Cross-channel shopping update
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 9:01 When I wrote about the latest hike in tobacco duty in March it provoked a heated discussion about cross-Channel shopping.
I later returned to the subject here: Government cuts tobacco guidelines.
Yesterday we received an email that is worth sharing because it highlights a problem that many people may encounter:
A friend recently drove to Belgium with three colleagues on one of their twice yearly visits to purchase hand rolling tobacco. Nothing was said on his way out of the country and it was not until they returned with their prescribed three kilos that they learnt that the restrictions on the amount of cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco had been reduced.
HMRC asked them a lot of questions, said they would allow them to pass this time but in future the limit had been reduced to one kilo each although HMRC did add that this was only a guideline.
Imagine my friend's horror when he returned home and checked out the HMRC website and found so much misinformation that he is very confused.
Imagine reading on one page that there are not any restrictions on what you can bring into the country as long as it is for personal use. Then on the next page the list of what you can bring through customs according to HMRC – just 800 cigarettes (pre 1/10/2011 = 3200) or one kilo of hand rolling tobacco (was three kilos). There is no change on the amount of alcohol you can bring in (guidelines).
Continuing to read he found that if you try to bring in more than the guidelines and cannot give satisfactory answers to questions such as who is this for, how often do you go abroad etc you are liable to confiscation of the tobacco/cigarettes and guess what – your car/vehicle taken as well. I thought this had been resolved in a court case back in 2004.
Is it my imagination or are the government targeting smokers yet again?
The email was timely because on Saturday The Times published an article headlined 'How to keep hold of your duty-frees'.
The article is behind The Times' paywall but it includes a quote from Nothing-2-Declare (who posts about it here) and is worth reading.
Reader Comments (141)
Ukba couldn't make the new rules more confusing ,it's a riddle full of traps for travelers
A long article which could have been written soley by ukba as a guide for travelers, infact the bit from nothing2declare almost seems a copy and paste from the stuff ukba usually trot out
We came across this last month whilst having a smoke at East Midlands Airport. A chap was saying that we could now only bring back 800 cigs each - we couldn't believe it, so went to the duty free area and asked if they had an up to date leaflet, which they did. When we checked it did say, at the top and in bold print (if I recall) that there were no restrictions on what we could bring back into the UK from Europe, provided it was for our own personal use or as gifts. It followed up with saying that we could face more questioning if we carried more than the guidelines, such has how often we travel, how much do we smoke, etc and then listed the guidelines.
What they are now laying out is pretty much what happened to us at Birmingham airport about 3 years ago and which we complained about through our MP. I am thinking that more people have been intimidated in customs about the amount of cigs and tobacco they are legally bringing back from Europe and more complaints have been received and this is why UKBA are now making this kind of intimidation and harrassment 'legal' by stating it in their leaflets!
So, yes Simon, smokers are being tagetted AGAIN!!
On the occasion we were stopped at Birmingham I ended up walking out for a smoke and leaving my husband to deal with the 'interrogation', which was being needlessly drawn out. I knew UKBA did not have a leg to stand on because they didn't try to stop me walking out! They did, however, keep my husband for a further 20 minutes and threatened us with long drawn out interviews in separate rooms if we travelled again within 6 months!
We no longer fly from Birmingham Airport, which is a flea pit anyway. We find that Bristol and East Midlands airports are far nicer and so far we have had no problems from customs!
We firmly believe that the customs officers actively try to get people to surrender their tobacco products in order to just be able to leave and go home. I am also certain that there is a vast amount of 'seized' goods that do not get destroyed!
Government Agency, in my view that means they are bound to be corrupt!
Unfortunately the confusion just gets worse for travelers if they read the times article and this blog and ukba website because allowance , guidelines, limits are terms deliberately used to confuse travelers by ukba and at the same time travelers keep the confusion going by chucking them about almost at random
"The difficulty may be in proving that the goods are for your own personal use................."
Herein lies the rub. Leaving aside the obvious question (never satisfactorily answered IMHO) of why the burden of proof should now be placed upon the accused rather than upon the accuser, how is it POSSIBLE to 'prove' that the goods are for your own personal use ?
