dt4134
Well-Known Member
If you've ever sailed in the Solent you'd realise the number of boats going past Hurst Castle or Bembridge Ledge on a sunny summer day peaks at about ten a day. They could probably spend about an hour searching each one.
LIBS update: eBorders will be voluntary!
- Thread starter rallyveteran
- Start date
If you've ever sailed in the Solent you'd realise the number of boats going past Hurst Castle or Bembridge Ledge on a sunny summer day peaks at about ten a day. They could probably spend about an hour searching each one.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
They have the power to search now so if the wanted to do it they would be doing it now - those cutters normally concentrate on ships.
U think it is a great outcome except for the total waste of resources yet again.
U think it is a great outcome except for the total waste of resources yet again.
T
timbartlett
Guest
OK, so now let me get this right. You are suggesting that UKBA, Yachting Monthly, YBW.com, and the RYA, are all involved in some huge conspiracy to mislead us all into thinking that something that isn't going to happen is going to happen, but that one heroic yachtsman managed to uncover the whole dastardly plot by going up to one of the UKBA stand staff at the Boatshow and springing a surprise question on them.
(rather than by -- for example -- reading the story on ybw.com dated 4 January which was headlined "E-Borders to be 'voluntary': Cutters will focus on yachts which ignore scheme" http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/436758/e-borders-to-be-voluntary)
tcm
...
Comedy Staff
Hm. Mind you loads of the staff on the stands selling electronics and boats are nice yet clueless part-timers, so why not on the eborders stand as well? So they're just making it all up.
Hm. Mind you loads of the staff on the stands selling electronics and boats are nice yet clueless part-timers, so why not on the eborders stand as well? So they're just making it all up.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
" If it is implemented on a voluntary basis then those yachtsmen who give us the information will be known about and therefore we will have little reason to approach them at sea. "
So the real smugglers and terrorists just report what info they want and leave - then when the Border Force sees their boat and check they will let them through as they concentrate on every other boat around the vast majority of which have no need to report!!!!!!
I even find that statement to be remarkable in its lack of logic and understanding and these are the people charged with keeping our borders safe!!!!!
They are total clowns right up to the top.
So the real smugglers and terrorists just report what info they want and leave - then when the Border Force sees their boat and check they will let them through as they concentrate on every other boat around the vast majority of which have no need to report!!!!!!
I even find that statement to be remarkable in its lack of logic and understanding and these are the people charged with keeping our borders safe!!!!!
They are total clowns right up to the top.
MARGETTS
Well-Known Member
Quite frankly I wouldnt believe him.
I questioned them on what would be deemed acceptable as proof of vat paid. We agreed the only sensible option, which is the original vat invoice, preferably stamped paid.
He then came out with the ridiculous statment that it wouldnt matter anyway as they can check your vat status from your registration number.??????????
If these guys are not trained in the basics or boat paperwork then heaven help us.
I decided to walk away rather than dig him a deeper hole.
I questioned them on what would be deemed acceptable as proof of vat paid. We agreed the only sensible option, which is the original vat invoice, preferably stamped paid.
He then came out with the ridiculous statment that it wouldnt matter anyway as they can check your vat status from your registration number.??????????
If these guys are not trained in the basics or boat paperwork then heaven help us.
I decided to walk away rather than dig him a deeper hole.
rallyveteran
Well-Known Member
Has there been a conspiracy to mislead?
In post #3 on this thread you were trying to persuade us that something significant happened at the meeting between the RYA and UKBA on 5 January. Now you tell us it was all in a story in YM on 4 January. I hadn't previously suggested that the RYA were trying to mislead us, rather that they were overegging their part in proceedings. Following your participation in this thread, I'm not so sure.
What I am sure about is that the lack of clear information on eBorders has worried unnecessarily many readers of these Forums and those attending the LIBS. The consultation being carried out at the Show by UKBA would be much more effective if they had made a clear statement of the latest plans before the Show started.
