Exclusive! Scoop! Real life video of UKBA/Customs Stop and Search.

Sorry it's taken so long to get this up but we had to wait until a issue with HMRC/UKBA was completely resolved. This is a real life video of a UKBA stop & search and not the stage managed garbage you get with the TV progs of Border Force UK and Customs UK.

This is Part 1 which is the initial stop. The transcript is the full version as in the video some of it had to clipped and the end bit seemed to overwrite itself for a minute or so.We still have the complete audio though on the Sonys. The i-phone stopped recording as it seems to have a cut-off after approx 55mins. lt was reset for Part 2 where we had the interview (not interrogation this time, UKBA were very polite) You don't think perchance that knowing they were being recorded had anything to do with it, do you?

The audio of Zaphod is quiet so turn sound up or refer to transcript. lf there are any video wizards out there who can bring the sound up of Zaphod, we'd appreciate it. 

Remember, we do this for you! We ourselves have no need of it. We do it to show you what your rights are and how to use them ... and make UKBA behave themselves! We never just talk the talk ... we always walk the walk ... period!

Yes, we do bring all the cigarettes home! :)

Turn on captions if subtitles don't appear .. CC on toolbar at bottom of Youtube Video


ZAPHOD   This conversation is being recorded. Who is stopping me?

UKBA  For what reason? We’d like to check your baggage.

ZAPHOD  I’m not interested in what you’d like. Do you have reason to stop me, other than random?

UKBA  Under section 163 of the Customs and Excise Act, we’d like to have a look in your bag.

 ZAPHOD Right. “Objective facts and information must support the use of reasonable suspicion or belief.” This is your instructions. “Ensure the use of reasonable suspicion or belief is supported by objective facts and information.” - “ Individuals may bring back any amount of excise goods for their own use or as gifts, You must have reasonable grounds for the initial stop, you..” (Get this,) “Officers must not stop someone in the hope of obtaining grounds through questioning to support a subsequent search.”

UKBA We suspect there’s cigarettes in the bag, so we’d like to have a further X-ray of your hand luggage -

ZAPHOD  Not good enough. You have to suspect that they are being carried for a commercial purpose. You have to have reason to believe -

UKBA  You’ve got more than 800 cigarettes.

 ZAPHOD You have to have, (remember, I’m recording this conversation), you have to have reason to believe that I am carrying excise goods “for a commercial purpose” before I may be stopped and searched. Ever since the “Hoverspeed versus Andrews” case, (you’ll be aware of it, it’s 2002), since then, the High Court ruled, that you may not stop and search me unless you have reason to believe that I am carrying excise goods FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. Do you have reason to believe that I am carrying excise goods FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE? I’ve been through this before.

UKBA Yeah, I’ve er, I’ve never met you before in my life, so-

ZAPHOD  I’ve met your uniform many times, and I have not been beaten. You have seized cigarettes from me on three occasions. On every single occasion, I have appealed and won them back. On one particular occasion, by the time you admitted that you shouldn’t have seized them, you had destroyed them. You offered me £1800 in compensation. I refused it, as is my right. An independent referee was appointed, as, (you’ll all be familiar with CEMA?), as is provided for in CEMA. And then, the independent referee was cancelled, and I was told, “If you don’t like it, take us to court.” This is what Customs and Excise said.
I took you to court. The court hearing was scheduled for the 1st of November, at 11:30am. (A letter from my solicitor here.) In the same letter that she told me about the court hearing, where we were finally going to court, after you had tried many tricks to prevent it, (jurisdiction, out of time, etc), we finally got a hearing. And on that day, you offered me £4500, which is what I’d been claiming.
I turned it down. I said, “I want my costs, as well.”
Within a couple of days - (My solicitor said, “you won’t get costs!”) - within a couple of days, she got back to me.
And what happened next? I’m not at liberty to tell you, because I’ve signed a confidentiality agreement with your boss. And now? All of a sudden, revenge?
I know my rights. You cannot stop and search me unless you have reason to believe - (I’ve done a lot of research), - you have reason to believe that I, as an individual, not as a type or profile, am carrying excise goods FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. Unless you have reason, reason which you have checked, (I’ve got your operations manual, your procedures, your guidance), (Freedom of information act is a wonderful thing), I know the rules, perhaps better than you; that you must follow. And if you want to go to court again, and lose again, like poor old Mr Sked at Glasgow airport did, then – break the rules.
The rules say, unless you have reason to believe that I, as an individual; reason, reason which you have checked, (Not just “he looks like one” – not just “he’s got cigarettes.”) That’s not good enough. Your own literature says, “If we have reason to believe that you are carrying excise goods for a COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, THEN, we may stop and ask you questions.”
Do you have such a reason, BEFORE you stop me? It’s not enough to know that I have some. You have to have reason to believe that they’re for a commercial purpose. If you’ve check my record, you’ll know that over eleven years I’ve had twelve pulls, three seizures, and I’ve won them all back. You have had twelve attempts to establish that I am carrying excise goods for a commercial purpose. You have failed on every single occasion, and the last failure cost you a great deal of money, which I’m not at liberty to divulge; but I can give you the name of your solicitor, who will confirm it.