Forensically, it's quite impossible, of course. As impossible as 'proving' that you are not taking part in a conspiracy to rob Barclays Bank.
And almost as impossible as driving some legal sense into the Titanium skull of that stupid bitch JUSTINE GREENING (surely a refugee from a Radio 4 sitcom ?) over at Treasury. She it was, after all, who said that European Law on the free movement of goods (tobacco goods, in this case) did not extend to what she referred to as 'wholesale quantities'.
Even if it were possible legally to define 'wholesale quantities', Cameron-Cutie (sitting as a 'Conservative' - ha ha ha ha) Justine is missing the point completely.
June Brown (aka 'Dot Cotton') reputedly smokes up to 100 a day. Would a mere 8 days' supply justify the price of a coach trip to Adinkerke ?
Gosh, Justine, THAT couldn't be the point, could it (you little bean-counter, you) ?
Must admit, I still thought that the onus was on customs to prove the goods were not for your own use, but then I can be a bit naive at times and should really know better!
Will say though, that what we do is buy European brands of cigs rather than 'UK' brands and tend to bring just one or at most 2 brands back with us. In their dim little minds, most of the time, this means they are less likely to be for re-sale.
When we were stopped at Birmingham the mindless cretin focused on the fact that the 3 cartons we had bought in Duty Free at the airport (and which were more expensive than in Spain itself) were a different brand! We did try to explain, in words of just one syllable, that in the Duty Free we cannot buy the same brands as we buy in the tobacconists as they do not sell them in Duty Free! It took a while and even then I am not sure the message got through!
People are most at risk when they are bringing back lots of different popular 'UK' brands, meaning it is more difficult to prove they are for own use.
I think Justine Greening and the Tory government are just sabre rattling and getting the UKBA to do their dirty work for them. The government openly admits it is losing £2 billion in tax revenues.
I assume all the harassment is to deter shoppers from bringing back more than the minimum and counting on a compliant population who do not want a confrontation with authority.
I am going on Smoking Hot's trip. I am prepared. I have a 'statement of intent' (to purchase tobacco and other goods for the use of my wife and I) which I sent to my MP some months ago. I have an acknowledgement of receipt of the letter from my MP and a promise to investigate if I am stopped. While the 'statement of intent' might not have the force of an affidavit sworn before a solicitor, it ought to be sufficient. I have proof that I can afford the cost and other docs. My mobile can record conversations.
I am almost (but not quite!) hoping that they stop me. There is an obvious first question that I would ask: "There is a judgement that citizens of the UK can pass freely between EU countries without fear. Why have you stopped me and why are you interrogating me? If you wish to impound my 'EU duty paid' goods, then go ahead, but do not interrogate me. You have no right to do so by law. But, if you confiscate my goods, be aware that you do so unlawfully"
Preparation.
Of all the advice given, these 2 are indispensable:-
1. ALWAYS record the UKBA interview with your mobile phone/camera etc. .... although far better is a dedicated Dictaphone/voice recorder. They cost about £30 and record up to 500 hrs. Record openly and state to UKBA that you are recording the interview. UKBA cannot stop you, it is in their own operational procedures!
This alone stops the intimidation and harassment. UKBA then behave themselves. This is NOT theory, we've done this practically and it works.
2. Do NOT under any circumstances ever sign the UKBA officers notebook.
You can download the UKBA's own procedures for Excise interviews here (includes your right to record)
http://www.divshare.com/download/15859951-15a
This message needs spreading far and wide.
70-80,000 people a year have their excise goods confiscated. Of this number less than 1% appeal. This is because of threats and intimidation by UKBA.
Example of UKBA threat :- "Yes you can appeal but you WON'T win, no-one wins and you WILL be liable for costs of a minimum of £2500"
Recording them stops all this nonsense!
There is no need to be frightened of them. The myths circulating about UKBA's powers are just that ... myths! lf you believe in them, you obviously believe in the bogeyman too! Fight them with their own procedures and make them adhere to their procedures. Most of them don't know the procedures themselves!
Since we've (incl our friends and family) been bringing back from EU our tobacco/cigarettes (all above the 'guidelines) for personal use and gifts or record stands as such.
