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)
Advice straight from the top drawer SH. Keep up the excellent work. Well done, sir.
I think that we should be a little grateful to DD. He has shown us the mindset of the average customs officer. For this reason, it is to our advantage to make it as difficult as possible for them. I have therefore, just this minute, written a letter to the Chief Executive of the border agency. It states:
I have become very confused about my rights as a citizen of the UK to purchase goods in EU countries and bring them back home with me. Specifically, I refer to tobacco on which duty has been paid in the relevant EU country.
I am writing this letter to you because I will be taking a short holiday in Belgium from 6th December 2011. I intend to legitimately purchase in the region of thirty cartons of cigarettes (30 x 200) for the sole use of my wife and me. I will be paying for these goods entirely from my own resources, and my wife’s ‘share’ can be regarded totally as a gift from me. None of these goods will be sold on to third parties.
I trust that my plan is entirely within the requirements of UK Law.
Yours sincerely,
I had a difficult time finding out where to send the letter, but eventually I was able to piece bits together and get the address of the Chief Executive:
Mr R Whiteman,
Border Agency Headquarters,
2 Marsham St,
LONDON,
SW1P 4DF.
The letter to my MP was 'dotting the 'i's', my letter to the CEO of the border agency is 'crossing the 't's'. The letter will go tomorrow by recorded delivery. Cost? one first class stamp. In view of the reduced guidelines, I will be sending such a letter to that person everytime my wife and I go on holiday. Why not?
I will also compose a statement as recommended by SH regarding my holidays abroad and goods purchased in the last year or so. All will be copied.
If the border agency still think that I could be a smuggler, let them show their reasons. Their reasons need to be better than my statements. Remember that they are specifically instructed not to harass travellers.
Simon,
would you expect that a group purporting to be the voice and friend of the smoker to be up to date on important issues? Especially those that directly effect the people you say you speak for?
Bearing that in mind, can you explain the following? Forest advice on cross-border shopping is totally out of date. Not by weeks or months mind but years.
Your advice says that you can buy as much as you like for your own personal use from the EU but from the rest of the world the limit is 200 cigarettes and so on. You then list the countries in the EU but the list is from circa 2004. lt only lists 15 countries and yet there are 27 countries. The missing countries from your EU list include such countries that the majority of people go to for the best deals - Poland, Bulgaria and so on.These missing countries come under the your tag of the rest of the world then?
The agency you say that is in charge of customs control at the borders is Customs and Excise. This agency ceased to exist in 2004 to become HM Revenue and Customs circa 2005. Then in April 2008 the part of HMRC that was responsible for customs controls at UK ports was merged with BIA to form the UKBA. This agency is now in control of customs at our borders.
You also say that any complaints should go to Customs Complaint Units and if you get no satisfaction, you can then go to the Adjudicator. This again is wrong. All complaints now go to UKBA Complaints at Dover, there is no access to any Adjudicator if you get no satisfaction. You have your complaint reviewed by UKBA Complaints at Dover. After that it is then the Ombudsman.
You then say that if you go to court and win your case and if you use a solicitor your costs will be paid. Really? l think you'll find that such a thing is not guaranteed at all.
Is there any need for me to go on, Simon?
It is hard to read through your comments DD, you keep mentioning 'criminals' even though you keep being told CIVIL offence, please pay attention it is getting tiresome.
There is NO justification in the UKBA stopping people for questioning WITHOUT a clear reason of suspicion of bringing in tobacco for commercial purposes, PLEASE NOTE I did not use the term smuggling which DD uses at every turn, smuggling is the hiding of items from the revenue services ,no ordinary person travelling on foot or by car is 'smuggling' for as has been pointed out above smuggling IS a criminal offence (hopefully by this point of reading DD you will be coming to the realisation of the tautology of your less than bright arguments) to use such emotive and 'wrongful' terms so often smacks of propaganda and really if you are not a UKBA employee you should start to realise that all you are doing (and yes we realise it) is trying to frighten off impressionable people.
Such tactics are sad to say the least!
