DavenHelen
Well-Known Member
Trouble is they never choose the right Performance Indicators.
Uk borders agency - is this a record?
- Thread starter Skents
- Start date
Trouble is they never choose the right Performance Indicators.
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
But it's better supported than your argument, innit?
I don't seem to have made an argument if you read back. I am just trying to judge how valid the the argument by Tim the Civil Servant Basher is, or whether he has allowed some of his own bias to creep in to it.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
Doesn't change matters at all. Just interested as to how you interpret them and then represent them. Your opinion is just an interpretation, it isn't necessarily an accurate one. Nothing in the statistics actually supports your statement "your complaint might be one of the tiny quota that are allocated to being found in favour of the complainant (to make it look as though the FOI actually achieves something)" which suggest concious malpractice.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
If I may make an analogy with fraud. A fraud within a business is committed on average by somebody who has at least 10 years seniority in the firm and the one you would never suspect.
John
John
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
In France they can give you an inspection certificate if you ask for it - which you can then show to others. However they always have the right to search.
John
John
T
timbartlett
Guest
Whether you intended it or not, what you wrote came across as a deliberate attempt to suggest that I had insufficient experience to offer a valid opinion, and that the numerical data I supplied in support of my opinion was irrelevant.
FWIW, I am quite happy to be called Tim the Civil Servant Basher. But instead of accusing me of "bias", it might be more productive if some of the civil servants on this forum paused to ask themselves what has led me to my opinion, and what they might be able to do to stamp out the culture of institutional dishonesty which (I believe) is doing so much to undermine their profession.
Please note that I am not accusing any particular individual of dishonesty (at least, not in public!) What worries me is that many people whose personal integrity may be such that they would not dream of picking a flower from their neighbour's garden seem able to adapt so readily to stealing from other members of the public on behalf of a government department -- and convince themselves that they have a right and even a duty to do so!
Last edited:
AndrewF
Well-Known Member
In a British port i haven't seen a customs officer/immigration officer board a commercial vessel in over 10 years, and god knows when i last saw the black gang. Though have been hearing reports of them now searching and removing computers in their search for porn, another ship in my company apparently had the ships server removed during a visit to Felixstowe. Though would rather see any of the british boys compared with some of the custom officers i have had to deal with in various parts of the world. The last visit i had to a certain port it cost 60 cartons of cigarettes and 20 cases of coke to get rid of them and that was with the correct documentation etc.
They maybe a pain and their level of interaction maybe poor, but count yourselves lucky they weren't also trying to steal everything that wasn't nailed.
They maybe a pain and their level of interaction maybe poor, but count yourselves lucky they weren't also trying to steal everything that wasn't nailed.
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
It has nothing to do with experience. I just don't think your opinion is supported by numerical data, you just quote the data and then express a view as to the reasons for that data being as it is. Based on your previous posts on civil servants it is my opinion that you are biased in your views.
As one of the civil servants on this forum I have no interest or responsibility to ask what has led to you having this opinion, I'm not really that interested and I doubt very much whether it has anything to do with the department I work for. I suspect however that it is because you probably feel that you have been unjustly thwarted in some aim by one particular department or individual. Get over it. It doesn't give you the right to label 20% of the working population, including me, of "institutional dishonesty" and being thieves.
Last edited:
T
timbartlett
Guest
Typical civil servant! Your unfounded opinion trumps evidence and first-hand experience.
Of course I am biassed. I would be a fool if I wasn't. It's called learning by experience.
Wrong. It is because I have been forced to defend myself against many different civil servants making unjustified and illegal demands on behalf of many different departments/agencies -- usually because they refuse to admit the possibility that they or their colleagues might have made a mistake.
Is that how you usually treat a victim of crime? Or does it only apply when the perpetrator is a civil servant?
An individual cannot be guilty of institutional dishonesty -- only an institution. And I have plenty of evidence of that -- every member of the public is bombarded with so much of it it every day that most of it goes unnoticed.
Last edited:
davtt
Member
The Final Conclusion?
Hi There.
Having read through the various posts, I would think that the most important point coming out of this is that a yachtsman cruising within teritorial waters does not need to carry any personal documentation, nor do his crew, and that the UKBA cannot insist that they produce it. This is clear in the final reply from Marc's FOI request.