9 seizures (none since 2007) Appealed 9 times and won 9 times.
35 attempted seizures, resulting in 0 seizures.
We DON'T believe in the bogeyman!
Dave A -
You're absolutely correct, of course. Let's face it, one hardly needs a Masters Degree in Government (ie Treasury) Psychology to work THIS one out.
Nonetheless, and as someone who (high-mindedly) happens to believe in the Rule of Law, I sincerely hope that WE are not about to travel down the dangerous road taken in America: government-by-executive-decision, enforced by men-in-uniform.
One little Ray of Hope, however, was provided yesterday by a spokesman for Coliseum Coaches - which used to have a policy of adhering to the previous Customs 'limit' of 3200 (get stopped and questioned, and the coach drives on without you).
Clearly, the absurd new 'limit' was too much to stomach - even for them. Not least because it would have meant commercial suicide, one imagines.
With Simon's permission, I shall reproduce below.
"Good afternoon Martin -
Thank you for your email.
Our stance with Customs & Excise is: there are NO ALLOWANCE LIMITS; we are a Country within the EU.
As long as it is for your own personal use, you may bring your purchases onto our coaches.
Please see attached, which is from Customs & Excise.
Kind Regards
Mark Pitter
Coliseum Coaches Ltd "
(My emphasis)
Junican -
That's an EXCELLENT idea - and one which reflects a suggestion I made some time ago: write a letter to Customs (or whatever they're called these days) stating OPENLY your intention of purchasing x thousand fags (etc), and copying to your local MP.
Any intimidatory hint on the part of the Men In Black that you are a potential 'smuggler' would then have been cut off at the knees.
Real smugglers tend NOT to supply notice in advance !
Smoking Hot -
Thanks for that advice and info, too. Excellent !
Simon,
Smoking Hot is perfectly correct. When l was stopped by the UKBA, l told them l was recording everything. UKBA behaved impeccably and l was subsequently treat with respect and courtesy throughout. l was even offered a drink without asking for one. lt's hard to believe l am talking about the UKBA, isn't it?
l was well over the current guidelines but they never tried to seize them. l only had very few questions asked and then l was told l could go and even given an apology for any inconvenience caused.
Simon, you should really help N2D to get this message out. l realize that your position may restrict you from doing it personally but l'm sure you could nudge all your media contacts their way.
Everyone should expect to be treat fair by UKBA along with openness and transparency. This goes a long way to achieving that.
Surely you cannot object to offering a helping hand on something so important? ln my honest opinion, the recording of UKBA interviews is a breakthrough we've been waiting a long time for.
I'd like to know how you feel about this, Simon.
With regards,
Andrea
Whilst Preparation , writing statements, recording interviews are good advice for travellers ,they are an excellent idea for smugglers too.
Ukba have every right and are completely lawfull in stopping the bad guys going about their business no matter how sneaky they get
Dickie Doubleday ... you obviously have little knowledge making such a statement. lnvestigations have shown that smugglers invariably use 'mules'. lf these 'mules' are stopped they just walk away and leave the goods. No interviews by UKBA, nothing. Last thing smugglers want is attention drawn to them and that includes the minority of smugglers that go themselves
Andrea do ukba like that really exist?
agree with what you say though. C'mon Simon don't ignore the lady.
@smoking hot, what a naive statement to make, didn't you realize smugglers get caught with their goods thousands of times every year in the uk, surely you are not suggesting this dosent happen
Ukba interview these thousands of smugglers and your advice is great advice for them as they pose as pukka travellers.
Mules will leave their bags and run whereas blatant and confident repeat smugglers will try their luck and blag using your advice especially as EU fags can be bought without limits ,plus evading customs by leaving your bag is an offence if you are caught
Try a google smoking hot , this sort of stuff isnt hard to understand and easily found if you don't believe me
What planet are you living on smoking hot...your advice is perfect for criminals , you do yourself no favors squirming out of the truth.
You cannot sell your plan as perfect for travellers and not for smugglers, it's barmy and dishonest from a so called expert
"Whilst Preparation , writing statements, recording interviews are good advice for travellers ,they are an excellent idea for smugglers too."