I do not see why any traveller should face an arbitrary 'guideline' amount when there is NO LIMIT on personal goods within the EU and across the EU's internal borders. You make the laboured point time and again DD that the UK is losing revenue by people shopping abroad, here again you are actually well wide of the mark, the UK is not losing revenue through these people, it is losing revenue through its own repressive practices some of which are (but not limited to) smoking bans in all pubs clubs etc. this alone has closed and is closing thousands of pubs and clubs with a consequent loss of revenue through the taxes paid on the drinks and profits of the businesses themselves.Knee jerk legislation pushed by the PC brigade and their friends in power is what is ruining this country and life in this country.
Any serious loss of revenue from tobacco comes (again as has been pointed out above) by and from the professional smugglers who invariably have 'bought off' the right people in the right places (I wonder where that might be?) and the container loads of tobacco (often not even a decent counterfeit of tobacco at that, yes theyll make any profit they can any way they can) the average cross channel shopper at least is paying tax somewhere in the EU and should be free to enjoy their purchases without further annoyance by a gang of government backed thugs interfering.
What beggars belief in all of this argument is the news only a week or so past that the UKBA were ORDERED to stop checking for illegal immigrants...now try counting the cost to society of those people slipping in DD, they come and work in the black economy, taking work from honest citizens, they pay no taxes, they sometimes claim asylum and sometimes marry to claim citizenship, they claim benefits, they tie the courts up and claim legal aid running into the thousands and tens of thousands. they if they do not work in the black economy turn to crime, (often violent and perpetrated on the old and weak in our society) and are then jailed at a STUPIDLY HIGH COST to the taxpayer (read loss of revenue here DD)...have I painted enough of a picture... the point is , leave the shoppers alone and focus on the REALLY damaging problems that waltz past the UKBA officers (probably singing rule Britannia or God Save the Queen) that are spending hours questioning legitimate shoppers, for what exactly, to pauper already impoverished BRITISH SUBJECTS, stealing their LAWFULLY bought and paid for wares...grow a set DD work it out and actually get on the side of the people who share your country, the same people that would rescue your family from a burning house or car without a second thought, the same people who (or whose parents ) fought against fascism and laid their lives down for the way of life you enjoy, loosen up and let them be 'FREE IN THEIR OWN LAND!
Andrea, you are absolutely right, no excuses. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. We have deleted the relevant section and will update it shortly.
Well done Simon! Don't forget to mention recording the interview and not to sign the notebook. l'll look forward to seeing the update.
Andrea x
Glad to see that the 'issue' is settled, Andrea and Simon. Let us not forget that we are all on the same side. We have differences of opinion, just as footballers on a football team do (I suppose), but the 'enemy' is viscious, well-funded, unprincipled and rotten to the core.
Thread started out with DD having a pop at SH but by the end DD accepts SH's advice on recording and preparation!
Then Andrea has a pop at Simon which ends up friendly along with advice on Forest being updated!
Yay! what a productive thread! :-)
@smoking hot, no DD is not perfectly happy for them to continúe in this manner, yet again you are inventing things which i have never said or implied, its rather odd you are the author of the statement of the truth
@sbc yes the sot is a good thing for some travellers and a pointer to any bullies that you may not be the pushover you appear to be
It is not a legal loophole, a gag on customs, evidence of the truth, or your honesty and it can be used by smugglers
I won't bother with it but I wouldn't advise anyone not to take it with them either, the recording element is sound though
@ nominedeus, please get on the same page as everybody else, customs reaction to travellers has everything to with smuggling and losing 3 billion in revenue ,didn't you realise the explosion in cross channel shoppers and smuggling that happened a few years ago
How quite frankly silly of you to Make such comments and then say no ordinary person is smuggling because it's hiding things in car, I also did not say shoppers are losing revenue
Really nominedeus your post is about as naive as it gets, you really should be able to see massive revenue loss and customs having problems making the distinction between shoppers and smugglers
No ordinary person by foot or car is smuggling.. Good grief i really had to re- read that to believe you had actually stated it
You have made it clear you are clueless about smuggling, how it's carried out and by whom and one things for certain smoking hot, sbc know full well without smugglers smuggling the issues we are debating would not exist and shoppers shopping has and always be good cover for criminals
You are so far wide of the Mark it's a joke
@ Angie I don't blame you for not reading the thread correctly it's long and probably boring, i never said anything about negative about recording or preparation in the thread
It's my pop at smugglers benefiting from sh advice which I started on about and now at the end sh agrees with me.. Lol
DD " customs having problems making the distinction between shoppers and smugglers"
Shoppers have problems making the distinction between UKBA and smugglers
UKBA's actions continually supply new customers for smugglers
Every legitimate shopper who buys their tobacco for their own personal use and continues to do so safely is one less potential customer for smugglers.