On a more important matter, IMHO the RYA should now apply themselves to the pressing matter of securing an opt-out for sailing boats to the draconian E-Borders plans, as they do not take into account the lack of Internet access for 40% of the population, not the changes to passage plans underway which could be deemed to be require for safety or other concerns, which must always be the domain of the vessel's Skipper.
DaveT
Hi There.
Having read through the various posts, I would think that the most important point coming out of this is that a yachtsman cruising within teritorial waters does not need to carry any personal documentation, nor do his crew, and that the UKBA cannot insist that they produce it. This is clear in the final reply from Marc's FOI request.
On a more important matter, IMHO the RYA should now apply themselves to the pressing matter of securing an opt-out for sailing boats to the draconian E-Borders plans, as they do not take into account the lack of Internet access for 40% of the population, not the changes to passage plans underway which could be deemed to be require for safety or other concerns, which must always be the domain of the vessel's Skipper.
DaveT
T
timbartlett
Guest
Nice in theory. But what happens when they try?
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
You have one hell of a victim mentality don't you? First hand experience? What, one complaint to the ICO and you think that is a good qualification to comment on them? That's real experience that is.
I know you're biased, I said so. You objected to it - make your mind up are you a fool or are you biased? You can't have it both ways - or on second thoughts maybe you can.
I don't have any dealings with the victims of crime so your question is irrelevant, I deal with the perpetrators of crime.
I do wonder why so many different civil servants and departments are "after you", I hope I haven't missed anything and didn't notice you on this weeks "Random members of the public to persecute" list and am missing a chance to meet this weeks targets.
I think you need to stand back and get things in perspective, you are in danger of becoming drawn into the mystical world of conspiracies and persecution. I have seen people further down the road than you. They usually reach the stage of marching up and down outside offices with placards and sending letters to numerous people they perceive are in authority alleging all sorts of non-specific malpractice and illegal acts - it can become obsessive and usually ends up with them not being taken seriously and branded as "vexatious litigants".
Last edited:
NormanS
Well-Known Member
In the Winter RYA magazine, which came yesterday, a statement says:
" The RYA is also very concerned that UKBA cutter crews and boarding perties appear to be demanding that UK yachtsmen on private yachts in UK waters provide proof of identity and other information relating to the yacht and their voyage which, by law, they are not obliged to carry.
We have therefore written to the Immigration Minister to challenge the authority of UKBA cutter crews to demand proof of identity and other information, and we will shortly be meeting with UKBA officers and cutter crews to discuss the UKBA's approach towards excercising its 'stop and search powers'".
It will be interesting to see what sort of response they get, but at least it is reassuring that they are asking the question.
T
timbartlett
Guest
I really think this discussion has drifted way off topic and has degenerated into a rather futile argument. If it belongs anywhere on YBW.com, it is in the lounge, not here but:-
The DVLA tried to get £40 out of me for "failing to licence" a vehicle that wasn't mine. They refused to acknowledge that it was their mistake. Eventually, after a year of arguing that black was white and quoting non-existent or irrelevant legislation, they took me to court ... and lost. But during the course of that year, I looked at the "bigger picture" and found that their target for penalties could not possibly be met even if they collected £80 from the owner of every single unlicensed vehicle on UK roads. Their own data showed that in order to meet their own targets, they had to extract a minimum of 3 million in "penalties" from people who had done nothing wrong -- and the real figure could be very, very much more. Getting things in perspective showed me that this wasn't a forty quid mistake: it was a multi-million pound fraud. Even the parliamentary select committee described the DVLA's manoeuvring around licence evasion statistics as "disingenuous" (parliament-speak for "lies")
Quite the reverse. I refuse to be a victim. As a matter of principle, I do not just pay up when someone demands that I hand over money that they are not entitled to.
It's 100% more experience than you have, yet you obviously feel yourself qualified to comment. And my argument is backed up with hard data. So far yours has been supported by nothing more than personal attacks and vague insinuations.
Please identify exactly where I objected to being called "biassed".