Yes and No...and probably more 'No' than yes (and as I former small time smuggler I actually know something about this)
The Big Boys Of Tobacco Smuggling don't use people as 'mules'- that's drug smugglers, only the 'cottage Industry' tobacco runners do that. Professionals bring in amounts that, even when compressed, require containers and lorries because the Government introduced Minimum Indicative Amounts and thus made Counterfeiting the more profitable option. Its all about profit.
So yes you're right that SH's advice is good for Cottage Industry Smugglers -ie your mate down the pub who brings back maybe a laughable 5 Kg a month. He can, if he's clever, use the tools of the Statement Of Truth etc to cover his tracks although the point of the Statement is that it is 'checkable' fact with supporting evidence. However he is more likely just to continue to 'chance it' and dump the load at CUstoms if challenged.
The Professional smuggler, who really damages the economy, has no interest in or use for SH's advice. Chances are he never sees a UKBA Offizier anyways...what with being a foreign passport holder and not along with the driver for the ride.
His Smuggled goods come through the Trade Man's entrance and are declared as 'Scrap Metal' or 'Coffee' (according to one recent 'Our Brave Boys In The UKBA' TV show. They don't come in in the boot of his own car and declared as 'for personal use'.
Yes cottage industry smugglers will see this advice as helpfull rather than container smugglers and also ordinary travellers who are not completely honest can use these tools too .
Ukba are interested in anybody not conforming to the rules and this advice is good but it's not a no hassle , no talking, no stopping dream pass by customs who have their hands tied behind thieir backs because they have been stumped
Let's get real and honest, good advice for travellers,smugglers and ukba will still check you out and not believe what you write or tell them because it's their job to be suspicious
@Dickie Doubleday
It may have been a while ago but one of things I remember from my 'A' Level Economics is the concept of "Entrepôt Trading," it is the resale of goods and services from low tax regimes to high tax regimes. In the same way that many high net worth individuals decamp to low tax regimes fro the perfectly legal activity called tax avoidance. Tax evasion is the criminal variety. The UK governments mixture of greed and finger wagging egged on by state funded fake charities like ASH have created a white, black and grey market. They only have themselves to blame.
The EU quite rightly have created a single market and we are allowed by EU statute and law to bring as much back as long as it is for personal consumption or for gifts. If tobacco was taxed at reasonable rates none of this would happen. If I risk repeating myself we are not breaking any laws, tenets or morals. We are no different to any UK citizen who decides to buy a German, French or Japanese car for example. It is called free trade and democracy.
Like most things on tobacco the government decides to stop our democratic rights and employ over powerful civil servants who think they have the right to bully.
", no stopping dream pass by customs who have their hands tied behind thieir backs because they have been stumped"
True but SH isn't 'selling it' as some kind of magical Silver Bullet. Yes the UKBA have to be suspicious, infact they are required to be officious bastards who would distrust the word of their own mother with her hand on a stack of bibles BUT they also have to play within their own rules and The Law. SH's advice pretty much forces them to do that and not just target the 'easy marks' -legitimate Cross Border Shoppers- to appease Government Statistics.
"What is missed is mystery, what is on Youtube is history" -to misquote some 17th Century wit.
Knowing that they are being recorded tends to make government officials, of all ilks -even policey men-suddenly want to comply with their own regulations. Strange but true....as people from all sorts of campaigns for all sorts of things can testify.
@Dick D ... so let's get this right. You believe that forcing the UKBA to adhere to the regulations, procedures and codes of practice is wrong? Whilst you're at it, why don't you remove PACE from any drug smugglers the UKBA catch?
Google search won't bring up thousands of smugglers, smuggling is a criminal offence and UKBA operate under Civil Law.
@Smoking Hot - thanks for the excellent advice
Why must you never sign the Officer's notebook?
Brilliant Double Dick!
To catch all the 'smugglers' you'll seize everything from the legitimate shoppers too! -- and you're happy with that? Jeez!