The UKBA have however reduced the profits for drug smugglers. They have achieved this by their obsession with tobacco products which has resulted in drug smuggling becoming so much easier to achieve.
This is reflected in the price of drugs on the streets. Whilst the price of drugs has risen in the EU, the price has fallen in the UK.
DD is one of those people who needs a master. He accepts injustice as part of the price. It makes him feel safe. Sheep.
We don't really care if the UKBA hassle us personally. The injustice lies in them stealing from thousands of ordinary people who don't know their rights. This is what drives SH to do all the work, and carry the burden of trying to help people who have been wronged.
SH doesn't publicise it, but he gets a lot of mail from people who didn't find his site til it was too late. He seeks greater exposure for the message, not for himself. One day he'll move on and do something else, but it would be nice if salaried and connected people like Simon took over looking after the smoker in this area.
UKBA are mugging people in their thousands. This is intimidation and theft, by paid public servants in uniform.
They break the law.
They should be held to account.
Their actions are despicable.
They only prey on the vulnerable.
They, and their apologists, disgust me.
That's my perspective , and it's based on a helluva lot of experience. (Not armchair theory.)
"It is not a legal loophole, a gag on customs, evidence of the truth, or your honesty and it can be used by smugglers"
Agreed-agreed-disagree somewhat (done properly it does evidence The Truth-whatever that might be and suffice under civil law) -agreed-agreed (small time smugglers anyways).
@ Zaphod+ Nomine (both of whom's opinions carry weight with me) you are ,perhaps, being a little unfair to DD- his tone may be a little trollesque -indeed at first I thought he might be the N2D Troll- but I feel the point he originally raised does have some validity..namely that the information given out here/by the UKBA/N2D is confusing. SH knows that and recently started to reorder the site. The confusion is unfortunately almost unavoidable due to the nature of the matter and because the UKBA put out so much misleading advice -a recent example being that 'you must comply with these guidelines' statement on their website.
DD is also right to remind us that there are no Magic Bullets and I think a lot of his comments were motivated by his desire to not see SHoppers, less capable than himself, falling foul of the UKBA because they misunderstood the advice given or misguidedly imagined that the SOT or Recording made them 'bullet proof'. It doesn't, we all know that...thats why 'we' recommend a second covert recording.
@ Andrea
Anyone who reads my comments on N2D (although god knows why anyone would bother) knows i'm no fan of FOREST nor Simon. BUT I think i need to defend him slightly here.
Simons biggest advantage, namely that he is a non smoker, is also his biggest disadvantage. Unless his Wife/partner/Girl friend/boy friend/whatever SO he has is a heavy smoker, he can personally never feel the pain and anger that every UK smoker feels when they buy a packet of UK OBSCENELY HIGH DUTY PAID smokes. Neither can he ever really feel the financial necessity to shop abroad nor truly sympathise with shoppers robbed by the UKBA. I think he genuinely thought that the 'Sun had wun it' back in 2000-whatever, done and dusted and that it was no longer an issue. Perhaps now, after your comments, he'll realize that this isn't a 'niche' issue and that tens of thousands of smokers are effected each year by it. I, for one, look forward to seeing what advice he hands out in future.
SBC ... the problem is that shoppers who have never faced the UKBA are totally unprepared for the treatment they will receive. They are lambs to the slaughter. By the time they come to us, the damage hasd been done. They've signed a 'confession' to all intents and purposes and then have to retract it when appealing. This is taken as lying. All the Judge or Magistrate has in front of him/her that constitutes 'evidence' is the officers notebook and when it has been signed as a 'true and factual account of the interview' is in all essence a confession. However, if the notebook is not signed and one has a recording and subsequent transcript, it's a different ballgame altogether.
l've been going over things time and time again and have finally concluded that the priority has to be recording the interview and not signing the notebook.