UKBA  Yep.

ZAPHOD  Right, if you wanna get hold of, Thomas Jagger, for the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, he will tell you that I won.

UKBA  Right, well…

ZAPHOD  Right. Do you have reason to believe that I am carrying excise goods, FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE?

UKBA  Yes.

ZAPHOD  What is the reason?

UKBA  The reason is, these bags have been X-rayed, and they appear to contain nothing but cigarettes. In accordance with the guidelines from the 1st October, which is 800 cigarettes…

ZAPHOD The guidelines don’t affect the law. Are you familiar with your procedures?
Here’s a good one. Here’s when I got stopped with 117 sleeves of 200. They were seized. They were restored to me. I got a handsome letter from the “Head of Regional Business Services North”, “Thank you for your letter in which you express your dissatisfaction, blah blah blah,” (This is in answer to my subsequent complaint), “Had all the facts been sought and considered, there would almost certainly been a different outcome to this matter…the circumstances of your case have brought to light some inadequacies in the questioning techniques of some of our officers, you will be pleased to know that this has now been addressed. Each of the officers involved has now undergone a training course to improve their technique.”

UKBA  That was something which happened in the year 2000, sir.

ZAPHOD  “There is no evidence to suggest that the officers were guilty of misconduct, however I do accept that are some aspects of this case which could have been handled differently. Thank you for bringing these to our attention. As mentioned earlier, these points have been taken on board and have resulted in identifying a training need and a change in some of our procedures. I am sorry that you have been inconvenienced on this occasion.”
Now, you’re not going on information, because under the Freedom of Information Act, you claim to have no records relating to me. So you haven’t got anything on the computer.

UKBA  I don’t know who you are.

 ZAPHOD “Objective facts and information must support the use of reasonable suspicion or belief.” Are you familiar with this?

UKBA  What’s the date of that, sir?

 ZAPHOD August 2010 “National Occupational Standards for UKBA”. “You must be able to demonstrate that any actions taken are non-arbitrary and fair. You must use legitimate, necessary and lawful actions in dealing with a situation. Carry out any necessary checks on information before acting on reasonable suspicion or belief. You must check information and sources.”
A crucial one, “Officers must not stop someone in the hope of  obtaining grounds through questioning.”
You have to have reason to believe that I am carrying excise goods, -
 for a commercial purpose, -
 before you may stop and search me.

The last time you attempted to stop me in Doncaster, here, the police came. We had this argument with two policemen in attendance for, it was about an hour. Finally, your man said to the police officers, after a final “I’m asking you one more time,” he said, “will you come in here and open your bags?” and I said, “I do not consent.” And he said to the two police officers, “There’s no more I can do, let them go.”

Now, do you want to have a little think? I’ll be willing to wait while you have a little think about your position. Because I’m the sort who takes you to court, and wins.

UKBA I appreciate that.

 ZAPHOD And this conversation is being recorded. So, one more time. Do you have reason to believe that I, as an individual, not a type or generality or trend, am carrying excise goods, FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE? This is going to be used in court.

UKBA  I believe that you are carrying goods in excess of the guidelines, which at the moment is 800 cigarettes, and the officers need to satisfy themselves-

ZAPHOD  Your needs are not my concern. Only- I’m not interested in your needs, your requests, your invitations, only in what the law says I must do, and the law does not say I must – I’m aware of your tricks, in saying “I need, I would like, I request,”.
I do not consent. I do not consent.
Now, I’ll wait while you have a bit of a think about it, but then I’m going to go. I’ll let you have chance to think about what you’re going to do. You might want to check with the local police, they know about what happened last time, and they supported us.
We know the bluff you usually work on. We know it usually works. You’ve hit somebody that the bluff doesn’t work on. Now, you need to adapt, because I will take you to court.
You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, anything which you later rely on in court. Could I have your name or number please. A unique identification.

UKBA  Sorry, I can’t understand why you’ve just said that caution. Tell me. The caution’s only applicable to a law enforcement officer.

ZAPHOD  You’re accustomed to giving cautions, aren’t you? Are you a law enforcement officer?

UKBA  I am sir.

ZAPHOD  Really?

UKBA  Yes, do you want to see my warrant to prove it?

 ZAPHOD If I subsequently take you – Yes, I would, I’d like your number, actually.

UKBA  Yeah, it’s there. All our numbers are -

 ZAPHOD UK Border Agency ####.

UKBA  All our numbers, every officer -

ZAPHOD  And you are UK Border Agency #####.

UKBA  We’ll always have us numbers on there at all times.

ZAPHOD  I give you the warning because I, if you give me much more wasted time, I will take you to court.

UKBA  I haven’t spoken to you sir, until just now.

ZAPHOD  Right, may I leave?

UKBA  As far as I’m concerned, you’ve just spoken to our boss, then you’ve said, go away and think about it and come back to me.

