EXCLUSIVE! Malice Aforethought by UKBA as they Devise a Setup against Me.

No, l'm not a conspiracy nut, l deal in facts and logic.Knowing the tactics they use to seize cross-border shoppers goods and vehicles plus the grief l've caused them, along with this blog, l knew l'd be a target sooner or later. Never envisaged this tactic though.

A short while ago l put in an FOI request (UKBA call it a SAR)  to UKBA's Data Protection Unit. What l recieived back was incomplete travel details but more importantly a reference to a stop and search at Luton Airport on 31/12/10 where it said and l quote " 9600 KSF allowed to proceed. Notice 1" issued. This figure of 9600 KSF (King Size Filters) bore no reality to the actual amount l brought in so l immediately wrote back and asked them to change it to the true amount.I also asked them to change that l received a Notice 1 as the Notice 1 they tried to give me was out of date and therefore it's contents  incorrect with current regulations.

They replied very quickly but did not retract or correct the errors. lnstead they sent me a copy of the UKBA Officers notebook who had stopped and searched me at Luton on 31/12/10. The contents of said notebook "corroborated" the amount of 9600 KSF on their records ... but it went further.l'm certain l was not supposed to see this but obviously the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing in the UKBA.

lt stated l was stopped going through the blue channel at 08.35 (in fact, they were waiting for me at Passport Control which l had fully expected after the fiasco at Doncaster Airport on 10.12.10). After initial informal questioning l left with my goods at approx 08.55, there was NO formal interview (otherwise known as the A-J's). Now here is where it gets interesting.

lmmediately after l'd left, this officer then writes in his notebook about the stop and search. Remember, l've just left at approx 08.55 and he starts writing in his notebook immediately after.Don't forget either that he has just stopped and searched me where he has taken out my cigarettes, seen them and counted them (which even he himself states he did).

So he puts down the WRONG amount, not once but 6 times. Next he puts down they were Marlboro!!! (twice!) ... they were NOT. ... they were Lambert & Butler (my receipt shows this and he had looked at it). He also specifically states that he asks me if l smoke Marlboro!, to which he states that l replied 'yes'. He actually asked me if l smoked Lambert & Butler! l wasn't carrying any Marlboro whatsoever!

There are other false entries but the ones above are the critical ones. As most of you know, when the UKBA stop and search you they are looking for you to contradict yourself in their questioning as this is all they need to seize your goods. This would mean the next time l was stopped and searched .... and questioned, it would look as though they've caught me out as l would've contradicted what was on their 'records'. To them it would 'prove'  ... l LIED about the AMOUNT, the BRAND and what l SMOKE. Make no bones about it, my goods WOULD be seized because they have it on RECORD that l brought in what it says on their records. Even if it went to court how do you think the judge would find ... for me or against me? ... taking it into account that the UKBA will provide 'evidence' that l'm bringing in a completely different brand that they SAY l brought in last time, and also 'lied' about the amount l brought in AND l'm now supposedly smoking a different brand? No brainer isn;t it?

Don't try and tell me that the officer made accidental mistakes. He's trained to take in details, l'd only just left and he made sure l never saw his notebook and therefore l never read it or of course signed it to it being correct and factual Of course l'd have never signed it to say it was factual or correct anyway! :)

So what happened to their well laid plans at their first opportunity to stop and search me again?

Well nothing because l was carrying NOTHING!  .... NO tobacco! ... NO cigarettes!    and l hit them with a Statement of Truth that listed all my previous trips and purchases in the last 12 months (l'd decided to do SOT's after this Luton stop and search) God was with me that day ... l think it's because God SMOKES! :) Looking back, l now know why they seemed so crestfallen. Since then they've left me alone ... how long for? Who knows?

Now it's my turn and they've got a lot of explaining to do! One finds that there's a great deal of difference between contents of a notebook and an actual audio recording! :) This is the officers notebook below, you'll see that they've blacked his ID number out ... well. it's 10400. Some of us take note of details! His version of my stop and search is complete bollox!


  1. Sneaky devious bastards!

  2. Very enlightening !!

    Do you have a recording of the 'interview'

    Do you still have a dated receipt of your L & B purchases on that trip.

    If yes to both I fail to see how a court would uphold a UKBA decision to sieze goods from you on a subsequent trip if it can be shown that there were falsified accounts by the UKBA on the 31/12/10 Luton Airport trip.

  3. Dear God the standard of note taking is appalling...what retards are they employing? And such a note book entry is the touchstone of proof as far as the UKBA are concerned?!?

    A warranted Officer of the Crown?...The Crown And Anchor Public house more like.

