Home of N2D.

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



10-12-2012 12:14 pm  #1


FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

http://i.imgur.com/24e78.jpg

 

10-12-2012 5:33 pm  #2


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

We would not allow the notebook to be videod or photographed to ensure other....

I'm no lawyer so I might be totally wrong but that sentence pricks my fist-punching-the-air rebel soul. I reckon what they don't say is more important than that carefully worded phrase-designed to mislead us into thinking that any photographical record taking would be a crime.

The absence of a sentence like 'Under the "1823 Act Misuse Of Fox Talbot or Daguerre Techniques In The Presence Of Crown Officials" is glaring...as is any reference to what action an Officer might then take if an individual was so criminal as to photograph the notebook. Where is the 'officers have the right to confiscate'...? Where is the 'Officers will summon the Police to arrest the offender'?

Nowhere.

They are chancing it. We know from other FOI's that officers may NOT remove photographic equipment or cell phones etc EVEN IF they are being used in a 'forbidden' area such as a port.

"would not allow" isn't the same as 'is illegal' nor 'we will prevent/detain"

The bit about ensuring the privacy of other information in the notebook sounds like they are preparing an argument to put before the bench.

Shopping, next FOI ask them what action officers are advised to take if an interviewee is so wicked as to whip out a camera and photograph the notebook without asking permission? What is the situation regarding interviewees like me with covert video cameras? If I were to read the notebook before signing then the spy cam would record an image....several infact..

All that 'would not allow' means is that if an interviewee were to ask to photograph the notebook then permission would be refused, IMO!

Last edited by The Blocked Dwarf (10-12-2012 5:42 pm)


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

http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 

10-12-2012 6:14 pm  #3


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

Also on selection of targets, I suggest that you ask if you are being selected for a given obvious reason. For example if you have a limp, a disability or in my case because I am hispanic!!! Play the disability or race card from the start so that they may be forced to explain their reasons. They are stating that they cannot disclose the selection criteria because they cannot discriminate (my arse). That needs tested. Es porque soy espanole!!!

 

13-12-2012 11:11 am  #4


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

"This provides that information can held where disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the asessment or collection of any tax or duty."

But their own rules of conduct state that at the primary 'stop' the officer MUST (their capitals) have 'reasonable grounds' (ditto on the single quotes). If they aren't willing or able to state and defend these 'grounds' how can they be shown to be 'reasonable'? IMHO any magistrate who merely accepted their unsupported word would be exhibiting prejudice in their favour which could then be a very strong argument in any successive appeal.


They lie on recordings; they lie on oath; their shysters lie on their behalf. Don't believe a word coming from the mouths (2 per person) of any UKBA officer.
 

13-12-2012 11:20 am  #5


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

Precisely. I think they MUST always be forced 'at the earliest opportunity' write in their note book 100A what the stop is for and what their resonable grounds and if they claim not to know you when stopped make sure that they note this in their 'official' notebook. That means they would need to state in their notebook that they stopped a complete stranger and they had 'REASONABLE GROUNDS'! Its just a complete paradox and I think they'd be genuinely confused. However I do note that in one of the sections of the CEMA it states that they DO have the power to stop anyone and the FOI request makes it clear that they won't say what the reason is as it would comprimise the border. Section 31(1)a, Section 31(1)d. That would always be the get out. I'll still be playing the race card just for the fun of it.

 

13-12-2012 1:40 pm  #6


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

Whist the 'reasonable grounds to stop' argument is one I feel strongly about case law has proved it has no bearing on a judgement. The fact that you may have been stopped illegally cannot be used as a defence if your goods are condemned.

However in my opinion you should press at the point of stop for reasons for the stop. You won't get them but this should be part of your opening argument in court-that the stop was illegal, BF do not follow their own regulations and the officer is therefore dishonest and his evidence is unreliable.


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 
 

13-12-2012 1:43 pm  #7


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

Agreed. Thats why I will spend a huge amount of time demanding it and having it noted. I'd love to do this when I have no excise goods at all just for the fun. Then make a complaint.

 

13-12-2012 1:55 pm  #8


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

What we need is a maverick MP to take up a crusade and get answers to such questions as:-

Why do BF not state on what grounds a person is stopped particularly where a court case is concerned

Why are there so many errors with SAR's.

Why is there nearly always a discrepancy in the amount of goods seized and the relevant paperwork.

Why are officers not trained enough to know the rules such as recording interviews.

Unfortunately my MP is less use than a chocolate teapot and you are not allowed to contact an MP outside your area.


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 
 

13-12-2012 2:00 pm  #9


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

Well my MP helped but when it was pointed out that the Fuhrer had made mistakes in her reply, 'I don't really want to get involved in matters like this as they are not local matters!'. Anyone got a maverick MP who needs a platform to propel themselves. Anyone in the constituency of Nadine Dorres?