ZAPHOD  Okay, he’s had a think. Am I under arrest?

UKBA  Well he’s not come back to you, has he?

ZAPHOD  Well I can’t wait all day. Am I under arrest?

UKBA  Well I’ll go and have a word, see what he’s doing.

 ZAPHOD Well I propose to leave now. No, I’ll give you another five minutes.

UKBA  All I heard was, what he said was, he said he’s gonna come back to you, I don’t know what he’s –

ZAPHOD  I don’t know how long it takes him to have a think about it.

UKBA  I wouldn’t have thought to be long sir, to be honest. There’s no reason for it to be long, if you know what I mean.

 ZAPHOD You’ve had twelve attempts at establishing that I – I go and buy my cigarettes abroad –

UKBA  By we, you mean, -

ZAPHOD  You, that uniform. And if the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand’s doing, threre’s something wrong. I checked in with my passport, you’ve got computer systems, you should know my history. What happened to “Intelligence”? We hear all about it on the TV programs.

UKBA  We do.

 ZAPHOD  And really, it’s a random pull, isn’t it?

UKBA  I – I –

 ZAPHOD And random pulls have been outlawed since 2002. I hope you know that?

UKBA  I do that sir, but, as I’ve tried saying to you, and I’ve said to your co-traveller, I don’t know you sir, I’ve never seen you before, so please don’t get aggressive with me, cos I’m not –

 ZAPHOD I can be quite emphatic, but I’m not aggressive. But –

UKBA  There’s nothing wrong with being emphatic sir, that’s what you believe in. That’s what we, that’s what –

ZAPHOD I’ve been proved right several times.

UKBA  That’s what democracy’s about.

ZAPHOD  Yes. So, I’m going to leave very shortly.

UKBA  My colleague, I believe, may have just gone to make a phone call. So hopefully he’ll be back very shortly.

 ZAPHOD I tell you what, let’s go outside so I can have a cigarette.

UKBA  Well I don’t smoke, personally. He’s just said on the radio he’s speaking to an assistant director, so, Bob’s trying to get hold of an assistant director, so that’s (???) if you know what I mean.

 ZAPHOD You really should know this kind of stuff.

UKBA  But I’ve, I’ve, I’ve never encountered you before sir, I don’t know anything about you to be quite honest.

 ZAPHOD Are you not aware of the rules governing your powers?

UKBA  I’m not aware of what’s happened with yourself, (???)

ZAPHOD But I’m just another member of the public, who actually knows the law.

UKBA  I don’t mind that sir, I don’t have a problem with that, what I’m saying is, I, I don’t know your history with the department, I, I’m not aware of it, so –

 ZAPHOD But you are a UKBA officer, so –

UKBA  I am, sir.

ZAPHOD  - exercising powers, which you ought to know the limit of.

UKBA  I do understand what my powers are sir, that’s why I’ve not –

 ZAPHOD Your powers are to ask people, to invite people, to say that you need, -

UKBA  To discuss their baggage –

 ZAPHOD - but you ought to know the limit of your powers.
We would like to go for a cigarette. If anybody would like to accompany us –

UKBA  Where do you want to put your bags, chaps?

 ZAPHOD Ah, we’ll take them with us.

UKBA  Okay, that’s fair enough. I’m not - that wasn’t, er –

  By all means –

UKBA  That wasn’t an attempt, by the way –

 ZAPHOD -by all means accompany us. We shall stop outside. For a while.

        At 17 minutes, 33 seconds from the stop, ZAPHOD and SH leave the terminal building, and wait outside. All UKBA staff remain inside until 24 minutes, 12 seconds.

UKBA  If you’d like to come back inside please gentlemen, with your bags?

 ZAPHOD Ah no, we, ah, I wouldn’t like to.

UKBA  I’ve spoke with my assistant director, and he, ah, I’m going to ask you to reconsider once again, to allow these officers to ask you questions regarding the contents of your bags.

 ZAPHOD I do not consent.

UKBA  Right, well I’ve been told in those circumstances that I have to seize the goods under section 139.

ZAPHOD  You can’t, not unless you arrest me.

UKBA  Okay. You’re obstructing me? Is that what you’re saying?

 ZAPHOD No. I’m not saying that. I’m saying –

UKBA  Well I’m saying that you are obstructing –

 ZAPHOD If I’m not under arrest, I shall leave, with my goods.

UKBA  Right, well under section thirteen, Customs and Excise management Act, I’m arresting you, cos you’re obstructing me in the performance of my duty, sir.

 ZAPHOD And your number is UK Border Agency, #####. As you’re arresting me, PACE now applies.

UKBA  Yes. Go inside sir, where we can take er, get out of the weather sir?

ZAPHOD  I don’t choose to go inside.

UKBA  Come with me then sir, I choose to go inside. Bring your bag, by all means.
I ask you once again, will you come inside, to the terminal?

ZAPHOD  I do not consent.

UKBA  You do not consent. Who are these gentlemen here? (indicates other waiting passengers).