Joyce ... because if your goods are seized and it goes to court, the only 'evidence' that will be available will be the officer's notebook ... and you've signed it to say it is a "true and factual account of the interview". Not good.
lnterviews can take hours so what is recorded in the notebook is rarely, if ever, verbatim. lt is also often paraphrased. What you think you've read and understood can mean something entirely different in court. Also missing full stop or comma can change entirely the meaning of a sentence.
What you must also remember is that you don't get a copy of this notebook at the time of the interview. lf you appeal against the seizure, you have 30 days to do so. For this it would be nice to have a copy of the notebook . You can get it, it will cost you £10 and you have to send in a Subject Access Request.
Unfortunately, UKBA specify that it will take 40days ... 10 days after the time limitation for your appeal. :)
However, if you've recorded the interview and not signed the notebook ... you don't really need it. :)
I do not understand what DD is trying to do. Why is trying to sow seeds of doubt? The whole point of these 'declarations' and 'statements of intent' is that they are the only way to sort of 'prove' (although you can't) that your purchases are for your own use. What smugglers do is their business - we are honest travellers. There is a world of difference between a person who goes on holiday three or four times a year and buys stuff and a person who goes to, say, Poland on a weekly basis, and brings back thousands of fags each week. Customs can quite legitimately ask them what they are up to. But we must remember that a legal case some time ago decided that Customs must have a real, legitimate reason (prior knowledge) to stop a traveller and not just a vague suspicion. I rather suspect that they have avoided this case by, in theory, not stopping you but stopping your baggage.
I have toyed with the idea of an actual 'sworn affidavit' declaring my intentions and swearing as to the truth before a 'notary public' (a solicitor, essentially), but I shall not do so on this occasion a bit too late. I wouldn't imagine that it would cost much.
Actually, I have just done a search on the internet and found the following site:
http://www.aaholmes.co.uk/commissionerforoaths.asp
It says there that they charge £5 for an affidavit. Examples of the wording of an affidavit can be found easily on the net. I should imagine that my letter to my MP will serve the purpose on this occasion, if required.
DD....perhaps you should search the net for a smugglers' site and make your comments there.
@Smoking Hot - thanks :>
Any solicitor, including myself, would give the self-same advice as Smoking Hot. Why would anyone sign a UKBA officer's notebook given that no-one to my knowledge would ever sign a policeman's notebook?.
Simon, are you ignoring me?
Double Dick is a Ukba stooge just sent here to talk bollox. Next time someone records you dickyboy and refuses to sign the confession, you'll know where it came from.lol
"Why would anyone sign a UKBA officer's notebook given that no-one to my knowledge would ever sign a policeman's notebook?."
Even former UKBA Officers advise-albeit guardedly- against signing.
"I personally wouldn't sign anything I was not going to be given a copy of straight away, particularly something so vital, but that is my personal opinion. I am not advocating that people do not comply with reasonable requests made by the authorities." Copyright Julie Wiggs
http://www.jmwcc.co.uk/free_advice.html
I have downloaded the Customs Interview Rules as recommended by Smoking Hot and read them. Here are a few quotes therefrom:
When exercising the powers at sections 163 or 163A an officer MUST have reasonable grounds for the initial stop. Officers must not stop someone in the hope of obtaining grounds through questioning to support a subsequent search.
Thus they comply with the court's ruling about 'free movement'. But is a xray of a person's baggage 'reasonable grounds'? If not, what other 'reasonable grounds' can there be for stopping someone who goes abroad on holiday only rarely?
Officers must always carry out an independent assessment of the importation, taking into account the fact that individuals may bring back any amount of excise goods for their own use or as gifts.
Our rights as EU citizens acknowledged.
The officer MUST make it expressly clear to the person that this is a civil matter and not a criminal one; they are NOT under arrest; they are free to leave at any time.
There we see that it is the baggage which is being 'arrested' and not the person. Clever stuff! Perhaps that is why these interviews are so convoluted.
Thanks for the info, SH. What a pity that the MSM do not publish this sort of stuff, preferring, as they do, to highlight the ""million pounds worth of [insert commodity] seized!!!!"" Along with arrests and raids and prison sentences. It really is worrying that the MSM is so much in the pocket of 'The Government' (by that, I do not mean politicians).