But how do we get this message out? Nobody wants to do it. When l say nobody l mean the companies involved in the tobacco trade and the groups such as Liberty, Big Brother Watch, Independent Inspector of UKBA etc etc.
Despite 70-80,000 people suffering at the hands of UKBA per year, l get no f'ing response from them! None! Zilch! Sweet FA!
Us smokers that shop abroad are completely on our own. Everyone wants our money but will do nothing for us! lt's a bloody disgrace!
Oh yeah, they all say we are for the people and their rights ... except if you are a smoker. lf you're a smoker ... FU!
Instead of the millions of leaflets etc that get put out (most have little or no chance of achieving anything) on every other issue under the sun apart from cross-border shopping. How about leaflets nationally distributed in pubs, clubs, airports, ports etc etc with the message ... 1. Record all UKBA interviews 2. Do NOT sign the officer's notebook.
Not much to ask for in the name of justice, is it? The UKBA operate kangaroo courts and all l'm asking for is a level playing for all where there is fairness, integrity and honesty.
Now who of the afore mentioned groups wouldn't agree with that? The answer it seems is all of them!
One more thing ... l'm not interested in links to N2D, h/t's or any credit whatsoever etc etc. All that is important is 'the message'.
Hell, put your own name/company on it if you wish. Say it came from you ... l don't care!
@smoking hot /zaphod , I'm well aware of the crimes ukba commit and I agree lambs to the slaughter is what springs to mind , but gung ho shoppers waving a bit of paper like junican first stated with emotive terms is what happens if shoppers get carried away with the hype
@sbc thanks for a fair trial,if you read my posts without adding stuff That you think i
want or believe then your summary is about right
@regarding nominedues- please someone explain the simple stuff tor her/ him, or advise a visit to nothing2declare and see what the score is
This is proof where hype mixed with enthusiastic bloggers who
spice up a story can mislead the public into all sorts of quite frankly misguided tosh.
"@ Zaphod+ Nomine (both of whom's opinions carry weight with me) you are ,perhaps, being a little unfair to DD- his tone may be a little trollesque "
Point taken SBC and no doubt well meant , what riled me was the continued use of emotive phrases which by the way was why I posted as I did, it is easy to misunderstand even the clearest explanations, and that is what is needed, THE CLEAREST of explanations for those who are seeking the path of truth/least resistance through the minefield that is UKBA.
@ DD, no doubt there are numerous nits to be picked in either of our arguments, but let us instead find a way to actually bring the right message across.
I am aware that people can and do smuggle goods through the borders but the real point is (and that I was trying to make), that it is NOT a huge problem for the exchequer, they make all their own problems in my opinion (for what that is worth). To call the average shopper a smuggler on the specious grounds used by UKBA is facile and meaningless and their tactics are excessive and in many cases bordering on the illegal. Todays technology quite easily picks up frequent travelers (as was mentioned above) and those who ARE abusing the system, should be readily identifiable, if UKBA wish to pick on them then I have little problem with that, the point still stands though, they pick on almost any and all that pass through their control points 'without' applying their own rules and without giving the benefit of any doubt to travel weary and often unprepared for the 'interrogation' people, that I believe is what should be stopped and as quickly as possible. This is after all 'our' country and we should be treated with a certain degree of respect!
@ nominedues I have replied in error to you on the plain pack thread,
@ the rest, have a nice xmas, I'm going to give it rest for now
"@regarding nominedues-.... advise a visit to nothing2declare and see what the score is"-DD
FYI Nomine is a N2D regular and, I think , valid contributor who accompanied the 'gang' on the first Freedom Trip and actively 'fights' for the 'Cause'....he is also a blogger of note in his own right and one of the few Lolfool Rebels who can actually see the other side of the argument.
"Despite 70-80,000 people suffering at the hands of UKBA per year, l get no f'ing response from them! None! Zilch! Sweet FA!"-SH
A lesser man would have become disheartened and said 'f**K the lot of yous' a long time ago. It does you, and Zaphod, credit that you haven't....infact you seem to go from strength to strength and victory to victory.
