .... No. What l expect is a load of  waffle and 'not in the public interest' non disclosure statements despite having them bang to rights both legally and morally. I await to see if l'm proven wrong.

Zaphod v HMRC

Taking Customs to court

I’ve referred to this before, and it’s still ongoing. Just an update here.

Six years ago, two of us had cigs seized by customs, (about 10.000 each). We appealed by letter, and the appeal was finally successful. But the cigs, they said, had now been destroyed, so they offered compensation, a little less than we had paid in Spain. This is standard procedure. Many court cases and appeals have finally defined this as legally correct. But nothing is ever final in law. We’re fighting on.

We refused their offer, and are trying to get them in small claims court for real compensation. They have asked the court to rule that it has no jurisdiction. The first jurisdiction hearing was adjourned two weeks ago, when I demolished their barrister’s argument. The judge has adjourned to give them chance to think of a better argument.

I asked the judge to order them to disclose when the cigs were actually destroyed, and I’ve just received the appeals officer’s statement.

They received my appeal on 29 Nov 2004, and acknowledged it on 6 Dec. I have now discovered that my cigs were then placed on the destruction list on 8 Dec, two days later. (“Perishable”! Spite?).

On 21 Dec they wrote again, now refusing our appeal and giving stupid reasons. We replied, pointing out their stupidity.

On 2 Mar, they replied and gave in, accepting our appeal, but they “confirmed” that all of the cigs had been destroyed. Compensation was offered. We refused it, and demanded more. The argument continues.

Now I find out from this statement, that over a month after telling us that our cigs had been destroyed, My friend’s cigarettes were only actually placed on the destruction list, on 5 Apr!

It gets worse! All of the cigs were actually destroyed on 27 May! 11 weeks after they offered us nearly £2000 of taxpayers money as compo instead! Which we had refused!

And this is assuming that they are now telling the truth to the court.

Can I win this jurisdiction argument and get them into real court? Watch this space.

Zaphod.

Proven lies and cover-up by UKBA

Well, let's see how they try and get out
of this one. Despite telling them from the very beginning that l had a recording of the incident ... they ignored it. lt shows the mentality and sheer arrogance of the UKBA. They've got away with it for so long they think they are untouchable. So much so that they sent me an official response that denied the detainment ever happened! How stupid can they be?

Obviously they thought that the recording never existed ... but it does! Not only does the recording show they are blatant liars but South Yorks Police are on my side too ... and they sent me a letter stating so.

l've always advocated using recording equipment when dealing with the UKBA. This incident shows why!

Here is my full response and accusation to their official denial. lt's quite long but if you're interested it's here. l'll keep it as a front page because l feel it is important. l'll post their reply when l recieve it (it takes them 20 working days) Not quite sure when 20 days is up ... see here

Automated response UKBA

So l sent my complaint against the UKBA's answer to my original complaint about being illegally detained and denied entry to the UK. I accused them of lying and orchestrating a cover-up and supplied them with factual evidence to support my accusations.


I e-mailed it Fri 4th Feb 14.53 ... today l received an automated response Mon 7th Feb 08.32!


Do they all go home very early on a Fri for the weekend and switch the computers off?  :)

Police decide to lie on record but I GOTCHA!

I wrote a letter of our ordeal at the airport to the Chief Superintendent. I put down all the facts and was not devious or tried entrapment. I told him that I had recorded the whole incident but obviously he did not believe me or thought I was bluffing. He then replied and gave the senior officer's (who was involved in the incident) version of the said incident. In the reply he states that the officer states and I quote :-

"He says the interaction with yourself and other passengers was very amiable and appropriate. He stated that he was not aware of any specific reason for detention as far as the Police were concerned and had any person decided to get up and leave he would simply have allowed that to happen. The only reason for his presence was to support UKBA and prevent any Breach of the Peace"

I cannot understand why he would put this on record after I had warned him that I had recorded the incident. Here is 2 portions of the recording containing the threat of arrest if we tried to leave:-

 

Researching the researcher .... Dr Sarah Jones (Restricting young drivers)

Dr Sarah Jones, Honorary Senior Lecturer, Dept of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff  University has just recently announced her research on 'Restricting young drivers'. l won't comment about the actual research as it's been done by other bloggers such as Dick Puddlecote here.

What l thought l would do is look at the Dr herself, so l pulled up her page at Cardiff University. Firstly l noticed that she has no biography listed as other Dr's have on the same site. What qualifications she has is not listed so l have no idea what her doctorate refers to.

Secondly, l pulled up her research history but again, nothing listed.

Thirdly, l pulled up the publications that she was involved in and was astounded to find a list of them. Even more astoundig was the subject of these research publications, l really don't know what we would have done without such earth shattering research. Such as :-

1. Gender inequality in the risk of violence: material deprivation is linked to higher risk for adolescent girls.

2. Using geographical information systems to assess the equitable distribution of traffic-calming measures: translational research.

3. The advocacy in action study a cluster randomized controlled trial to reduce pedestrian injuries in deprived communities.

4. The influence of local politicians on pedestrian safety.

5. Modification of the home environment for the reduction of injuries.

6. Injuries in homes with certain built forms.

l couldn't read anymore of them as it was hurting my eyes and numbing my brain.

Our Dr Jones was not the only one involved in these researches, there were lots of others, God knows how much it cost to do these but l do know that we are funding them to do it. lf ever there was a department that is crying out to be cut ... this is certainly one of them.

So folks , l give you (l certainly don't want her) Dr Sarah Jones, big salary paid for by you to do research in things of no relevance whatsoever.

Maybe l can get funding for my research and publication l've just done here? ... worth a try.