Thanks to "Smoking Hot", whose blog I have followed for a while, I always make sure that my nokia is fully charged
@dave i agree and have done for many years like yourself
@sbc yes recording. Levels the playing field
@smoking hot I agree ukba should adhere to regulations and a prepared traveller helps this happen, Please don't make up stories about what I think ,i have not suggested anything like that
@Andrea the same goes for you , stop posting fantasy comments about what I am happy with when there is no evidence or the slightest hint that I believe that
@ Junican I believe these written declarations are usefull and are a good idea for those whose verbal skills may let them down under
pressure, but they are also ideal for EU smugglers whose goal is to impersonate genuine travellers , this is a simple truth and it's a Shame the author was less than honest about this, and also useful for non conforming travellers who buy fags for somone else as a favour or payment in kind.
I welcome advice on dealing with customs and this declaration is a new angle on trying to convince customs which many travellers manage by being honest and by being prepared already, just dont get carried away with this as you appeared yo do in your earlier
post.
Customs call the shots at the borders with the publics backing and they rightly should be suspicious of paper waving tobacco tourists who think they have the right to do exactly as they want to,it's not going to happen like that is it when the country is losing 3 billion in revenue
"Simon, you should really help N2D to get this message out."
Andrea, I think I just did.
DD ... would the public back the UKBA if they knew exactly what is happening at our borders? 70-80,000 people have their goods seized per year along with 5000+ vehicles and yet less than 1% appeal. Doesn't that ring alarm bells for you? Show me one set of 'crime' stats where less than 1% plead not guilty?
Name me one 'crime' where you can only get access to the 'evidence' against you 10 days after the time limitation for an appeal runs out.
The general public have no idea whatsoever because the majority don't smoke and generally don't purchase cigarettes/tobacco. UKBA/HMRC target cross-border shoppers because they are easy prey. They are easy prey because UKBA/HMRC use intimidation, harassment and a host of tactics that would be illegal under PACE.
Over a 20 year period, myself, friends and family have been stopped and searched countless times and NOT once has any of them been subject to a personal search for drugs. Why? ... because UKBA/HMRC would have to operate under Criminal Law that demands evidence and strict procedures. UKBA/HMRC prefer Civil Law where they can do what they like with virtual impunity.
Smugglers? ... l am not concerned about them. That's the job of UKBA/HMRC to deal with them but to do so under the letter of the law. What does concern me is innocent legitimate shoppers being robbed of their goods and wrongly branded a smuggler and yet with no actual proof of being such. They are found 'guilty' by someone acting as judge, jury and executioner who can, and does, use intimidation, harassment and host of tactics to achieve said sentence.
Neither am l concerned about this 'lost' revenue. The answer to that is simple ... compete with the other countries on price. The added benefit being that people would not have to cross-border shop. That would leave UKBA/HMRC to concentrate on other issues. Alas, it would have to be under regulations and procedures ... l wonder if they could remember what they are?
Smoking Hot - Very Well Said.
As previously posted, hubby and I have had first hand experience of the bullying tactics used by UKBA and lesser informed or more easily intimidated travellers would cave in and give up their legal goods.
As you say, people who travel once or twice a year on holiday - which is more than obvious to the UKBA who know full well the travel habits of each individual, or certainly have access to that information - should be left alone, after all, even if they are bringing tobacco back for others, it is on such a small scale not to warrant concern. They should, as you say, be concentrating on the professional smugglers, those that travel regularly and to more obvious places to purchase tobacco and drink. Again, as you say, this would involve them in more work, requiring more knowledge of the rules (as the real smugglers will be well up on the in's and out's) and for the UKBA to actually do a proper days' work!
While they are busy harassing and intimidating innocent holiday makers, look how many illegal immigrants are getting in without question! It is pretty plain to see that they are just looking for an easy life and, of course, the more innocent people they can intimidate into giving up their goods makes their 'success' figures look like they are doing a good job! Just like the police 'crime' figures are made up of petty motoring offences while REAL criminals are getting away with murder!
