UKBA 35% increase in boardings!!!!

[rallyveteran]

No, they probably realise it is a waste of time as UKBA refuses to answer the questions as illustrated here.

It is much easier for UKBA to refuse to answer an individual's FOI requests than it would be for them to refuse such a request from the RYA. Look how often (in connection with e-borders) Ministers say they are "consulting with the RYA as representatives of the yachting industry". UKBA would have to try a lot harder to justify random boarding if the RYA were to attempt to draw a distinction between intelligence-led results and those arising from truly random activity. But for the moment we are stuck with an RYA that actually parrots the meaningless "around 80 per cent of the drug seizures made by the UKBA are from yachts".

 

[Tranona]

The answer to an FOI request would be the same whoever asks it - they are quoting exemptions that preclude them from giving the information.

As to repeating the UKBA line it is difficult for them not to use it in the absence of anything else - and it was in a journalistic article rather than a report of negotiations.

Not excusing the RYA because I don't know their stance in discussions other than their official line which is to conentrate on minimising the impact on yachtsman of the regulations.

Getting further information is probably a job for an investgative journalist (which are in short supply in the yachting press) and/or a whistle blower as there is no way you could get it from official sources.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

The answer to an FOI request would be the same whoever asks it - they are quoting exemptions that preclude them from giving the information.

As to repeating the UKBA line it is difficult for them not to use it in the absence of anything else - and it was in a journalistic article rather than a report of negotiations.

Not excusing the RYA because I don't know their stance in discussions other than their official line which is to conentrate on minimising the impact on yachtsman of the regulations.

Getting further information is probably a job for an investgative journalist (which are in short supply in the yachting press) and/or a whistle blower as there is no way you could get it from official sources.

If you feel that the exemption has been inappropriately applied (and when I read it I thought it might have been), then you should report the response to the Information Commissioner, and let him deal with it. They will then have to justify their use of the exemption. Personally I don't see what information of use to villains would have been disclosed by this request.

 

[rallyveteran]

As to repeating the UKBA line it is difficult for them not to use it in the absence of anything else - and it was in a journalistic article rather than a report of negotiations.

Have another look at the article:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2442027&postcount=41

It is FULL of statements of position. The 80% statistic is the key part of the UKBA argument. It would have been very simple to have pointed out that many (all?) of these seizures are the result of intelligence rather than random boarding, but the RYA chose not to do this.

I'll accept that the views of those responding to this thread are mixed, but there is a significant proportion who doubt that random boardings contribute anything meaningful. I think that, on balance, they are counterproductive.

 

[timbartlett]

Let them come aboard - I have nothing to fear? Do you PWG

If UKBA were telling the truth when they quoted 80% to the RYA for publicity purposes, then they have nothing to fear by quoting it formally under an FOI request.
If on the other hand, it was a lie, then they do have something to fear.
I have nothing to fear: do they?

 

[johnabbott893]

I'll accept that the views of those responding to this thread are mixed, but there is a significant proportion who doubt that random boardings contribute anything meaningful. I think that, on balance, they are counterproductive.

Those in support of these random boardings peddle the theory that they are a deterrent or believe that they actually find something. To be a deterrent there needs to be a realistic chance of getting caught and there isn't. The UKBA blurt out an 80% statistic in support of their actions. Supporting that figure is difficult and so far I have seen nothing that suggests it is anything but dammed lies.

Random searches have all the hallmarks of giving the boys something to do whilst awaiting some intelligence. On the other hand they might just be vindictive fun.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

...... get the leisure boaters to be their eyes and ears on the ground.

A bit Stasi-ish, I know, but probably very effective in building intelligence profiles.

Its exactly the opposite of being effective. It confuses the intelligence information flow at best and at worst it instils Stasi paranoia if one decides to wander from the normal routes.

I treat suspicious acts at sea exactly as I treat suspicious acts on land, I observe and if necessary advise police. I don't need a hearts and minds campaign from any authority to tell me that.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Its exactly the opposite of being effective. It confuses the intelligence information flow at best and at worst it instils Stasi paranoia if one decides to wander from the normal routes.

I treat suspicious acts at sea exactly as I treat suspicious acts on land, I observe and if necessary advise police. I don't need a hearts and minds campaign from any authority to tell me that.

Okay, but if I saw a 'dodgy geezer' sailing past me I would file it under, "Hmm, I wonder what he was up to". If later on said 'dodgy geezer' was caught red handed landing half a CWT of ciggies, I would probably report my original sighting so's UKBA can see which way he came and add that to the intelligence database. After all, that is what most of us were taught to do during 'The troubles' and I assume the green slime's were grateful for the low grade intelligence, even though the alleged 'freedom fighter' was lock up in a police cell.

