Home of N2D.

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



13-10-2012 11:51 am  #1


Border Force should hang their heads in shame!

We at N2D are constantly researching the regs, policies and guidance that Border Force use when stopping cross-border shoppers. When we say N2D, we include many of our readers who also contribute ... without them, this would be a poorer N2D.

Indeed, it was Blocked Dwarf who found that the Border Force Operational Manual contained a paragraph that specifically stated that 'Passengers HAVE THE RIGHT to record any interviews' should they be stopped by Border Force.

One can't stress enough how important this is because Border Force will not audio record any Excise interviews ... period! They rely on just the BF Officers notebook and content ... which is often paraphrased and truncated and does not give a true account of the interview. Yet they want passengers to sign this notebook as a 'true and factual account of the interview' ... something no solicitor would ever advise their clients to do.

So more and more people were using this right to record. This has not gone down well with Border Force and they often try to stop the interview being recorded. However, producing these FOI's (i Data downloads) soon puts a stop to such requests (demands in some cases).

That's all well and good ... but only for visitors to N2D!    Why? ... because Border Force are now restricting this information for anybody who does not know of N2D and our files and puts in an FOI of their own.

This is what they are not allowing the general public at large to see :-


Note: Officers cannot stop someone if they choose to make a video or audio recording of the
interview themselves using their own equipment such as a mobile phone, video camera etc.


which was later amended to :-


“Note: If a member of the public chooses to use their own recording
equipment, such as a mobile phone or video camera, to make an audio or
video record of the interview, officers cannot prevent them from doing so.
However, officers should try to dissuade individuals from making the record by
explaining that a full and accurate record of the interview will be made and
they will have the opportunity to read, agree or have comments added at the
end of the record.

If an individual persists in making a recording, officers are not obliged to make
any special amendments to their usual business processes or to the location
of the interview in order to accommodate a recording. Similarly, officers are
not obliged to have their image recorded and can politely ask that the use of
recording equipment is directed away from them.��


Border Force are using this below in order to keep it from the public :-


"After careful consideration we have decided to withhold some information in the document Civil Excise Interview Guidance as it is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1) sub sections (a) and (d) of the Freedom of Information Act. This provides that information can be withheld where disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the assessment or collection of any tax or duty. The guidance reveals activities and techniques that would be likely to assist those wishing to evade our controls and the public interest therefore falls in favour of applying this exemption. Further details about the application of this exemption can be found in Annex A."

Another 'right' they are also witholding is this :-

"If the person says they want to be interviewed but cannot do so at the time (e.g. because they are
on a bus which will leave without them), the goods should be detained and they should be offered
an interview at a later date"

"We have no power to demand their
attendance at the place the goods were detained but neither are we obliged to carry out the
interview elsewhere. However, since the goods and case officer are located where the detention
took place, the person may agree to attend there so their goods can be returned (if they are not
subsequently seized)."


These 'rights' are replace with "[Text withheld by HM Revenue and Customs under Freedom of Information Act 2000, section 31(1)]  in this recent FOI 24547 (http://www.divshare.com/download/19790373-11c)

This comes on top of the nobbling of our downloads containing the FOI's that specifically show you can record interviews?


Looks like we'll be writing to the Information Commissioner


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png We don't do nice ... we do right!

It's not that l have something to hide ... it's l have nothing l want to show you.
 

13-10-2012 12:21 pm  #2


Re: Border Force should hang their heads in shame!

http://2nerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Facepalm-isnt-Enough.jpg


"I, uh, let her out the trunk...heard what, err, She snarled at THEM...."

http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 

13-10-2012 1:13 pm  #3


Re: Border Force should hang their heads in shame!

This is fast developing into an open game of one-upmanship. Let's hope that the rules don't get changed because BF are not having it all their own way.

Just a thought re:-

"We have no power to demand their
attendance at the place the goods were detained but neither are we obliged to carry out the
interview elsewhere. However, since the goods and case officer are located where the detention
took place, the person may agree to attend there so their goods can be returned (if they are not
subsequently seized)."

What happens if stalemate is reached and no interview takes place and the goods are seized? NOC is sent off and BF turn up in court with no interview notes and therefore no evidence to back up seizure.Going to court is the 1st opportunity you've had to air your defence which means the court judges it and not a frontline BF officer.Sounds too simple so I must be missing something?


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
 

13-10-2012 1:28 pm  #4


Re: Border Force should hang their heads in shame!

eezyrider wrote:

This is fast developing into an open game of one-upmanship. Let's hope that the rules don't get changed because BF are not having it all their own way.

Now that would be interesting but surely even they are not THAT STUPID?


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png We don't do nice ... we do right!

It's not that l have something to hide ... it's l have nothing l want to show you.
     Thread Starter
 

13-10-2012 1:41 pm  #5


Re: Border Force should hang their heads in shame!

You could update the heading of the 'Data' section to read: "INFORMATION THAT THE UKBF DO NOT WANT YOU TO HAVE! Secret Documents"...all helps with the googling.


"I, uh, let her out the trunk...heard what, err, She snarled at THEM...."

http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 

13-10-2012 1:51 pm  #6


Re: Border Force should hang their heads in shame!

The Blocked Dwarf wrote:

You could update the heading of the 'Data' section to read: "INFORMATION THAT THE UKBF DO NOT WANT YOU TO HAVE! Secret Documents"...all helps with the googling.

(grin) (grin) (grin) (grin) (grin)


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png We don't do nice ... we do right!

It's not that l have something to hide ... it's l have nothing l want to show you.
     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

Disclaimer:- This forum is an open forum, and anyone can post their thoughts here (within reason). Therefore the views expressed here are those of individuals and not necessarily those of Nothing 2 Declare. We try to allow as much freedom of speech as possible, including views that some may find objectionable. This includes the views of UKBA, Border Force, HMRC, legitimate cross-border shoppers, non-legitimate importers, general public and anyone else that wishes to post.
Regarding ourselves, we categorically do not condone smuggling and neither do we condone the current tactics used against legitimate cross-border shoppers by UKBA/Border Force and HMRC. The current tactics benefit both Customs and smugglers alike.
Although some people use real names, there is no guarantee that they are who they say they are; it is impossible for us to verify identities of all members.