 

13-12-2012 2:05 pm  #10


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

celticmanx wrote:

Well my MP helped but when it was pointed out that the Fuhrer had made mistakes in her reply, 'I don't really want to get involved in matters like this as they are not local matters!'. Anyone got a maverick MP who needs a platform to propel themselves. Anyone in the constituency of Nadine Dorres?

Or Keith Vaz' constituency, home affairs committee. He seems willing and able to poke about for answers especially where UKBA/BF are concerned. Remember the Brodie wotisname affair?


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 
 

13-12-2012 3:34 pm  #11


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

eezyrider wrote:

celticmanx wrote:

Well my MP helped but when it was pointed out that the Fuhrer had made mistakes in her reply, 'I don't really want to get involved in matters like this as they are not local matters!'. Anyone got a maverick MP who needs a platform to propel themselves. Anyone in the constituency of Nadine Dorres?

Or Keith Vaz' constituency, home affairs committee. He seems willing and able to poke about for answers especially where UKBA/BF are concerned. Remember the Brodie wotisname affair?

Tried him and all the committees ... didn't even get a reply!


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.
 

13-12-2012 3:37 pm  #12


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

Yeah I got the initial suggestion wrong (A conservative standing up for euro rights!!!!! ). We need a maverick LIBDEM!!! (grin) They are so pro europe that they must have someone who would fight the corner.

 

13-12-2012 4:12 pm  #13


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

eezyrider wrote:

Whist the 'reasonable grounds to stop' argument is one I feel strongly about case law has proved it has no bearing on a judgement. The fact that you may have been stopped illegally cannot be used as a defence if your goods are condemned.

However in my opinion you should press at the point of stop for reasons for the stop. You won't get them but this should be part of your opening argument in court-that the stop was illegal, BF do not follow their own regulations and the officer is therefore dishonest and his evidence is unreliable.

Obviously this will merely be my opening 'shot across the bow' as a warning for things to come. I have many more arrows for my bow (sorry for the mixed metaphors),but will not be detailing them here (blooper) as the revenooers or their shysters may be monitoring this site for just those purposes. Sneaky bastards  (devious)

IMHO they ignore their own codes of conduct for purely personal and venal reasons. Failure to maintain, or preferably exceed, their targets for seizures - especially of vehicles - is almost certainly the difference between promotion and demotion, with the obvious change in salary. Doubtless this must be explained to them otherwise they would be more inclined to stick to them as a defence against being accused of possible unlawful conduct.


They lie on recordings; they lie on oath; their shysters lie on their behalf. Don't believe a word coming from the mouths (2 per person) of any UKBA officer.
 

13-12-2012 4:27 pm  #14


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

You have to take control at the initial stop, search and subsequent interview. A well presented SOT and recording of the incident will do this for you. Don't lose your temper at any point, remain calm and focused but be forceful. Ask questions back otherwise they'll only ask the questions that back up their attempt to seize. It's up to you to do this.

THIS is where your battle should be ... not a court!

lf you are not prepared for this battle ... leave your goods and come back armed to the teeth for the re-arranged interview!


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.
 

14-12-2012 4:41 pm  #15


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

Smoking Hot wrote:

You have to take control at the initial stop

Agree.

If apprehended, ask for the names, numbers, rank/s of the officer/s and reasons for the 'stop' and any 'powers' to be 'detailed'.
Post Eastenders, any officer/s must have evidence "as a fact" and "at the time" (of 'stop') that if one is in possession of any excise goods, that those excise goods are for purposes other than own use.

Smoking Hot wrote:

search and subsequent interview

If the officer/s persist/s, remind the officer/s that, (FoI 19924) ... "an officer must not stop someone in the hope of obtaining grounds to support a subsequent search" ...

... Some tactics for tomorrow. (happy)

Last edited by shopperleighonsea (14-12-2012 5:39 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

04-2-2013 7:00 pm  #16


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

Shopperlieghonsea,  i see from the forums that you seem to be the person who has a good grasp on FOI and i think i could probably find the results of your requests as i trawl through the forums . i would like to ask if there is a way i can download  the replies to all of the requests made to date without having to search them out and perhaps miss some.
thanks in advancehttp://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/happy.png


Please ensure you do not divulge any  information which could identify you as Border Force may take your posts here and attempt to quote parts of them out of context in court in order to try to discredit you.

 
 

05-2-2013 7:08 am  #17


Re: FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801

For copies of FoIs 24709, 24800 and 24801 then pm (these requests were made privately). There is a topic for FoIs and there is WhatDoTheyKnow (requests that are made publically).

Last edited by shopperleighonsea (05-2-2013 7:13 am)

     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.