If I observed what appeared to be the unloading of 'packages' I would squeal to the filth immediately.

Basically, if you don't brief your watchers on what you want, then they won't report back when needed.

 

[Alfie168]

And let them come into your house and check under the beds for drugs and illegals as well whenever they want?

Was it your house I saw docking at Cowes

When you consider that 15,000 murders took place in Mexico last year, almost entirely connected with drugs barons and trafficking, then I don't think Customs activities are misplaced, even if they are sometimes resented. There truly is a drugs war out there and we are a major destination for those drugs. Frankly I'd be happy to put up with a fair bit of inconvenience if I felt it helped their task. We know yachts are used to transport drugs, there is that ongoing case of the delivery skipper and the false lazarette full of drugs, and there are yachts tracked all the way across the atlantic that are only apprehended when they reach territorial waters, and found to be carrying. It may not be that many, but its still too many.

I agree that the cuts in local Custom and Immigration services was a disaster. SWMBO used to deal with them when they were in Boston, and they did sterling work under difficult circumstances.

Tim

 

[savageseadog]

Those in support of these random boardings peddle the theory that they are a deterrent or believe that they actually find something. To be a deterrent there needs to be a realistic chance of getting caught and there isn't. The UKBA blurt out an 80% statistic in support of their actions. Supporting that figure is difficult and so far I have seen nothing that suggests it is anything but dammed lies.

Random searches have all the hallmarks of giving the boys something to do whilst awaiting some intelligence. On the other hand they might just be vindictive fun.

At the heart of the matter it may have more to do with finding out who owns and runs expensive yachts, many unregistered. The government is short of money after all, it could be a precursor to a wealth tax.

 

[Tranona]

Have another look at the article:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2442027&postcount=41

It is FULL of statements of position. The 80% statistic is the key part of the UKBA argument. It would have been very simple to have pointed out that many (all?) of these seizures are the result of intelligence rather than random boarding, but the RYA chose not to do this.

I'll accept that the views of those responding to this thread are mixed, but there is a significant proportion who doubt that random boardings contribute anything meaningful. I think that, on balance, they are counterproductive.

I know, I read the article and the similar articles in the mags. It is rehashing UKBA position, but until somebody comes up with some alternative relaible information - not musings like mine and yours, what else can they do?

As I said it needs a whistle blower as the only source of information is internal. I guess there is not enough in it for anybody inside to go out on a limb.

 

[timbartlett]

When you consider that 15,000 murders took place in Mexico last year, almost entirely connected with drugs barons and trafficking, then I don't think Customs activities are misplaced, even if they are sometimes resented. There truly is a drugs war out there and we are a major destination for those drugs.

All this may or may not be true, but it is 100% irrelevant

Frankly I'd be happy to put up with a fair bit of inconvenience if I felt it helped their task.

Thatis precisely the point: what you rather euphemistically call "inconvenience" does not help their task -- at least, not what they claim to be their task.

We know yachts are used to transport drugs,

How do we know that? UKBA say so, but when they are offered the opportunity to prove it, they decline. If they were telling the truth in the first place, they would be able to produce the evidence on which their claim was based. They can't. QED

 

[l'escargot]

....When you consider that 15,000 murders took place in Mexico last year, almost entirely connected with drugs barons and trafficking, then I don't think Customs activities are misplaced, even if they are sometimes resented. There truly is a drugs war out there and we are a major destination for those drugs. Frankly I'd be happy to put up with a fair bit of inconvenience if I felt it helped their task. We know yachts are used to transport drugs, there is that ongoing case of the delivery skipper and the false lazarette full of drugs, and there are yachts tracked all the way across the atlantic that are only apprehended when they reach territorial waters, and found to be carrying. It may not be that many, but its still too many...

I don't quite know where Mexico fits into this discussion - very few boats arrive in the channel from Mexico - but I am sure that the amount of drugs bought into this country by private boat is insignificant and the boats that are used for it are not found by random searching. As you say, they are tracked - the big finds are all intelligence led and are under observation long before they are put on the boat.

I am continually amazed at how easily people give up their liberties on the basis of "having nothing to hide".

 

[Seven Spades]

I think you should ask one simple follow up question.

Were any drugs found on any private yachts as the result of a random boardings?

 

[Tidewaiter2]

FOI SOP

If you feel that the exemption has been inappropriately applied (and when I read it I thought it might have been), then you should report the response to the Information Commissioner, and let him deal with it. They will then have to justify their use of the exemption. Personally I don't see what information of use to villains would have been disclosed by this request.