ZAPHOD  I don’t know.

UKBA  You don’t know?
Could you move along please, gents?

PAX  Sorry?

UKBA  Could you move along?

PAX  Er, we are waiting for our transport.

UKBA  Well could you move along the terminal, please?

PAX  Why?

UKBA  Because I’m talking to these gentlemen here.

 ZAPHOD I don’t have a problem with them.

PAX  We don’t understand many words, because we are from Poland. We don’t understand many words.

 ZAPHOD You can stay there if you want.

PAX  We stay here.

UKBA  What about your colleague, sir? Is he of the same persuasion?

 ZAPHOD You could try speaking to him?

UKBA  Ah well, I’m speaking to you at the moment, okay?
John, would you ask this gentleman please if he’ll come into the terminal?

“JOHN”  Sorry?

UKBA  Would you ask this gentleman please, I’m afraid I don’t know his name, if he would consent to questioning inside the terminal, please.

UKBA  Very well sir, you’re still refusing to bring your bags and come with me into the terminal.

 ZAPHOD I do not consent.

UKBA  Okay. You let go of the bag please.

 ZAPHOD I do not consent. You do not have my permission to touch my property.

UKBA  I don’t need your permission sir. You are now under arrest. Come on. Inside the terminal sir.

 ZAPHOD If I’ve been arrested, you should read me my rights. PACE.

UKBA  Do not have to say anything, unless you wish to do so. If you do say, will be given in evidence. Do you understand?

 ZAPHOD Ah, that’s out of date. Get it right.

UKBA  You’re not obliged to say anything. But it may ha- You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Do you understand the caution?


UKBA  Well which part of it did you not understand?

ZAPHOD  I do not stand under the caution.

UKBA  What, you don’t recognise the caution, is that what you’re saying?

 ZAPHOD I don’t stand under it.

UKBA  Could you explain to me what you mean by that, sir? I’m not aware-

ZAPHOD It’s plain English.

UKBA  You do not stand under it.

ZAPHOD Remember, I’ll take you to court. I have done, and I’ve won.

UKBA  I’ll ask you once again sir. Will you come with me?

ZAPHOD   I do not consent.

UKBA  Alright. Well you’ve been arrested so you’ll have to come with me.

ZAPHOD  I am being manhandled by two Customs Officers who are forcing me to go into the airport terminal against my consent. I do not consent. I insist that you let go of me. For the benefit of the tape, there is no response. They are still holding both of my arms, they are dragging me-

UKBA (sounding as though under exertion)  Just walking you back into the baggage examination

ZAPHOD  I do not consent.
(Now 30 minutes from initial stop)


  1. F'ing great! Like cats playing with mice! Never see goonies so stunned! lol

  2. Part 2 should be up in about a week. No interrogation, just a polite interview ... and we get coffee and cigarette breaks! :)

  3. Brilliant guys Absolutly F,ing Brilliant, Not long before the Scottish follow-up will go viral. "Huh! see you Jimmy"
    Everyone should stand up for their rights EVERYTME.
    The Sked bit was a nice touch, No wonder he's off on a sickie.
    But will they change the LAW, I have a funny feeling the LIB-CONS might just do that and call it the Prevention of Embarassment Act 2012 as an ammendment to the P.O.T. Prevention of Terrorisim laws.
    What a smoker and a potential terrorist That would be life without parole. But congratulations lads, Job well done.

  4. And "Talk the Talk and Walk the Walk" Miss Ms fav quotation, However you two guys will be walking the plank if these Goons ever get you splashing about on the HIGH SEAS
    Take a snorkel next time you go sailing He, He,just in case and watch out for poison darts from black umbrellas in LONDONSTAN.
    I will award you the Victoria Cross for bravery. And a pint each in the tap at Kings Cross as well

  5. Maybe you can buy them both a pint at the Torch of Freedom march/stroll in London on March 31 - a saturday


  6. Brilliant!!!....can't wait for part2....just one thing...even though it's just me being picky: The 2002 case which you mentioned wasn't Hoverspeed v Andrews, it was infact Hoverspeed AND Andrews against HM Customs and Excise,...and Hoverspeed done them for 50 million quid!!
    ps...keep up the good work!!

  7. Here the missing two seconds from the end of the transcript:

    ZAPHOD: I do not consent.




    Seriously though Guys, I can't think of words to express my admiration. Bloody well done and I have a feeling the Chunk The Second is going to be even more awesome.

    What a way for the Resistance to start the New Year! Lets hope that the other *Cough* Freedom blogs pick up on this.

  8. Top class heroes,a credit to real
    Britons who are prepared to stand
    up to be counted ,ready to challenge Westminster tyrants and their stooges and snitchers
    pretending to "guard our borders" (
    falls of buffet laughing)
    Compare these "DO ERS" with the other
    Blogging Menagerie of parrots ,budgies and canaries,
    superglued to their perches,
    twittering ,youtubing,facebooking,
    warbling,waffling and keyboard tickling
    With all due respect to the clickers who have been there and done some,let us waken up those
    who cry for freedom who remain just ghosts in a fibre optic mist.
    Let us see you crying in the rain,
    let your feet give your fingers a rest.For a starter let us count how many of our noisy bloggers will spread the word of the "Torch Stroll" Trafalgar Square March 31st
    AT least silence will prove who
    is who and who is'nt,who is really free and who is just pretending.