"@ nominedues, it's a massive problem to the exchequer just the same as In many other countries, small scale smuggling has been huge , that's why stats on smoked bent fags are so high
I don't call shoppers smugglers , many EU smugglers pretend to be shoppers
If customs could easily identify the bad guys then they would do so
The problem of slanting this issue into thieves, bullies, with no balance on honest ukba officers doing an awkward job in finding the bad guys which they have duty to do, you end up with a great sexy spiced up story which is fantasy, the big picture is a lot more balanced than smoking hots views. ... The problem is that this makes it boring , which is what simon does with this blog,sexy and extreme views to get himself heard,
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 14:33 | Dickie doubleday"
DD No, it's not difficult at all to get a balanced view. You start with an open and transparent, honest interview procedure that has to be followed by UKBA (y'know, something equal to that drug smugglers get at the borders under PACE) and then you tackle the other issues from there.
Quite simple really
@DD
There are billions £s and Euros traded every second in the EU and only a small fraction is illegal.
DD do you think it is legitimate for the UKBA to harass these people in exactly the same way as British tourists returning from Belgium?
l have to concur with SH. Get the basics right and then worry about the bad guys. l am quite astounded that the 'names' allow this affront to decency and justice carry on. They should hang their heads in shame. What is even more astounding is how easily this disgrace at our borders could be rectified. lt take no changes in statute or regulations, all it requires is making the Ukba adhere to the regulations and procedures that are in place now at this very moment.
What is wrong with these 'names'? lt could not get any easier to win. Are they so flush with victories regarding civil liberties and rights that another one is of little significance?. lf so, l certainly have not seen any.
Or is it smokers are the new ni##ers and they don't not want to be associated with them regardless of how they are treat? lt's difficult to draw any other logical conclusion.
Stephen (non-smoker)
I have been trying to figure out what, among all the verbiage, DD is getting at. It seems to be this:
a) Smugglers can use the same methods as genuine people.
b) Therefore the methods of genuine people are valueless.
What is the fatal flaw in that argument?
It is simply that smugglers are not genuine people. They are criminals and they are lying. I shall once again quote the incident of the Polish woman (as shown in a recent TV program about smuggling tobacco). She was making very frequent trips (I'm not sure whether it was weekly or longer intervals, but very, very frequent). Each time, she brought back thousands of cigarettes - far, far more than a person could reasonably consume and more than would be reasonable as gifts (in the sense that the financial outlay was beyond her means). She was a smuggler and a criminal. Her declaration, if she made one, would be lies. I, on the other hand, will have been on holiday in the EU five times this year, mostly with my wife. (I am retired and can afford it, so why not?)
My declaration is true.
If a customs officer stops me, he has to find a reason or reasons that my conduct has been and is unreasonable. I fail to see how that can be done since my conduct is documented and in front of him. Such an interview should take no more than a few minutes. Any longer would certainly constitute harassment. In the event of this trip, I don't care if customs stop me, provided they treat me with respect and do not try to trick me. If they do not treat me with respect and do try to trick me, I will complain and complain and complain and I will demand recompense. I have done it before and I will do it again - very successfully.
SH. You mave mentioned the 'A-J's on more than one occasion. Is this a series of questions? If so, do you know what they are?
A-J
see http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/index.php?/Analysis/the-seizure-and-forfeiture-of-excise-goods-part-1.html.
"These considerations are:
(1) the person’s reasons for having possession or control of the goods;
(2) whether or not the person is a Revenue trader (as defined in s.1(1) of CEMA 1979);
(3) the person’s conduct, including his intended use of the goods or any refusal to disclose his intended use of the goods;
(4) the location of the goods;
(5) the mode of transport used to convey the goods;
(6) any document or other information whatsoever relating to the goods;
(7) the nature of the goods, including the nature and condition of any package or container;
(8) the quantity of the goods; and in particular whether the quantity exceeds the guideline quantities;
(9) whether the person personally financed the purchase of the goods in question; and
(10) any other circumstance which appears to be relevant.