If you feel that the exemption has been inappropriately applied (and when I read it I thought it might have been), then you should report the response to the Information Commissioner, and let him deal with it. They will then have to justify their use of the exemption. Personally I don't see what information of use to villains would have been disclosed by this request.

FOI SOP as i recollect(and i've spent 4 years trying to forget!)

1) reply to request-within 20 day statutory limit.
2) dissatisfied- request a review by Dept FOI senior official
3) still dissatisfied or 20 day breached and no contact by Dept- Information Commissioner
4) Avenues continue up to House of Lords from 3)- see Info Commissioner website.

S31 Exemption(and most of the others!) is something I have experience of in this context prior to UKBA being formed. Not inappropriate, but also often the stats don't exist- even Govt. Depts only keep what they need to 'meet the targets' and a nick is a nick, and a box tick.

The UKBA reply brought some memories back- naive /unpatriotic journos asking under FOI where our LE mobile teams were and would be working next week- talk about giving the game away- 'smuggle into Plymouth, they are all in Bristol tonight.'
It wasn't a Rotary Club Social Events Calendar they were asking for.
I wish I did not know or remember some of the things I was involved with, I would sleep easier.

The important thing I think is to win yotty hearts & minds- we know who should be in our Marina/ trots and Class A's ruin so many lives, esp. with the crime committed to support the habit.
Illegals too, stand out like a sore thumb- vide those caught at Dale, Pembs one am a few years ago on the beach without windsurfer and wetsuit.

I've sailed and raced with quite a few of the old HMRC Cutter crews(who were mostly xfered to UKBA with the boats)- they are mostly just ordinary people who try and do a needed job in a decent, human way. Got stick from their shore-based role Managers too, because they were rotated off for a tour on the boats and couldn't take the shore work with them.

I've been boarded by the Douaniers in Granville, pulled over at Gatwick, stopped by Traffic in the car, so what, it's their job- at least they are not Estate Agents!

 

[Twister_Ken]

Were any drugs found on any private yachts as the result of a random boardings?

Yes.

(but don't tell the WAFI it was Stugeron)

 

[timbartlett]

S31 Exemption(and most of the others!) is something I have experience of in this context prior to UKBA being formed. Not inappropriate, but also often the stats don't exist- even Govt. Depts only keep what they need to 'meet the targets' and a nick is a nick, and a box tick.

But these statistics do exist -- at least, they did when it suited UKBA for them to exist, when they wanted to quote 80%. But they mysteriously became unavailable when they were asked to justify the claims that had been made.

The UKBA reply brought some memories back- naive /unpatriotic journos asking under FOI where our LE mobile teams were and would be working next week- talk about giving the game away- 'smuggle into Plymouth, they are all in Bristol tonight.'

I think we should distinguish between a journo who is "naive" and one who knows that he is going to get an obstructive or misleading answer but gives the interviewee the opportunity to come clean.
And it is particularly important to be quite clear about the meaning of "patriotic". The interests of the civil service are not necessarily -- in fact I would say they are not usually -- the same as the good of the country as a whole.

 

[PlanB]

While we're on statistics, in 2007 they stopped an average of 4 vessels of any kind per day; in 2008 an average of in between 5 and 6. Strikes me that's not a lot given the length of our coastline and the amount of traffic.

 

[maxi77]

While we're on statistics, in 2007 they stopped an average of 4 vessels of any kind per day; in 2008 an average of in between 5 and 6. Strikes me that's not a lot given the length of our coastline and the amount of traffic.

Indeed, and just how much of it was tartgeted and how much was 'high profile' so it looks as if they are doing something when they are really not.

At that strike rate it seems they manage on stop and search per boat per day.

If UKBA actually wants public support I think they really need to be seen to be targeting the criminals rather than harrassing the inocent to make it look as if they are doing their job.

 

[alexrunic]

I can't see why any one would have a problem with a boarding at the end of the day tons of drugs, weapons, and illegal immigrants are being smuggled into this country.

I have been boarded twice in Holland by the dutch authorities and once had the UKBA come alongside in the wash. As long as they are not boarding the same yacht 3 or 4 times a season and it is done in a professional manner whats the problem?

We all complain about crime and illegal immigrants this is a good way to combat it. I realise the number of yachts used for illegal purposes is very small but surely if they do board a number of yachts its a deterrent if nothing else. I'm always please when my van is searched at ferry ports as it makes me feel as they are doing there job.