    No appeasement
    No surrender
    No prisoners

  9. This is fantastic work, it's hard to describe how significant this material is. Congrats to you both.
    I do however have one logical conundrum. Whether it offers a legal lever I don't know, it might.
    As I understand it HMRC cannot legally search luggage and confiscate without good cause to believe the traveller guilty of a commercial motive. So how can they justify using a security x-ray to identify the non-security contents of luggage?
    Quite obviously the officer in the recording has done exactly that, he even says they have identified cigarettes, and the quantity of them,in the luggage from the x-ray. Therefore they are knowingly and deliberately using the security x-ray as a search tool for all items of luggage, not just security threats.
    So legally: If the functions are conflated to one organisation or person so the HMRC officer sees the security scan would that x-ray scan not be considered in law to be a covert luggage search? In which case they have no right to use it and question anyone because they must have cause to suspect the PERSON BEFORE they stop and search the luggage, not use the search to make the accusation - does that make any sense?

  10. Yes. it does! I've been thinking that for a while. "Hoverspeed" decided that Customs cannot delay or impede travellers OR THEIR LUGGAGE for the purpose of excise duty checks, unless they have reason to believe, etc, for a commercial purpose.

    The later Hoverspeed appeal, did accept that an unlawful stop would not necessarily make any subsequent seizure unlawful.
    But I suspect that it would make any consequent arrest, (without a seizure), unlawful.

    I've sat on this episode for a while, waiting for a certain cheque to arrive and clear. :-)

    Now I suspect I can make a good case for unlawful/false arrest, and at the same time establish that x-raying baggage on arrival is illegal.

    We DO NOT recommend that anyone else tries this "I do not consent" routine, it's still experimental.

    But it's working out nicely so far!

  11. As I have previously stated in our case, Our path was blocked and we were instructed to put our hand baggage on an Airport trolley, (We only had hand baggage to conform to RYANAIR weight and size) our Bags were wheeled through to a brand new shinning X-ray machine in the RED channel, The Chief Goonie was pointing out to recruits in new white shirts and brand new well polished boots that the furry stuff on the video display was tobacco, It was at that stage they demanded to open our bags (I thought at the time, "This can’t be right") but its midnight, We want to be on the last train out of the night out of Prestwick cattle Shed and we were within the guidelines.
    My first thought was they think our stuff is "Knock off" So I produced my till receipt, No interest was shown in that.
    They had made up their mind already, and I have a sneaky feeling this was Lazzerini's very first kill.
    Two elderly persons in the dead of night, But a bonus, ONE IS ALSO DEAF, They could have invited us to return when we were refreshed and I had my replacement hearing aids, But then that might result in someone else getting the KILL or more likely our goods would be returned.......
    Lazzerini was having none of that, He said he talked slowly; problem was I am DEAF not DAFT. And Kevin Lazzerini knew that.
    I requested he write the questions on a blank A4 page and I would read them, "Not UKBA policy was his reply"
    But it would seem him writing his own declaration that I agreed with his notes, And him refusing me sight of the notes (Although he did tell the solicitors I read the notes and not only read them but tok my time to read them) But went into reverse mode and changed his spewell to he read the notes and I asked him to write on my behalf that I agreed with what he read, (Even though as a partially deaf person I would not have heard him read anything) But then the Bold Lazzerini implies this IS within the policy and rules of the CAMA and the UKBA procedure.
    An estimate of over £12,000 of British Taxpayers money has gone to top solicitors Shepherd & Wedderburn over this 3 KG of Golden Virginia just to defeat an old soldier who has the bottle to stands up to the BULLY BOYS

  12. So fellow Freedom seekers, A pre proof hearing has been arranged at Ayr Sheriff Court next Thursday 12th January 2012 when Laura of Shepherd & Wedderburn will argue that even if the initial stop is illegal and flawed the seizure is still valid, Two days of Court room time has been booked for 24th and 25th of January for the proof hearing, I shall defend my own corner, arriving by Mercedes at Ayr my driver shall open the vehicle door and I will step out in the chill wind blowing from my native Emerald Isle, And let Battle commence, The Mercedes will pick up returning passengers for Glasgow Buchanan Street Bus station and will be awaiting in Ayr fo my return.
    If I don't get the JAIL
    All support is welcome,

  13. What they will no doubt utilize is the bogeyman of the 'terrorist'. They'll say they are searching for these bogeymen and their weapons and NOT tobacco. The sheeples swallow all this guff whole ... helped by the MSM fuelling the paranoia. The Olympics have given the government and security services an excuse to go completely overboard. 40,000 police, security drones and troops, 2 warships, fighter jets and surface to air missiles. Pure paranoid insanity.God knows how many security forces the Yanks will bring!