Revenue traders, in the context of (b) above, are persons carrying on a trade or business involving the buying, selling, importation, exportation or dealing in or handling of excise goods. If the person importing the goods had an obvious outlet through which he could sell the goods then that would clearly be a matter that the court/authorities may wish to take account of.
Regard should be particularly given to (h), the quantity of the goods. If an individual is importing into the UK 100,000 cigarettes (eg, in the boot of their car), there is a strong inference that they will not all be for personal use. Although that inference may be rebutted if the individual is a heavy smoker, rarely travels abroad, or has sufficient means or another legitimate non-commercial reason for bringing the
cigarettes in, eg, gifts for family members at Christmas. In R. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners ex parte Mortimer and Anor [1999] 1 WLR 17, see especially p.22, the court held that Customs officers must take account of the above criteria, regardless of the imported quantity, and give the importer a “fair opportunity” to explain the importation when considering whether or not they should seize goods. As a result, in practice, what is commonly referred to as an “A to J interview” (or “one to 10” interview) will take place at the init ial point of interception."
Sorry Junican, I meant to add that the A-J questions or the 1-10 questions are all based on the 1-10 to points for consideration listed above. Each officer will ask in his own way but they are supposed to be relevant to them ie asking how often you go abroad is relevant, asking how often you have sex isn't....although point 10 of the list allows them huge lee-way.
Thank you, SBC. Better to have a clear knowledge.
I would suggest DD that," that's why stats on smoked bent fags are so high", has much to do with seizures from ordinary people doing a little money saving shopping abroad artificially inflating the much vaunted statistics you are referring to.
Or are you trying to suggest that the only people that have appealed the 'theft' are SH and one or two friends and all the rest who have just left their property in the hands of the customs/UKBA were in fact smugglers?
You know noting has changed in over 40 years, I remember my father and mother going through the car with a fine tooth comb to make sure there were no 'extra' above the limit imposed then, ciggies on board...I also remember officious overbearing bastards ripping the linings off the doors and roof of our then new VW estate...the only new car my father ever owned , laughing, finding F all and then saying on your way... I was a child then and also remember the inhumanity of being refused toilet facilities whilst we were detained, the British people have lived in fear of these monsters for donkeys years , they didn't know their trade then, they don't know their trade now, and as to there being some 'good ones' out there, I am sure there are but why might I ask are there SO many absolute BASTARDS!.
If I am treated with respect then I will treat with respect...in fact I usually treat with respect first and wait to see what arrives, there's one difference between my father and I...I know the law and will not be treated like a criminal by a jumped up dickhead in a shiny jacket.
My recent trip across was met on return by a nice enough lady who asked me a couple of questions to which I replied politely and then I was allowed to pass on my way...long may that remain the case, but think about it for a bit will you , we are subjected to searches,x rays, being 'patted down etc, by UKBA/airport security, we are relieved of our alcohol, OUR alcohol, boarding the ferry, we are generally put upon ,hazed,questioned,lied to, misrepresented to by all and sundry and on top of it all we worry, yes we WORRY that our 3-6 months worth of tobacco/cigs costing a 'LARGE' amount of our money (in the hope of saving an even larger amount in the long run) will be taken from us for VERY LITTLE if any reason... we should not have to travel in such circumstances and UKBA do not help make our travels happy and carefree, now do they.
Come the day that they do I will start writing nice articles about how friendly and helpful everybody was , but all the time I am made to feel like a criminal that 'just hasn't been caught yet' I will continue to rip the paragraphs of invective (at times) and criticism out until they start to behave properly.
Like I said my trip out was uneventful and yes I did write about it and the post was errrm pretty bland and uneventful too...
The only thing N2D lacks is funding. With funding they'd make a big difference that would put others to shame even more than they have so far. Without them l'd have been lost but they helped me win my appeal. l can't praise them highly enough.