Whilst you are not concerned with smuggling or lost revenue,ukba most certainly are and will not let travellers who could be exploiting the system with your statement of truth just stroll into the country avoiding normal checks or whatever checks they want to carry out soley based on a written decleration because the bad guys are liars by trade.,this is a simple to understand truthful fact .
I agree with your views on how ukba operate, I agree they can be bullies, the public are ignorant, i am not a ukba lover or an employee so your rant is not putting me in the picture or explaining anything new to me.
Your statement of truth is usefull but also to the bad guys and ukba aren't going to view it as a loophole or some restraint on checks they want to do
Each case is an individual on it's own merits situation with ukba,there is no print off template which changes that.
It's fooling the generally ignorant public into false hopes to suggest otherwise, a usefull bit of advice though that's better than nothing
@Lynn a persons light travel is no guide to their honesty and they are not committing a crime , or some kind of minor breaking of the rules on a small scale should be allowed.
Trying to put ukba in some kind of position where it suits everyone and they catch criminals at the same time might be wished for but it ain't going to happen
My point DD is that if they spent more time doing what is more important, such as looking for and maybe even catching the serious criminals, instead of taking the easy option of persecuting those that mostly just exercising their legal right, things may start to get a little bit better in the country. Is it really that important if a very few holidaymakers bring in a few 100 cartons (not each but cumulatively)? Targetting and catching the 'professional' law breakers will do far more good in the long run and save far more revenue that the gov't is losing on a daily basis by ordinary people exercising their right to buy cheaper tobacco products elsewhere in the EU!
DD ... You keep misquoting me. My primary advice is record the interview and do not sign the officers notebook under any circumstances. The statement of truth, calculations, record of previous trips abroad, etc etc all come secondary.
The overall aim is to make Customs follow the letter of the law incl their own procedures and to behave with honesty and integrity, Yes a person could use the tools l suggest to smuggle in goods but if that person is stopped and interviewed, they can't use the same tools the day, week or month afterwards can they?
All main interviews are logged and stored at the UKBA Data Protection Unit. This data is accessible to UKBA frontline teams. So if someone is stopped with a large quantity sufficient to last that person for 6-12 months, then they can't use the tools l advise before that can they? lf they do, then those very same documents then can be used against them as actual evidence of smuggling!
A smuggler doesn't need these documents because as you say these people are liars by trade. They have to be very good at it too otherwise they won't last very long will they?
lf by protecting the innocent some of the guilty slip through then so be it
Our Justice system is supposedly based on this. Do they not say "It is far better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted" ?
Currently the UKBA are operating the reverse "It is far better that 10 innocent men are found guilty than one guilty man goes free"
Take a look here and read some tales of woe (no, it's not my site)
http://www.day-tripper.net/access-ukborder-agency.html
Scroll down to "Your experiences ......... "
I'm sure it would be better if ukba were targeting serious criminals and not bothering with tobacco tourists , unfortunately serious criminals carry 100 cartons for commercial purposes and you smoking hot do the same as an honest guy according to your profile, so customs rightly are suspicous of you, also little and often smugglers go about their business in that manner
Where does this leave ukba? I suggest with problems of seeing the bad from the good
I agree recording is a good idea, preparation is a must, but the big picture is more complicated than honest joes using tools to fight corrupt bullies especially as the dishonest could well find them usefull and ukba have a public duty to follow which we pay for
DD .... except for one thing. Since we moved out of this country 3 years ago l no longer bring in the same amount. l do however bring in above the guidelines amounts for myself (when l'm here) and presents re birthdays and gifts. My days for bringing in a years supply to the UK are gone.
Here's the rub. l've been doing it for 20 years, had numerous stop searches and interviews (all documented) and never had anything seized.
Yet, they still stop me and interview me, wasting 2-3 hrs of my time and theirs.
Where oh where, is the intelligence in that? ... and you are quite correct ... you are paying them to do this.
l'm usually on flights full of Bulgarians (who always have loads of luggage) and the UKBA stop me. The norm is only 2 officers on duty and they waste a few hours on me. This is despite me carrying all documentation of previous stops and them having their own records at the DPU. Yet, we still go through the whole pointless exercise from beginning to end, taking up 2-3 hrs.
l know their procedures better than they do! Hell, most of them were at school when l started importing my own cigarettes.