    Airports probably all have brand new x-ray machines now. Everything the UKBA do will be put down to using anti-terrorism laws to 'protect us from the bogeymen'. I fully expect that recording any UKBA interviews will also be outlawed because they'll say 'it could be helpful to terrorists'. Mark my words.

    Of course they never tell us how they would protect us from a suicide bomber already armed in his/her bomb vest. The reason is ... they bloody well can't protect us from it! No-one can! Once a terrorist suicide bomber is armed they aren't going to surrender are they? What can you threaten them with seeing they have decided to kill themselves anyway.

    We'll lose more freedoms and rights that won't be given back even after the Olympics have been and gone.

    Strange how we never got any of this crap when The Troubles were on in Northern Ireland. 3,500+ killed and 10's of thousands injured. We were made of sterner stuff in those days.

  14. George ... we wish you luck. Especially so as you are dealing with Haggis Law and not English Law.

  15. Do they body-search you for drugs?

  16. Anon 13.00 We've never been body-searched and know of no-one that has. Searching for drugs puts UKBA in the realms of PACE (Criminal Law) where one has statutory rights with such as taped interviews, representation, etc etc.

    UKBA don't want to go there ... they prefer the kangaroo court

  17. I'd like to reiterate something Zaphod said. Don't try this 'l do not consent' approach yourself. We did it specifically for one reason and that was to get it in film that the UKBA are not to be feared. There are many myths about them and especially what powers people think they have. The film shows them for what they really are.

    Our approach to the interview you will see in Part 2 is the same. We specifically did not use a Statement of Truth because we wanted to show an interview the way most people will come across them. We doubt many people will be prepared with a Statement of Truth and so we decided to show an interview without one.

    When we are stopped and searched the next time (which will happen) we will use the Statement of Truth and show you the difference it makes.

    At some point with a future stop and search we will also record them but not tell them we are doing so ... until the very end! That will almost certainly show how the UKBA normally behave ... with threats, intimidation, rudeness and harassment.

    lnteresting times ahead.

    Oh and we fully expect heavy UKBA flak for these current videos ...they'll probably try to get them removed.

  18. Try telling them you suffer from claustrophobia, deafness or panic attacks and watch the enthusiastic smile come over their faces,
    EASY they will declare to each other.
    Thanks for the good luck SH, will I need luck to beat this clown Lazzerini? I don’t think so but Lazzerini now, he will be needing mega luck to stay out of Barlinnie Prison if he insists on lying in court.

  19. "Don't try this 'l do not consent' approach yourself"

    I'll be interested to see how that one works out. Sounds a bit too LOLFOOL Rebel for my tastes...but you're right to try it, one should not dismiss any possible tatic out of hand.

    Although the day you start proclaiming that 'Clause 61 of the Magna Carta' or 'We have no contract' I shall be forced to travel Northwards and beat you with a soggy SOT.

  20. SBC You misunderstand but thats down to me. What l should have said is don't take the 'l do not consent' approach to the limits we have as it is experimental. l don't want to be responsible for getting all our readers arrested! :)

  21. Off course Gentlemen there is always the Old Official IRA approach of "I don't recognize the court"
    Trouble with that was the court recognized them and added five years to their sentence. The Provos were much more business minded and made millions of British Taxpayers dosh, By recognizing the court, Pleading "Not Guilty" and employing their own legal teams to represent them,
    I expect some of the massive fees found it's way back into Sinn Fein coffers, The Volunteers still did the time, but got out on the "Good Friday agreement" to their share of the Lolly.
    Now my approach is, I am not a smuggler and I will fight any suggestion that I am.
    Especially if the suggestion is from a DIMM-WIT Tally who can't speak English, Can't write English and can only spell in alcoholic Hic!

  22. I have a question regarding the new large arches we are forced to walk through as foot passengers at some of the ferry and air ports in the UK. I'm thinking specifically of the P&O building at King George Dock Hull. Are these some form of X-Ray machine or one of those new-fangled infra red scanners? If the former I'm sure I could accuse HMRC/UKBA of assault by subjecting my body to ionising radiation. I'm sure that the dosage would be low, but how would they know how much I've been subjected to in the previous weeks and months?
    Actually, just between me, thee & t'gatepost I tend to have more MRI and Cat-Scans these days, but even those have to be taken into account as part of my safe exposure level!

    Anyway: Well done that man. As Corporal Jones was wont to say: "They don't like it up 'em" and it's good to see some of them getting it where it does the most good. Keep up the good work.

  23. "ZAPHOD Your needs are not my concern" Bravo!

  24. You do know, I take it, that you may complain to the IPCC (see their website) regarding the "police actions" (like arresting you without good reason) of the UKBK even though the UKBF are not police?