@ dave,nominedeus,junican
Odd you should say nothing has changed in 40 years nominedeus because the European free trade free for all dream that everyone demands had a trial run on cigs, Baccy and booze about 10 years ago , when hmce as it was then opened the doors and had a virtual free for all with minmal harassment but obviously they were still after smugglers
White van man then went berserk and crammed vans with excise goods and the pictures were all over the press, booze cruises
were all the rage and bootlegging boomed with around 75% of cigs being smoked were bent which meant millions of smokers were happy to trade illegally,of course the following crackdown was severe in the following years
This is what happens when the doors get left open in a euro dream, customs just can't pick out the bad guys easily or they would have done it by now and nipped it in the bud
This is the balance which gets overlooked , the big picture is a muddle where the government can obstruct shopping,bullies can thrive in the muddle, where genuine good cops struggle with the catching the bad guys and smokers happy to break the law and trade with criminals still In big numbers
Don't blame me for pointing out the obvious, it's just seems to get missed when personal wishes or grudges matter more than the truth
This is what happens when
@DD
They opened the doors??? hahaha Have you seen the official stats for those years? Obviuosly not! Give it a rest now you're getting silly.
Revenue losses from crossborder shopping and smuggling have roughly halved in the last ten years since the UKBA/HMCE got serious about the MILS...although its all a guessimate.
Stats? But of course -http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-losses/
DD isn't wrong about the situation ten years or so ago-check the stat that says 78% of rolling tobacco was non UK Duty Paid! http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/uk-hand-rolling-tobacco-consumption/
@SBC
TMA? lol How about HMRC? http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/about/autumn-report-2009.pdf Open doors??? :-)
h/t daytripper
@SBC
Remember the Hoverspeed ruling was originally Aug 2002 :-)
@nick The boom in smuggling was around1999- 2000, when it was getting out of control ,it was then the government started to react to this threat
It was small time bootleggers who were causing chaos , it was like a gold rush back in the day, controls were more relaxed or the boom would never have happened, booze cruisers , White van man ....it was like a 24 hour drain on revenue,a production line
This isn't silly, its what customs refer to on the reports, the danger of doing nothing and why the clampdown was needed, this is all simple historic facts, it happened, it boomed, and customs came down real hard to end it and went to far in the process
@sbc you bet it happened
There is a circular argument in here. How can I prove that I drink a lot of tea? I don't have witnesses hanging around the house all day, other than family. So how can I prove it? The only reasonable way is to show that I buy a lot of tea. But customs are claiming that the fact that I buy a lot of cigarettes shows the opposite! They are claiming that the fact that I buy a lot of cigarettes shows that I am trading them, and not that I am consuming them.
But I do have further evidence, which is a lot of crushed fag packets and fag ends in the bin. I have pictures of them. In other words, I have quite an accumulation of indirect evidence, as well as my declarations To show that I do not consume the fags that I buy, customs would have to deny every bit of my evidence.
Of course, smugglers could do the same, but I am justifying a reasonable amount, and not an extreme amount.
"So how can I prove it?"
I have-in my SOT- a letter from my GP confirming that i am a 'heavy smoker'...although that term is debatable as my GP thinks smoking more than ten a day is heavy...*SNORK*-ten a day isn't even smoking-it's a hobby.
I also take the receipts for the cigges bought before in the UK or EU and also -because I tube- the plastic lids from each tobacco tin with the date noted that I opened it. SH recommends keeping the tax strips from every pack/packet smoked, I believe.
I also carry in my SOT signed letters from my adult sons confirming that they are smokers and that they have not recompensed me in any way for the tobacco that I am declaring as gifts for them.
Finally there are the nicotine stains on my fingers (i stop with the pumicing a few days before hand), my brown teeth and the fact i'm sucking on an e-cig as i go through 'Customs'....
Yep, full circle Junican and back at square one. This thread will be buried and forgotten, none of the main players involved in the tobacco industry will step up to the plate. X- border shoppers will continue to be harassed, their goods stolen and then condemned as smugglers for the rest of their lives by corrupt, unjust methods and lies used by the UKBA with total impunity.
12 million smokers are supposedly represented by the only group that the MSM recognises -- Forest.
Forest issue press releases about issues that are already in the MSM anyway. Their 'take action' policy is to write to MPs and journalists. Their backers build smokers shelters that are not fit for livestock and think it's a great step forward. Their advice on x-border shopping is 7 years out of date and has to be removed.