Finally you repeat that I am claiming some credit for getting the change made. Either you missed my post #4 (in response the your previous similar claim at #3), where I said "I certainly played no part in the change - the UKBA guy launched into the spiel containing this concession with no persuasion from me - but as there are readers of these forums who thought there was still going to be strict enforcement, I thought it would be helpful to let them know." or this is further evidence of your attempt to mislead.
In post #3 on this thread you were trying to persuade us that something significant happened at the meeting between the RYA and UKBA on 5 January. Now you tell us it was all in a story in YM on 4 January. I hadn't previously suggested that the RYA were trying to mislead us, rather that they were overegging their part in proceedings. Following your participation in this thread, I'm not so sure.
What I am sure about is that the lack of clear information on eBorders has worried unnecessarily many readers of these Forums and those attending the LIBS. The consultation being carried out at the Show by UKBA would be much more effective if they had made a clear statement of the latest plans before the Show started.
Finally you repeat that I am claiming some credit for getting the change made. Either you missed my post #4 (in response the your previous similar claim at #3), where I said "I certainly played no part in the change - the UKBA guy launched into the spiel containing this concession with no persuasion from me - but as there are readers of these forums who thought there was still going to be strict enforcement, I thought it would be helpful to let them know." or this is further evidence of your attempt to mislead.
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
Not to mention the rest of the Channel, the southern East coast, and even south Wales to cover. The world does not revolve around the Solent!
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
From the story: "If it is implemented on a voluntary basis then those yachtsmen who give us the information will be known about and therefore we will have little reason to approach them at sea."
All the more reason to look at the registered ones. Criminals have been know to comply with regs and procedures to 'merge with the crowd'. To me an registered boat is just as likely to be up to no good as a unregistered boat.
EDIT: I really should read all the posts before writing. Sorry Paul, I see you beat me to it.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
They have 5 boats to cover the entire UK!!! The UK border force maybe do not not know there is anything more than the Solent so I do not think anyone should help them by telling them.
The front line people again and again make basic mistakes. The two old chaps stopped going from UK port to port for a search without passports were told that they would have to produce passports when the system came in and that was never the proposal.
The CAT people cannot even certify that you have paid VAT on the boat so the border force must have some magic means that nobody else knows about based on a blind faith in computers.
They are 15,000 people who may otherwise be unemployed.
The front line people again and again make basic mistakes. The two old chaps stopped going from UK port to port for a search without passports were told that they would have to produce passports when the system came in and that was never the proposal.
The CAT people cannot even certify that you have paid VAT on the boat so the border force must have some magic means that nobody else knows about based on a blind faith in computers.
They are 15,000 people who may otherwise be unemployed.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
A relative of mine was head teacher in a big, rough Glasgow school. He says the least problems come from the children of drug dealers, since they learn very young never to attract attention.
T
timbartlett
Guest
No I didn't. I didn't even say that there was a meeting between the RYA and UKBA on 5 January. If there was, I didn't know about it.
It's not a matter of "now I tell you": it is a matter of fact that the YM story was posted on 4 January.
Oh yes you did:
Only time will tell whether our worries are valid or not. It is far too early to be complacent.
Depends what the object of the consultation is. If we agree to the soft and fluffy unofficial version that is being peddled on the boat show stand, there is (IMHO) a very real risk that in a year or so's time we shall be told that we "agreed" to the far blacker and nastier official version.
No, I did not. My post was in reply to
That is an entirely unjustified allegation. If you have any evidence to suggest that I have attempted to mislead, please produce it. If you can't, then say so.
harpo
New Member
Given the complacent tone of their articles on the matter I suspect that YM colluded with the UKBA on making the eBorders' pill sweeter.
I am also disappointed about the ineffectiveness of the RYA in dealing with the issue.
It was only thanks to the EU scrutiny that the Home Office finally backtracked.
deuc02
Well-Known Member
Nothing of the sort. I'm suggesting that this decision was probably taken at a higher level and was probably taken by someone who had little idea what was being discussed with the RYA. Surely that's not to hard to understand Tim
T
timbartlett
Guest
The threat of eborders still exists, because government "assurances" simply aren't worth the paper they are written on, and still involves a lot of different decisions.