    John the Bastard

  25. Can you amend your transcript to show the UKBF officer's number?

    John the Bastard

  26. I know what SBC means but "I do not consent" has some very interesting legal undertones, especially since the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

    There were changes in law since about 1990 which made consent a key issue in legal theory for many activities. In general, if you wish to dispense with consent you have to be absolutely sure of your legal authority and grounds to do so, otherwise your actions would come under the normal criminal law.

    Operatives making a false arrest might not be able to rely on "it's my job" and could find themselves with a discloseable criminal record, unemployable, and prevented from doing even voluntary work with children or vulnerable adults.

    The feminization of the operatives' speech "I'd like to invite you, I need to, can I ask you to...Sir" is designed to gain consent so that later, operatives can rely on that consent, although it is not informed consent.

    It is also shrewdly scripted to get people to comply as they are less likely to refuse as they might with an order.

    Making this visible - especially telling somebody that their needs are not the issue - is a most interesting test.

  27. @WOAR, you are as always right BUT I have to add a 'rider' to what you've just said...although your knowledge of the law far far exceeds mine.

    Yes the UKBA do try and 'invite' or trick one into consenting and yes one can legally refuse to consent HOWEVER a refusal to consent is, in the UKBA's particular and idiosyncratic legal exegesis, then reason or 'justifiable cause' to seize- as any honest person would automatically comply with the polite request of an 'authority'.

    CEMA's wording concerning the 'a-j' is soo sloppy that UKBA will claim such 'noncompliance' falls under 'any other relevant information'.

    Which is why I am a little concerned for SH/Zaphod and their testing of non-consent. I know they enjoy pushing the UKBA to see how far they can go, that they are brave to do so,that they do it for all our benefit and would never recommend others try it but still it worries me.

  28. SBC ... We do evaluate the results and make decisions based on those said results. Also Part 1 is only half the story, Part 2 will show how we change to a completely different stance. We're thinking along the lines of initially 'I do not consent' to then 'consenting under protest' as you are perfectly correct in your understanding of UKBA will seize your goods if you are adamant that you will not consent to the interview. This would be sheer folly as then you would have to go to court.

    The objective is to come away with your goods and not have them seized.

  29. JTB ... we have indeed pursued other avenues. We shall update when we have answers.

  30. SH, I have spoken with many persons regarding this seizure nonsense, From Scotland to Belfast, Liverpool to London and many more in Spain.
    The general opinion is that if the goonies have stopped a passenger at an Airport, The passenger has been tagged by Passport control and no mater what they say during the interview a decision has already been made to seize any goods thay have that would interest the thieves.
    One Liverpool Costa bar owner has the opinion that if stopped insist on a posponed interview, That aparantly presents a lot of bother for the goonies and they just wave the passenger through. Now this guy is from Liverpool as I said so maybe a bit ecconomical with the truth, I don't know, However he stole my hub caps.
    So as i say, Statement of TRUTH or not, If they want your goods they will take them and thats that.
    No odds to them if you get them back, There's always the next time

  31. l can only say that the general opinion is wrong in my experience George. l've been stopped many times at airports over a period of 20 years and never had anything seized.

  32. I have no doubt a Gentleman with a silver tongue like yourself SH would manage to evade the wrath of the GOONS, I have been travelling across Europe for 40nyears and was stopped once by a goon called Kevin Lazzerini, who was so determine to steal my property he lat his training take a back seat and did it his way, Threats of being arrested, Intimidation, Informing me appeal was futile as he was the law on his shift, Elderly age, Deafness, Heart Issues, Total state of exhaustion, Panic attacks, Clustrophobia, Nothing made a difference to this GOON on his very first kill, No one was taking it away from him.
    Kevin Lazzerini was out to score his first goal an easy tap in interviewing a deaf person, but a goal all the same, and no one else was getting a slice of the action.
    So maybe my face did not fit, But like you published recently, Neither did 67,000 other poor souls face fit either

  33. My apologies George, l thought you meant it was not possible to evade seizure. For those honest legitmate shoppers who are stopped by UKBA have no idea of UKBA's tactics. The shoppers are led to believe that Officers of the Crown have integrity and honesty. This belief is shown to be complete folly when ambushed and mugged by the UKBA.

  34. My understanding SH is that any people I have talked to about this subject are in fact as you say, Uninformed innocent members of the public.
    A conversation with a professional smuggler seemed to suggest I should forget the whole thing, Put it behind me and take double next time to see and cover my losses.
    He did tell me this would last two years and take over my life, How right he was.
    Both myself and Miss M have suffered at the hands of the UKBA instigated violence by PRESTWICK AIRPORT Security and Stratclyde Police service.
    However I have fought this far, I have gone well beyond the point of no return. I will blog some good things that have come out of all this, Although not many admitadly.

  35. Best bloody site on the net for xborder shoppers by miles. Cant wait for part 2 to see how you guys handle UKBA. KUDOS to you

  36. Hi Zaphod and SH.

    That was very illuminating! It is so much better to actually see the action rather than read about it. I was so, so impressed by the way in which you stayed cool. I doubt that I could do it, and yet one must, otherwise they will introduce the 'aggressiveness' argument, which they tried their best to do. Part 2 is awaited with enthusiasm.