Along come a non-funded little blog that find a proven legal method that already exists and would go a long way to stopping the abuse at the borders. Forest should be using this info to actually make the news for once. Instead it's ignored.
Yep, full circle. In the meantime, in the 5 days this article has been up another 1000 people have had their goods seized along with 76+ vehicles.
Gives you great optimism for the future, doesn't it? Remind me again who speaks for us smokers because l can't hear a damn thing!
Whatever the arguments are... it still all boils down to a greedy government 'soaking' a captive population. If the differential were not so great between the 'over there price and the over here price' then there would be little or no border crossings made for purposes legal or illegal. We live in a society which is taxed to the hilt by 'our' government, who 'bail out' their chums with 'our' money (sweat equity) and expect the poor 'man on the street' to take it all and finance their mistakes and mis-management.
That some of us go to the trouble of travelling to try to even things out a bit (at least as far as our meagre finances will permit) should not surprise anyone and neither should the 'smuggling' which costs the exchequer so dearly (as you say) as far as I know no other country in Europe taxes the bejasus out of everyday commodities like ours does! ( and yes I am aware that other countries do have higher employment taxes etc).
Whatever the case we need LESS taxation on the poorer section of the country and a beter form and substance of government here! (no I don't have the answer to that conundrum, but 'this' has to end, and soon)
"as far as I know no other country in Europe taxes the bejasus out of everyday commodities like ours does!"
Ciggies cost more in Eire, I believe. Alcohol in the Nordic lands makes our price per pint look cheap and Germans pay as much-if not more-tax on their fuel.
N2D have just posted about lack of response from faux Liberty
http://nothing-2-declare.blogspot.com/2011/12/liberty-dir-shami-chakrabarti-responds.html
N2D doesn't mention Taking Liberties or Forest ? ls that because N2D didn't ask them or are N2D being diplomatic?
Personally l'd like to know what Taking Liberties and Forest are intending to do with this new information from N2D.
Well, Simon?
Forest lacks funds. Forest can only do what the funds allow. Simon uses the funds in the best way that he can. The funds do not run to commissioning multi-million pound studies. The good thing about Forest is that it it has contacts in Parliament. It exerts influence greater than its funding.
I think that Forest does the best that it can, which is possibly more than should be reasonably expected in view of the lack of funds.
Can I say that the lack of funds is what holds Forest back from being a major force for Freedom?
@Junican
How much does it cost to put a post or a link on Forest?
l don't think we are in all honesty talking about funding here, do you?
I think smoking hot does himself no favours when his SOT has the silly childish rant about idiots etc , the unbalanced rants on ukba are extreme on his blog
It just looks naff and the work of a grudge filled oddball and not a legal expert who has uncovered the secret to beat ukba, recording and signing notebook is all small stuff.
The crying from him about not being heard and ignored has everything to do with the content of his blog and how it's seen rather than all them others at fault.
Let's face facts, smoking campaign blogs/sites are a non event with smokers and the tiny niche part of the issue about ukba is a needle in the haystack part of that .
If likeminded partners/friends who have sympathy can't be bothered with promoting nothing2declare then that tells you a lot
Oddball springs to mind
@ DD
I'll spare you and my carpal tunnel a defence of SH/N2D...the fact I write the odd childish unbalanced rant there probably tells you that I am of a different opinion.
But this point you raise:"smoking campaign blogs/sites are a non event with smokers" is undoubtable true. If I remember my history rightly FOREST itself first tried to survive on private donations (ie from smokers) and very quickly found it couldn't. Also the current 'Amend the smoking ban' e-poll seems to show how little Smokers are prepared to fight. I'm mystified as to where this apathy among UK smokers comes from. Something like, what, a quarter of UK adults smoke, right? The poll should be a 'given'.
SBC remarks: "I'm mystified as to where this apathy among UK smokers comes from.................."
Even my Martian anthropolgist friend is baffled (and he knows a thing or two about the Decline of Civilisation).
What is even MORE baffling is the amount of energy people ARE prepared to expend on such microscopically trivial events as a comically 'provocative' remark by Jeremy Clarkson on some pointless chat-show.
Such things tell us (and the Martians) much about the 'values' of Kool Britannia, I'm afraid.