I presume you are referring to the big "decision" to make eborders "voluntary". Personally, I'm still not entirely convinced by that one: I fear it may be a spin that has been put on some "assurance" made to the EU to the effect that no-one would be prevented from travelling if the refused to supply information. That would help make eborders seem legal, but it would not prevent UKBA invoking all sorts of other sanctions on those who chose not to co-operate.
As that particular "decision" was made in order to make the whole eborders scheme seem acceptable to the EU, and was leaked to the press in the first week of January, it is pretty self-evident that (a) it was not significantly influenced by the RYA and (b) it wasn't influenced by a meeting that didn't take place until the Boat Show.
But there are plenty of more detailed matters to be discussed, so I don't think it is fair to suggest that the RYA were "just going through the motions":
In any case, would you prefer the RYA to do nothing? or would you prefer them not to tell us about it? Seems to me that there are some on this forum who will damn them whatever they do!
I think it's a bit early to suggest that this is "a good result" until we see what it really means in practice. I cannot believe that UKBA would really give up their glorious empire-building scheme so quickly or easily.
And I'm afraid I don't think anyone qualifies for a "journo of the year" award for a headline that could have been cut and pasted from one page of a website to another page of the same website, nearly a week after it first appeared. (I'm not suggesting that rallyveteren actually plagiarised the YM article -- merely that his headline was the same and the story was very similar. (Rather like those "Yachting mags all run the same stories because they can't be bothered to write new ones" threads that appear on YBW, and probably for much the same reason -- that the story is of current interest and is based on the same set of basic facts)
fireball
Well-Known Member
Er - did you miss the irony smilie?
10 a day? We saw more than that on our way back in from Cherbourg out of season ... not to say they're all going x Channel ... but it peaks at more than 10/day!!
dt4134
Well-Known Member
I didn't realise one would be necessary.
Ok, maybe it's twelve a day.
Seriously though, the point is that just because there are thousands of Solent-based boats it doesn't mean there'll be thousands leaving the Solent on a typical day, so boarding a significant proportion of those that venture beyond Bembridge Ledge or Hurst Point won't be that impractical.
Robin
Well-Known Member
There would be over 200 just going to and from Poole out of the West Solent alone on a good day! The world doesn't end at the Needles or Bembridge!
One Bank Hol night crossing the Channel the CG commented to yachts calling in that they could probably walk across from deck to deck there were so many on the way over.
fireball
Well-Known Member
Er - just where are you based? Thousands of boats - that's in Chi Harbour alone ... granted not all will be going x channel - but it is far more than 10/day you quoted - also those going past that point may be going elsewhere rather than x channel ...
Have a look one weekend - there are 000's of boats in both those areas.
dt4134
Well-Known Member
I sailed in the Solent for a good few years.
I was using the figure of ten to illustrate my point through humour. I seriously didn't expect anyone to take it literally.
However my point remains, most Solent-based boats stay within the general area of the Solent most of the time. If they tried boarding boats leaving Hamble, Chichester or Cowes then they would be overwhelmed and would only be able to check a tiny fraction.
However if they parked themselves south of Bembridge Ledge or the Needles they would be able to monitor most boats and would be able to board a significant proportion. Enough to make sufficient nuisance of themselves to encourage some skippers to voluntarily register.
I was using the figure of ten to illustrate my point through humour. I seriously didn't expect anyone to take it literally.
However my point remains, most Solent-based boats stay within the general area of the Solent most of the time. If they tried boarding boats leaving Hamble, Chichester or Cowes then they would be overwhelmed and would only be able to check a tiny fraction.
However if they parked themselves south of Bembridge Ledge or the Needles they would be able to monitor most boats and would be able to board a significant proportion. Enough to make sufficient nuisance of themselves to encourage some skippers to voluntarily register.