Now if you can see any intelligence at all in them doing this, please tell me what l can't see and you can.
In the meantime, all the other passengers l flew in with have gone straight through and left!
[third attempt to post]
"Your statement of truth is usefull but also to the bad guys and ukba aren't going to view it as a loophole or some restraint on checks they want to do"-DD
Agreed. Although I'd rate the SOT higher than just 'useful' for the legitimate. After recording it is the second most powerful 'weapon' in our arsenal. The SOT is not just a "print off template", which would be worse than useless and even, as you no doubt would agree, endanger the honest shopper. It is a formal document, of a type recognised and used by the UKBA themselves at appeals. It is written and evidenced answers to the questions that the UKBA can ask an individual under CEMA- the socalled "A-J interview" and as such it must be filled in according to the individual's circmustances.
For example, my own SOT- about half an inch of paper- is very different to SH's template although still adheres closely to it. A FMOTL or Lolfool Rebel style print out and keep, one-size-fits-all, magically snake oil, 'affidavit' it certainly isn't. It is a statement of the facts as I understand them with proof positive and that I would be happy to swear to in court.
SH has made clear on many occasions, and will no doubt continue to, that the SOT is NO guarantee that your goods won't be seized...you could have an SOT handwritten by Christ himself and witnessed by all his Apostles and the UKBA would still seize your goods if they thought they had reason.
HOWEVER, judging by the experiences of others it seems that the UKBA tend to regard anyone who has gone to the trouble of filling out an SOT, or informing them in advance, as probably not a smuggler and as someone who also who knows the 'law' and is unlikely to fall for their trick questions or lies.
SH, they are just making a statement about their intelligence :-
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."
@sbc probably not a smuggler-yes i agree and it carries moe weight than verbal decleration in my eyes...just a bit
@smoking hot your previous history of large scale fag buying without nothing being seized is no proof whatsoever of your honesty in the future whilst carrying well over the guidelines now days.
It's not pointless to check out potential criminals who carry large amounts of cigs, I would expect to have to answer questions and I'm not naive enough to think my honesty is enough or that I have no previous form which proves I have no criminal intent this time
lris ... yes indeed, l think you are correct. lt would seem DD is perfectly happy for them to continue in this manner.
Ah well, l'm sure our impending video and future videos, once posted on youtube will be of interest to viewers. If our audio youtube presentation is currently at 35,274 views, one wonders what figures a video will attract? TV progs like UK Border Force are nothing but stage managed soaps to show UKBA in a good light ... time for the real deal m'thinks! :)
Everytime UKBA stop, search and interview me .... new video! Others like SBC and Zaphod etc will do the same. lnteresting times ahead! :)
" it carries moe weight than verbal decleration in my eyes...just a bit"-DD
Yes but judging by your written command of English, knowledge and ability to argue your case then maybe the SOT doesn't carry as much weight for you personally as for those of our brothers who are not so articulate or 'clued up' as yourself.
Most of the accounts of seizures I read seem to be because people said something that the UKBA could twist and declare a 'lie'.
However I have to point out that until stumbling across SH's blog I too relied on my own command of English, charm and massive sex appeal to get me through and only recently realised that talking a good game was no longer enough....even when truthful.
The SOT allows the traveler to say nothing more than ' please refer to my written statement', circumvent the not so expert interrogation and thus 'stay safe' (being a civil matter not criminal there is no right to silence or to legal representation)
And anything on paper with a signature will always carry more weight in the eyes of any government official than any verbal answer. That's just a fact.
No Simon, you did not. l can understand why your masters would not want you to contact your media chums. The tobacco companies sell an extra carton of cigarettes, an extra pack of tobacco for every one seized by Ukba. Profits over ethics!
l think you're right Andrea. Forest are not really the voice of the smoker, more like voice of the tobacco companies to protect their interests. l remember Simon stating what Forest did for x-border shoppers before, only for even that to be disputed by Day Tripper. lf they were really voice of the smoker they should be more vocal. How about leaflets with advice to protect x-border shoppers?
Nah, it'll never happen. Profits over ethics!