Why Are We So Unique?

lf YOU are a Cross-Border Shopper, we want you to read this and read all of it! Then we want YOU to make a comment. We get between 3500-4000 visitors per week (not bad for a single-issue site aiming at just 25% of the population ... that is to say, smokers!) and the majority of you are Cross-Border Shoppers. We too are Cross-Border Shoppers but that is where the similarity ends ... we, along with a few others, seem to be unique and we want to know something ... WHY?. Only YOU can tell us ... read on.

Recent investigation results re Freedom of Information requests have shocked us to the core. Through our own requests and those of our good friend Justine we have been trying to extract the true picture as to what is happening with UKBA seizures and subsequent Appeals against Seizures. Getting this information is like extracting teeth. The UKBA/HMRC are extremely reluctant to give us this information and try everything they can to keep this information from reaching the public. However, we are nothing but persistent and do eventually get results.

One of our main objectives has been to try and get the actual number of seizures per year. UKBA/HMRC have no problem whatsoever in giving the amount of tobacco/cigarettes seized but definitely don't want to show how many people have had their goods seized.

Prior to part of HMRC merging with the Border and Immigration Agency ?(BIA) to form the UKBA in April 2008 there was a fair of amount of data released. Although this data didn't give the whole picture atleast it was something. Since the UKBA have been in existance, even this data has been witheld!

So, we started with the last time HMRC released the data and it showed the following for the period 2008/9. For the purpose of this post we are concentrating on only part of this data and highlighted it  :-

Overseas seizures 855 million cigarettes
Air seizures 244 million cigarettes
Inland seizures 180 million cigarettes
Maritime seizures 557 million cigarettes
Cross channel passenger seizures 11 million cigarettes
Number of cross channel seizures 2,836

You'll note that HMRC only show the NUMBER of  seizures for Cross Channel and NOT any of the others. You'll also note that the data is for cigarette seizures only and NOT tobacco (HRT)

So, what's the NUMBER of seizures for the Air Seizures figure? By taking the Cross Channel data and applying it by simple maths to the Air Seizures we get the NUMBER of seizures at UK Airports for 2008/9 to be approx 63,000. That's 63,000 people! ... and that's without the number of seizures for Overseas, Maritime and lnland! 63,000 ... got that?

How many of these 63,000 appealed against the seizures?   673! .... just 673 ,,, yep, that's right .... a measly 673 ... approx 1%. ln reality even this 1% is far too big when you consider the NUMBER of seizures to be added from all the Overseas (Coquelles), Maritime, lnland and not forgetting the 2836 that HMRC showed. A final realistic figure will be FAR LESS THAN 1%!

How many people won their initial Appeal Against Seizure? .... 15! ... yep 15! Add to that a further 52 as UKBA say approx 8% win their case at Magistrates court.

Now take our own personal Appeals Against Seizure. What's our success rate? ... 100%! ... and that's with amounts way over the guidelines. We are just ordinary people who refuse to be intimidated or bullied and that's all really it takes. Once you stand up to them you'll see UKBA are NOT remotely as powerful and clever as you think they are.

So, wtf can we conclude from this? Yes there will be a percentage of smugglers amongst these seizure figures but that isn't the answer because UKBA would happily release these figures if they were all smugglers ... and prosecute them. You have to conclude that UKBA would be embarrassed by releasing the actual NUMBER of seizures because they know, as we do, most are just ordinary Cross-Border Shoppers and questions would be asked. Parliament, MSM, so called Liberty groups/blogs etc would have to then take note. As it is, they are happy to keep it swept under the carpet.

How do UKBA get away with it? .... because of YOU! For various reasons YOU allow UKBA to rob you. Either you screw up on the interview, don't go prepared, trust the UKBA, intimidated by them, to scared to fight back and so on. No wonder the UKBA are so arrogant and do what they want, they know that virtually no-one fights back!

l'm not being nasty to you or disrespectful ... l'm just telling you the facts as they are.

Why are we, and a few others, so unique when it comes to taking on the UKBA?

More to the point ... tell us WHY YOU won't fight back?

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