They are not "after me" in particular: they are "after" anyone and everyone. I have no idea whether I am more or less unlucky than anyone else.
It is when I stand back and get things in perspective that I realise just how serious they are. As just one (tiny) example:-
The DVLA tried to get £40 out of me for "failing to licence" a vehicle that wasn't mine. They refused to acknowledge that it was their mistake. Eventually, after a year of arguing that black was white and quoting non-existent or irrelevant legislation, they took me to court ... and lost. But during the course of that year, I looked at the "bigger picture" and found that their target for penalties could not possibly be met even if they collected £80 from the owner of every single unlicensed vehicle on UK roads. Their own data showed that in order to meet their own targets, they had to extract a minimum of 3 million in "penalties" from people who had done nothing wrong -- and the real figure could be very, very much more. Getting things in perspective showed me that this wasn't a forty quid mistake: it was a multi-million pound fraud. Even the parliamentary select committee described the DVLA's manoeuvring around licence evasion statistics as "disingenuous" (parliament-speak for "lies")
Is that some kind of threat ... that anyone who dares challenge the civil service deserves to end up in prison?
You can't litigate (vexatiously or otherwise) for non-specific malpractice or illegal acts. Unfortunately, the system is stacked against the individual: in the case I mentioned, it was much easier and cheaper for the DVLA to take me to court for a debt that I didn't owe than for me to take them to court to recover the value of the time I wasted in dealing with them. So it is entirely understandable that people become frustrated, and that they vent that frustration in different ways. But I strongly reject the implication that anyone who takes any kind of stand against malpractice is some kind of nutter.
Last edited:
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
You're starting to loose the gist of your own arguments now Tim and starting to bore me. I still don't think you have any grounds to label 20% of the working population of this country as thieves, liars and parasites. Go on, I will even let you have the last word now, but make it good...
T
timbartlett
Guest
The Fraud Act 2006 is a model of clarity.
It is a criminal offence for anyone to make a misrepresentation (i.e. tell a lie) in order to cause someone else to suffer loss.
Yet millions of people in this country suffer loss every day because government officials misrepresent the facts or misquote the law. Even when challenged, they hardly ever admit to having made a mistake -- so it must be deliberate!
It happens every time the CSA or Inland Revenue "over-estimate" someones income and issues a threatening letter in order to trick them into paying more than they should. It happens every time a department loses a document, and then imposes a penalty for having not received it. It happens every time an overzealous local authority imposes a parking fine on a vehicle that is not illegally parked, or refuses to empty a wheelie bin because the lid isn't quite shut.
There are countless other examples -- the minor pin-pricks of money-grubbing, target-driven bureaucracy that together add up to a multi-million (multi-billion?) pound fraud.
Would you lie back and accept it if supermarket checkout girls regarded it as "just doing their jobs" if they randomly added a few quid to your week's grocery bill when they felt like it? Or if their managers and directors encouraged them to do so?
I believe we have a right to expect the same level of personal integrity and personal responsibility from civil servants as from supermarket checkout operators. I don't think that makes me a nutter. Nor do I understand why honest, hard-working public employees feel obliged to defend the behaviour of those who are damaging the reputation and credibility of the entire civil service.
If you can identify anywhere where I have suggested that I have labelled 20% of the working population of this country as thieves, liars and parasites., please do so. If not, perhaps you would be good enough to admit that this was a mistake. Go on... you're off duty. You're allowed to!
Last edited:
oldgit
Well-Known Member
Have been boarded 4 or 5 times or more or less everytime we go past Greenwich and get a piece of paper each time for our trouble....very pleased to see them ..keep it up lads ....see you in the spring
Ps The "Invinceable" is parked out side my front door right now ........should I be worried about them breaking the door down ?
Ps The "Invinceable" is parked out side my front door right now ........should I be worried about them breaking the door down ?
Last edited:
sailaboutvic
Well-Known Member
tim
well said Tim
well said Tim
Seagreen
Well-Known Member
I've not yet had the fun of a visit from these people. But I was wondering.. Did the RIB have lights and a blue flashing light or was it unlit? In other words, do the RIB crews show some sort of seamanship at night, or do they fantasise they are the SBS?