    I wouldn't condemn my worst enemy on that kind of 'evidence'.

  4. Anon 23.19 l'm not concerned about myself but about others. This would catch most cross-border shoppers out and there would be sweet fa that they could do about it. Even if they had kept their receipt they would still have their goods seized and they'd have to appeal. lf their goods had been destroyed (most prob) by UKBA and they won their appeal all they would get is the value of the goods where they bought them from ... no expenses or other compensation.

    lf they were in a vehicle ... that most likely would be seized too. Yes, they'd get it back if they won their appeal but they'd have been without it for prob months.

    This is what the UKBA call 'disruption'! Another tactic to disuade cross-border shoppers from getting their tobacco/cigarettes from the EU.

    l do have recording and receipt but they would've got me on this.

  5. This would all stop if they recorded the interviews. Why is no-one doing anything about it? Where's the voice of the smoker?

  6. ffs me n our lass read out that notebook. l played the goonie n our lass SH. lt took a min so wtf happned to the other 19 mins?

  7. Anon 00.03 ... it's verbatim dontcha know? Well UKBA say it is. lol

  8. What else was wrong with this version of your interview SH? I must say as a shopper myself that it is deeply worrying that they can stoop so low.

  9. It looks to me like there were gaps in the notes where the ammounts have been filled in at a later stage once they've decided what you said!

    These notes are diabolical and I cannot understand why the UKBA are not bound by laws of evidence. They obviously make it up as they go along!

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It is only going to get worse once the new 'guidelines' are formally introduced.

  10. Would the Mainly Fail or something be interested in this story, I wonder.

  11. Jesus H Christ we live in a banana republic

  12. @Matt UKBA officer 10400 completely rewrote the incident and interview to show himself in a good light.

    No mention of me and the many accusations them waiting just for me at passport control.

    No mention of me giving details of my Sept trip to Sofia and stating how many cigarettes l brought back. They said that l said l can't remember!

    No mention of me refusing to let them have my passport.

    No mention of them trying to trip me up by saying my last trip was August after l'd said Sept and when l pulled them up about it and accused them of using dirty tricks.

    Theres more so just take it from that their version is complete bollox.

    @AE ... What's the point? The MSM, Politicians, the 'faux' civil liberties, freedom groups and blogs continue to ignore the plight of cross-border shoppers. They simply are not interested because we are smokers and therefore have no rights. l've written to all the above ... no response!

  13. This has to have been a deliberate set-up. It would have worked a treat if SH hadn't insisted on getting the notebook and then reading it carefully.

    His next A-J interrogation would have revealed that he was "lying about the quantity and brand", and that's all they need. Even his receipt isn't proof of what he was actually carrying, and a court could refuse to listen to an unofficial recording.

    This is all a bit worrying.

    I don't think they'd go to these lengths for ordinary shoppers, but SH has clearly pissed them off.

    So have I, but they have denied having any record of me when I did a FOI request. What the hell are they gonna hit me with on the next pull?

    But monday was their last chance, and they didn't stop me! Passport Control called me by my first name and asked if I'd had a nice time! (That's never happened before). And the customs channel was manned, I was the only one going through at that moment, she made eye contact and pointed which way to go to the exit. WTF?

    I reckon they hatch the occasional plot, but don't tell everyone on the team, for fear of whistle-blowers. There must be some decent people who just do it for a job?

    Buggered if I know.

    But that notebook entry is not a mistake. It's a trap.

  14. Don't you find it peculiar that such stress would be placed on the brand? When I smoked I often changed brands, whether for a change, because my tastes altered or whatever. How can bringing back a different brand have any significance?

  15. Woodsy42

    An antismoker thinks:
    * you began smoking because of advertising. Now that advertising has ceased, nobody takes it up any more

    * you smoke Brand X because of their advertising. You will smoke Brand Y, Brand Z or dog-ends dropped in the gutter. You are an addict.

    * you have no willpower because you smoke, although you are likely to have stopped in the past, weaning yourself off a drug we believe to be more addictive than heroin.

    * however, you will not change brands because you feel like it, because the availability of a given brand is poor, or just out of curiosity.

    * now that they have banned advertising, Australia wants plain packaging. This will work because smokers smoke only because of the allure of cigarette packets.

  16. People do indeed change brands. UKBA choose to not acknowledge this, as it doesn't suit their purpose.

    It's interesting- SH often does smoke Marlbro. They would know that if they read this blog regularly. They were expecting him to have Marlbro when they stopped him?

    But the point here is, on a subsequent stop they would accuse him of lying when he gave details of this particular stop. His information would conflict with their (untrue) written record. That's all they need.


"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!