    As regards the quality of the video, I googled 'edit video' which brought up some interesting sites. I haven't time at the moment to investigate properly, but a free download which enables you to add 'scrolling text' (I assume that means that you could, at least, superimpose your transcript) can be had here:


    As I said, that is as far as I have got with it. I hope that it may be useful. If the text of your transcript can be superimposed, I would say the problem of the 'sound quality' is solved.

    I may join you on your Feb trip. I am not sure yet. If I do, it will probably be at the last minute. We must wait and see!

  37. One point which is imo very, VERY important here, and not yet mentioned, is that the ossifer states, quite clearly, that the reason for the stop is under Section 163 of the Customa nd Excise Act (by which is meant the Custom and Excise Management Act 1979). I have reproduced the section below, for those who want to read it, but this section does NOT give HMRC any authority to look in any bag - it only allows them to search a 'vehicle, vessel or non-airborne aircraft' for items where duty has not been paid, but that they must have 'reasonable grounds to suspect the vehicle or vessel is carrying such goods'. So it could be used to stop a car and search its passangers, but not an individual to search their bags.

    SECTION 163:

    (1)Without prejudice to any other power conferred by the Customs and Excise Acts 1979, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that any vehicle or vessel is or may be carrying any goods which are— .
    (a)chargeable with any duty which has not been paid or secured; or .
    (b)in the course of being unlawfully removed from or to any place; or .
    (c)otherwise liable to forfeiture under the customs and excise Acts, .
    any officer or constable or member of Her Majesty’s armed forces or coastguard may stop and search that vehicle or vessel.
    (2)If when so required by any such officer, constable or member the person in charge of any such vehicle or vessel refuses to stop or to permit the vehicle or vessel to be searched, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of [F1level 3 on the standard scale]. .
    [F2(3)This section shall apply in relation to aircraft as it applies in relation to vehicles or vessels but the power to stop and search in subsection (1) above shall not be available in respect of aircraft which are airborne.]

  38. SBC-who wonders if there is a whole new line of 'attack' opening up?Friday, January 13, 2012 6:04:00 pm

    @Anon 17:31

    Very interesting point. I'd love to hear WOAR's/someone else who knows their 'legalz' thoughts. I'm assuming there *IS* a separate piece of legislation that permits them to search bags...and that the officer was either just 'mistaken' or, more likely, trying to pull their beloved 'get the shopper to agree to be legally arse raped' trick....ie you consented- which is why Zaphod didn't.

    Interestingly I just checked UKBA's website to see if they list the the correct 'under which Act' and they don't-they don't mention CEMA 163 either....infact it sounds very much like its a consent thing!

    "This also includes goods
    that travellers should pay UK tax and duty on. To
    do this, we need your help and co-operation. If we
    stop you and ask you about your baggage, please
    co-operate. We may stop you to ask questions, make
    checks and if you break the rules, seize your goods
    (including any vehicle you use to transport them)."

    Please co-operate?!? Not "we have the legal power to search your baggage"?

  39. The Customs of this country are greedy thieves preying on mainly working people trying to get cheaper fags and booze. We are over-taxed by the British government and the HMRC are the lackeys of them and the Royals,living off the tax payers of this land. The Customs abuse their powers by people of this land not understanding the full legal process etc. Def. Shite.

  40. You're a class 1, premier league, jerk-off. Pay your taxes like everyone else and let the UKBA do their job.

  41. Which goonie are you in the vid anon 16.00? Oh and they are paying their taxes you thick twat.

  42. Successive governments have dragged us deeper into the EU.

    Fundamentally it's about free trade between member states.

    Measures to prevent citizens buying TAX-PAID goods elsewhere in the union are forbidden.

    So the Gov turns a blind eye to Customs' theft of travellers' goods.

    Customs and Government call it "Disruption". It's actually illegal. One day the MSM will expose what the Government are doing.

  43. This was fantastic.
    So what about the outcome?

    1. Sorry but we have yet to do that but we've been so busy. We came home with the 10,000 and 20,000 cigarettes.

  44. you guys are incredible

  45. i would have just got a Taxi and fucked off .
    what would they have done about that ?

  46. Why people still mаκe use of to read news раpers when in this technologicаl globе all
    is aсcesѕiblе оn net?

    My blog post bad credit loans
    my web page: bad credit loans

  47. Your way of descrіbing all in this post is truly nіcе,
    eѵery οne be able to easily know it, Thanks a lot.

    my pаge ... Eternity rings

  48. Does anyone know a good solicitor? I was stopped by ukba last Sunday at about 11am and after arresting mr and xraying me they claimed I had packets of cock that I had swallowed, I eas so sick due to strss that I ws hospitalized the next day while in hospital they xrayed me again and said there wss nothing in me and that I could go home,in total I eas detained about 40hours.if anyone knows s solicitor can you please email me at markfagan1@hotmail.co.uk....Thanks


"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!